Opportunity to Teach and Learn Standards: Colombian Teachers’
Perspectives1
Estándares
de oportunidad para la enseñanza y el aprendizaje: perspectivas de
profesores colombianos
Rosalba
Cárdenas Ramos*
Fanny
Hernández Gaviria**
Universidad del
Valle, Colombia
**fanny.hernandez@correounivalle.edu.co
This article was received on January 13, 2012, and
accepted on June 12, 2012.
The aim of this article is to present the outcomes of
an exploration of in-service teachers’ perspectives in relation to an
opportunity to teach and learn standards in English. A workshop for English
teachers from Cali (Colombia) and the neighboring rural sectors was designed
and carried out in order to collect the information. Teachers’
perspectives about the topic were explored in terms of three aspects: general
considerations that underlie opportunities to learn; standards and conditions
in educational institutions (work aspects) and other institutional factors such
as human and material resources.
Key words: Equity,
opportunities to learn and teach, standards.
Este
artículo tiene por objetivo presentar los resultados de una
exploración acerca de las reflexiones de un grupo de docentes en
ejercicio, respecto a estándares de oportunidad para la enseñanza y aprendizaje
del inglés como lengua extranjera. Con este propósito se
diseñó y ofreció un taller a profesores de Cali (Colombia)
y de la zona rural aledaña. Allí se estudiaron las perspectivas
de los docentes en cuanto a tres aspectos: consideraciones generales que
subyacen la oportunidad de
aprender, estándares y condiciones en las instituciones educativas y
otros factores tales como recursos materiales y humanos.
Palabras clave: aprender,
enseñar, equidad, estándares de oportunidad.
Introduction
Historical trends towards social and economic
integration have consolidated the English language as a lingua franca in
international communications. English has evolved as a required tool for
communicative purposes in different economic, commercial, political, cultural
and academic contexts. In Colombia, the effects of this historical trend have
also materialized in our educational policies; the international use of English
has generated requirements in terms of standards, which should help to
determine levels of language proficiency. In the formulation of the standards,
the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of
Europe, 2001) was adopted as the principal source and the basic standards for
foreign languages—English—were designed and published in Colombia.
The Basic Standards for Foreign Languages, English (Ministerio de Educación Nacional—MEN, 2006), was issued as the most visible
part of the National Bilingual Program (NBP) 2004-2019. This program states
that, by 2019, all students and teachers at the different educational levels
should reach a predetermined level of English, according to the CEFR scale,
which should be as follows: C1 for professionals of foreign languages; B2 for
professionals of any area; B2 for English teachers at the elementary level, B1
for students who finish the secondary level, and A2 for teachers of other areas
at the elementary level. However, reaching these goals within the expected time
is not an easy task. The achievement of these goals could be hindered by
different aspects, such as the status of English as a foreign language in our
country, the current level of English proficiency among students and English
teachers, and the lack of appropriate conditions for improving the foreign
language learning process in public and private educational institutions of low
socioeconomic strata.
Having in mind the language proficiency goals to be
reached and the presumed difficulties to attain them, we thought of the
importance of investigating the real opportunities students and teachers are
being offered by their institutions in order to reach these standards. Based on
Navarro’s study (2004) on schools and their learning and teaching
conditions, in which he argues that there are some baseline factors
(‘Primary goods’) that people require to be free and equal citizens
in a society, and on everyday knowledge, it is not difficult to understand that
many countries fail to offer the basic opportunities to learn a foreign language
and that many factors need to be developed in order to build firm bases for
Opportunity to Learn (OTL) Standards. One might reasonably suppose that a study
which shows crucial aspects of work in schools as well as teachers’
experiences could help to provide information leading to the identification of
elements in order to create opportunities to learn in a specific context. At
the same time, such a study would make interventions designed to improve the
learning process of the foreign language possible.
The University of California, Los Angeles’
(UCLA) Institute for Democracy, Education and Access (2003, p. 1) defines
Opportunity to Learn (OTL) as “a way of measuring and reporting whether
students and teachers have access to the different ingredients that make up
quality schools.” The OTL standards movement has balanced the last
educational reforms in the USA, which dealt mainly with performance and content
standards without providing the conditions to reach them; the movement has
lately expanded to other countries. The implementation of the NBP in Colombia
has raised questions and concern regarding the conditions of education, equity,
opportunity and social imbalance. Cárdenas and Hernández (2011,
p. 252) argue that there is a need to construct the framework for the
improvement of English Language Teaching (ELT) in Colombia: “…it is
urgent to demand the betterment of conditions for the achievement of goals in
the NBP, that is, the assurance of Opportunity to Learn (and teach) Standards,
from Colombian educational authorities.”
