Challenges Perceived by Teachers in the Implementation of Communicative Language Teaching in Chile

Luis Carabantes

In 2013 the Chilean Ministry of Education presented a document outling a number of modifications to the current English Language Teaching policy. The educational authorities have clearly set out the proficiency levels expected of students as well as the role of teachers in the attainment of such standards. A strong emphasis is given to communicative language teaching as a framework for developing students’ competence in English. The purpose of this study is to find out the difficulties perceived by public and semi-private school teachers when introducing communicative language teaching in their respective contexts, as well as to explore the reasons behind such difficulties. In order to answer these questions, eighty-two teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire which collected their opinions regarding issues associated with the communicative approach. Four of the teachers then participated in a semi-structured interview which served to complement the information gathered through the questionnaires. The results showed that their difficulties fell into three broad categories: those associated with the presentation of policies, those related to the implementation of the communicative approach and those associated with teachers’ own background knowledge of communicative language teaching. The study suggests that successfully implementing the communicative approach in Chile will require considerable changes to the broader educational system.

King’s College London Challenges Perceived by Teachers in the Implementation of Communicative Language Teaching in Chile Luis Carabantes Leal MA in ELT and Applied Linguistics Supervisor: Dr. Jo Lewkowicz Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics September 2014 0 Table of Contents Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………… 3 Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………. 4 List of abbreviations …………………………………………………………………. 5 Chapter One Introduction…………………………………………………… 6 Chapter Two Literature Review …………………………………………….. 8 2.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………. 8 2.2 Communicative Language Teaching ………………………………….. 8 2.2.1 Background of CLT ……………………………………………. 8 2.2.2 Principles in Communicative Language Teaching …………….. 11 2.2.3 Critiques to CLT ……………………………………………….. 13 2.3 Difficulties in the introduction of CLT in the EFL context …………… 14 2.4 Difficulties associated with educational policy implementation ………. 16 2.5 English Language in Chile …………………………………………….. 18 2.5.1 CLT in Chile …………………………………………………… 19 Chapter Three Methodology …………..………………………………………. 21 3.1 Research questions ……………………………………………………... 21 3.2 The Study ………………………………………………………………. 21 3.2.1 Participants ……………………………………………………... 21 3.2.2 Instruments ……………………………………………………… 22 3.2.3 Piloting ………………………………………………………….. 24 3.2.4 Data Analysis …………………………………………………… 24 Chapter Four Presentation and Analysis of Data ……………………………. 26 4.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………... 26 4.2 Challenges associated with ELT policy ………………………………… 27 4.2.1 Time to complete the national curriculum ……………………… 27 4.2.1.1 Discussion ………………………………………. 29 4.2.2 The presentation of the ELT policy …………………………….. 30 4.2.2.1 Discussion ………………………………………. 32 4.2.3 The introduction of SIMCE …………………………………….. 33 1 4.2.3.1 4.3 Discussion ………………………………………. 34 Challenges associated with classroom implementation of CLT ………... 35 4.3.1 Time to use CLT ………………………………………………… 35 4.3.1.1 Discussion ……………………………………….. 37 4.3.2 Students and CLT ……………………………………………….. 38 4.3.2.1 Discussion ……………………………………….. 40 4.3.3 Availability of resources ………………………………………… 41 4.3.3.1 Discussion ……………………………………………….. 42 4.4 Challenges associated with teachers’ background knowledge of CLT …. 43 4.4.1 Fluency versus accuracy ………………………………………… 43 4.4.1.1 Discussion ………………………………………. 45 4.4.2 Resistance to group work ……………………………………….. 46 4.4.2.1 Discussion ……………………………………….. 47 4.4.3 CLT demands too much work for the teacher …………………... 47 4.4.3.1 Chapter Five Discussion ……………………………………….. 48 Conclusion …….………………………………………………... 50 References ……………………………………………………………………………… 53 Appendixes ……………………………………………………………………………... 56 Appendix 1 Information sheet ………………………………………………... 56 Appendix 2 Consent letter ……………………………………………………. 58 Appendix 3 Questionnaire ……………………………………………………. 60 Appendix 4 Semi-structured interview schedule ……………………………... 64 Appendix 5 Interview 1 ………………………………………………….…… 65 Appendix 6 Interview 2 …………………………………………………….… 71 Appendix 7 Interview 3 ………………………………………………...…..... 79 Appendix 8 Interview 4 ………………………………………………...…….. 86 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank all those who participated in this study: the 82 busy teachers who answered the online questionnaire, the four teachers who participated in the interviews, and my ever supportive supervisor, Jo, for her common sense and checking my attempts of data analysis three times! I also want to thank infinitely those who piloted my questionnaire (Fuen, this is for you!) and my amazing proofreaders, Nicholas and Blake. =) This work is dedicated to my family in Chile. 3 Abstract In 2013 the Chilean Ministry of Education presented a document outling a number of modifications to the current English Language Teaching policy. The educational authorities have clearly set out the proficiency levels expected of students as well as the role of teachers in the attainment of such standards. A strong emphasis is given to communicative language teaching as a framework for developing students’ competence in English. The purpose of this study is to find out the difficulties perceived by public and semi-private school teachers when introducing communicative language teaching in their respective contexts, as well as to explore the reasons behind such difficulties. In order to answer these questions, eighty-two teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire which collected their opinions regarding issues associated with the communicative approach. Four of the teachers then participated in a semi-structured interview which served to complement the information gathered through the questionnaires. The results showed that their difficulties fell into three broad categories: those associated with the presentation of policies, those related to the implementation of the communicative approach and those associated with teachers’ own background knowledge of communicative language teaching. The study suggests that successfully implementing the communicative approach in Chile will require considerable changes to the broader educational system. 4 List of abbreviations CLT Communicative Language Teaching EFL English as a Foreign Language ELT English Language Teaching ICT Information and Communication Technologies L1 First Language L2 Second Language MINEDUC Ministry of Education STT Student Talking Time SIMCE Education Quality Measuring System (Sistema de Medición de la Calidad de (Ministerio de Educación) la Enseñanza) TTT Teacher Talking Time 5 Chapter One Introduction Reflecting a trend seen in other parts of the world, the Ministry of Education of Chile (MINEDUC) has recently modified its English Language Teaching (ELT) policy. This policy has not only set the level of English expected to be reached by students in the Chilean context, but has also established the methods by which such levels of competence are to be attained. The policy places a strong emphasis on Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) as a key language learning method1 to be used in the public and semiprivate contexts, both of which are subject to regulations imposed by the relevant educational authorities. A major focus of CLT is developing the general ability to use a language in real communication exchanges, with particular emphasis on communicative competence. In this respect, CLT contrasts greatly with traditional methodologies that place a greater importance on learners’ linguistic knowledge (Savignon and Wang, 2003). Despite over forty years of general acceptance as a credible language learning approach by both educators and applied linguists, CLT still faces a number of challenges in its implementation, especially in contexts where English is a foreign language (EFL) (Ibid). Very little research has been carried out into the challenges that teachers of English face when introducing CLT in their classrooms in the context of Latin America, and less still in the specific context of Chile. For this reason, I consider it crucial to explore Chilean teacher’s perceptions of the challenges in the practice of the communicative approach in public and semi-private schools, and to discover the reasons behind these challenges, in order to inform future innovations to the English language curriculum in a bottom-up manner. As stated above, literature pertaining to teachers’ perceptions of communicative language teaching in the context of Latin America is extremely limited. However, there is plenty of research to be found in regards to other contexts where English is considered as a foreign language, a characteristic shared with Chile (e.g. Burnaby and Sun, 1989; Li, 1998; Hiep, 1 Here I will use the word method in the sense described by Richards and Rodgers (1985) as a general term that involves approach, design and procedure. 6 2007; Rao, 2002; Razmjoo and Riazi, 2006). These investigations have revealed that obstacles to using the communicative approach are the result of a number of factors, including teachers’ resistance to curricular innovations, students’ attitudes to communication-oriented lessons, difficulties associated with the broader educational system and teachers’ deficient communicative competence, among others. Despite acknowledging the aforementioned difficulties, countries such as Chile have greatly invested in trying to introduce communicative language teaching as a foreign language teaching methodology. In light of the above, the present study aims to provide an informed account of what challenges teachers of English perceive when introducing communicative language teaching in the context of Chile, together with an explanation in regards to the source of such difficulties. In order to answer these questions, eighty-two teachers filled out an online questionnaire providing factual information about their current jobs and working experience, as well as expressing levels of agreement and disagreement with statements regarding CLT-related issues, in the form of thirty Likert scale items. Four of the teachers were then asked to complement the data collected in the questionnaires via interviews, making this a mixed method study. This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Following on from this introduction, Chapter Two will discuss relevant literature on the origins and nature of the communicative approach as well as the main critiques of it, together with relevant research on constraints to its practice in EFL contexts. This will then be followed by a description of the current state of affairs of ELT in Chile. Chapter Three will provide a description of the participants in this study, as well as a justification of the mixed methods approach, together with a description of the data analysis process. Chapter Four will present the main findings of this investigation in regards to the research questions, followed by an immediate discussion on said findings. Finally, Chapter Five will present a summary of the study along with its implications, its limitations and suggestions for future research. 7 Chapter Two 2.1 Literature Review Introduction Since its coinage in the early 70’s, Communicative Language Teaching has been highly influential in the teaching of foreign and second languages around the world. This has been equally true for Chile, as can be seen in the latest English Language Teaching policy launched by the Chilean Ministry of Education. However, its implementation has always proved difficult (e.g. Anderson, 1993; Ellis, 1994). In order to understand the impact of CLT in Chile, this chapter will firstly deal with the development of CLT and its underlying principles. This will be followed by a brief discussion of how CLT is understood in countries where English is a foreign language. Finally, a description of the current state of affairs of English Language Teaching in Chile will be presented. 2.2 Communicative Language Teaching 2.2.1 Background of CLT As a result of the shift from form to meaning, the emergence of Communicative Language Teaching set a notorious contrast between traditional discreet point and grammar-centred approaches to language teaching and meaning-oriented ones (Savignon, 1987). Savignon wrote that this was a global phenomenon, triggered by linguists, methodologists and materials writers who contributed to CLT’s direction and inspiration. In the 60’s and 70’s there was a great demand for learning languages as schools began to expand beyond a more traditional type of education. An example of this trend was the birth of the comprehensive school in Britain, which set about incorporating foreign languages in the curriculum of every child in secondary education. The broadening of the field called for better methods and syllabuses to fit the needs of these non-traditional populations of learners. At the same time, there were a number of changes in the educational system that aimed to obtain better outcomes in all disciplines, such as the use of group work. These changes were also reflected in more specific statements of what was expected from pupils (Mitchell, 1994; Savignon, 1987; Howatt & Widdowson, 2004). The emergence of CLT was the result of professionals involved in language teaching, who realised the inefficacy of traditional 8 methods and acknowledged the existence of new contexts where language teaching was taking place (Mitchell, 1994). Theoretically speaking, the materialization of CLT was fed by the rise of two concepts: communicative competence and the notional/functional syllabus. Dell Hymes (1972) came up with communicative competence in reaction to Chomsky’s notions of competence and performance where the former is the unconscious or implicit knowledge of the language that individuals have, and the latter its actual use (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Chomsky’s study of language was based on analysing grammatically correct utterances produced by ideal speakers/listeners, which was not sufficient for Hymes; he believed in a study of language that considered contextual factors such as lack of memory, shifts of attention and errors, among others. In this concept Hymes includes not only knowledge of the language but also sociolinguistic rules of interaction and the appropriateness of utterances in relation to context (Savignon, 1987). The following four questions are key to understanding Hymes’s definition of communicative competence: 1. Whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible; 2. Whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue of the means of implementation available; 3. Whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate (adequate, happy, successful) in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated; 4. Whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually performed, and what its doing entails (Hymes, 1972, p. 281). Communicative competence also had an impact on pedagogy, where this concept is used to define ‘the ability to negotiate meaning – to successfully combine a knowledge of linguistic, sociolinguistic and discourse rules in communicative interactions’ (Savignon, 1987, p. 235). However, there were certain problems associated with Hymes’ definition of communicative competence, in that it remained too conceptual, which led to subsequent attempts to define it (Mitchell, 1994). As a result of this, Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) came up with a more concrete and defined model of communicative competence, which I will now proceed to summarise. 9 a) Grammatical competence: the knowledge of lexis, rules of morphology, syntax, semantics and phonology. b) Sociolinguistic competence: the appropriateness of utterances in accordance with the contextual factors of the communicative activity. c) Discursive competence: how language users put together pieces of discourse in order to make integrated pieces of written or spoken genres. Essential to this are the processes of coherence and cohesion. d) Strategic competence: the use of verbal or non-verbal resources to compensate for communication breakdowns or to produce more effective communication. The other key element in the development of CLT was the rise of notional/functional syllabuses. Traditionally, language syllabuses were structured in line with linguistic contents such as grammar and vocabulary. However, the work of some linguistic philosophers such as that of John Austin, who came up with the concept of speech acts, made other applied linguists such as David Wilkins develop a functional view of language (Mitchell, 1994). For Wilkins (1981, p. 83), ‘[s]yllabuses are specifications of the content of language teaching which have been submitted to some degree of structuring or ordering with the aim of making teaching and learning a more effective process’. Wilkins’ notional/functional syllabus places ‘emphasis on the meanings expressed or the functions performed through language – in broad terms on the speaker’s (or writer’s) intentions’. More concretely, Wilkins (1981) proposed categorising the language being taught into three groups: semantico-grammatical (or conceptual), modal and communicative function. The semantico-grammatical category refers to the basic referential meanings conveyed in sentences. The modal category relates to those features of language that express speakers’ attitudes and degrees of certainty. The communicative function category incorporates the many different forms of speech acts that are carried out through language. The organization of a notional/functional syllabus is the result of students’ needs analysis, through which notions and functions to be taught are identified (Johnson and Johnson, 1999). 10 2.2.2 Principles in Communicative Language Teaching For the purposes of this discussion, I shall use the seminal work by Canale and Swain (1980). Their work is an examination of the theoretical bases of different communicative principles that led them to create a new set of cannons in line with a broader outline of communicative competence. These new principles have served as guidelines to determine which approaches to language teaching are or are not in a communicative direction. For Canale and Swain, a communicative approach is organised in accordance with communicative functions (e.g. apologising, requesting, excusing, etc.) and not according to linguistic structures, as those that organized second language syllabuses traditionally are. In this sense, grammar is seen as a means for communicating instead of an end in and of itself. In the same publication, Canale and Swain draw up five guiding principles for the development of communicative approaches to teaching second languages (Canale and Swain, 1980). I will now proceed to describe them. a) The minimal components of communicative competence are grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence and communication strategies; b) The learner’s communication needs provide a basis for a communicative approach; c) The learner must have opportunities to interact with competent speakers in meaningful communicative interactions; d) At the onset of language learning, the learner should use those elements of his/her native language communicative competence that are common to those required in the second language; e) Providing the information, practice and experiences necessary to achieving students’ communicative needs in the L2 must be a primary objective of the second language programme. For Canale and Swain, these principles can serve as guides for developing communicative language teaching methodologies and assessment mechanisms. In the first principle mentioned above, it is important to understand that none of the competences mentioned should be overemphasised. For Canale and Swain, a second language programme should integrate all of them equally as there is no proof that, for example, grammatical competence is more likely than the others to lead to communication. Canale (1983) further divided the notion of sociolinguistic competence into sociolinguistic competence and discursive 11 competence, the former referring to the appropriateness of utterances in different contexts, and the latter to how meanings and forms are put together to achieve coherent and cohesive written or spoken genres such as narratives, descriptions, etc. In regards to the second principle, Canale and Swain stated that it is imperative that a CLT curriculum be based on the students’ communicative needs. This was initially proposed by Wilkins (1972), who argued that a communicative approach to second language teaching should be organized according to the needs of the learners and not a linguistic timeline. Breen and Candlin (1980, p. 93) also added to this point, by noting that ‘a communicative curriculum will focus on the learner from the very beginning’. In this respect, the incorporation of students’ needs has considerable support and is currently favourably acknowledged by CLT practitioners (Howatt and Widdowson, 2004). The third principle suggests that learners should have opportunities to interact with competent speakers of the language in authentic situations. This is a statement that finds general adherence in ELT. For example, Gass (1997) stated that the role of interaction in second language learning is of paramount importance, since interacting with expert speakers of the language, be it native speakers or non-native speakers, is both a way of practicing and learning the language. For Canale and Swain (1980), this type of interaction would lead to realistic communicative situations, which in turn, would foster the development of communicative competence. Additionally, Long (1996) stated that language proficiency and acquisition can be stimulated by face-to-face interactions. The fourth principle relates to the optimal use of those communicative skills developed by the learners in first language acquisition. In addition to Canale and Swain, many other authors such as Breen and Candlin (1980, p. 93) agree with this idea. They state that, for instance, a second language curriculum should be built upon features of the performance repertoire present in the mother tongue. This assertion reinforces the belief that language teaching should no longer be primarily concerned with linguistic competence. Atkinson (1987, p. 247) summarises the idea of using skills developed in L1 learning, stating that: ‘the mother tongue (…) has a variety of roles to play’ in second language methodology. For the fifth and last principle, Canale and Swain (1980, p. 28) argue that learners should be provided with as much as possible to encourage language learning. They suggest that ‘learners should be taught about language (…) in the first language programme’; they 12 include ‘grammatical categories, communicative functions, appropriateness conditions, rules of discourse and registers’. The second language culture(s) should also be considered in L2 programmes. Savignon (1972, cited in Canale and Swain, 1980, p. 28) also agrees with this, stating that a wider curriculum may have a positive impact on language learning. 