The previous thoughts and what we have witnessed in a
two-year research project about the conditions of implementing the NBP, which
involved 58 schools from strata 1 to 4 from the public and private sectors,
gave rise to the idea of designing and offering a workshop for English teachers
from Cali and the neighboring rural sectors, with the intention of exploring
in-service teachers’ thoughts in relation to the opportunities for
teaching and learning. The workshop session started by building a basic
theoretical foundation for the OTL concept in order to ensure a common
conceptual ground and, after that, focused on the exploration of
teachers’ perspectives about OTL. Outcomes of the workshop carried out
with teachers provided the following information:
·
General aspects
that underlie opportunities to learn: worth and personal competence, healthy
choices, decision-making, the teacher as an agent that transforms society.
• Standards
and conditions in the institutions teachers represented: work-related aspects
(teachers’ attitudes, interests and reasons for them; difficulties of
different kinds; foreign language teaching methodologies; content clarity;
evaluation, etc.) and institutional factors (infrastructure; human and material
resources, support, etc.)
• Human
development. Personal aspects: dependability, productivity, career choices,
attitude, resistance to change and responsibility.
This paper discusses the results obtained after exploring
the views about OTL standards among the group of teachers who participated in
the workshop. The teachers’ perspectives in relation to OTL standards
gathered in the workshop are valuable contributions in the process of building
opportunities to teach and learn standards in English in Cali and, hopefully,
in the wider national context.
Building up
OTL Standards
The initial workshop was attended by 62 English
teachers, mainly from the public sector, from Cali and Jamundí.
They represented approximately 17 schools. The workshop lasted four (4) hours
and was held on a Saturday.
The content of the workshop was organized in four
sections that dealt with: 1. definitions (standards, opportunity, development,
Opportunity to Learn standards); 2. general aspects
that underlie Opportunity to Learn standards and conditions in the institution
teachers work for (worth and personal competence; healthy choices; decision-
making; exercising social responsibility, plus other aspects the participants
consider relevant); 3. human development issues
(Dependability, productivity, career choices, attitude, resistance to change,
responsibility and other aspects); and 4. the impact
of the implementation of standards on teachers, students, school
administrators, parents and the school community.
In dealing with parts two to four of the workshop, we
used a questionnaire organized in sections which teachers could answer
individually or in groups; theoretical support was provided when needed (see Appendix). The questionnaire was made up of four group
discussions and two plenary discussions. Both group discussions and plenary
discussions had guiding questions. Other explanatory elements were also
included in the questionnaires.
Group discussion one enquired about teachers’
opinions on the role of aspects such as worth, personal competence, healthy
choices, decision-making and social responsibility regarding their
students’ and their own opportunities to develop as individuals and
members of society.
This was followed by the first plenary discussion,
which explored the opportunities that might contribute to the professional
development of teachers.
The second plenary discussion aimed at identifying the
role and responsibility of
educational authorities as providers of opportunities for teachers and learners
within the NBP. Notes and recordings of teachers’ answers were made.
Group discussion two focused on standards and
institutional conditions.
Group discussion three addressed human development
issues and personal aspects. Participants were asked to evaluate their
dependability, attitude, responsibility, productivity, and resistance to
change, among others aspects. Finally, group discussion four asked teachers to
reflect upon the impact that establishing these standards could have on their
institutions.
The Vermont Department of Education (2000) section on
Personal Development Standards provided some of the topics used in this
questionnaire. To this source, we added questions concerning the
teachers’ institutional context and the foreseeable impact of the
implementation of standards in their schools. The information was then analyzed
qualitatively; it was read and re-read, transcribed, organized, color-coded and
categorized; charts were created to visualize it better. Finally, it was
analyzed and relevant examples were selected. The first three major categories
had been pre-established according to the sections in the questionnaire, as
well as some of the sub-categories of the second column. Major category four and
its associated subcategories, in addition to the entire third column of
subcategories, emerged from the data. Because of space limitations in the
discussion, subcategories are not fully expanded and exemplified.
Discussion
of the Findings from the Workshop
Teachers’ contributions in the workshop gave
rise to a great number of subcategories (see Table 1)
which were organized following the structure of the main categories.
Nevertheless, not all subcategories are developed in the analysis; instead, it
focuses on those of higher occurrence in the two plenaries and four group
discussions: general aspects underlying Opportunity to Learn
standards; OTL standards and their relationship with conditions in schools;
human development and impact on students and parents.
In terms of general aspects underlying Opportunity to Learn standards and conditions in the schools teachers work
for, we found that all remarks teachers made are oriented towards themselves
and most of the time giving a very positive view of themselves and of the work
they do. Teachers feel they do well because they need to set an example; as one
of the teachers states: “It’s important that the teacher be a model
for the student, showing values with his attitude and reflecting
professionalism” (T4)2. It is, however,
necessary to state that teachers who participated in this workshop are highly
motivated and many of them have attended Teacher Development Program (TDP)
courses for some years. It is possible that this fact explains their positive
self-image. They see themselves as individuals with high self-esteem and
self-confidence, positive attitudes towards progress and change. They think
they are ready to interact with other school members to pursue their
development with determination and are eager to use self-evaluation. They
realize the importance of interacting with their peers in order to construct
common bases for working together;
they consider interactions with more experienced colleagues as
strategies to face change: “Some colleagues that work in primary are
studying English by themselves and we help them teaching English in their
groups” (T10).
Regarding the idea of teachers as role-models
(subcategory ‘healthy choices’), teachers feel they need to provide
students and their families with all the available information and options for
a healthy life through curricular activities. The idea that schools and
educational communities must take a comprehensive approach to student health
and social service needs is supported by many researchers in the context, as
shown in Schwartz (1995). Unfortunately, at times those goals are very
demanding for schools and, of course, for teachers. Teachers can also lack an
appropriate level of awareness concerning the importance of a healthy lifestyle
because they experience the same limitations their students have; after all,
they are often immersed in the same culture and are a product of it.
Among the factors that teachers reported and
emphasized as hindering learning are the cultural, social and economic
limitations encountered in the social environment they and their students are
immersed in. Navarro’s analysis of the Chilean situation calls attention
on this issue (2004):
At school, the
complexity of the children’s life demands competences teachers do not
have: drug addict parents, unstable parents with variable composition, poverty
and delinquency are new variables which demand new conditions for teaching. To
face this situation, teachers need to assume roles considered to be
parents’ roles: dialogue with children about their everyday experiences,
puberty changes, health and eating habits. The school starts to be more like
home. (p. 128)
The social and economic limitations teachers mentioned
in this section about ‘healthy choices’ are definitely connected to
the absence of equal conditions and social differences. Rawls (1999, in Navarro
2004), also, stresses the role of these aspects in the presence or absence of
equity and quality in education. For him, income and riches as well as the
social bases for self-respect and dignity are part of the ‘bienes primarios’
all individuals are entitled to. For Raczynsky
(2002), also cited in Navarro, the improvement of ‘material
conditions’ are important elements for the quality of the life we live;
however, he argues that poverty is the product of intangible elements such as
attitudes, values and behaviors, all of which are cultural elements. Working only
on material conditions without taking into account cultural and environmental
factors will not yield lasting improvement in people’s conditions and
their handling of opportunities.
Paes de Barros,
Ferreira, Molinas and Vega (2008) in their study on
the inequality of opportunities in Latin America and the Caribbean, stress that
the circumstances people face early in life, including race, gender, place of
residence and, especially their parents’ income, account for the inequality of
opportunities they face in adulthood. Concerning education, Darling-Hammond
(2007) extensively discusses the role of socio-cultural and economic
limitations of minorities in the type of education they get and the results
they obtain. This feeds a ‘catch twenty-two’ situation, a vicious
circle that feeds poverty, lack of accomplishment, neglect and rejection. In
order to determine limitations of any kind Darling-Hammond finds it necessary
to evaluate whether or not schools have adequate resources, deploy them
effectively, or if they provide equal educational access for all students.
It is clear that inclusion and equality are important
aspects which should be taken into account in the formulation of language
policies such as the National Bilingual Program. In reality what usually
happens is that policies and government programs usually make claims of equity,
democracy and inclusion, but often ignore or overlook realities, probably in
their desire to show results. González (2009, p. 186), discussing Shohamy’s views on language policies (2006, p. 143),
claims that “language policies often ignore their connection to actual
language learning because they do not have a basis in reality, and thus, remain
as good intentions on paper.” This seems to be the case with the NBP.
Along the same lines, Fernández
(2003) asserts that inclusive education is a human right and that the
conception of inclusive education, as an effective means for improving
efficiency in educational processes, involves the need to revise the concept of
educational needs. Here is a summary of what this author considers are the
advantages of inclusive education: It offers equal opportunities for all;
personalizes education; fosters participation, solidarity, and cooperation
within students; improves quality in teaching and promotes efficiency in the
whole educational system; values individualities; maximizes resources for the
benefit of general educational, individual and special needs.