2.2.3 Critiques to CLT Even though Communicative Language Teaching is probably the most widely accepted teaching approach, it has not been free of detractors. One of the strongest critiques to CLT was provided by Swan (1985a; 1985b). In these two publications, he critiques CLT for over-generalizing its insights to the point that they become meaningless. He also argues that CLT’s doctrines are exaggerated in their power and novelty, implying a one-size-fits-all approach to language teaching. Similarly, he also claims that CLT is an ambiguous approach as it is abundant in intellectual confusion and technical language. In pedagogical terms, he argues that CLT fails to put together formal and semantic syllabuses, as he considers both to be relevant in language teaching and communication. He also criticises how CLT neglects the role of the mother tongue in the classroom, failing to recognise its essential role in foreign language learning. This last point should have special consideration in the context of Chile, since it is a country where the whole population share the same mother tongue, Spanish, with the exception of ethnic groups in rural areas. However, Spanish still remains the first one for such groups. Almost two decades after Swan’s critiques, Bax (2003) argued that CLT has only partially achieved its goal, as traditional methods continue to be more used worldwide, even though English teachers generally accept its benefits. Bax’s main claim is that CLT has a negative effect today. He argues that the communicative approach neglects the context of teaching, which he considers a serious flaw, and that instead of a communicative approach to language teaching, a context approach should be used. This criticism also deserves special attention in the Chilean context given the fact that Chile is a country where English is a foreign language, with great cultural diversity along its more than four thousand kilometres. Thompson (1996) documented a series of misconceptions about CLT in order to take stock of it and established a set of characteristics for its classroom implementation, these are not 13 critiques, yet they are normally seen as CLT flaws. This is particularly relevant as a large proportion of its end users may conceive these misconceptions as difficulties to introducing CLT in their classrooms. The first misconception relates to the belief that using CLT means not teaching grammar. Thompson argues that the exclusion of grammar has never been a necessary part of the communicative approach. Even Canale and Swain (1980) state grammatical competence as an important aspect of their model of communicative competence. The second misconception he reports relates to how CLT has been seen as an approach that teaches speaking only. This belief is grounded in the idea that students should get sufficient practice, which was often associated with reducing teacher talking time (TTT) to promote student talking time (STT). However, Thompson argues that ‘communication does not only take place through speech, and it is not only the speaker (or writer who is communicating’ (p. 11). The third misconception is that ‘CLT means pair work, which means role play’ (p.12). Thompson states that this misbelief lies in the poor understanding of role-play. He argues that role-plays need to provide students with the real faculty to choose what to say, but he claims they ‘simply work out how to say what they are told to say (p.13)’. The last misconception relates to how CLT is viewed as ‘expecting too much from the teacher’ (p.13). For him, CLT lessons tend to be less predictable and non-native teachers need a higher proficiency level. He affirms that this last misconception may well become a reason to embrace CLT as a means to re-evaluate teachers’ beliefs and practices. He also highlights the abundance of materials for CLT, which demand minimal preparation. 2.3 Difficulties in the introduction of CLT in the EFL context As stated in the introduction to this chapter, CLT has had a substantial impact around the world. This has not only drawn attention to language learning processes but also to language teaching practices. In this respect, a number of reports in related literature have acknowledged difficulties adopting CLT in different contexts, especially in countries where English is a foreign language (Li, 1998). For example, Burnaby and Sun (1989) took surveys on teachers’ perceptions, which showed that the communicative approach was primarily useful in China in the context of English language students who were planning to go to English-speaking countries. The teachers also expressed the view that Englishspeaking countries promoting the communicative approach should carefully consider the 14 individual conditions of countries where English is a foreign language before prescribing this approach. They also called on scholars to better define the so-called sociolinguistic competence and strategic rules to prevent communication breakdowns, citing the enormous challenge for Chinese teachers of English in developing sociolinguistic and strategic competence in English. Li (1998) explored teachers’ perceptions at difficulties in introducing CLT by studying a group of South Korean secondary school English teachers. The results revealed that the challenges they faced had their origins in the underlying educational theories of South Korea and Western countries. The study suggested that adopting CLT meant that EFL countries such as South Korea had to modify their own approach to education and recommended that its implementation should be gradual and based on the EFL situations of each country. In the same line, Hu (2002) reported that the import of CLT into China was in conflict in several important respects. These included the philosophical assumptions about the nature of teaching and learning, the view of the different roles of teachers and learners and the learning strategies encouraged. He concluded that the teaching of English should be based on a cautiously eclectic approach grounded in a well-informed understanding of the sociocultural characteristics of the countries where CLT originated and where CLT was imported. A case study of three teachers carried out by Hiep (2007) concluded that teachers tend to hold their beliefs about their praxis and CLT. The teachers truly believe that CLT is an approach that teaches students communication skills; however, when it comes to teaching the language, teachers encounter a variety of challenges, such as traditional examination, large classes, students’ low motivation, and teachers’ limited expertise in creating communicative tasks, and consequently they fail to implement CLT. In line with this, Razmjoo and Riazi (2006) explored Iranian EFL teachers’ attitudes and practice of communicative language teaching. They documented that English teachers had a positive attitude in regards to CLT and its underlying principles. However, when it came to its practice, teachers gave little importance to CLT. Rao (2002) documented difficulties to the practice of CLT perceived by Chinese students. He reported that most Chinese students worry that CLT did not provide them with enough linguistic knowledge, which ran against their goal in learning English, which was to pass 15 grammar based examinations. He also suggested that variables such as gender, age, personality, and proficiency level would also impact students’ perceptions of CLT. Research on difficulties in implementing CLT has also documented students’ perceptions. Savignon and Wang (2003) investigated Taiwanese EFL learners’ attitudes and perceptions about classroom practices viewed as either focused on meaning or structures in light of an educational reform promoting the use of CLT. They found a mismatch between the learners’ needs and expectations and their experience in the classroom. They concluded that concordance between classroom practices and learners’ attitudes are decisive to determine the success or failure of educational reforms. Even though this research provides insights into teachers’ perceptions of CLT introduction in EFL contexts, it is necessary to bring research closer to the Latin American reality. Research on teachers’ views about introducing CLT has been limited in Latin America. One study carried out in Cuba by Valdés and Jhones (1991) did, however, identify a number of problems in introducing CLT. These included: teachers’ lack of English proficiency, the shift of the teacher’s role from a traditional one to that of a facilitator, the shift of the conception of error from something to be avoided to something that should happen naturally in the learning process and the lack of materials that are both authentic and pertinent to CLT. The theoretical background discussed so far has only considered literature related to Communicative Language Teaching and difficulties in its implementation. However, it is also reasonable to see problems associated with educational policy introduction from a broader point of view. The following will address these issues. 2.4 Difficulties associated with educational policy implementation. The discussion about the introduction of CLT must inevitably go beyond ELT matters (Wright, 2004). At the heart of this discussion lies the introduction of an educational policy, and this, per se, has a pivotal effect on the practice of CLT. As Cohen, Moffitt and Goldin (2007, p. 515) state, ‘[t]he relations between policy and practice embody a dilemma’. This means that the successful implementation of any kind of policy, educational or otherwise, depends very much on the flawed clients, practitioners and organizations that a given program aims to correct. In this sense, as Bell and Stevenson (2006) say, state policies have 16 an enormous impact on what happens on a daily basis in schools, particularly with respect to teachers and students. In other words, teachers and students in Chile are inevitably being affected by the modifications to English Language Teaching policy. According to Haddad (1995), policy is ‘[a]n explicit or implicit single decision or group of decisions which may set out directives for guiding future decisions, initiate or retard action, or guide implementation of previous decisions’. Furthermore, policies vary in their scope, complexity, decision criteria, choice range and decision environment (Ibid). The process of policymaking includes two essential factors: the actors and the processes, i.e. who does it and how it is done. Furthermore, as Bell and Stevenson (2006, p. 25) say, powerful structural forces of ‘an economic, ideological and cultural nature’ will determine them. As it sounds, an educational policy is of a top-down nature, and I believe this to play a negative role in its implementation. As Bell and Stevenson (2006) say, each situation in which a policy is implemented will in one way or another affect the success or failure of it. The implementation of educational policies has faced a number of difficulties. McLaughlin (1987, p. 172) stated that ‘local factors such as size, intra-organizational relations, commitment, capacity and institutional complexity [have] molded responses to policy’. McLaughlin (1987) also identifies two broad factors that determine policy success: capacity and will. Capacity, though difficult and crucial an issue, is still something that can be tackled by the policy itself. Teacher development opportunities, money investment, consultants, these can all be offered in any program, provided there are enough resources. However, the issue of will is very much dependent on the attitudes, motivation and beliefs that those affected by the new decisions may display. Policymakers, however, cannot control these constraints. Evans (1996, p. 40) addresses this issue under the name of ‘the culture of resistance’. He argues that schooling systems need improvement in many areas, which can be witnessed in constant educational reforms. He goes on to say that we should expect the transformation of norms and values take a long time. Evans also proposes three key factors that may intensify the aversion to change: teachers’ stage of life, their stage in their careers, and the ‘cohort factor’, i.e. the particular group and historical characteristics in which they have worked. In addition to this, Wise (1997, p. 43) stated that the introduction of educational policies have ‘presuppose[d] a very rational view of schooling or are designed to induce a further 17 rationalization of schooling’. He calls this hyperrationalization. This process, per se, may pose constraints to the implementation of educational policies. For example, policymakers set out excessive prescriptions, i.e. they say what inputs, procedures and outcomes need to be provided, carried out, and attained. Furthermore, they incorporate complex processes, provide inappropriate solutions, or engage in wishful thinking, behaving as if the school would immediately accomplish what they decree. To sum up, the implementation of new policies in education is not only affected by factors related to its end users. There is also a wealth of evidence to support the idea that policies themselves may carry their own inherent problems. It is now necessary to turn the discussion to the context that is directly affected by the introduction of the communicative approach. Firstly, I will examine the current state of affairs in the Chilean school system and will then present some of the difficulties associated with CLT in Chile. 2.5 English Language in Chile Chile is a country where English is regarded as a foreign language (Kachru, 1985). Like many other countries sharing this characteristic, the Chilean government has placed the teaching and learning of English high on its agenda for public and semi-private schools. This is to make sure that Chile can play an important role internationally, both politically and economically (Blásquez and Tagle, 2012; Richards, 2008). To this effect, the Ministry of Education in Chile has recently published a set of modifications to policies concerning the teaching and learning of English. Such policies clearly state what to teach in English and how to teach it. These affect public and semi-private schools, since the former are funded and administered by the government, and the later are administered by private organizations but funded by the state. The purpose of teaching English in Chile is the result of English becoming a basic and fundamental element in the education of students. Learning it will grant them access to information, knowledge and new possibilities. This will teach them to develop new skills, which will enable them to evolve in their academic and work life (MINEDUC, 2013). 18 In the last governmental decree2 published by the Ministry of Education, as approved in the Congress, it is clearly stated that the teaching of English must begin in the fifth year of primary education and finish in the last year of secondary school, with at least 114 hours per year. Primary and secondary school last six years each. If we add up these years, we have a total of eight years of English guaranteed to all Chilean students. Additionally, within the autonomy that each school has, English can also begin in nursery school (two years) or the first year of primary education. Although this is a choice, the number of schools introducing English at nursery level or during the first year of primary school has doubled in recent years, due to the introduction of a national standardized test of English in 2010 (La Segunda, 2013). If this is indeed the case, then a vast number of students in Chile have at least 14 years of English between Nursery School, Primary School and Secondary School. The methodology proposed in the latest ELT policy explicitly prescribes CLT for the teaching of English in Chile. This reflects what Ball (1998, p. 122) describes as one of the characteristics of current education policy making: ‘to attain more control over curriculum content and assessment’. This is also reaffirmed in the same publication by proposing the adoption of specific communicative approaches such as the Natural approach, Cooperative Language Teaching, Content-based instruction and Task-based language teaching (MINEDUC, 2013). Other elements present in the policy that demonstrate a CLT orientation have to do with the role of grammar and the use of students’ interests and experiences, among others. Accompanying the release of this policy is the publication of textbooks for all levels designed particularly for the Chilean context, including those levels in which English is not compulsory. These are given to the students at the beginning of the year; they reflect a strong version of the communicative approach. In terms of level of English, the curriculum is oriented towards achieving two levels. A23 is the standard expected of students by the end of primary school. Students finishing secondary school are expected to achieve B1. 2 http://bcn.cl/1m18j Common European Framework of Reference for Languages is used in Chilean ELT policies. 3 19 2.5.1 CLT in Chile Little research has been carried out in relation to the introduction of the communicative approach in Chile. However, in a study conducted by McKay (2003), it was possible to identify problems associated with its implementation. More than a decade ago, the Ministry of Education had already prescribed certain CLT methods, particularly the use of group work. In this regard, teachers expressed that they only occasionally used group work. Despite acknowledging its benefits, they voiced concerns regarding its use. For example, some said that it was ‘not necessary because you have communication between teachers and students or through a video or tape’ (p.143). I consider this a simplistic view of group work in relation to the innate communicative characteristics of CLT. Additionally, teachers also referred to the problem posed by the large number of students in their classes, the lack of physical space, the lack of time, discipline problems and the tendency of students to go off-task. In her conclusion, McKay noted that both the Ministry of Education and teachers were de-emphasising the use of the communicative approach on the ground that it was not appropriate to the local context. In light of the literature discussed previously and the context described above, the current study attempts to unveil the difficulties that the introduction of communicative language teaching is likely to face in the context of Chile and the factors that lead to these difficulties. This is a study that collects the perceptions of the end users of this foreign language learning policy, namely the teachers. 20 Chapter Three 3.1 Methodology Research Questions Research into the implementation of communicative language teaching has served to highlight the many difficulties encountered in EFL countries, of which Chile is no exception. The particular context of Chilean teachers working in public and semi-private schools is in need of further investigation. To this end, I will attempt to answer the following questions: • What difficulties, if any, do Chilean teachers of English perceive when introducing the communicative approach in public and semi-private schools? • Why do such difficulties arise? In this chapter, I will outline the backgrounds of participants who took part in this research. I will then comment on the two instruments used to collect the teachers’ perceived difficulties, namely an online questionnaire and a semi-structured interview. Finally, I will explain how the data collected was analysed. 3.2 The Study In order to answer the aforementioned questions, a mixed-method approach was used. As Dörnyei (2007) notes, adopting a mixed methodology allows us to overcome the inherent weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative approaches. To collect information from the participants, this study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, an online questionnaire was distributed across a number of ELT-related websites and the answers were retrieved using GoogleDocs (see appendix 3). The second phase consisted of interviews carried out via Skype, where four teachers who had already taken the questionnaire volunteered to elaborate their answers in order to further explain the quantitative data (see appendixes 5, 6, 7 and 8). This mixed methods procedure provided more validity for the research outcomes through the convergence and corroboration of findings. 21 3.2.1 Participants A total of 82 Chilean teachers of English took part in the questionnaire, all of whom were at the time teaching in the public or semi-private sector at either primary or secondary level. Since English language teaching policy at both primary and secondary level share the same methodology, with minor variations in content, both were deemed appropriate for this research. Out of the participants involved, 25 teachers were male and 57 female. A total of 51 teachers had been working five years or less, with 19 having six to ten years’ experience, five having 10 to 20 years’ experience and the final five boasting over 20 years’ experience. In terms of training, 64 of the participants possessed a bachelor’s degree in English Language teaching as their highest qualification, with 17 having a Masters degree in an ELT-related field and 1 having a PhD. In regards to language certification, out of the 82 participants, 52 confirmed having a language certificate whilst the remaining 30 had no language certification at all. A total of 26 teachers were at the time of the study teaching in a public school whilst 48 were in semi-private schools. Eight said that they worked in both systems. In terms of teaching levels, 28 teach at primary, 32 at secondary and the remaining 22 at both levels. Four of the 32 participants agreed to be interviewed, all of whom work in semi-private schools and are therefore obliged to adhere to the Ministry of Education’s regulations relating to ELT. One participant fell into the five years or less experience bracket; two fell into the five to ten years bracket; and the final participant fell into the 20 years plus group. All four were female. Two of them held a Master’s degree, one in teaching English as a foreign language and the other in applied linguistics. The remaining two had a Bachelor’s degree in ELT. To respect the anonymity of participants, as guaranteed in their consent forms, pseudonyms were employed in the final report. 3.2.2 Instruments The questionnaire was created according to the literature presented in Chapter One, as well as my own experience as a teacher of English in the Chilean educational system. The questionnaire was divided into three parts: a) Section One addressed the teachers’ personal background and experience in CLT. 22 b) Section Two addressed the teachers’ perceived problems when implementing CLT. c) Section Three addressed the teachers’ perceived difficulties in their understanding of CLT and the Chilean language policies of ELT. The purpose of using an online questionnaire was to collect answers in a systematic and disciplined way, whilst gathering as large an amount of data as possible in a short period of time (Dörnyei, 2007). Since it was not possible to have the participants answer the questionnaires in person, an online version was deemed a suitable alternative. It was created using GoogleDocs and distributed by way of snowball sampling, as well as through posts on various English Language Teacher fora, such as Facebook groups and other ELTrelated websites. This enabled me to compile 82 questionnaires into a database in GoogleDrives, in a systematic and orderly way. The questionnaire, which included and information sheet (see appendix 1), consisted of 39 questions eliciting teachers’ background information, background in CLT, perceived challenges to the implementation of CLT and their understanding of CLT with regards to Chilean ELT policies. The first section was made up of nine items in multiple choice and closed question format. In the two remaining sections, Likert scales of four steps were used, fifteen for each section. As Dörnyei (2003) says, Likert scales have proved to be a simple, versatile and reliable rating scale, hence the decision to employ them in this data gathering exercise. To elaborate on the information collected in the questionnaires (Verma and Mallik, 1999), I devised a semi-structured interview based upon the data, which enabled me to avoid replicating the evidence already collected and to search for complimentary information (Ibid). As both Verma and Mallik state, it is essential to make good use of time and resources. For this reason, I created a schedule (see appendix 4) to conduct the interviews. The interview was devised by identifying phenomena that could not be explained simply by way of the questionnaire. In order to carry out the interviews, I contacted teachers via email and social networks, arranging suitable times to carry out the interviews via Skype. Prior to this, a consent letter (see appendix 2) approved by the College Research Ethics Committee was given to the participants. By agreeing to this letter, they not only consented to participating but also to being audio-recorded. The interviews lasted no more than 30 23 minutes each and were carried out using the aforementioned schedule. With interviews being semi-structured in nature, the schedule was followed as a guide only and different probes were used to conduct the interview as and when interesting information arose (Dörnyei, 2007; Verma and Mallik, 1999). 3.2.3 Piloting As Dörnyei (2007, p. 112) says, ‘[b]ecause (..) in questionnaires so much depends on the actual wording of the items, an integral part of questionnaire construction is ‘field testing’, that is, piloting the questionnaire at various stages of its development (…)’. In this sense, the questionnaire was piloted twice. For the first pilot, it was sent to two of my MA classmates, who had attended the Research Methods module. They provided feedback on the wording and general format. For example, after the first pilot, I modified the questions in section one and reworded certain items to make them better suited to the information I was looking for. After carrying out the suggested changes, I proceeded to send the nearfinal version to eight Chilean teachers of English who completed and submitted it. This enabled me to see if GoogleDocs worked efficiently. I identified no technical problems in the application of the second piloting, except for the wording and format of one question, which I modified by incorporating the teachers’ suggestions. The semi-structured interview was also piloted. As with the questionnaire, it was important to try out the questions in order to see if the wording was appropriate and if the questions elicited the kind of information I was trying to gather. Two of the teachers who piloted the questionnaire went on to pilot the interview. Judging their answers to be in line with the desired information, I decided that the semi-structured interview was ready for application. 3.2.4 Data Analysis According to Powney and Watts (1987), data analysis is more than a mere description of the information gathered; it is a process by which we can meaningfully interpret the material collected. I began by transferring all the questionnaire responses into an Excel spread sheet and converting these responses into percentages. I then transcribed the interviews into four separate Word documents. To answer the question of the specific difficulties that arise when implementing CLT in Chile, I used the data analysis processes 24 proposed by Wellington (2000): immersion, reflection, data analysis and data synthesis. In this way, I was able to identify common themes in both the questionnaires and interviews, as well as a number of recurring comments relating to the challenges that Chilean English teachers perceive when using the communicative approach. These topics were subsequently categorised into three groups: challenges associated with ELT policy, challenges associated with CLT classroom implementation and challenges associated with teachers’ background knowledge of CLT. Teachers’ responses were analysed according to their incidence. For example, issues identified in more than 50% of responses were considered as overtly meaningful challenges to the introduction of CLT in Chile. Issues identified in a third or more of all responses were also considered for analysis and discussion. An online Chisquare calculator was used in order to measure the interaction of different variables such as type of school, years of experience or educational level and the answers provided to different items. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. 25 Chapter Four 4.1 Presentation and Analysis of Data Introduction As discussed in previous chapters, identifying the challenges perceived by teachers when introducing CLT in the Chilean context is key to its successful implementation. In order to achieve this, the current analysis attempts to collate the participants’ perceived difficulties in regards to the communicative approach. After analysing the results of both questionnaire and interview, the data could be arranged into thematic groups. The challenges reported by the 82 teachers fell into three distinct categories: those associated with teachers’ background knowledge of CLT, those associated with classroom implementation of CLT and those associated with English Language Teaching (ELT) policy in Chile. Amongst these categories, difficulties associated with ELT policies have proven to be the most prominent, followed by those associated with its classroom implementation, and finally, those related to teachers’ own background knowledge of CLT. In the following section, the questionnaire results are presented quantitatively and followed by the evidence collected qualitatively in the interviews. The items are presented according to the three aforementioned categories and not according to their original distribution in the questionnaire. The answers of the Likert scale Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly disagree were condensed into two responses: Agree and Disagree. Prior to presenting the data collected in both instruments, it is important to present information collected in relation to general attitudes and understanding of the communicative approach. This information was elicited by means of two questions in order to set an overall view of how CLT is generally perceived by teachers. The first question was intended to gather data about teachers’ attitudes. The responses indicated that 52.4% of the participants feel that they understand some basic principles of CLT. Only 24.4% expressed that they understand it well and use it comfortably. A further 23.2% expressed that they understand CLT but do not use it. However, when directly asked what they understood by CLT, a majority of 79.3% of the teachers surveyed chose the most appropriate answer, and only 20.7% chose responses that were less valid as CLT definitions. 26 4.2 Challenges associated with ELT policy Teachers have a straightforward opinion about ELT policies. They reported that all items pertaining to ELT policies are a challenge to implementing CLT successfully. Table 1 shows that, for all questions in this section, no less than 62.2% of the teachers agreed that the topics addressed represented an obstacle to the practice of CLT in the Chilean context. Interestingly, items referring to the introduction of SIMCE, the use of CLT to complete the curriculum, and access to ELT policies have around one third of respondents expressing that such items do not reflect a difficulty in introducing the communicative approach. This clearly shows a discrepancy of opinion amongst teachers. Nº Item 7 The introduction of SIMCE by the MINEDUC has affected the implementation of CLT. 21 The use of CLT allows me to satisfy the syllabus required by the MINEDUC. 26 There is congruence between the MINEDUC’s curriculum and teaching materials (textbooks, audio, etc.) 27 The Chilean English language policies are clear. 28 There is good access to the English language policies. 29 The English language curriculum is easy to cover in the time given by the MINEDUC. The MINEDUC provides enough opportunities for teacher development to be familiar with CLT and its application. The materials (books, audio, etc.) provided by the MINEDUC facilitate the use of CLT. Table 1. Items associated with ELT Policy 30 4 Agree Disagree 54 (65.9%) 31 (37.8%) 18 (22%) 16 (19.5%) 26 (31.7%) 11 (13.4%) 16 (19.6%) 21 (25.6%) 28 (34.1%) 51 (62.2%) 64 (78%) 66 (80.5%) 56 (68.3%) 70 (85.4%) 66 (80.4%) 61 (74.4%) 4.2.1 Time to complete the national curriculum It would seem that time is one of the main constraints affecting the practice of CLT in the context of Chile. As Table 1 shows, the greatest disagreement appears in response to question 29, which relates to the time provided by the Ministry of Education for covering the English language curriculum. As much as 85.4% of the teachers disagree with the statement suggesting that they can cover the curriculum contents in the time allocated by the authorities (see Figure 1). Additionally, the responses to question 21 reinforce the high 27 per cent obtained by question 29, with up to 62.2% of teachers also agreeing with the statement that CLT does not allow them to complete the MINEDUC’s syllabus (see Figure 2). Nevertheless, in regards to this issue, a good third of the questionnaire participants (37.8%) still believe that using CLT allows them to complete the syllabus as required by the educational authorities. This reflects a clear divergence of attitudes between participants on this point. Opinions consistent with these results can be found in the qualitative data collected during the interviews. In regards to question 29, Interviewee3 states that: “(…) with students of 3rd and 4th year, I have only an hour and a half a week… so… if I tried to make them all speak, I would lose my whole time with that(…). Similar comments were made about the fact that CLT does not easily allow teachers to satisfy the Ministry’s syllabus (62.2%). For example, Interviewee2 stated that: “(…) you feel less motivated to try new things because you may be running against time and you may feel that pressure on you that results are going to measure what you have done with your students (…)”. The diversity of opinion in response to question 21, where more than a third disagreed with the notion that using CLT does not prevent them from completing the syllabus on time, might well be explained by the following comment given by the same teacher who, when asked to explain to what extent she used CLT, responded: “(…) let’s say once in a while… I give the chance to my students to decide what their interests are. For instance, if I want to talk about English speaking countries, I remember a project I planned for them, they could decide what country they wanted to study or to speak about”. 28 47,6% 37,8% 11,0% 2,4% Strongly agree 1,2% Agree Disagree Strongly No response disagree Figure 1. The English language curriculum is easy to cover in the time given by the MINEDUC. 43,9% 37,8% 18,3% 0,0% Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Figure 2. The use of CLT allows me to satisfy the syllabus required by the MINEDUC. 4.2.1.1 Discussion As evidenced in the data description presented above, lack of time is widely regarded as an obstacle to introducing the communicative approach in Chile. Although this problem was previously documented by McKay (2003), there seem to be no major changes according to Chilean teachers. The bulk of teachers’ opinions suggest that modifications (and by this I mean reductions) to the current amount of linguistic content to be covered and an increase in the number of hours allocated to the subject should be considered in the development of ELT policies. This finding is in line with what Li (1998) documented in a study carried out in Korea; the incorporation of the communicative approach implies changing the wider approach to education. With this in mind, it is reasonable to suggest that teachers of English in Chile are tasked with covering a large amount of linguistic content in relatively little 29 time, which may prevent them from using of CLT. Nevertheless, as presented in the table, one third of teachers still believe that they can teach the MINEDUC content requirements on time using Communicative Language Teaching. In order to see if the variable of ‘type of school’ had any impact on the use of CLT in regards to the coverage of syllabus content, as I believe it might have, the study’s independent responses to question 29 were analysed using Chi-square. The Chi-square statistic was 0.5838. The P value was 0.444833. This result was not significant at p<0.05, which refutes the theory that the ‘type of school’ variable of the subjects studied may impact the use of CLT when it comes to completing the syllabus as required by the Ministry of Education (see Table 2). These results would suggest that time constraints on covering the contents when using CLT might be rooted in both the lack of lesson time and a methodology that teachers generally see as an obstacle to time efficiency, as it was once documented by McKay (2003). This suggestion could be further supported by Wise (1997), who states that policymakers incur in what he calls hyperrationalization, as they prescribe excessive inputs, procedures and outcomes. Another reason to suggest this is also provided by Wise who adds that policymakers often have wishful thinking since they believe that using CLT to attain all their prescriptions would happen immediately and as a matter of fact. Results Agree Disagree Row Totals Public school 9 (10.54) [0.23] 17 (15.46) [0.15] 26 Semi-private school 21 (19.46) [0.12] 27 (28.54) [0.08] 48 Column Totals 30 44 74 (Grand Total) Table 2. Type of school and coverage of MINEDUC’s syllabus 4.2.2 The presentation of the ELT policy Another widely regarded obstacle to the practice of the communicative approach in Chile, as reported by the teachers surveyed, is the presentation of ELT policy and more specifically, difficulties pertaining to its clarity, congruity and easy access. According to question 27, a total of 80.5% of teachers believe that ELT policies are unclear (see Figure 3). This belief might well be explained by the responses to question 26, a question which addresses the issue of incongruity between the MINEDUC’s study programs and teaching materials. Up to 78% of participants agree that the Ministry’s curriculum and the materials 30 they provide are not congruent, which might lead to the impression that the official documents released by the educational authorities are poorly outlined. Furthermore, item 4 revealed that 74.4% of teachers disagree with the statement that materials provided by the authorities facilitate the use of CLT. In addition to this, teachers also believe access to such policies is inadequate, as reflected in question 28. A total of 68.3% of participants felt unhappy about access to these official documents. However, it is interesting to note that 31.7% of the population studied believe otherwise, generating a plurality of opinions in this regard. 48,8% 31,7% 17,1% 2,4% Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Figure 3. Chilean English Language policies are clear. Qualitative evidence could also be found for the figures described above. Interviewee1 agrees with the lack of clarity reported by question 27, stating: “There are many definitions of CLT, so sometimes the Chilean policies don’t give, like an exact line of work concerning CLT. So teachers don’t know what the government expects from them. That’s my opinion.” Similar comments were made about the incongruity existing between policies and materials. Interviewees3 expressed frustration in regards to the issue addressed by this item: “Yeah… cause what you are taught at the university are communicative approaches like the one we are talking about, I don’t know… you want to change the world, but then you receive the textbooks given by the ministry and you read the programs and they don’t match. They, I don’t know, they… in the program… they just tell you 31 what the students have too achieve… I don’t know, they have to manage this skill… but the textbooks only bring reading and listening skills. They are very disorganized; they don’t have the same contents given in the programs.” No qualitative evidence could be found to suggest that access to the official policies is inadequate. It is interesting to note however that there was evidence to support the views of the remaining group. When asked whether she received the MINEDUC’s policies from the school administrators, Interviewee1 replied: “No, they are online. They are available for everybody, and I think that a couple of hard copies arrived, but the head of the department never said.” 4.2.2.1 Discussion As previously stated, the presentation of the policies seems far from clear. The combination of lack of clarity, incongruity and inadequate access to official documentation are the source of a number of teachers’ perceived difficulties relating to the practice of CLT. In regards to lack of clarity, this result might resonate with some of the critiques of the communicative approach, such as Swan (1985a; 1985b), who claims that CLT is an ambiguous approach, abundant in intellectual confusion and jargon. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that teachers’ own educational level may affect their understanding of the policies. However, the number of respondents who judged the policies unclear does not allow for testing such a hypothesis. Evidence and literature would suggest that teachers of English in Chile find it difficult to understand English language policies, as these would have the characteristics that Swan (1985a; 1985b) describes. In terms of congruity between policy and materials, teachers are largely of the opinion that they are not congruent. Again, one could hypothesise that participants’ educational level might impact their view on the relationship between materials and policies. However, the vast majority believe in the existence of some incongruity within the documents presented by the authorities, which makes this suggestion lose its plausibility. Further research on this issue is suggested. Similarly, access to policies was generally regarded as a constraint. However, one of the interviewees contradicted this by stating that policies are freely available online. This comment reveals an inconsistency between the results provided by quantitative and 32 qualitative tools. If we accept the interviewee’s statement as truth, it would not be misplaced to suggest that either teachers are not being properly informed by the relevant authorities about the availability of such documents, or there is a reluctance on behalf of certain teachers to search them out. This incongruity of responses may well be the symptom of teachers’ resistance to policy. McLaughlin (1987) refers to this as the factor of will, which relates to the attitudes, motivation, and beliefs that teachers may display. Even though there seem to be a number of contradictory opinions regarding this aspect of the presentation of ELT policies, it is safe to say that they are generally regarded as a problem. 4.2.3 The introduction of SIMCE There were a variety of opinions on the introduction of a standardised test (SIMCE) set by the Ministry of Education in Chile. In response to item 7, which addresses this issue, a total of 65.9% of questionnaire participants agree that SIMCE has a significant washback on the implementation of the communicative approach (see Figure 4). Nevertheless, 34.1% of respondents do not view SIMCE as a problem. Interviewees have a number of conflicting opinions on this issue. For example, Interviewee3 expressed concern about SIMCE, stating: “(…) because schools want results as I said…. So principals and academic coordinators demand that you plan your classes in a way that you can get good results in the SIMCE test, (…) they place like practice tests, like four in the semester. So, everything is going in that way, you know, preparing for the SIMCE.” However, Interviewee4 claimed that SIMCE has no real impact on CLT, saying: “I’m not so worried, personally, I’m not so worried about the SIMCE test. Also, they don’t push me, or they don’t ask me for results”. 33 35,4% 30,5% 24,4% 9,8% Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Figure 4. The introduction of SIMCE by the MINEDUC has affected the implementation of CLT. 4.2.3.1 Discussion As reflected in the questionnaire results, the introduction of SIMCE, a standardised national test, is generally perceived as an obstacle to introducing CLT in the context of Chile. The results of this test are publicly available in Chile and play a pivotal role in school rankings. These results support Hiep’s (2007) study, in which he reported that traditional exams are typically viewed as a hindrance to using CLT in foreign language contexts. Nevertheless, one third of the subjects surveyed disagreed with this view, as exemplified by the responses of Interviewee4. This would imply the existence of a variable affecting participants’ responses. To confirm if the ‘type of school’ variable had any impact on the degree to which the SIMCE test affects CLT implementation, individual responses to this item were pooled in a Chi-square calculator. The chi-square statistic was 0.0395. The P-Value was 0.842535. The result was not significant at p < 0.05 (see Table 3). Hence, the ‘type of school’ variable was refuted as a factor affecting CLT implementation. A possible explanation for these results can be found in one of the participants’ responses, where she claimed that this standardised test had little effect on her given a lack of push from the school administrators. It could therefore be said that SIMCE’s impact depends very much on the amount of pressure that educational managers place on teachers to achieve results. Results SIMCE affects the implementation of CLT SIMCE does not affect the implementation of CLT Row Totals Public 17 (16.61) [0.01] 9 (9.39) [0.02] 26 Semi-private 29 (29.39) [0.01] 17 (16.61) [0.01] 46 Column Totals 46 26 72 (Grand Total) Table 3. Variable of type of school and SIMCE’s impact on the use of CLT 34 4.3 Challenges associated with classroom implementation of CLT The second most prominent category relates to the challenges associated with actual classroom implementation of the communicative approach. Seven out of ten items were perceived by teachers as challenges to the implementation of CLT, with all seven being reported in at least 62% of the total responses (as illustrated in Table 4). Particularly salient are issues related to teachers’ preparation time for CLT materials, classroom discipline, students’ use of Spanish, the number of students per class and the opportunities pupils have to interact in English outside the classroom. Nº 1 2 5 3 12 13 14 8 22 Item Agree Classroom discipline makes the implementation of CLT difficult. Students use Spanish during communicative tasks. 66 80.5% 71 86.5% I have sufficient ICTs (Information and Communication 40 Technologies) at hand to implement CLT. 48.7% The large number of students facilitates the implementation of 15 Communicative Language Teaching during my class. 18.3% The school infrastructure (classroom size, labs, etc.) is 30 appropriate to carry out CLT. 36.6% Students prefer to be taught grammar and vocabulary to 37 communication skills. 45.1% There is little time to implement CLT. 54 63.9% I have plenty of time to prepare materials that are useful to 7 implement CLT. 8.5% There are many opportunities for students to communicate in 14 English outside the classroom. 17.1% Table 4. Questions associated with classroom implementation Disagree 15 19.5% 11 13.4% 40 48.7% 67 81.7% 51 62.2% 45 54.9% 28 34.1% 75 91.5% 68 82.9% 4.3.1 Time to use CLT In this category, time is also commonly regarded as a constraint to CLT implementation in Chile. A total of 63.4% of participants agree with item 14, which states that there is insufficient time to successfully implement CLT. The remaining 34.1% however, accounting for more than a third, disagree with this statement. Nevertheless, a striking 91.5% of teachers believe they lack the necessary time to design materials for use during their lessons, an issue addressed in item 8, which relates to the amount of time available to teachers for preparing CLT materials (see Figure 4). 35 Interviewee2 supports the findings in item 14, by recounting her colleagues’ thoughts on CLT, explaining how the use of this approach might be counterproductive: “Well, I’ve heard that it is quite time consuming, and that if you teach your students a lot of grammar, and you make them practice with drills or many written exercises, and then if they are in a situation where they need to apply all this, and they need to talk and interact, they will immediately do it, but if you start practicing the language in the classroom, you will run out of time, and you will have nothing in your hands.” On the other hand, a third of the questionnaire respondents disagreed with item 14, their voice being exemplified in the response of Interviewee1, who explains how she tries to introduce the communicative approach in her lessons in a time efficient way: “I try to use CLT in the classroom, trying to use the spoken language as much as we can, and trying to relate their experiences with the new subject. But sometimes it becomes really difficult to do this.” Regarding the time teachers have to prepare materials, the vast majority are in disagreement with the statement in item 8, as represented in the opinions expressed by Interviewee4: “(…), also the time when you prepare your class and your own materials. That would be something fair, fifty and fifty to work, twenty hours working with students and twenty hours making or preparing your materials, or correcting tests and everything.” The responses to the questions described above, together with the evidence collected during the interview process, mark time out as a major obstacle to the practice of CLT in Chile when it comes to its practice in the classroom. 