On the issue of inclusion, Machin
(2006) carried out a study which explored how social disadvantage affects the
learning experiences of learners with fewer economic resources. Much of the
work draws upon longitudinal data sources that follow children as they grow up.
It also includes information on their parents and the area where they were raised.
The results of the study show that:
Education and
social disadvantage are closely connected and that people from less advantaged
family backgrounds acquire significantly less education than their more
advantaged counterparts. This translates into significantly reduced life
chances…This includes poorer labor market outcomes, significantly worse
health, higher crime levels and lower levels of social capital. (p. 27)
Concerning the relationship between opportunity to learn
standards and the conditions in the institutions they work at, teachers are, in
general, less positive; they focused their contributions on the aspects that would need to be
changed in order to foster OTL, such as the full integration of the elementary
level in ELT; the introduction of changes in ELT in order to make it an area
with interdisciplinary links and not a one- or two-hour a week course, and the
need for an institutional policy designed to improve the proficiency level of
teachers. They consider it important to have a positive attitude and be ready
to change practices. On the negative side, or factors that affect OTL, teachers
mention the reluctance of some of them to change. Teachers insist on
methodologically ‘safe’ practices and do not use the English
language in class because they are probably afraid of revealing deficiencies in
their competence. This is not a new situation: Cárdenas (2001, p. 2)
surveyed primary English teachers six years after this language was introduced
at the elementary level and found a very similar situation to the one found
today.
Lack of time is also a common hindrance: Teachers do
not have time for meetings, for planning, revising, delivering contents, or
participating in institutional activities and they consider team-work and
planning to be important elements in their professional growth. Teamwork is an
element also considered important by researchers (Tochon,
2009) when researching teacher education. Participatory Action Science (PAS)
used by Tochon as methodological orientation is
characterized by being respectful of the positioning of different partners;
promoting dialogue and the capacity to learn from others’ experiences
while influencing the ability of teachers to shape social outcomes with the aim
of building a more just society. In any case, teachers in the workshop
expressed their disappointment for not being able to rely on sustained spaces
for pedagogical discussion, and for not having been listened to about the
importance of assigning a better status to the English area. Besides, teachers
consider that in order to reach standards in ELT, it is essential to offer this
area as a fundamental one; they said that it is necessary to make an impact on
general teaching and learning conditions and, as a result, improve
students’ achievements. In this respect Denbo,
Grant, and Jackson, (1994) argue that:
It is time for
schools, local education agencies, and state and federal governments to ensure
that no system of testing or student assessment be used except in the context
of educational approaches that are based on standards for equity in educational
resources and processes. (p. 47)
Although this reflection stems from a different
context, it is similar in nature to our national context: Learners from all
regional, geographical, cultural, economic and social contexts are being
evaluated on the same bases although they are learning under different
circumstances and unequal possibilities.
Furthermore, in relation to time for the area,
teachers manifested that the number of weekly instructional hours is 1 at the
elementary level and two (exceptionally 3) in high school. With so little time,
little access to resources, crowded classrooms and high standards to achieve,
the situation is difficult to handle. Teachers express that even with good
resources and all the Development Programs they have access to, it is extremely
difficult to meet the standards because of poor conditions. Based on research
findings it can be said that time is one of the most influential factors in school
and student success. In Chile, for example, as part of the implementation of El inglés abre puertas (English Opens
Doors), the curriculum was modified to strengthen all areas, especially those
that develop “habilidades de orden superior.”
To establish such a curriculum, the school day was expanded, and ELT weekly
instructional time went from 11% to 27% of the time. Most schools
went into jornadas completas
(full-time) (UNESCO report, 2004).
Indeed, Gillies and Jester-Quijada in the USAID document (2008) consider time the most
influential factor in school and student success. They mention the experiences
of Ghana and Peru and their efforts to improve their educational systems; the
two experiences are relatively successful stories in terms of access to the
English language, but both have shown poor outcomes in terms of learning. The
phenomenon is explained in the document arguing that the basic elements for
creating opportunities to learn are overlooked, and that time is one of the
elements which marks the difference between accessing a language and learning a
language.
These authors also stress that a longer school day,
more hours of instructional time a year (they propose a minimum of 850 to 1,000
a year), a more effective use of time at schools, which means fewer
interruptions, less absenteeism, less tardiness, and more time-on-task are the
key elements in OTL. If we analyze the situation in our schools we find that
there are striking differences in the way time is assigned and used in
different types of institutions. Besides, public institutions are affected by
the need to maximize the use of facilities, which makes the school hours very
short. There are also more interruptions to deal with due to social and
economic factors; there is usually more absenteeism and tardiness. The document
also mentions a study carried out in six developing countries (Bangladesh,
Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Peru, and Uganda) which shows teachers’
absenteeism is at an average of 19%. In Colombia there are very few studies about
absenteeism and they do not focus on teacher absenteeism; however, in our
experience as researchers who visited urban schools in Santiago de Cali, we
recognized this as an issue of common occurrence. As a result of absenteeism
and of low assignment to ELT, sometimes weeks elapse without the students
having a single lesson.
Gillies and Jester-Quijada (2008, p. 17) make
distinctions among several uses or misuses of time and analyze how they affect
students’ OTL: time-on-task, teacher and student punctuality and
absenteeism, official instructional time and number of hours per subject. They
complain about how little is known about time-related issues in schools and
express that “No one is held accountable for a failure to provide the
basic opportunity to learn” as far as time is concerned. Another aspect
teachers in the workshop mentioned was the proportion of students per teacher.
In both public and low and medium strata private schools, teachers usually
manage groups of 38 to 50 students, and this fact reduces considerably the time
they can devote to each student. It has been proven that reduced class size
improves students’ achievement (Heros, 2003, in
Gillies & Jester-Quijada,
2008). He suggests that the appropriate class size for students to benefit is
from 15 to 20, and indicates that class size, as well as other elements, is a
cause for students’ absenteeism:
Student attendance
must start with using attendance as a management tool, and in understanding the
underlying causes of absenteeism. To some degree, there is a circular influence
with other OTL factors—if the teacher does not regularly show up, little
learning is taking place; and if the class size is unmanageable, students may
not be motivated to attend (Heros, 2003, p. 10, in Gillies & Jester-Quijada,
2008).
Darling-Hammond (2007) mentions high student-teacher
ratio as a common feature of underprivileged schools. Also, the USAID document
extensively discusses the incidence of student-teacher ratios in the
performance and satisfaction of teachers and students. “Having fewer
children in class reduces the distractions in the room and gives the teacher
more time to devote to each child.” (Mosteller, 1995, in Gillies &
Jester-Quijada, 2008, p. 11). In our context,
with very few exceptions, classrooms in public schools are over-crowded, which
reduces time for interaction in the language class.
Another element teachers who attended the workshop
mentioned as an impediment for good student OTL is the lack of resources, both
human (not enough teachers, crowded classrooms) and material. Small classrooms
without the minimal conditions of light, ventilation, facilities for using
equipment and which have poor acoustics do not facilitate the task. Finally,
some teachers mentioned the fact that there is little or no monitoring from
school administrators of the results of PD; they are not asked to share,
replicate, or even put new knowledge or ideas into use. In other words, they
are not made accountable for improving teachers’ teaching or
students’ results based on the opportunities they,
as administrators, are given. This element is part of what Aguirre-Muñoz
(2008) calls leadership and supervision, not always present in our schools
because of many reasons that arise from the lack of time of principals who have
to divide their time and attention among four or five institutions, to the lack
of interest in some areas.
In the category ‘Human Development’,
teachers declared that trust from their supervisors in their work because of
their preparation and responsibility is one of the factors that favor the OTL
of their students: “I think that in my school my coordinators, principals
and administrative [personnel] have confidence in me because I try to make an
effort to be better day by day.” (T1). Other elements that show the positive
side of teachers and undoubtedly contribute to their students’ OTL are
that they are proactive and seek and take all opportunities for PD, using every
chance to put into practice what they learn. They take pride in what they do:
“My institution has confidence in what I learn to be shared with my
students and colleagues” (T5).
In revising the theory we find that almost all models
mention teacher capability (preparation and expertise) as a key aspect of
OTL; however, other important
elements concerning teachers such as a positive attitude, a strong sense of
self and a sense of job satisfaction in spite of limitations and problems are
omitted; these factors are mentioned only in Schwartz’ model (1995), but
they are considered basic by this group of teachers; the great majority of
teachers feel satisfied with their career: “This role is the most
important for us because we are helping our students and ourselves grow as
human beings in order to contribute [to] and build a better future.” (T3)
Within the same category, the elements that according
to teachers have a negative impact on OTL are usually related to two areas; one
concerns teachers and includes the difficulty for them to find a balance
between their professional and personal lives, the lack of time to do their job
well, the low salaries they receive and the lack of sustained efforts on the
part of educational authorities to offer continuous PDP, although they
recognize that the offer of PD courses has greatly improved in the last three
years. The other factor that affects students’ OTL depends mostly on
students, and is manifested in their lack of interest and involvement in class
and in other academic activities.