36 67,1% 24,4% 3,7% 4,9% Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Figure 4. I have plenty of time to prepare materials that are useful to implement CLT. 4.3.1.1 Discussion Generally speaking, teachers widely regard time as a constraint to the practice of CLT in their lessons. Time for its preparation and consequently actual implementation still remains an obstacle (McKay, 2003). The evidence would suggest that not enough time is set aside to thoroughly prepare materials in line with CLT. This can be attributed to a number of factors such as administrative work or marking, as one of the interviewees suggests. The ‘type of school’ variable was analysed in isolation, as this might have a specific impact on the responses given by the teachers. Chi-square was used to verify this hypothesis. The Chi-square statistic was 2.875 and the P-Value was 0.089964. The result was not significant at p < 0.05, as seen in Table 5. This result refutes the suggestion that the type of school has an impact on teachers’ responses. Thus, it would be fair to suggest that teachers of English in Chile are given insufficient time to prepare and develop materials for use in the implementation of new English language teaching policies. This suggestion can also be supported by Wise (1997), who believes that policymakers expect too much from the end users of policies by setting inputs, processes and goals that are not immediately attainable. If these policies are ever to stand chance at successfully implementing CLT, then teachers need classroom hours to be reduced, with more time set aside to prepare CLT materials properly. 37 Results Agree Disagree Row Totals Public school 17 (13.53) [0.89] 9 (12.47) [0.96] 26 Semi-private school 21 (24.47) [0.49] 26 (22.53) [0.53] 47 Column Totals 38 35 73 (Grand Total) Table 5. Variable of type of school in relation to teacher’s time to implement CLT 4.3.2 Students and CLT A number of items in this category are directly related to Chilean students. The subjects surveyed also view the issues addressed in these questions as obstacles to implementing CLT. The greatest disagreement appears in response to question 2, which relates to students’ use of Spanish during CLT activities. A total of 86.5% of teachers stated that students use their mother tongue during communicative tasks. Teachers’ also expressed concern at having too many students in their classes, an issue raised in item 3. A total of 81.7% disagreed with the suggestion that a larger number of students per class facilitates CLT implementation. Moreover, 80.5% of respondents agree with item 1’s assertion that classroom discipline makes the implementation of the communicative approach difficult, as seen in Figure 5. A variety of responses was also found in item 13, which states that students prefer to be taught grammar and vocabulary over communication skills. Indeed, as much as 45.1% of the teachers questioned believe that their students would rather be taught linguistic structures over communication, as illustrated in Figure 6. 43,9% 36,6% 14,6% 3,7% Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Figure 5. Classroom discipline in my context makes the implementation of CLT more difficult. 38 42,7 30,5 14,6 Strongly agree 12,2 Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Figure 6. Students prefer being taught grammar and vocabulary to communication skills. Similar opinions could be found in the interviews. This reinforces the idea that students themselves may be an obstacle when it comes to implementing CLT. For example, Interviewee3 expressed the following when asked whether the number of students per class affected her use of CLT: “Of course. With students of 3rd and 4th year, I have only an hour and a half a week… so… if I tried to make them all speak, I would lose my whole time with that”. Interviewee1 also stated that “the number of students” posed a problem for CLT introduction in her classes. Similarly, when asked more generally about difficulties she faced when implementing CLT in Chile, she referred to student discipline: “Then, it’s difficult because CLT demands certain behaviour on the students’ side, but our culture is not very disciplined I would say.” In terms of students’ attitudes towards CLT as a language learning approach, Interviewee1 criticised her students’ disposition towards the communicative approach: “(…) they are not used to this approach, so, when you start, for example, making a warming up activity, so when for example you introduce a new topic, let’s say the unit of transport, and I start asking them questions about this, they don’t see this as part of the class.” 39 Interviewee2 also summarised this finding: Well, I also see another difficulty, but it is related to my students’ reaction, not my colleagues’ reaction, because some of them are learners who need structure, and when you give me space to communicate, to do some things that are open, and not so structured, they tend to get lost, and some of them tend to perceive that what they’re doing is not really important; they are not learning, they are not studying, they are not doing anything (…)”. 4.3.2.1 Discussion According to the opinions expressed in both questionnaires and interviews, teachers also view students as potential obstacles to the practice of CLT in Chile. To some extent, this echoes other findings (e.g. Rao, 2002; Savignon & Wang 2004), which revealed that Communicative Language Teaching was perceived differently by students, according to certain characteristics such as gender, age, learning style or educational level. This evidence suggests that, apart from reducing the number of students per classroom, a problem previously reported by McKay (2003), the student population in Chile needs to develop an attitude in line with the communicative approach as a language learning methodology. In order to determine whether the ‘type of school’ and ‘school level’ (primary or secondary) variables had any effect on the responses given, which I suspect may impact teachers’ answers, the independent responses of Item 13 (“Students prefer to be taught grammar and vocabulary.”) were analysed using Chi-square. For ‘type of school’, the Chi-square statistic and the P-Value were 1.0073 and 0.315547 respectively. The result was not significant at p < 0.05 (see Table 6), which does not support the hypothesis that the type of school would have any influence on the responses collected. Similarly, the results of the Chi-square analysis were not significant at p < 0.05 for the ‘school level’, whose Chi-square statistic was 0.0048 and P-Value 0.94449 (see Table 7). Having therefore refuted these variables, it would be appropriate to suggest that, in line with Rao (2002) and Savignon and Wang (2003), the successful introduction of Communicative Language Teaching is partly dependent on the students’ attitudes towards it. This is particularly challenging because as Moffit and Goldin (2007) state, the successful implementation of policies depends ultimately on their end beneficiaries, in this case students. This would 40 again suggest that in order to use CLT, a broader change in education is necessary, one that would not only consider the number of students, but also what they should expect from their English language lessons. Results Agree Disagree Row Totals Public school 14 (11.95) [0.35] 12 (14.05) [0.30] 26 Semi-private school 20 (22.05) [0.19] 28 (25.95) [0.16] 48 Column Totals 34 40 74 (Grand Total) Table 6. Variable of type of school in relation to students’ attitude towards CLT as a language learning approach Results Agree Disagree Row Totals Primary 12 (12.13) [0.00] 16 (15.87) [0.00] 28 Secondary 14 (13.87) [0.00] 18 (18.13) [0.00] 32 Column Totals 26 34 60 (Grand Total) Table 7. Variable of school level in relation to students’ attitude towards CLT as a language learning approach 4.3.3 Availability of resources Availability of resources for CLT implementation, such as school infrastructure and Information and Communication Technologies, is also regarded as a difficulty, an issue drawing a slightly greater divide in opinion amongst teachers. For example, in response to item 12, which relates to the appropriateness of a school’s infrastructure in relation to the practice of the communicative approach, 62.2% of teachers considered their own school’s infrastructure unsuitable. However, 36.6% of participants thought otherwise. Moreover, in response to item 5, which addresses the question of whether teachers have enough ICTs at hand to implement CLT, participants again expressed a plurality of views. Figure 7 shows just how polarised opinions were, with the exact same numbers of teachers agreeing and disagreeing with the statement; both answers reach 48.7%. Reinforcing the view that infrastructure is inappropriate, Interviewee3 expressed the following opinion on the difficulties she faced using CLT: 41 “Yes, lots! Also, there is the space in the classroom. I personally think it’s not well organized to practice the communicative skills… and it’s easier for the teacher just to hand in a worksheet and have the students working with that… with grammar, or reading texts or listening”. 4.3.3.1 Discussion As the above shows, teachers regarded their schools’ respective infrastructures and ICT’s as a hindrance to the successful practice of CLT. The type of school might explain the diversity of opinion on this point as public and semi-private institutions are assigned different resources by the State. To determine if this variable has any influence on the responses collected, Chi-square analysis was used. As Table 8 illustrates, the Chi-square statistic was 0.0683. The P-Value was 0.793803. The result was not significant at p < 0.05. These results would suggest that the distribution of resources intended for infrastructure and ICT’s depends less on the type of school and arguably more on each school’s organisation. Results Agree Disagree Row Totals Public school 13 (13.53) [0.02] 13 (12.47) [0.02] 26 Semi-private school 25 (24.47) [0.01] 22 (22.53) [0.01] 47 Column Totals 38 35 73 (Grand Total) Table 8. Variable of type of school and ICT’s teachers have to practice CLT. 40,2% 28,0% 20,7% 8,5% 2,4% Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly No response disagree Figure 7. I have sufficient ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) at hand to implement CLT. 42 43,9% 37,8% 14,6% 3,7% Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Figure 7. The large number of students facilitates the implementation of Communicative Language Teaching during my class. 4.4 Challenges associated with teachers’ background knowledge of CLT In comparison to the previous two categories, this group, which relates to teachers’ background knowledge of CLT, proved to be less remarkable. There were, however, a number of diverse and interesting answers in this classification, as seen in Table 9. Two particular items are widely regarded as challenges when introducing the communicative approach, namely the question of CLT effectiveness in the teachers’ particular context and the question of teachers’ workload that they believe to be connected with CLT. 4.4.1 Fluency versus accuracy A number of the items relating to the issue of fluency versus accuracy produced interesting data. In response to item 25, which addresses the question of whether being accurate is more important than being fluent in English, 76.9% of teachers surveyed disagreed. Similarly, though with a lower majority, 59.8% of teachers also disagreed with the suggestion that mastering language structure precedes communication (see item 23); the remaining 40.2% of participants believed otherwise. There are obvious comparisons to be drawn between these answers and those given in response to item 10, where 42.7% of participants agreed that it is important to correct their students’ mistakes as soon as they happen (see Figure 8). Similarly, in item 15, over one third (37.8%) expressed the view that they feel more comfortable teaching language structures than communication skills. 43 Nº Item 6 My communicative skills enable me to carry out communicative activities with my students. I need to correct my students’ mistakes as soon as they happen. 10 11 15 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 25 9 Agree Disagree 69 13 84.1% 15.9% 35 47 42.7% 57.3% Using students’ interests and experiences enhances language 79 3 learning. 96.4% 3.6% I feel more comfortable teaching language structures rather than 31 50 communication skills. 37.8% 60.9% Teaching CLT means not teaching grammar. 10 72 12.2% 87.8% Teaching CLT means teaching speaking only. 8 74 9.8% 90.2% Teaching CLT means pair work, which includes role-plays. 68 14 82.9% 17.1% Implementing CLT requires too much work for the teacher. 46 36 56.1% 43.9% CLT is effective for the context where I work. 31 51 40.3% 59.7% Mastering the language structure precedes communication. 33 49 40.2% 59.8% CLT is an ambiguous approach to language teaching. 21 61 25.6% 74.4% Being accurate is more important than being fluent in English. 19 63 23.1% 76.9% There is plenty of group/pair work in my classes. 45 36 54.9% 43.9% Table 9. Challenges associated with teachers’ background knowledge of CLT Qualitative evidence to support these findings can be found in Interviewee3’s comments that give weight to the idea that structures ought to be learnt before moving on to actual communication: “(…) well, I think that first you have to have a good basis of grammar, so we tend to keep on that, as teachers. I think it is like that in Chile in general. Teacher’s tend to keep with the grammar activities, rather than make the students speak or engage in communicative skills.” 44 41,5% 29,3% 15,9% 13,4% Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Figure 8. I need to correct my students' mistakes in English as soon as they happen. 4.4.1.1 Discussion As previously noted, teachers seem to demonstrate a certain inconsistency between what they believe and what they actually do. In some ways, this echoes Hiep’s investigation (2007). He reported that while teachers tend to hold certain beliefs about CLT, such as believing it to be an effective method of teaching a foreign language, they encounter a range of different obstacles that prevent them from successfully implementing it in practice. More particularly, these results reflect the findings proposed by Valdés and Jhones (1991), who reported that one of the difficulties encountered when introducing CLT in Cuba was the shift in the conception of error, as something to be avoided to something occurring naturally in second language acquisition. Suspecting that the ‘teachers’ educational level’ variable may alter the results of this item, I decided to analyse the individual responses of item 10 using Chi-square. The Chi-square statistic was 10.4481 and the P-Value of 0.001228. The result was significant at p < 0.05, which means that the ‘teachers’ educational level’ variable does indeed make the difference when it comes to error correction (see Table 9). In other words, the findings show that Chilean teachers who hold a bachelor’s degree (as opposed to those holding a master’s degree) tend to correct their students’ mistakes in English as soon as they happen. To explain this result, I would surmise that master’s level teachers are likely to be better informed about CLT procedures than those who only hold a bachelor’s degree. 45 Results Agree Disagree Row Totals Master's degree 1 (6.72) [4.86] 15 (9.28) [3.52] 16 Bachelor's degree 33 (27.28) [1.20] 32 (37.72) [0.87] 65 Column Totals 34 47 81 (Grand Total) Table 9. Variable of educational level and the correction of errors. 4.4.2 Resistance to group work A number of interesting responses were also collected from items related to group work. For example, in item 7, a majority of 82.9% of teachers agreed with the statement that roleplay exercises are commonly featured in pair work. This is not thought to present any kind of obstacle to the practice of CLT. However, item 13, which deals with actual presence of group or pair work during lesson time, reveals a substantial drop in the figures, with only 54.9% of participants agreeing that there is plenty of group or pair work during their lessons (see Figure 9). This leaves a sizeable amount of teachers (43.9%) responding that group or pair work plays only a minor role in their classes. Further evidence of group work was revealed when the teachers were also asked to give examples of communicative tasks, where half of participants cited ‘dialogues’: “Ok. Sometimes I make them create dialogues based on a topic, to get certain information or to do certain things”. (Interviewee 1) “Yes… I do it with dialogues mainly… with real situations like buying a ticket, or at a restaurant… or telling the time.” (Interviewee3) 45,1% 31,7% 12,2% 9,8% 1,2% Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly No response disagree Figure 9. There is plenty of pair/group work in my classes. 46 4.4.2.1 Discussion The results from questions regarding group work bring little in the way of new ideas. Originally investigated by Mckay (2003), group work remains an issue in Chile more than ten years later. She observed that English teachers in Chile tend to avoid group work, due to difficulties linked to large classes, such as students going off-task or discipline problems. Based on the evidence provided, we might speculate that teachers responding the questionnaire and interview may avoid using CLT for these very reasons. The information would suggest that in order promote the use of group or pair work, considered an essential element in the practice of the communicative approach, dramatic changes in Chilean education need to be seriously considered. For example, CLT would benefit from a review of the number of students per class. 4.4.3 CLT demands too much work for the teacher The questionnaire also included a series of misconceptions surrounding CLT, based on the findings of Thompson (1996), to which the teachers generally responded positively. For example, a majority of 87.7% disagree with item 16, which addresses the misconception that CLT does not teach grammar. Likewise, a total of 90.2% of participants disagree with item 17, which proposes that CLT means teaching speaking only. Item 19, however, revealed a much greater disparity in the responses. A total of 56.1% of the teachers agree with Thompson’s misconception that implementing CLT demands excessive amounts of work. In addition to this, 59.7% of participants went on to disagree with the idea that the communicative approach was effective within their respective contexts (see item 20). This opinion is illustrated in a comment made by Interviewee1, who argues: “So, for our country sometimes approaches that are related to a second language, are not the most appropriate to teach English, since students do not think they need English in the first place.” 47 40,2% 40,2% 15,9% 3,7% Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Figure 14. Implementing CLT requires too much work for the teacher. 4.4.3.1 Discussion The teachers participating in this study generally demonstrate a good understanding of the communicative approach. This can be clearly seen in their responses to the question posed in the introduction to this chapter, with 79.3% of all teachers correctly identifying what the communicative approach was. Similarly, they seem to give little credit to the misconceptions identified by Thompson (2006). There remains, however, a strong belief that CLT demands too much extra work for teachers. Suspecting that the educational degree of the participants, i.e. holding a master’s degree or a bachelor’s degree only, might affect their responses (since this may provide a better understanding of CLT), Chi-square was used (Table 11) to analyse the answers to item 19, which relates to misconceptions about teachers’ workload. Chi-square and P-Value were 0.3894 and 0.532603 correspondingly. The result was not significant at p < 0.05, which refutes the hypothesis that educational level has an impact on the belief that CLT generates an excessive workload for teachers. Similarly, as the stage of their careers may have an impact on teachers regarding this question (as suggested by Evans (1996)), I analysed the ‘years of experience’ variable. The chi-square statistic was 3.9619. The P-Value was 0.265603. The result is not significant at the same p-level (see table 12). It can therefore be said that teachers’ understanding of the amount of work required for CLT is dependant on each teacher’s own circumstances. For example those suggested by McLaughlin pointing out teacher’s will to use a new policy, also supported by Evans (1996, p.40) under the concept of ‘the culture of [policy] resistance’, or the cohort factor mentioned in chapter two. It can also be reasonable to 48 suggest that the processes of policy implementation prescribed by policymakers, those described by Wise (1997), make demands on teachers that are truly beyond their capabilities. Results Agree Disagree Row Totals Master's degree 10 (8.89) [0.14] 6 (7.11) [0.17] 16 Bachelor's degree 35 (36.11) [0.03] 30 (28.89) [0.04] 65 Column Totals 45 36 81 (Grand Total) Table 11. Variable of educational degree and the misconception of amount of work Results Agree Disagree Row Totals 5 or less 25 (29.17) [0.60] 27 (22.83) [0.76] 52 6-10 13 (10.66) [0.51] 6 (8.34) [0.66] 19 10-20 4 (2.80) [0.51] 1 (2.20) [0.65] 5 20 or more 4 (3.37) [0.12] 2 (2.63) [0.15] 6 Column Totals 46 36 82 (Grand Total) Table 12. Variable of years of experience and the misconception of amount of work. 49 Chapter Five Conclusion This study aimed at identifying the challenges faced by Chilean teachers of English when trying to introduce Communicative Language Teaching in their classrooms, as well as the sources of such challenges. In order to achieve these goals, a sample of 82 teachers working in public and semi-private schools were invited to fill out an online questionnaire that was intended to explore their perceived difficulties when using CLT in their contexts. Similarly, a group of four teachers participated in a semi-structured interview to complement the data found in the questionnaires. The methodology used in this study corresponded to a mixed methods approach. Analysis of the data collected by means of both instruments revealed that the challenges to introducing the communicative approach in Chile fall into three categories: those associated with English Language Teaching policies, those associated with CLT’s actual implementation and those associated with teachers’ own background knowledge of the communicative approach. In the ELT policy category, particularly salient are those issues associated with: the time required to complete the syllabus, as set out by the Chilean Ministry of Education; the presentation of English language teaching policies and the introduction of a standardised national test. It was suggested that the possible causes of these perceived difficulties might be rooted in problems related to the broader educational system affecting, for instance: the number of hours that teachers have; the amount of content they need to cover; jargon associated with CLT; possible resistance to the introduction of new educational policies and pressure from school administrators to attain high scores in national tests. In terms of actual classroom implementation of CLT, issues that were notoriously prominent related to: the time required for CLT use in classes and for preparation of CLT materials; the number of students in classes, together with their attitudes towards CLT as a language learning approach and finally, the lack of resources related to infrastructure and Information and Communication Technologies. One explanation to these problems is the fact that policymakers may set goals, procedures and inputs that demand too much from teachers and consequently students. Similarly, distribution of resources may be dependent on each school’s organisation rather than what is outlined in the educational polices. 50 Regarding the category of teachers’ own background knowledge of CLT, it was possible to identify: an incongruity between knowledge and practice in regards to error correction; a long-lasting resistance to group work by teachers and the misconception that the communicative approach demands too much from the teacher, together with the belief that CLT is not appropriate for the context of Chile. I suggest that the difficulties associated with error correction can be explained by teachers’ educational level since it has been statistically proven that teachers holding a master’s degree correct students’ mistakes less frequently than those holding only a bachelor’s degree. In the case of resistance to group work, I also propose that changes to the broader system of education might have an impact on its use by teachers as there is no evidence to suggest that the number of students per class has been reduced in Chile since McKay’s research in 2003. Much has been said about the communicative approach in different contexts in the last forty years and how it has either succeeded or failed in its application. However, this is not true for Chile. The ultimate goal of this study goes beyond merely identifying the difficulties that the implementation of a foreign language policy may encounter when practised by teachers of the language. These professionals may run into different constraints imposed by their own different contexts, which are not necessarily reported in this study. More important is better understanding the phenomenon of policy implementation in the context of Chile, as this can provide feedback for future educational innovations. For this reason, it is important to listen to the voice of the end users of the governmental classroom prescriptions, so that policies are better informed in regards to the Chilean context(s) and avoid replication of the same difficulties described in this piece of research or elsewhere. As with other studies, this investigation has not been free of limitations. Although the number of participants was 82, which is a reasonable number to make minor generalizations, a majority of 64% of respondents belonged to the group of 5-or less years of teaching experience. This is certainly a limitation to this study since the voice of those who know the system more profoundly could have provided more interesting insights. Only 13% of the studied population had more than 10 years of experience. I daresay that collecting data by means of an online questionnaire was key in determining a younger population of respondents, who are more likely to use online networks, as opposed to older respondents. 