The time factor has been under discussion and study in
countries where there is worry about poor results in education. Of the first
three elements mentioned by teachers, one considered as a crucial ingredient in
all models is time. Limited time on the part of teachers affects planning,
preparation, exploration, innovation, assessment, and ability to get to know
students and to lead them into learning. Time limitations have several sources:
little time allocation in timetables and curricula, little time-on-task,
holidays, planned and unplanned meetings, special events and celebrations at schools,
strikes, ‘attitudinal slow-downs’, etc.
In several states of the USA there have been studies
that try to determine the effect of Expanded Learning Time (ELT) on student
achievement. Teachers and researchers find 180 school days a year is about the
same amount of time devoted to school in Colombia and they state that it is too
short to guarantee good results. For example, Marcotte
and Hansen (2010) studied the incidence of shortened school time (due to
closings for bad weather) in students’ results in national exams in the
areas of mathematics and reading; they found that students received lower
scores when the number of weeks of the academic year was shorter. Other studies
reviewed by Marcotte and Hansen (2010)—Lee and Barro (2007), Eren and Millimet
(2007), Marcotte (2007), Hansen (2008), and Sims
(2008)—show evidence in the same direction after implementing ELT
programs and studying their results. As Marcotte and
Hansen (2010, p. 1) conclude, “This new body of evidence… suggests
that extending time in school would in fact likely raise student
achievement”, and that “differences in instructional time can and
do affect school performance”. ELT is not only about more school days a
year, but also about longer hours (between 7 and 8 a day), and meaningful and
optimal use of time in school. Silva (2007) recommends that schools analyze the
way time is spent so they can decide the kind of time they need to extend; she
classifies school time into four categories: allocated school time, allocated
class time, instructional time and academic learning time. In Colombia the
school day in private schools usually goes from 7:00 a.m. (sometimes earlier)
to 3:00 p.m. Public schools usually work from 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. or from
1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. because buildings are used by more than one school or
body of students. At present, the government has acknowledged the importance of
time in the improvement of education and the creation of more inclusive
conditions for all; steps have been taken in the country’s capital to
extend the school hours for children who attend public institutions. Some other
major cities are considering implementation of the same action.
Lastly, but not less important, the teachers mentioned
the issue of low salaries: “I feel free to do my job, and I like it. I
studied for being an English teacher, and I’m doing my best. The only
thing I have to complain is the so poor salary.” (T12). Indeed,
teachers’ income do not usually correspond to the time spent studying to
become a professional; the teachers’
salaries are probably among the lowest paid in any profession, and the
contractual conditions that many teachers have assure them a salary only for a
few continuous months, making their
situation even more difficult. In many cases, this factor affects motivation
and the likelihood of putting enough time or extra time into their work.
Darling-Hammond (2007) finds a direct relation between low salaries for
teachers and schools in deprived or difficult areas, where students do not have
many opportunities for success. This may be the case of many of the teachers
involved in this study; most of them work in schools of the public sector, and
some in deprived urban or rural areas.
In closing the discussions in the workshop, teachers
socialized what they thought was the most remarkable impact of the
implementation of standards in their institutions (main category four). They
highlighted the effects of changing the nature of English teaching. According
to their perception, presenting English as an area and not as a course amounts
to assigning it a higher status and, therefore, requires other changes.
According to them, developing English teaching and learning as an area requires
the revision and adaptation of the teaching methodology, as well as the
planning and curricular execution; it also demands the reevaluation of
teachers’ roles and pedagogical knowledge, cooperative work and
opportunities to grow professionally. The importance of improving the area of
English teaching with more contact hours, methodological innovations, student
exchanges, materials and bilingual bibliography is also considered crucial.
All the revised models for OTL standards include
curricular conditions as one of the elements to improve or revise; these
improvements or revisions usually include integration with other courses (also
mentioned by the teachers in the workshop), adaptations in order to meet
standards, as well as contextualizing content in order to deal with real life
problems. The curriculum also needs to be flexible to cater to different groups
of students.
The establishment of standards has opened the door for
teachers to get updated as new opportunities for professionalization in the
language and in methodology have emerged. Teachers who have been attending the
courses think they are improving and feel more confident teaching the language.
This feeling of increased capability necessarily involves motivation that
favors the development of the area; this fact is highlighted by Rodrigo Fábrega, leader of the Chilean program “Inglés Abre Puertas” (English
Opens Doors), who expressed in an interview for Palabra Maestra (Fundación
Compartir, 2009, p. 3-4) that “it is not enough
to speak the language; teachers need to feel comfortable using it.” Teachers
confessed that they feel more at ease in their classrooms, while those who have
not gotten involved in these processes or who have just initiated them confess
lacking confidence. That is why most of them stress the importance of permanent
updating in topics related to language proficiency, methodology and
technological advances, which they recognize they have to analyze and adapt
before adopting.
The standards movement has generated motivation not
only among teachers but also among administrators. At the same time, teachers
feel that they are now involved in a new educational dynamic, although some of
them would appreciate principals who show more commitment to the development of
the English area. In general, teachers highlight the importance of having more
support for education not only from their principals, but also from the
government and from other professionals in order to strengthen the teaching and
learning processes. They also state they would benefit from more exchange
programs in order to get a real taste of English speaking cultures.
In relation to the impact of standards on students,
teachers say very little; however, it is clear that their opinions are divided:
On the one side, there is a group of teachers who think students are gaining motivation
for learning English because they understand the importance of speaking a
second language. They believe students are more enthusiastic because learning
is no longer oriented towards developing contents or learning only grammar, but
rather towards developing competences. They also believe that programs are
better organized and, as a result, students are also motivated and demanding.
However, there is another group of teachers who think students are not aware of
the importance of learning a second language and that their attitude hinders
progress in the learning process. This group finds it really difficult to
overcome this barrier. As for parents, they are receiving this piece of news
with great expectations; they consider this knowledge to be a useful and extra
tool for their children to become more competitive in life.
Final
Considerations
In presenting English teachers’ views of the way
they are working, the attitudes they have and the challenges they face in the
process of establishing the NBP, we have found enough evidence to demand the
establishment of OTL standards in order to address the issue of equality of
educational opportunities and as a way to ensure the attainment of the goals
proposed in this national policy.
We are well aware that there are many aspects involved
in the design, formulation and issuance of OTL standards; however, not all of
them belong to the sphere of influence of teachers, teacher educators, students
or their families. There are, nonetheless, two main aspects of OTL standards
that we could concentrate on, and these are, on the one hand, teachers
providing their students with opportunities to learn; and, on the other hand,
educational authorities providing teachers with opportunities to teach and
students with opportunities to learn.
How can teachers provide their students with real
opportunities to learn? By getting to know and understand their present
situation and the situation the policy has created; by initiating and
maintaining actions to continue TDP work, by being aware of their strengths and
deficiencies and autonomously working on them, by creating collaborative groups
in their institutions, by using time responsibly, by showing progress in their
work, by creating pressure groups to pursue the betterment of conditions for
teaching and for facilitating teachers to learn and provide their students with
opportunities to learn. A good number of the teachers participating in the
seminars expressed that they were already undertaking actions of this kind and
exercising responsibility in their work, although they also mentioned a not so
generous or responsible attitude on the part of some of their colleagues or
supervisors.
What do teachers feel needs providing in order to
create opportunities to teach? An analysis of the information shows that
conditions for attaining the goals of the NBP are far from being appropriate or
fair, despite the evident efforts on the part of educational authorities
towards fostering teachers’ improvement through TPD programs. Teachers and
students alike are facing cultural, social and economic challenges which have
multiple local causes and are aggravated by present-day global trends. All over
the world demands are being made for the need to provide educational access
under equal conditions for all; inclusive education is claimed not only as a
human right but also as an effective means of improving efficiency in
educational processes. Unfortunately, Colombia occupies a shameful second place
in Latin America concerning inequality3 and the
implementation of educational policies reflects this situation: Most private
institutions have longer hours, better resources, better conditions and
teachers with the adequate profile to implement the NBP. But, other aspects as
well are highlighted by teachers as elements to be revised in order to achieve
standards: Time allocation and management, that would provide more exposure and
opportunities for skills development among students as well as better chances
for teachers to do a good job and continue to develop professionally;
teacher-student ratio that would allow more teacher-student interaction and
closer attention to individual student needs and difficulties. Finally, other
elements mentioned by teachers and analyzed in the revised models for OTL
standards that would guarantee equity and opportunities for all are as follows:
better resources, both human and material; improved physical conditions of
schools and classrooms (lighting, ventilation, acoustics), and last but not
least, the improvement of teachers’ salaries, which are among the lowest
paid to professionals in the country.