51 Another limitation to this study regards the writing of the questionnaire. Even though this was piloted, and proved to be useful for the purposes outlined in this investigation. I detected some minor wording issues only once I started analysing the results of the questionnaire. Similarly, my lack of experience in conducting interviews proved to be another flaw in the collection of data. I took notice of this in the fact that it was not possible to back up qualitatively information collected in the questionnaire. As Davis (1995) points out, there is always the risk of bringing the researcher’s own points of views or interpretations to the data collected. In this regard, I cannot claim that my research was free of bias. However, the procedures adopted and described in Chapter Three, may to some extent have prevented the existence of my own influences in this research. More importantly however is the influence that could have been present in the responses. Seymour (1990, cited in Evans, 1996, p.40) states ‘the strength of the status quo – its underlying axioms, its pattern of power relationships, its sense of tradition and therefore what seems right, natural, and proper – almost automatically rules out options for change’. Responses might therefore have reflected a degree of policy resistance. Together with answers to the questions I have drawn in the investigation, this study has revealed a number of areas open for future research in the context of Chile. For example, it would be interesting to find out Chilean students’ perceptions about the introduction of the communicative approach since they are the ultimate beneficiaries of new ELT policies. Similarly, this study could potentially encourage research to be conducted on adaptations to CLT determined by the particular context of implementation, especially those regarding EFL contexts, such as Latin America. In addition to this, the issue of incongruity between policies and materials provided by the Ministry of Education provides an interesting topic for future research. All in all, the implementation of a foreign language policy is rarely only about the language in question (Wright 2004). In this sense, teachers play a pivotal role in the implementation of new educational regulations. Hence, it is essential for the Chilean Ministry of Education to identify teachers’ perceptions about the difficulties in introducing a language teaching approach if Communicative Language Teaching is ever to stand a chance in the public and semi-private sectors of education. This study has listened to the voices of the end users of governmental guidelines in a way that can inform, in a bottom-up manner, about the 52 systemic constraints that may eventually impact the success or failure of this English language teaching innovation. (Wordcount 15,000) References De Améstica, C. (2013) ¡Oh my God! El fracaso de los planes para enseñar Inglés en los colegios y convertir a Chile en un país bilingüe. La Segunda. 14 August. Anderson, J. (1993) Is a communicative approach practical for teaching English in China? Pros and cons. System. 21 (4), 471–480. Atkinson, D. (1987) The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource? ELT Journal. 41 (4), 241–247. Ball, S. (1998) Big Policies/Small World: an introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education. 34 (2), 119–130. Bax, S. (2003) The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal. 57 (3), 278–287. Bell, L. & Stevenson, H. (2006) Education Policy: Porcess, Themes and Impact. Routledge. Blázquez, F. & Tagle, T. (2012) Formación docente: un estudio de las creencias de alumnos y profesores sobre el proceso de enseñanza y aprendizaje del inglés. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación. 54 (4), 1–12. Breen, M. & Candlin, C. (1980) The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics. 1 (2), 89–112. Burnaby, B. & Sun, Y. (1989) Chinese Teachers’ Views of Western Language Teaching: Context Informs Paradigms. TESOL Quarterly. 23 (2), 219–238. Canale, M. (1983) 'From ommunicative Competence to communicative language pedagogy1', in Jack C. Richards & Richard W. Schmidt (eds.) Language and communication. Applied linguistics and language study. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics. 1 (1), 1–47. Cohen, D. et al. (2007) Policy and practice: The dilemma. American Journal of Education. 113 (4), 515–548. Davis, K. (1995) Qualitative Theory and Methods in Applied Linguistics Research. TESOL Quarterly. 29 (3), 427–453. Dörnyei, Z. (2003) Questionnaires in second language research: construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, G. (1994) The appropriateness of the communicative approach in Vietnam: An interview study in intercultural communication. Unpublished master’s thesis thesis. Bundoora, Australia: La Trobe University. Evans, R. (1996) The human side of school change: reform, resistance, and the real-life problems of innovation. The Jossey-Bass education series. San Francisco: JosseyBass. 53 Gass, S. M. (1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Haddad, W. (1995) Education policy-planning process: an applied framework. Fundamentals of educational planning 51. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning. Hiep, P. H. (2007) Communicative language teaching: unity within diversity. ELT Journal. 61 (3), 193–201. Howatt, A. P. R. & Widdowson, H. G. (2004) A history of English language teaching. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Hu, G. (2002) Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language Culture and Curriculum. 15 (2), 93–105. Hymes, D. (1972) On communicative competence J.B Pride & Jane Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings. 269293269–293. Johnson, K. & Johnson, H. (1999) Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics: a handbook for language teaching. Oxford, UK; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers. Kachru, Y. (1985) Discourse analysis, non-native Englishes and second language acquisition research. World Englishes. 2 (4), 223–232. Li, D. (n.d.) ‘It’s Always More Difficult Than You Plan and Imagine’: Teacher’s Perceived Difficulties in Introducing the Communicative Approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly. 32 (4), 667–703. Long, M. (1996) 'The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition', in Handbook of second language acquisition. pp. 413–468. McKay, S. (2003) Teaching English as an international language: The Chilean context. ELT Journal. 57 (2), 139–148. McLaughlin, M. W. (1987) Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational evaluation and policy analysis. 9 (2), 171–178. MINEDUC (2013) BASES CURRICULARES: Idioma Extranjero Inglés. Mitchell, R. (1994) 'The communicative approach to language teaching', in Ann Swarbick (ed.) Teaching modern languages. New York: Routledge. pp. 33–42. Powney, J. & Watts, M. (1987) Interviewing in educational research. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Rao, Z. (2002) Chinese students’ perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. System. 30 (1), 85–105. Razmjoo, S. A. & Riazi, A. M. (2006) Is Communicative Language Teaching Practical in the Expanding Circle? A case Study of Teachers of Shiraz High Schools and Institutes. Journal of Language and Learning. 4 (2), 144–171. Richards, J. (2008) Second Language Teacher Education Today. RELC Journal. 39 (2), 158–177. Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (1985) 'Method: approach, design, and procedure', in The Context of Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Savignon, S. J. (1987) Communicative Language Teaching. Theory into Practice. 26 (4), 235–242. Savignon, S. J. & Wang, C. (2003) Communicative Language Teaching in EFL contexts: Learner attitudes and perceptions. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 41 (3), 223–250. 54 Swan, M. (1985a) A critical look at the communicative approach (1). ELT Journal. 39 (1), 2–12. Swan, M. (1985b) A critical look at the communicative approach (2). ELT Journal. 39 (2), 76–87. Thompson, G. (1996) Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal. 50 (1), 9–15. Valdés, A. & Jhones, A. (1991) Introduction of Communicative Language Teaching in Tourism in Cuba. TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA. 8 (2), 57– 63. Verma, G. K. & Mallick, K. (1999) Researching education perspectives and techniques. London; Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press. [online]. Available from: http://site.ebrary.com/id/10095035 (Accessed 9 July 2014). Wellington, J. J. (2000) Educational research: contemporary issues and practical approaches. London; New York: Continuum. Wilkins, D. (1972) 'Grammatical, Situational and Notinal Syllabuses', in 1972 Copenhagen: pp. 253–265. Wilkins, D. (1981) I Notional Syllabuses Revisited1. Applied Linguistics. 2 (1), 83–89. Wise, A. (1977) Why educational policies often fail: The hiperrationalization hypothesis. Journal of curriculum studies. 9 (1), 43–57. Wright, S. (2004) Language policy and language planning: from nationalism to globalisation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 55 APPENDIX 1 Information sheet INFORMATION SHEET FOR PARTICIPANTS REC Reference Number : KCL/13/14-531 YOU WILL BE GIVEN A COPY OF THIS INFORMATION SHEET Title of study: Challenges perceived by teachers in the implementation of Communicative Language Teaching in Chilean public schools. You and other teachers of English are being invited to take part in this research study as part of the completion of my MA in English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Before you decide if you want to take part, I suggest you read the following information sheet and discuss it with other teachers if you wish. Please, let me know if you have any questions and if you want to know more information about the study. Please, take your time to decide if you want to take part of it. What is the purpose of the study? This research will try to explore and identify the challenges perceived by English teachers in the implementation of communicative language teaching in the light of the new requirements of the Ministry of Education of Chile. It is important to know your perceptions in the implementation of such language policies to help improve current practices. Why have I been invited to take part? You have been invited to take part in this study, as you are currently working in the public sector of compulsory education in Chile and from that position you can provide evidence of the current challenges that might affect the implementation of the governmental requirements. The challenges that I am interested in exploring deal with language teaching methodologies, classroom conditions and practices, and your personal perceptions of communicative language teaching. For this reason, I would like you to take part of this research. What will happen to me if I take part? If you decide to take part in this research, you will be asked to answer an on-line questionnaire, which should take about 10 minutes to be answered, and whose link I will send to you via e-mail. If you are willing, you can take part in a follow-up interview via Skype, which should last no more than 30 minutes. Such interview will be carried out at any time convenient for you, before 15th July, 2014, in a place of your choice as it will be via Skype. I will contact you to agree a time that is convenient for you. The interview will be audio recorded in order to be transcribed if you grant me permission. The completion of the questionnaire implies consent to participation and once you have submitted it, you will not be able to withdraw your data, as it is anonymous. If you decide to participate in the interview, you will be required to fill in a consent letter, and will able to withdraw your information without giving a reason until 20th July, 2014, date when I will proceed to transcribe the interviews. Your identification will remain secure and the information you provide will be used only to do this research. 56 What are the possible risks of taking part? Taking part of this research will not involve any personal risk as you do not have to provide any personal information to complete the questionnaire. If you decide to participate in the interview, your name will remain secret and the information will be used only for the research purposes. In the final report pseudonyms will be used, so that no individual will be identifiable. Will my taking part be kept confidential? Yes, all the personal information you provide will remain confidential, and will be destroyed after the final report has been approved. How is the project being funded? The researcher funds this project. What will happen to the results of the study? The results of the questionnaire will be pooled with other participants’ responses. After that, they will be analysed quantitatively. The results of the interview will be analysed qualitatively using Discourse Analysis in order to further explain the results of the study. The results will be presented as a post-graduate dissertation. You are welcome to ask for a copy of the final result. Who should I contact for further information? If you have any questions or require more information about this study, please contact me using the following contact details: Luis Carabantes Leal luis.carabantes@kcl.ac.uk What if I have further questions, or if something goes wrong? If this study has harmed you in any way or if you wish to make a complaint about the conduct of the study you can contact King's College London using the details below for further advice and information: Supervisor’s name: Dr. Jo Lewkowicz Department address: Department of Education and Professional Studies, Stamford Street London SE1 9NH Email: jo.lewkowicz@kcl.ac.uk Thank you for reading this information sheet and for considering taking part in this research. 57 APPENDIX 2 Consent letter CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH STUDIES Please complete this form after you have read the Information Sheet and/or listened to an explanation about the research. Title of Study: Challenges perceived by teachers in the implementation of Communicative Language Teaching in Chilean public schools. King’s College Research Ethics Committee Ref: KCL/13/14-531 Thank you for considering taking part in this research. The person organising the research must explain the project to you before you agree to take part. If you have any questions arising from the Information Sheet or explanation already given to you, please ask the researcher before you decide whether to join in. You will be given a copy of this Consent Form to keep and refer to at any time. I confirm that I understand that by ticking/initialling each box I am consenting to this element of the study. I understand that it will be assumed that unticked/initialled boxes mean that I DO NOT consent to that part of the study. I understand that by not giving consent for any one element I may be deemed ineligible for the study. Please tick or initial Please tick or initial 1. *I confirm that I have read and understood the information sheet dated KCL/13/14-531 for the above study. I have had the opportunity to consider the information and asked questions which have been answered satisfactorily. 2. *I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving any reason. Furthermore, I understand that I will be able to withdraw my data up to July 20th, 2014. 3. *I consent to the processing of my personal information for the purposes explained to me. I understand that such information will be handled in accordance with the terms of the UK Data Protection Act 1998. 4. *I understand that my information may be subject to review by responsible individuals from the College for monitoring and audit purposes. 5. I understand that confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained and it will not be possible to identify me in any publications. 6. I agree to be contacted in the future by King’s College London researchers who would like to invite me to participate in follow up studies to this project, or in future studies of a similar nature. 58 7. I agree that the research team may use my data for future research and understand that any such use of identifiable data would be reviewed and approved by a research ethics committee. (In such cases, as with this project, data would/would not be identifiable in any report). 8. I understand that the information I have submitted will be published as a report and I wish to receive a copy of it. 9. I consent to my interview being audio recorded. 10. I understand that I must not take part if I fall under the exclusion criteria as detailed in the information sheet and explained to me by the researcher. __________________ Name of Participant __________________ Date _________________ Signature 59 APPENDIX 3 I. Questionnaire Background information: 1. What is your gender? a) Male b)Female 2. How many years have you taught English? a) 5 or less b) 6‐10 c) 10‐20 d) More than 20 3. What is your highest degree of Education? a) Bachelors degree b) Master’s degree c) PhD d) Others (please, specify) ____ 4. If Have you taken any language examinations other than those at university? (e.g. IELTS, TOEFL) ____________________ 5. What type of school are you currently working at? a) Public b) Subsidised 6. What level are you currently teaching at? a) Primary b) Secondary c) Both 7. Where did you first hear about Communicative Language Teaching (Please, check all that apply) a) During my teacher training programme b) At seminars, workshops or conferences given by universities c) At seminars, workshops or conferences given by the MINEDUC d) Other teachers in the school where I work use CLT e) School administrators or UTP f) I read about it in the language policies of the MINEDUC h) Others (please, specify) ________________ 60 8. Please check the statement that best describes you in relation to Communicative Language Teaching. (_) I am totally unfamiliar to CLT. (_) I have heard of CLT, but I have never used it. (_) I understand some basic principles of CLT. (_) I understand CLT, but I do not use it. (_) I understand it very well, and I use it comfortably. 9. What do you understand by Communicative Language Teaching? a) An approach to language teaching where learning a language successfully involves communication rather than just memorising a series of rules. b) A specific method of teaching language communicatively based on the principle that language is learned by means of interaction like role‐plays, and the like. c) An approach to language teaching where grammar has no relevance and where communication is the only focus. 61 Please, circle the number that corresponds to your degree of agreement with the statements listed below. (4) Strongly agree (3) Agree (2) Disagree (1) Strongly disagree 1. Classroom discipline in my context makes the implementation of CLT more difficult. 4 3 2 1 2. Students use a lot of Spanish during communicative tasks. 4 3 2 1 3. The large number of students facilitates the implementation of Communicative Language Teaching during my class. 4 3 2 1 4. The materials (books, audio, etc.) provided by the MINEDUC facilitate the use of CLT. I have sufficient ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) at hand to implement CLT. My communicative skills enable me to carry out communicative activities with my students. The introduction of SIMCE by the MINEDUC has affected the implementation of CLT. I have plenty of time to prepare materials that are useful to implement CLT. There is plenty of pair/group work in my classes. 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 10. I need to correct my students’ mistakes in English as soon as they happen. 11. Using students’ interests and experiences enhances language learning. 12. The school infrastructure (classroom size, labs, etc.) is appropriate to carry out CLT. 13. Students prefer to be taught grammar and vocabulary over communication skills. 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 14. There is little time to implement CLT. 4 3 2 1 15. I feel more comfortable teaching language structures rather than communication skills. 4 3 2 1 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 62 Please, circle the number that corresponds to your degree of agreement with the statements listed below. (4) Strongly agree (3) Agree (2) Disagree (1) Strongly disagree 16. Teaching CLT means not teaching grammar. 4 3 2 1 17. Teaching CLT means teaching speaking only. 4 3 2 1 18. Teaching CLT means pair work, which includes role‐plays. 4 3 2 1 19. Implementing CLT requires too much work for the teacher. 4 3 2 1 20. CLT is effective for the context where I work. 4 3 2 1 21. The use of CLT allows me to satisfy the syllabus required by the MINEDUC. 22. There are many opportunities for the students to communicate in English outside the classroom. 23. Mastering the language structures precedes communication. 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 24. CLT is an ambiguous approach to language teaching. 4 3 2 1 25. Being accurate is more important than being fluent in English. 4 3 2 1 26. There is congruence between the MINEDUC’s curriculum and teaching materials (textbooks, audio, etc.) 27. The Chilean English language policies are clear. 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 28. There is good access to the English language policies. 4 3 2 1 29. The English language curriculum is easy to cover in the time given by the MINEDUC. 30. The MINEDUC provides enough opportunities for teacher development so I get more familiar with CLT and its application. 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 63 APPENDIX 4 Semi-structured interview schedule • Salutation Ask for personal information to set the tone and create initial rapport: • What type of school do you work at? Begin interview by explaining purpose of study: Person’s name, the purpose of this research is to find out your perceptions on the difficulties to introduce the communicative approach in your classes. Ask the following questions: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Generally speaking… what do you think about the introduction of CLT in the Chilean context? Is it easy? Difficult? What difficulties do you perceive to introduce it? What does it mean to you to use CLT? Do you use CLT? If so… Can you mention some examples of activities that you have used lately? How effective do you think CLT for the context where you teach? Can you describe your teacher training programme in terms of CLT? How much relevance did it have among other approaches to ELT? How much English do you use to teach your lessons? Do you use your students’ interests and experiences? If so, how? Can you give examples of last term? How important is grammar in your classes? How often do you teach it? Why? How often do you teach speaking? Can you give examples of activities to develop speaking? Why do you teach it? How do you put into practice that being fluent is more important than being accurate? How do you think the use of CLT prevents from completing in time the syllabus set by the Ministry of Education? How does the outside school environment promote or prevent the use of CLT? What do you think of the ELT policies? Are they appropriate or inappropriate for the Chilean reality? In terms of policies. Who decides how you go about using CLT? To what extent do you abide/ follow the Ministry of Education’s policies of ELT? How do your students receive CLT? Do you think the Ministry considers teachers’ opinions to introduce ELT policies? Is there anything else you would like to add? Closing 64 APPENDIX 5 Interview Nº1 Interviewee1 Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Hello, XXXX. How are you doing? I’m fine thanks, and you? I’m all right, thanks. So… how’s school? Yeah, it’s fine. There was a lot of work, but thanks god, it’s over and now I’m resting. So, XXXX. The purpose of this interview is to research the perceptions of the teachers that.. erm… what difficulties they perceive in the introduction of CLT in the Chilean context, especially in public and semi‐ private schools. So, you work in a semi‐private school, right? Yes, that’s right. All right. Then, let me ask you the first question. Generally speaking, what do you think about the introduction of CLT in the Chilean context? Do you think it’s difficult, easy? Or what difficulties do you perceive? If any. Well, I think that certainly, it’s not an easy issue in teaching English in Chile because first of all, CLT was created, as many other English teaching approaches, they are created in contexts where English is the L2. Or it’s a second language, not a foreign language. So, for our country sometimes approaches that are related to a second language, are not the most appropriate to teach English, since students do not think they need English in the first place. So that’s a big big problem. Then, it’s difficult because CLT demands certain behaviour on the students’ side, but our culture is not very disciplined I would say. And then, it demands for teachers to know about CLT and CLT is a very abstract concept. There are many definitions of CLT, so sometimes the Chilean policies don’t give, like an exact line of work concerning CLT. So teachers don’t know what the government expects from them. That’s my opinion. So, that’s your opinion. So, the difficulties that you perceive are a cultural pre‐disposition from the students, also the origins of CLT being in contexts of second language learning. Yeah, CLT is made for second language teaching, not foreign language teaching. I mean, none of the approaches are made for foreign language teaching. So, sometimes they don’t accomplish, or they don’t count on different ways of being, and they don’t consider that the countries may affect the appropriateness of the approach. All right, and in the school where you teach. Can you describe the specific context where you teach? The specific context where you are working. My school is a very big school in the area of Araucania in Chile where, as you may know, most people speak Spanish. We have almost three 65 Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: thousand students. There are like one hundred teachers. And we have students coming from many different contexts. Some of them have a very high level of English. Some others have never been taught English. So you have these mixed students in the class, and classes are of about 45 students and we have like between 3 or 4 hours of English a week. Ok, and do you use CLT in your classes? Well, erm... the Chilean policies from the government establish that we should use, that we must use CLT, however, at school, erm… the teachers that have been working for a longer time have created a kind of book, which I wouldn’t call book, I would rather call it ‘compilation of material’ because they are not methodologists, so they don’t know how to make a book. It doesn’t follow a line of work, a clear line of work, not for teachers, neither for students. And it’s more like a collection of different reading texts, grammar explanations or grammar exercises and it’s mainly oriented to reading comprehension and grammar. So, it’s not very helpful when you want to use CLT. Having said this, I try to use CLT in the classroom, trying to use the spoken language as much as we can, and trying to relate their experiences with the new subject. But sometimes it becomes really difficult to do this. So, you see as a difficulty to introduce CLT the fact that the materials you have to use are grammar based, and they do not point towards the development of the communicative competence. Is that right? Yes, that is one problem, and then the number of students in class, and then I would say, they are not used to this approach, so, when you start, for example, making a warming up activity, so when for example you introduce a new topic, let’s say the unit of transport, and I start asking them questions about this, they don’t see this as part of the class. And they start talking, or doing things that are not part of the development of the class, so, sometimes it takes a lot of time and you cannot do the class properly. So, that is like what you were saying before. The students’ behaviour does not really help, and also the materials are not appropriate for CLT, so now we have like two difficulties. Well, you were saying that you were trying to introduce CLT in your classes by speaking a lot and maybe providing input to the students and so on. Can you give me other examples of CLT activities that you do in your classes. Ok. Sometimes I make them create dialogues based on a topic, to get certain information or to do certain things. Well, also, my believe of CLT, according to what I’ve read, is that you help students learn through their previous experiences by given them a communicative reason to do the activity, but also, you can reinforce grammar. For me, CLT is not just communicative skills and just talk as you want or write as you want, because I think that they need to know, not as teachers of course, but they need to know a bit of grammar. So, also, reinforcement of a certain content but always based on communicative grounds. For example, I 66 wouldn’t make them do these exercises ‘complete the sentences’, rather I’d make them do a dialogue, and complete the dialogue, or a short story, and complete the short story, or things like that. Erm... I don’t know what else. Interviewer: That’s all right. Well, I’m going to change the subject a little bit. I would like to learn about your teacher training, your BA. What do you remember of CLT from there? I mean, did you have a good foundation of CLT in your BA? Interviewee: Well, I think that at university we were taught that CLT doesn’t have to teach grammar, doesn’t have to focus on grammar, rather on fluency, but I don’t think it was very clear for me at that point, because mostly we just reviewed some books, and we weren’t given information about all the authors that were involved in CLT, or all the things that you could do, just a shadow of CLT. But of course, the program was focused on CLT. Interviewer: So, it was very superficial in that sense. Interviewee: Yeah, but it was the kind of methodology that we had to do. We were encouraged to use it. Interviewer: Ok, so they didn’t teach you, or provide you with enough theory or foundation of CLT. Interviewee: Yeah, I think so, and also I have to say that some other teachers were more eclectic, and they said that we had to use what worked in the class, because, as you know, CLT does not work in class or, at least, not all the time. Interviewer: All right. So in terms of other approaches, was it more relevant than for example audio‐lingualism or PPP or Grammar translation? Interviewee: I think the audio‐lingual method is kind of the most used today in general terms in Chile. And grammar translation, some teachers still use grammar translation. Interviewer: Well, for what you were saying about the book, it sounds like it’s very frequent that they use grammar translation. Interviewee: Yes, some of the exercises. But then we have general tests that are made for all the classes, for first graders, second graders, and these tests are really grammar‐oriented, grammar and vocabulary‐oriented. Interviewer: Ok, so and that also influences the way and what you have to teach, right? Interviewee: Yeah, of course. Interviewer: Another question. When you plan your lessons, do you occasionally introduce or use your students’ interests to plan or to design your lessons. Interviewee: Yes, I don’t make like a survey, but according to their age, or what they watch on TV, I try to use that information to be more updated in topics that are of their interest. Interviewer: Can you give me an example? Interviewee: Like music, One Direction or Justin Bieber, or I don’t know, or sometimes for example the World Cup, stuff like that. 67 Interviewer: And could you give me an example of last term? Interviewee: That we used topics of their interest? Interviewer: Yeah, anything of their interest or motivation. Interviewee: Yeah, for example, in 2nd grade, these are like year 10 students. We were taking Past Simple, that was the content of the book, but they had to write a piece of news in past. They chose the topic they wanted to write about, and also, they had to tell it as in a news report, and they had to choose the topic. So, if they chose music, they chose the band and the information. So, I just wanted them to use Past Simple and adjectives. Interviewer: Good… that’s nice. And, moving to another topic. In your context, in your particular context, who decides how you go about using CLT? Is it a sort of command that comes from the ministry or something they ask you to do at UTP, or the head of the department, or it’s just up to you? Interviewee: Well, as far as I know, the new teaching English programs from the government are CLT oriented, CLT and task‐based. And we are supposed to do that, because we follow the regulations of the government. But in reality, nobody checks that in our country, so, if I wanted students to just translate, and do grammar translation, I could do that, nobody would realize. And, at school they don’t check that. The only thing that I could say, is related to us using CLT is that students do an international examination, which was a KET from Cambridge, the year before last. But even though the government asks for CLT and communicative skills, they only test reading and grammar. They don’t test writing, and they don’t test speaking. Interviewer: So, there’s a mismatch between what they want and the way they are assessing. Interviewee: Certainly, nobody knows what they want, and you just do what you want. That’s the truth. Interviewer: All right. So, you mentioned the introduction of this test. Do you think the introduction of it promotes CLT or is it another obstacle to it? Interviewee: I would say that since so many teachers, like traditional teachers, when I say traditional teachers I mean, teachers that graduated maybe, more than ten years ago or maybe more, that are in the educational system. They don’t know what CLT is. So, they just do what they’ve always done, and it’s completely understandable I think, because when you have no clear guidelines or what you should do. What are you going to do but what you’ve always done and works for you. Of course, now we need other things for students to develop but I think the government or the ministry of education hasn’t realized that they need to train teachers in order to make them use CLT as they want, because I think the ministry of education doesn’t know what they want either. Interviewer: So, in your experience, have you had any chance of teacher development? I mean, are there possibilities for teachers to get trained in CLT? Interviewee: No, I mean. Everything you do, you have to do it on your own, like for example IATEFL or stuff like that, you have to pay for those. Or if you wanna read, or do research. I think they have a program, but it’s for 68 teachers to teach among themselves, which I don’t think it’s a good thing because if you wanna learn, you have to learn from people who know about the topic. Interviewer: Oh, Ok. So it’s a sort of cycle where you teach me how you do it, but you don’t really know it, so I actually learn nothing, and if I do it, it’s not right. So… good, and have you heard lately of any programs for teacher development, maybe in the winter vacations or stuff like that. Interviewee: No, no. Interviewer: Ok. So, maybe that’s another problem that there is in introducing CLT. Interviewee: Yes, yes. And also, I would like to add something. The books that are provided by the ministry of education are not CLT oriented either. I mean, they are kind of, but they are much more grammar oriented, or they use the audiolingual method, which is also not in concordance with what the programs say. Interviewer: Ok, good. I have a couple of other questions. You said that Chile is a country where English is a foreign language, and since all these CLT foundations are L2 oriented. Do you think that maybe an adaptation of CLT to your own context would promote language learning in a communicative manner? Interviewee: Certainly, I think that’s what the government should do. The government should take some ideas from CLT but they should adapt it to our context. Interviewer: So, it’s like they just brought a recipe from abroad and they try to make it work here. Interviewee: Exactly, and I don’t think it’s working. I mean, how many years of many changes in the English teaching policies have we had, and we haven’t had any results yet. And there’s a lot of money being invested every year, but no results at all. Interviewer: All right, well. I think this is the end of the interview, is there anything else, maybe a last reflexion on the introduction of CLT. How difficult it’s been for you. Interviewee: Well, I think that CLT is good. And that it has to be adapted to the context. And I think that teachers really want to do the right thing, but they should know what to do. And they don’t know now, not because they don’t want to but because they haven’t been told exactly what is that the government wants from them. Interviewer: I think this last thing is interesting, because you are mentioning that basically the communication between the ministry of education and the teachers is not so good. Were you given officially the policies or were you told about the policies officially, let’s say from UTP or from your head of department or is it just you? Interviewee: Haha. No, they are online. They are available for everybody, and I think that a couple of hard copies arrived, but the head of the department never said. Let’s read this. You should read about this because this is the way we are gonna work now. Nothing. They are available online, and everything is written but nothing like that. 69 Interviewer: So, maybe even if you use CLT then, it’s going to be very different from the way other teachers use it in the same school, if they use it. Interviewee: Yes, of course. It might be. We don’t know because it depends on the concept we have. As I said before, there are many definitions of CLT. So, from the beginning it’s not very clear, and now we don’t know what approach the government has told them, which of all the twenty? So yeah, of course, people might be doing different things but it’s also CLT, you know. Interviewer: And, do you think that CLT could work in your school if teachers in your school agreed ‘this is CLT’ and put it into practice? Interviewee: Yes, I would say it’s much more helpful for students and for us, because we would be in an agreement of doing things, going in the same direction, you know. Being on the same boat. Interviewer: Yes, well. All right. I think this is the end of the interview. It’s almost 30 minutes. Thank you very much XXXX for answering my questions. Interviewee: You’re welcome. 70 APPENDIX 6 Interview Nº 2 Interviewee2 Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Good evening, XXXX! Good evening! How are you doing? Fine, thanks. Well, to begin. How’s the school? Is there a lot of work to do? Are you on holidays, now? Well, actually I’m on holidays right now, so last week I had a lot of work to do. Many things to be done, but today is my first free day, or my first day off. So, this has been a busy day, but in a different way. Oh.. very well. So, XXXX I’m going to explain the purpose of the interview, which is to find out the difficulties that teachers perceive in introducing Communicative Language Teaching, or CLT in public or semi‐private schools in Chile. So, do you have any questions about that? Erm…. No, I’ll be glad to collaborate in this research, and I would like to see the results, and to see what you have found because I’m really curious about updated research. Ok, thank you. Sure, no problem. Well, I’m going to begin with a very general question. What do you think about the introduction of CLT in the Chilean context? Is it difficult? Or what difficulties do you perceive, if any, in introducing CLT in Chile? Well, I perceive it with a kind of... erm… what’s the word… reluctance. Not on my own, because I’m the kind of person who is eager to try new things, and then see if they work or if they don’t. But if I think in general terms, in my context, I would say that my colleagues and students themselves look a little bit afraid of trying this new approach. All right, and could you give me an example where you see that your colleagues are afraid or reluctant to introduce CLT, or what have they told you, for example? Well, I’ve hear that it is quite time consuming, and that if you teach your students a lot of grammar, and you make them practice with drills or many written exercises, and then if they are in a situation where they need to apply all this, and they need to talk and interact, they will immediately do it, but if you start practicing the language in the classroom, you will run out of time, and you will have nothing in your hands. They will have no structure, no vocabulary. They will just find a new way to have fun and to enjoy their time doing anything else apart from learning the language. That’s what I’ve heard. And, have you had any of those difficulties in your own experience? Well, I have to say, that I haven’t applied the CLT method a hundred per cent in my classes. I usually do a kind of mixture. So, I try to have some practice, some things that are not so communicative but I’ve also included communicative activities among my students. So, I would say 71 Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: that if I run out of time, I also try to keep some balance by introducing some written exercises or some homework, or some assignments, some things to be done at home. So, I try to have them both. I can’t say that I have tried to use CLT on its own and that it has worked. I must say that I have introduced some of it, and it has worked so far. So, I understand that teaching form is as relevant as teaching function? Yes! I wouldn’t say that one is more important than the other. I would say that, for instance, I have had some of my students having very good structures and forms, but they do not know, or don’t feel comfortable using them. And I have had some of my students who are very eager to speak or to communicate, but that are very weak in the forms they use. So I think that none of them is the ideal. I think that we need both. We need the structure, the form. And also, we need to be, or we need to feel comfortable using the language. Hm… interesting. I have another question that can lead us deeper into what you have just said. So… how do you put into practice that being fluent is more important than being accurate? For instance, when I have some speaking exercises, mostly speaking exercises, you need to have a kind of warm‐up activity, and I ask my students, for instance, I can remember one of the readings we had about a brad camp, which is a special place for revel teenagers, and we read that, we worked on that reading, but then the next class as a warm‐up activity, reviewing what we had read the class before that, I asked my students a their opinions, so they already have vocabulary, structures and things to convey their ideas. But even though they make some mistakes, I do not go into correcting them, because I wanted them to become fluent and comfortable just making their points, you see. But also, it gave me an idea of how deep those structures are in their own… in their own… I don’t know how to say, if they had been able to acquire them or not. If they could remember that the next class, then it meant that it was good and successful. And if not, at least as they were into the topic, I let them say what they wanted to say. I don’t know if I’m clear in that? Yeah… so basically, what you were saying before, that… you have the feeling or sensation that your students did not learn something concrete. They could communicate, but you need a more concrete proof of their learning. Yes, that’s what I meant, thank you! Ok.. that’s very good, interesting. And can you give me other examples of activities that you have done with your students that are communicative? Well, I also remember once when I wanted them to write a very informal email talking to a friend replying to a kind of hello note, just a very simple message. And I remember I had an email from a friend I have in Toronto, Canada, and I showed that to them, very few lines, and of course my friend finished his email to me with some common 72 questions about the weather, my family and the like. So I asked my students to send their replies as if they were me, and as if my friend were asking them about their family, the weather in Temuco, and things like those. So, all of them wrote their replies and then it was my turn to read them, and I also asked them to interchange or switch their emails with their own classmates and partners, and unfortunately, I did not have the chance to ask my friend to receive all these emails, and that could’ve been a very… and authentic communicative way to demonstrate that they were able to make their points and to get across their message. But I’m afraid that my friend doesn’t know that he is being one of my (…) in my class, he has no idea that his email is being read in my class. I think this is not very professional (laughs). Well, but I sometimes tell him that I use some of the things he sends me to teach my students. And that’s another thing I did with them. (laughs) Interviewer: Oh.. yeah.. that’s actually very communicative. There are some ethical concerns, but.. yes.. haha. Interviewee: oh.. yes… hahahaha! But all for the sake of the communicative approach. Interviewer: Yes! Very good. For the sake of communication. Well, I’m going to change the subject a little bit, and I would like to learn about your CLT background in terms of… well.. you probably heard about it for the first time in your… Interviewee: Undergraduate.. yes. Interviewer: And, how important was it by then, when you were taught the communicative approach? I mean.. were you well trained in CLT? Interviewee: Mm… well.. I can remember I read a lot about that… and then about the experiences in other countries, and I had some opportunities to see it in practice. But the context when I saw it into practice was at college, when I was a college student, so the context to see that was very different from the context where I had to put it into practice. Interviewer: Sorry, do you mean at the university, at college, right? Interviewee: Yes! So, it’s different because our classes were a hundred per cent in English. We interacted with out professors and classmates, and we did everything in English because… I don’t know… because we were forced to… we had to. But then when you go to your classrooms as a teacher, the thing is different because you have only two hours, three hours per week we want students speaking English. I mean when you are at university level, you have far more hours per week, at least my three first years I had a hundred per cent English in all of my courses. So, it was far different from teaching at a high school level or any school level, you see so I could read about it, I could see some samples, not all my classes were communicatively oriented, but they introduced many communicative activities, which then I could not introduce in my own classroom practices because conditions were very different, but if you just ask me if I knew or if I heard about it, I need to be honest and say… yes, I did. 73 Interviewer: And was the communicative approach more relevant than other approaches? Interviewee: Yeah.. I would say so. I mean, I remember one of my professors in particular, and yes, she told us how important this paradigm was being, but on the other hand, some of the other professors still had the grammar oriented approaches, if not in their theories, at least in their practices. I think I was a witness in the change of the paradigm. I was in the generation that received those latest news. Interviewer: That’s interesting, because many years later, not so many, when I studied, I was told how important it was to use CLT instead of other approaches. So, you’re right, there’s been a transition in the teacher training as you say it. Interviewee: Yes, remember that I entered college in 1986, and I finished in 1991 or 1992, because I also took a bachelor’s degree, so, that was the year when this approach was becoming more and more important in our professors’ practices. Interviewer: Well, you are also currently working at a university (in a teacher training program), and do you see that CLT is relevant? Interviewee: Yes, it is. At least we know that the idea is to come closer to a more authentic use of the language, so we try to provide instances where students feel comfortable using it. Well, there is also a difference from the years when I was a student. Now you have a virtual global community, that I didn’t have at the time when I was a student, so now you have more interaction with this digital world where you can also lead your students to have more instances or opportunities to use the language, at least if not in a hundred per cent communicative way, at least more than before. Interviewer: All right, so today there is a difference in terms of how relevant CLT is than what it used to be in teacher training. So, well… I’m going to change the topic again, and I would like to speak about the interests and experiences of the students in the public or semi‐private schools. When you plan your lessons, or design materials, or prepare your classes do you consider the interests and experiences of the students? Interviewee: Yeah… most of the time. Not always, sometimes I just want to cover what there is in the syllabus and I don’t mind my students interests or background, but I also try to give at least once a month, I don’t know… let’s say once in a while… I give the chance to my students to decide what their interests are. For instance, if I want to talk English speaking countries, I remember a project I planned for them, they could decide what country they wanted to study or to speak about or search for. Or if they wanted to speak about sports played in that country or about the geography in that country or currency in that country. Or if we are going to speak about animals, yeah… I try to consider them. But I can’t say that it’s always like that. Interviewer: Ok.. so why not always, do you think? 