In an attempt to gather teachers’ thoughts in
relation to OTL standards and with the intention of opening up discussions on the
topic, we can conclude that a serious revision of the elements mentioned above
is necessary. Changes that take into account teachers’ voices are also a
must if Colombia is to achieve these standards. Striving to accomplish these
standards does not mean responding uncritically to a policy that we know has
advantages and drawbacks; above all, in order to reach higher levels of
proficiency in English or in any target language means giving our students
better cultural and academic possibilities. It also means giving language
teaching professional recognition and its due importance.
1. This article is
based on a workshop carried out with teachers from Cali and Jamundí
at Universidad del Valle (Colombia). The purpose of
the workshop was to explore in-service teachers’ thoughts in relation to
an opportunity to teach and learn standards, an idea that became a goal after
visiting schools within the research project about the conditions of
implementation of the National Bilingual Program (NBP).
2. Teachers have
been given a number in order to make reference to their opinions and
viewpoints.
3. http://www.dinero.com/actualidad/economia/articulo/colombia-campeon-desigualdad-america-latina/120728;
http://www.agenciadenoticias.unal.edu.co/detalle/article/aunque-bajo-la-pobreza-en-colombia-hay-mucha-desigualdad.html
References
Aguirre-Muñoz, Z. (2008). Cátedra Bloom: Estándares de
oportunidad de aprendizaje: una estrategia para promover equidad escolar.
Ciudad de Guatemala: Universidad de San Carlos. Retrieved from http://www.proyectodialogo.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291&Itemid=112
Cárdenas, R. (2001). Teaching English in primary: Are we ready
for it? HOW, A
Colombian Journal for English Teachers, 8, 1-9.
Cárdenas, R., & Hernández, F. (2011). Towards the formulation of a
proposal for Opportunity to learn standards in EFL learning and teaching.
ÍKALA, 16(28), 231-258.
Colombia. Ministerio de Educación
Nacional [MEN]. (2006). Estándares
básicos de competencias en lenguas extranjeras: inglés. Serie
Guías No. 22. Bogotá:
Author.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common
European framework of reference for languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s
commitment to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334.
Denbo, S., Grant,
C., & Jackson, S. (1994). Educate
America: A call for equity in school reform. Opportunity to
learn standards. American youth policy forum; Mid
Atlantic Equity Consortium & National Educational Association. Retrieved from http://www.maec.org/Old/pdf/edam.pdf
Department of Education State of Vermont. (2000). Vermont’s framework of standards & learning opportunities.
Montpelier,
VT: Vermont Department of Education.
Fernández, A. (2003).
Educación inclusiva: Enseñar y aprender entre la diversidad. Revista Digital UMBRAL 2000, 13, 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.inclusioneducativa.org/content/documents/Generalidades.pdf
Fundación Compartir. (2009,
Septiembre). Maestros de inglés: los alquimistas de la educación
en Chile. Palabra Maestra, 9(22),
3-4. Retrieved from http://www.premiocompartiralmaestro.org/PDFPMaestra/PALABRA_MAESTRA22.pdf
Gillies, J., & Jester-Quijada,
J. (2008). Opportunity
to learn. A high impact strategy for improving
educational outcomes in developing countries. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Working paper. Retrieved from http://www.equip123.net/docs/e2-OTL_WP.pdf
González, A. (2009). On Alternative and
additional certifications in English language teaching. ÍKALA, 14(22), 183-209.
Machin, S. (2006). Social
disadvantage and education experiences. OECD social, employment and migration working papers. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/60/36165298.pdf
Marcotte, D., & Hansen, B. (2010). Time for School? When the
snow falls, test scores also drop. Education Next, 10(1). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/time-for-school/
Navarro, L. (2004). La escuela y las condiciones sociales para aprender y enseñar.
Equidad social y educación en sectores de pobreza urbana. Buenos Aires:
Instituto Internacional de Planeamiento de la Educación UNESCO.
Pabón, C., Wills, E., & Salas, S. (2011). “Colombia es el campeón
de la desigualdad en América Latina” Dinero.com. 2011-06-05. Retrieved
from http://www.dinero.com/actualidad/economia/articulo/colombia-campeon-desigualdad-america-latina/120728
Paes de Barros, R.,
Ferreira, F., Molinas J., & Vega, J. (2008). Midiendo la desigualdad de oportunidades en América Latina y el
Caribe. Washington, D.C.: Banco
Mundial.
Schwartz, W. (1995). Opportunity to learn standards: Their impact on urban students. ERIC/CUE Digest Number 110, 1-9. doi: ED389816. Retrieved from http://iume.tc