74 Interviewee: Well, because sometimes I feel that I need to cover what comes from the Ministry, and if I have to speak about some things that are related to… I don’t know… advertising, or daily routines for instance. If I have to speak about daily routines or the use of present simple, I cannot give them much freedom, it’s just… let’s just speak about what you do everyday, and maybe they are not interested in speaking about what they do everyday, I mean, they would prefer to speak about their favourite singer or… that’s why I said that sometimes I just follow what I need to cover, what I need to do, because I need to teach that, and sometimes I’m more open, and I say… well… if I need to cover the present continuous, and we need to plan an agenda, and we need to see the use of present continuous for future, and well… let’s plan anything, let’s plan something… and sometimes I give more space or more opportunities. Interviewer: Oh… well… and speaking of syllabus. From where do you get the syllabus? Interviewee: From where? Well, in every school you have a kind of official document, or if you want to download it from the internet, you have the syllabus that the ministry of education issues for us with the general guidelines for every school in our country. So, it’s just a matter of going to the ministry of education website and download it from there. Interviewer: Well… recently, the Ministry of Education launched a very strong policy of CLT to teach English in Chile. And were you told about that by the pedagogical manager or the UTP or the principal, or anyone, or any authority in the school or maybe the Ministry of Education. Did you get informed by them, or was it just on your own? Interviewee: Erm.. no, I did not receive official information. I wouldn’t say that those in charge of running the school, have an idea of what CLT is. They just tell you what the Ministry has in those papers for you, I don’t know because this is a foreign language and they do not speak English, they don’t feel in a position to tell you what to do because it’s like foreign language so you are the one who knows, so just read that and do what the Ministry is asking you to do. And now that we have international… these standardized tests, sometimes they ask us to have good results, but how to get there is a matter of you, as a teacher. If your students need training, they ask you what is going to be needed because the school needs to have a high score or a good performance in those evaluations, but I wouldn’t say they know what CLT is, or how to get to those results is something that is out of their hands. Interviewer: Hm… interesting… and do you see the incorporation of these tests as something that actually promotes CLT or another obstacle to it? Interviewee: That’s a very good questions (laughs). That’s a very good question because the incorporation of this evaluation has its pros, which are that you are more conscious that results are important, that what you are doing is going to be tested, and so, it’s not a matter of your opinion, but it’s a matter of whether your students are getting into the point where 75 Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: they have to be at the level that they have to be in a certain year. But on the other hand, sometimes we become trainers for a standardized test, and we miss the opportunity to enact or foster some other aspects of the language, so, you may feel tempted to prefer a more grammar or a more traditional approach, let’s say, and you feel less motivated to try new things because you may be running against time and you may feel that pressure on you that results are going to measure what you have done with your students, so it’s kind of tricky, we have to be careful the way we are going to understand these evaluations. Ok… so it has its pros and its cons. Hm… that’s the way I see it. It’s a temptation to go and train students just to answer standardized tests and forget that speaking a language, or the management of a language is more than answering a test. Ok … and could you tell me about how not only you implement CLT, but is there a sort of agreement in the school about how to use CLT, or what you believe CLT is, and do the other teachers agree with that and you can have the same direction. Well.. there are some colleagues who are more into introducing CLT in their practices, I can see some of my colleagues being, even more enthusiastic or more keen into putting this into practice, either because it’s according to their personalities, or because they’re eager to try new things or they are innovative and creative and they’re like that and I also have some other colleagues who feel their own practices are being questioned, because they feel that trying new things is like saying what you have done so far is not good enough. So, if you ask me, I see both reactions towards this new approach or new methodology. And so, the worst reactions against CLT are from younger teachers or older teachers, what do you think? Older colleagues. If you ask me in my own experience, the ones that are enthusiastic and keen, they are not younger than me, they are older than me. But in general, those who have been working for a longer period of time in the system are less enthusiastic in trying these methods, which may be time consuming, more tiring, less successful in the short term, and… I don’t know if younger. You know what, I don’t have erm… many younger colleagues, most of my colleagues are my age or older, but the ones that are more reluctant are the oldest. And do you think they are familiar with CLT or…. I wouldn’t say… but probably not… And, in that sense… do you think the government gives them chances to be acquainted to CLT or to be familiar with it… Oh.. well.. let’s… there is another thing here. From the results that the government or Ministry of Education have shown us, not many teachers of English speak English or have studied to become teachers of English. They have become teachers of English because they needed to, because the government needed to cover those vacancies, but not all of them were trained. Some of them lived abroad, some of them were teachers of 76 Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: any other foreign language, like French, and they thought because they knew another language it might be less difficult for them to learn or teach English. And I’m saying this because there are some results where some teachers voluntarily, yeah.. as volunteers took a test, and in that test it was demonstrated that they do not have a level of English. I don’t remember if B1 or A2, but a very low level, and if you think about that, we are in front of another reality, then maybe the problem is not CLT but the problem of not being a qualified teacher of English. So, let’s say… not competent linguistically. Yeah… they’re not competent linguistically, but then you say… why are they teaching English? Because the demand for teachers of English at the moment was so big, that they needed to, they had… they were in a position where they had to say… Ok, I’ll do it. So, what the Ministry of Education is now doing is training them, and providing them with some materials so that they become just tutors, but there is a sort of virtual teacher, it’s a kind of I‐tools, or technological aid for them. So, that’s what I know so far. That’s what I’ve heard from the last meetings from these people coming from the Ministry of Education. But they are trying to… they are not going to fire anyone, they promised no one is going to lose their positions, but they know they need to work hard on training these teachers. Mainly those who work in primary school, more than high school. High school teachers seem to be more competent linguistically speaking. Ok.. yeah… that makes sense. Well, I think this is almost the end of the interview. Is there anything else you would like to add in terms of difficulties that you perceive to introduce CLT? Well, I also see another difficulty, but it is related to my students’ reaction, not my colleagues reaction, because some of them are learners who need structure, and when you give me space to communicate, to do some things that are open, and not so structured, they tend to get lost, and some of them tend to perceive that what they’re doing is not really important; they are not learning, they are not studying, they are not doing anything because they are not given the specific instructions, for instance, negotiate what you are going to do now; this is what you need to have, by the end of the class you will have to have this, this, this, and that; but they keep asking me ‘so, what do you want me to do?’. They are kind of used to being guided, or used to be….erm… and because of those learners it’s also difficult for me to tell them ‘now you’re free to be creative, you’re free to be on your own, you can make mistakes, just try to make them in English and try to practice the English you have’, and that is also a difficulty, and sometimes I would say that more at the beginning, when I tried to… I first tried to introduce these activities, I tended, also, to get discouraged, and I questioned myself if I was really improving their English and I was not wasting my time and their time, but when I see it in the long run, I see that there are many things that are worth the effort, ok? And… but I would say that at the 77 beginning, or up to a certain point, you tend as a teacher, tend to get discouraged also. Sometimes, you may also question your own practices, if you are doing what you are supposed to be doing, and if you’re not just having fun or having just a kind of mess in the classroom, and not getting to any point. And that’s the only thing I would add. Interviewer: Ok… Well, thank you very much, XXXX for participating in this interview Interviewee: You are welcome! 78 APPENDIX 7 Interview Nº 3 Interviewee3 Interviewer: Good evening, XXXX. Thank you for participating in this interview. Interviewee: Good evening. You’re welcome. Interviewer: Well. I’m going to explain briefly the objective of this research, which is to find out the teachers’ perception in the… erm… about the difficulties that they perceive in the introduction of communicative language teaching, or the communicative approach in semi‐private and public schools in Chile. Erm… do you have any questions about the objective of the interview? Interviewee: No, I think it’s very clear for now. Interviewer: Ok. So… generally speaking. What do you think about the introduction of communicative language teaching in the Chilean context? Do you find it difficult… easy? Is it appropriate? Interviewee: Erm… I think it’s very difficult to introduce it because we don’t have the support of the school system. I think principals, and academic coordinators don’t really know how this works. I work in a very strict school, in terms of discipline… and especially because of that, they think that …I don’t know… when you have your students speaking in class, it’s like a contradiction for discipline… you know what I mean. Interviewer: Yes, yes. I get it. Interviewee: Also, because… you know… about the SIMCE test, I think it doesn’t evaluate precisely the communicative skills, we are being evaluated as teachers and students with the reading and listening skills, so… we don’t have much time to practice the communicative skills, like speaking or writing… we are not being evaluated about that… and schools want results, so it’s more difficult. Interviewer: Hum… and do you perceive any other difficulty? Interviewee: Yes, lots! Also, there is the space in the classroom. I personally thinks it’s not well organized to practice the communicative skills… and it’s easier for the teacher just to hand in a worksheet and have the students working with that… with grammar, or reading texts or listening. Also, the students’ motivation, they’re not interested in learning English, they’re not interested especially in speaking English, so it’s really hard… it’s really hard to give them the motivation for that. Also, as the students are not interested, you as a teacher lose interest too. So, it’s really hard. I think they feel more comfortable being in silence in the class, working with other types of activities. So, when you make them speak, they really feel embarrassed because you don’t know they are not able to even try; they don’t want to try. So, first, you have to try to set the environment to try to not make them feel embarrassed, try to set an environment of respect so they don’t laugh at their classmates. 79 Interviewer: Uhm… So, there’s a sort of disposition from the students not to engage in communicative activities because they laugh, they don’t take it seriously, they don’t see it as a proper class. Interviewee: Yes, and also they don’t see the use of this. They always tell me that they’re never gonna speak English, so… what’s the point, you see? Interviewer: And does that affect the teaching of grammar as well? Like proper linguistic structures? Interviewee: I didn’t get the question, sorry. Interviewer: So… does that affect the teaching of grammar as well, or linguistic content? Interviewee: Yeah… well, I think that first you have to have a good basis of grammar, so we tend to keep on that, as teachers. I think it is like that in Chile in general. Teacher’s tend to keep with the grammar activities, rather than make the students speak or engage in communicative skills. Interviewer: And in your opinion… do you find CLT useful, do you think it can actually promote language learning? Interviewee: Of course, it’s the best way. We as university students tried it, and we know it works. That’s why at the university we had the conversation classes in which we had to speak, we were so forced to speak. That’s the best way, I think… and so it happens with the students at the school. If they felt that they had to speak, they had to engage in communicative situations, they would’ve found the way, I think. Interviewer: But they don’t have the need for speaking English, then. Interviewee: No… you have students with more motivation than others… the ones who, I don’t know… listen to English music, or watch series, or play video games, they really feel the motivation because they are surrounded by language. But most of my students don’t have an opportunity like that; they don’t listen to music in English, they don’t watch movies in English, they don’t know any English speaking person. Interviewer: So…you see a very difficult future or way to implement CLT. Interviewee: Yes, it’s very difficult. Interviewer: Well, you mentioned a while ago the introduction of SIMCE… how does that affect what you do in the classroom? Interviewee: Erm… because schools want results as I said…. So principals and academic coordinators demand that you plan your classes in a way that you can get good results in the SIMCE test, and as I said, SIMCE evaluates only listening and reading skills, so especially in the level, which is third year in high school. Especially with them, you have to plan your classes according to the SIMCE because the school wants results… and so they (…) school… they place like practice tests, like four in the semester. So, everything is going in that way, you know, preparing for the SIMCE. Interviewer: So, you’re not actually teaching English, but training the students for the test. Well… do you ever try to use the communicative approach in the classroom? Interviewee: Yes… I do it with dialogues mainly… with real situations like buying a ticket, or at a restaurant… or telling the time. 80 Interviewer: And… what’s the student’s perceptions comparing a traditional class or when you do CLT… how do you see them responding to those types of activities? Interviewee: Some of them feel like they would like to participate, but they feel embarrassed… so they keep quiet, they keep in silence. They majority of the students don’t want to participate in those kinds of activities… so you have to make them speak with a threat… (laughs)… and I would say like four or five students feel interested in the activities… I’m talking about for or five students out of forty. Interviewer: Yeah… so you have forty students in the classroom. Interviewee: Yeah… in average. Interviewer: And do you think the number of students may affect the way you use the communicative approach? Interviewee: Of course. With students of 3rd and 4th year, I have only an hour and a half a week… so… if I tried to make them all speak, I would lose my whole time with that. Because I work in a semi‐private school, but it’s also a technical school, so that’s why they have less hours of English because they have other subjects. Interviewer: Ok… so, it’s only an hour and a half a week… it’s very little. So, do you think that in that sense the number of hours relates to how you teach the content, that in that sense CLT is not effective for the little time you have? Interviewee: Yes… because they don’t practice the rest of the week. They only have that hour and a half to practice, and I don’t get the whole class to practice. So a few students who get the idea and participate, but the rest of them, they never get engaged in communicative activities in English. Interviewer: Ok… Let’s change the subject a little bit. When you did your bachelor’s degree at college, did they teach you about CLT? Interviewee: Erm… yes. I think the concept and the types of activities, but… mmm… I don’t really think we were focused on that. Interviewer: So… you can say you don’t have a good foundation in CLT. Interviewee: Yeah… I would say so… Interviewer: Because the university didn’t really promote CLT so much. Interviewee: Yes, yes… because the university didn’t really do it, and also I haven’t researched too much. Interviewer: So… what you remember of the university… how relevant was CLT compared to other approaches, like for example grammar translation, or PPP, or audiolingualism. Do you think they gave it more relevance, or was it just another approach? Interviewee: It was another approach. They focused on the different skills, but not especially in communicative skills. Interviewer: And when you were taught English at the university… were you taught communicatively or was it just traditional classes? Interviewee: No, communicatively. Both, but mainly communicatively. Interviewer: And can you transfer that to your own practice? Interviewee: Yeah… I try to do it… in the same way as I was taught. 81 Interviewer: And… do you think it works? Interviewee: Mmm… that’s a hard one (laughs). Mmm… no… I would say that the tenth per cent of the class gets the ability. Interviewer: So… do you think that, maybe, an adaptation of the communicative approach to the Chilean approach might work better than the communicative approach as a recipe? Interviewee: Yes…That’s what I try to do. I try to adapt the communicative skills according to what my students know. There are some lessons called ‘At the airport’, but none of my students has been to an airport, so… also, the confusing thing I think is that we have the way we were taught at the university, on the one hand we have the program from the Ministry, on the other hand we have the textbooks that the Ministry gives, and then we have the SIMCE test, and I think they’re not in concordance. All those documents tell you different things about what you have to teach, or what the students have to achieve when they finish school. Interviewer: Well… that’s actually very interesting because, I think you are the first person that mentions that there is no coherence between the programs, the textbooks, what you are taught at the university and what you are assessed in the national standardized test. Interviewee: Yes… there is no coherence about that. Interviewer: Can you expand that idea a bit more, please? Interviewee: Yeah… cuz what you are taught at the university are communicative approaches like the one we are talking about, I don’t know… you want to change the world, but then you receive the textbooks given by the ministry and you read the programs and they don’t match. They, I don’t know, they… in the program they just tell you what the students have too achieve… I don’t know, they have to manage this skill… but the textbooks only bring reading and listening skills. They are very disorganized, they don’t have the same contents given in the programs. Then, they have the SIMCE test that evaluates different things that don’t appear in the programs neither on the textbooks, and then they want the students to graduate speaking English. For example, the programs for third and fourth year haven’t been changed in ten years Interviewer: And they still use the same. Interviewee: Yes Interviewer: Well… And speaking about that. How do you receive the information that the ministry of education comes up with all the time? Are you told by the UTP managers? Interviewee: No, never. I keep checking the websites. I go to seminars, I don’t know, I try to be in contact with the ministry, with the English Opens Doors program, but the school?... no never. Interviewer: Are you the only English teacher in the school? Interviewee: No, we are two. Interviewer: And… do you work together? Interviewee: We sometimes plan together, and sometimes we share some activities. 82 Interviewer: And do you share a concept of CLT? Do the two of you have more or less the same idea of what it is? Interviewee: Yes… we have talked about it, and we kind of agree. I would say that my colleague introduces way more the communicative skills, the communicative approach in his classes… Interviewer: When you plan your lessons, do you use your students’ interests and experiences to plan or design materials or to whatever that you do in the classroom? Interviewee: Well, I try. I try to include songs… or the music they like. I don’t know… I try to look for materials or ideas that they would like… I’m very close to my students. I cannot figure what their interests are, so I directly ask. I think that is not the problem, the problem is that they’re not interested in English. So, I try to look for activities that, I don’t know, are more engaging, interesting… some things work. Sometimes they say.. ‘Oh my god’, I would like to learn English now’, but it takes time Interviewer: There’s a bit of anxiety on behalf of the students as well. Interviewee: Yes, they don’t realize that to learn a language, you have to work for it, it’s a process, you can forget what you learnt yesterday. Interviewer: Ok…Do you think he ministry of education considers the teachers’ opinions to introduce ELT policies? Interviewee: Erm…No.. I have never seen a survey, or questionnaire of any kind. Maybe, if they consider the teachers’ opinions, it’s of teachers that haven’t worked in a school for years. No, the kind of activities that they propose, the syllabus or the programs, I think they don’t match the teachers’ opinions. I haven’t heard any teacher of English that is in agreement with the program. Interviewer: Yeah… many complain about that. For example, what have you heard? Interviewee: No, that they are not useful, that there is not coherence as I told you, that they are even boring. If you consider the ministry’s programs, your students will be even less interested in participating in your classes. Interviewer: All right. A moment ago, you mentioned that you sometimes attend conferences… do you think that the government of education are providing enough teacher development opportunities like training in the communicative approach, or maybe giving workshops, seminars, materials. Interviewee: I think that’s great… there have been lots of workshops, seminars, and conferences… I don’t know… they do some camps or retreats for teachers so they go to learn, but I have participated in some of these and I have the feeling that sometimes it’s nothing new, you know. For example, last year there were like three conferences about the SIMCE test, and the three of them were exactly the same. So… they try… I’m not saying that they are not trying but maybe it’s not enough… they are doing also the certificate programs to certify the level of English of the teachers, but I still think that’s very basic. Interviewer: And for example, when there are instances like this… do you have the time? Does the school allow you to go? Or do you have to pay for that? 83 Interviewee: No… it’s free. For example I certified my level of English for free. Yes… the school gives me the time. There’s no problem about that. Interviewer: So, basically the main problem you identify is what happens inside the classroom, and also the coherence between the materials. Interviewee: Yes, those are the main problems for me. Students’ motivation and the coherence between the textbooks, the SIMCE test. Interviewer: Do you think that adapting CLT to the Chilean reality especially where you work would make it work better? Interviewee: Definitely. Interviewer: Do you feel like you can do that on your own? Interviewee: Sometimes I do. Interviewer: Can you give me examples? Interviewee: I make my students work with recipes or give them the opportunity to cook what they want and explain the instructions in English, or make them talk about anything they want like music, but in English. So, I try to give them some freedom, or consider their interests to modify the activities so they find them appealing, they really feel the need to learn English. Interviewer: But they still feel demotivated. Interviewee: Yes, but as I told you… I think they would really like to learn English, the problem is that they don’t dedicate time for that because they think they’ll never get to do it for real, you know. Interviewer: Well… that’s sad. Interviewee: Yes… I am a teacher of English, and I almost never get the chance to speak to English native speakers, so why would my students do it? Interviewer: So, there’s a lack for them of chances to practice outside. Interviewee: That’s it. They don’t have an opportunity to practice English in a real environment. I have some students that go to special groups, but with other students to practice or to church with other native speakers. Those are students, I think, that are more interested in learning. Interviewer: The ones that have contacts. Interviewee: Yes, but in general, they don’t get the opportunity. So, they feel they don’t have to speak English. Interviewer: That’s a very important challenge to introduce CLT in Chile. Interviewee: Yes, I try to tell them that they need to read instructions in English, that they’ll need it when they run into a tourist on the street. But the truth is that in the whole year, they don’t get to speak English for real, you know, with a native speaker. There are some activities by the Ministry like the summer camp, or the winter camp, so the students that are more interested, go and participate and practice. Interviewer: Well… I think this is the end of the interview. Is there anything else that you would like to add? Interviewee: Well, I don’t want to look like the victim here, but teachers of English tend to blame the system and the students for everything, but we also need to make an effort about that. We need to work on giving them the chances to practice English… to set more… to give them more 84 opportunities in the classroom since it is the only environment they have to practice English, in the English classrooms. So it’s also, our responsibility as teachers, so as I said, we tend to blame everyone, but it’s sometimes our fault too. Interviewer: Well, thank you for participating in the interview, XXXX. When I have the final report you can ask for it. Interviewee: Well... thanks. 85 APPENDIX 8 Interview Nº 4 Interviewee4 Interviewer: Good afternoon, XXXX. Interviewee: Good afternoon, Luis. Interviewer: Thank you for participating in this interview which is part of the research that I’m doing for my dissertation. Well, before we begin, I’m going to explain briefly the objective of this interview, which is to find out what difficulties you perceive in the implementation of CLT in the Chilean context, CLT meaning Communicative Language Teaching. So, I would like you to be very honest about what challenges you perceive in using the communicative approach in your classes. Is that clear? Interviewee: Yeah, very clear. Interviewer: Ok, good. So, before we begin, could you describe briefly the place where you work? Interviewee: Well, it is a semi‐private school, and I work with students, that here in Chile we call 80% of vulnerability, so they have problems at home with their parents, and what else… and we classify them in society as middle class. Also, they are not very motivated, they don’t understand well why they are at the school. It is an elementary school; I work with graders up to fourth high school. Interviewer: And what is the English language background that they have? Interviewee: Mmm… they start learning English since kinder up to fourth grade in high school, so… they don’t have a lot of contact with English… they only have English with me at the school… before that or after that, they don’t have a lot of contact with the language. It’s only internet, the movies or some music. Interviewer: So, by means of the media. Interviewee: Yeah. Interviewer: All right, let me ask you the first question of this interview. What is your opinion about the introduction of communicative language teaching or the communicative approach in the Chilean context? Interviewee: Erm… What I can see since I’m working there is that the curriculum is not design to communicate, to use the language. It’s more to learn grammar, sometimes the units change very quickly from one theme to another. For me at the school it has been difficult to have my students speaking English, you know, they can understand you, and I’m able to do a class, probably 90% in English, but at the moment they should speak… probably it’s my methodology, but also the curriculum doesn’t help to encourage students to talk. Ok? You have a small part of speaking area. You have the listening part, you have the grammar, the language focus… everything like that but… erm… special or specific areas in which you have to speak, I think that is not a lot. And also, we don’t have a lot of methodologies to do that. At the university, I don’t 86 Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: remember that I had a specific class in which the communicative approach was taught to me in order to make students speak. So, you are basically saying that you’re not trained in CLT. Yeah, yeah. Not a lot. I attended some classes or some things related with the… I am part of a volunteer… erm… do you remember a teach of teachers that get together every month. Yeah… it’s the net work, the English network. Yeah, I am part of one of the English networks in Valdivia, and we have been attending some focus groups and workshops about communicative language teaching, and I have learnt from that place some methodologies and techniques or activities to include, but not at the university. It happened later, when I was in my professional career. Ok, so you got to know about CLT not at college, but when you were already working. Yeah, right. Yeah, probably. But not only talking about the language teaching, the language teaching at the university, but also about other things. They are probably not part of the interview but, when I entered the university, I was in the first generation, which re‐opened the English Pedagogy at the Austral University, and we were kind of guinea pigs, they tested a lot of courses with new teachers. So… It was a sort of trial and error… Yeah… As you said, you were the guinea pigs. And… apart from these networks that you speak about in Valdivia, have you seen that the Ministry of Education provides chances for teachers like you to be trained in CLT? I think that not a lot… I think that we have few possibilities to be trained, you know. Ok, we have scholarships or loans to be abroad, like you. In Valdivia, a small town, erm.. even talking about my network, we don’t have workshops, or courses to take or even improve your language skills or any other method. Ok… you said there were some instances to participates, but is it easy to participate? Are they free, for example? Are they at a time that you can attend? They’re free, you only need to manage your time to attend… and for example, I have some colleagues from Panguipulli, you know, which is a town two hours away from Valdivia, they also try to attend every Friday per month. It is easy, but also for most of them it is difficult to arrive on time, because they have to travel. I don’t know, it is only about you, if you are a motivated teacher, you can do many things, but it’s also difficult for some of them to travel or spend money going to the place, you know. Also, in Chile we don’t have a community, a community teaching, we don’t do a lot of research. We are far away from that kind of educational system. We don’t have specific standards also. In our network, we try to do something as a group you know, we share ideas, 87 Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: we share information. We usually create a festival to motivate our students, but I don’t know what is happening in another region. Ok… so you don’t get to see other teachers, or share experiences. And how do you feel about using CLT? Is it familiar for you, do you feel comfortable to use it? As I’ve been learning this method, erm… outside the university, or in my professional career… not so much, or not so much about this method. It is something that I’ve learnt in the workshops, and in my meetings, now with other teachers… but… I think that I don’t know a lot. I have an idea, and I try to… but… like saying… students, for me it’s very important to communicate, but if you make mistakes or don’t pronounce in a correct way… I don’t know. And do you sometimes use the communicative approach, or do you sometimes plan according to some guidelines of the communicative approach? Erm… no… I usually plan my classes according to the curriculum that the government tells us to use, you know, erm… the books that you use at the school from the government. I usually plan my classes in relation with that. At the school also, they ask you to work in that way. Ok… so do you feel like the syllabus of the ministry is an impediment or a sort of obstacle for using CLT as a methodology. And in that sense, do you feel that the SIMCE has affected that? Do you feel like you have to prepare the students for the SIMCE, or that you can’t use the communicative approach because it doesn’t give you time to cover the contents for preparing the students for the SIMCE. Yeah, also… erm… probably it’s not a personal problem, because at the school I have the freedom to, erm… to do many things, or probably more things than other colleagues working in private schools, and they follow their results. It makes them very difficult for them because they say, you know, we get together every Friday or almost one Friday per month, and we usually talk about these things. And they say that they have to train students most of the time to answering tests, SIMCE test, or examples about the test that is coming soon. So, they cannot sometimes work with them, you know, the speaking part or follow the in a smooth and correct way. They have to train their students. What I do in my classes is to have a combination of what I have to teach and what they have to learn, probably, for the SIMCE, but I try to do it in balance. I’m not so worried, personally, I’m not so worried about the SIMCE test. Also, they don’t push me, or they don’t ask me for results. In the school. Yeah, I don’t have like, pressure, you know. But most of my colleagues have a lot of pressure about that. In other schools because they are competing with other schools for which is better. That’s something very common that other teachers mention, that they have a lot of pressure from the principal or the academic coordinator. 88 Interviewee: Yeah… that happens a lot, but personally, I try to take it very personally and not worry about the results. You know, I’m very realistic about my environment, and what I try to do is to teach students, and try to make them feel comfortable with the English classroom and language, so, that is for me the most important part. If they can understand a class, if we can finish a class with a closer, you know, sharing respect and all the values, and everything… you know… that makes me feel happy in the end of the day. Interviewer: Yeah… that’s important. And…another question… how do you know or learn about the language policies that the ministry of education comes up with? Interviewee: You mean… can you give me more information. Interviewer: Yes… How do you learn or get to hear, or how do you get informed of the language policies, that the ministry of education comes up with? Interviewee: Erm… you mean the language scales? Interviewer: Erm… no… I’m talking about the…erm… for example ministry of education, they say… ok this is going to be the syllabus or the methodology that you have to use. How do you know about that? How do you know that they have these ideas? Do you go to websites? Or… do they inform you? Interviewee: Ok... I usually try to make a short research every two months by visiting the MINEDUC’s website… also, at the school every year, the academic coordinator presents the syllabus and says, ok, you have to work with this… or by reading… or when you are creating your lesson plans… in that way. Interviewer: And did they give you the policies this year? Did the academic coordinator… Interviewee: Erm… no…erm… I have been teaching there for almost five years, so… erm… they say, ok… you are the English teacher, take the books, here you have everything and plan your things, you know. I am the one who has to read, and everything, but they don’t analyse a lot what you are doing, you know. Interviewer: All right, so in the end it all depends on how you teach and how you approach the classroom. There is nobody else checking on you. Ok… interesting… so changing a little bit the topic…when you plan your lessons, do you consider your students’ interests? Interviewee: Yeah… as I said, I have a kind of freedom in which I can do the things that I really want to do. For example, I have a specific course in the humanist area. They take cultural English and the environment, I think that is the translation. And I work with ten students, they are called the humanists. So, I usually plan my classes asking them: OK, what would you like to learn this year? What things would you like to improve with your English or about your English? And they have said: ok, teacher, we want to practice dialogues, we would really like to have a conversation with a native speaker, we would like to do some mini‐plays, and things like that. With that specific class, which is really small, I can do that. 89 Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: With my other classes, in which I have like 38 students and 45, you know, those are the numbers… I try to, I don’t know… erm… follow their interests, you know. When there’s a unit in which we talk about technology or things that do not motivate them to learn a lot, I try to change it, ok, you know? I try to do something different. Probably a song related to that, something more connected to them. And don’t you think that that is very communicative? Oh… no, I don’t think so. And also, for very large classes, it’s very difficult to assign communicative things or activities. It’s difficult also, to evaluate them with this method, or trying to use communicative skills. For me it is difficult sometimes. How about this small class, the humanists that you call. There, apparently it works. Yeah, yeah. They have been recording some videos about travelling abroad, doing mini‐plays or short dialogues, they record the videos, speak English and show it as a mini‐play but recorded. And yeah, for them it has been really useful, I think, because we have been analysing culture, they way they have to talk to a foreigner, the way they have to communicate, and they think they probably in the future, they’ll have the opportunity to talk, using these small things, you know, what is your name? Where would you like to go? Where are you from? I don’t know, very small things or chunks that they have to learn. Well, you see that it apparently works very well with this group and not with the other students. So, why do you think? To see what challenges you perceive in implementing CLT. It’s difficult (laughs) because these students are in the period… they’re mature now. They are not in first or second grade, they know that next year they are going to finish high school, so they are more conscious about what they are learning or what they want to learn because they are thinking about the future. With the other classes, as they are, you know, young, with English they are kind of lost, you know. And also, as I said, it could be as they are a small group and the other ones are bigger or larger classes, it could be something related to that, with the number of students taking the class, trying to share ideas and speak them. Do those students, the ones in the big classes, do they feel more comfortable learning grammar than learning in a communicative manner? I don’t know if they feel comfortable, but it’s a way that I have to… erm… teach them. Sometimes, it is easier to keep them quiet doing something about writing or grammar or activities like that, instead of making them speak. That is the reality. The teacher has to spend a lot of energy teaching them, and it is also about the school in which you are working, you know? I don’t know if you understand… or you would like more examples. Yeah, it’s basically the number of students that doesn’t allow you to… but do you feel like there’s also like a personal disposition from the 90 Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: Interviewee: Interviewer: students to learn or to try harder in grammar, when they have something more concrete in that sense, than when having something so slippery like talking or engaging in conversation. Yeah, it is easy for them also, to follow specific things. Yes, because other people have told me that. Do you feel, professionally, when you use CLT, do you feel like you are not teaching something academic or that you’re not doing like a more professional job than when you do by teaching grammar, or pronunciation, or you know, language structures? Yeah, probably it can sound confusing because I really like communicative things, you know, I would really like that my students, I don’t know, at the end of fourth grade they speak and communicate in English. The thing is that there’s something about the system or the school in which you are working and the way you have to teach. I don’t know… ok… let me think… erm… I can include more activities you know in which you could speak a bit more, but it’s difficult. It depends on the school in which you are working, or the motivation, the level of motivation that you’re students have. And usually my students, I don’t know… motivation is a problem there. I can try teaching them to speak English, dialogues and everything, but sometimes they don’t want to do it. They prefer to write something, or do something… I don’t know… from the book. But I am the teacher, and I think they communicative language approach should be used, or included in the syllabus. But you have to manage many things: the school in which you are working, the students’ motivation, the educational system, many things to finally work with this approach. I know that for other teachers, for private schools, they have really motivated students, I have thought that my activities in another environment could be really useful, but in my environment, they are not working. I usually present short videos, I give them vocabulary and now ‘let’s talk about this’, and my students don’t talk about that, you know. But I think that if I change my activities to the other schools, it will really work, you know, properly. So, there’s a context‐related issue there. Yeah. Do you think that an adaptation of CLT would make it easier to implement? An adaptation to the local context? Ah, yeah… probably. I have been attending some workshops where they show us a book in which they adapted everything from your normal book. And they have designed a new way of teaching, you know, making groups, working with captains, and vice captains, developing the activities in different ways. And some teachers who have attended those workshops, they have learnt a lot. I can even say that most of my colleagues, English teachers, have been working with that in Valdivia, and they have said: ‘oh yeah, this thing is really useful for us, this method has changed my class in some way’, and yeah. Are you the only English teacher in the school? 91 Interviewee: Yeah.. I am the only one. I don’t have…for me also. I’m me and myself working, without a lot of practice, even for me to talk English in Valdivia, it is difficult, or just… the day that we meet in our network, we try to speak… we usually speak English, but it’s difficult to practice, you see? Interviewer: And do you share, with these other colleagues, do you share, more or less the same opinion or vision about the communicative approach? Interviewee: I think so, yeah… Interviewer: XXXX, I think this is the end of the interview. Would you like to add anything else? Interviewee: Erm… no.. that I would really like to see that one day, that English is being taught in a different way… I don’t know… through communication, enjoying that class, because we have twelve years of that class, and we finish with… I don’t know… nothing… without speaking English… also, I’m very positive if we… in the future, if I can see teacher having clear standards about how to teach… about your commitment as a professional… I would be very happy; I would really feel that something big changed in our system, in our educational system. But now, it’s very confusing because we are segregated or we are separated in classes: in public schools in semi‐private schools, and that is, I don’t know, something that is not good for our future generations, I think, so I would be very open to work with the communicative language, if I can see that I can implement that in my school. I’m very open to changes as an English teacher, that’s why I am attending this network and trying to work with my colleagues. Interviewer: So, basically, you would like to have different conditions. Can you describe briefly some conditions, like maybe the number of students. Interviewee: Yeah, number of students per class, also the time when you prepare your class and your own materials. That would be something fair, fifty and fifty to work, twenty hours working with students and twenty hours making or preparing your materials, or correcting tests and everything. To work with more teachers, for me, to have like a department colleague, to share ideas with them; to have clear standards about your commitment with the professional career that we have to follow, I don’t know. Every teacher could do or make research in their own classes. We can do that, but we don’t have a lot of time, we work in different areas with different students, according with the money that they have, it’s so difficult. So, I think that we need to be more strict, we have to, because teachers are really important for this society, they are the main part, so we have to do something really good, even if this thing takes a lot of effort or changes, but we have to start from one point. Interviewer: Well… thank you XXXX for participating in this interview. If you want to have a copy of the final report, feel free to ask for one. Interviewee: Yeah, I will do it. Yeah, thank you too! 92

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Challenges Perceived by Teachers in the Implementation of Communicative Language Teaching in Chile

Challenges Perceived by Teachers in the Implementation of Communicative Language Teaching in Chile

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS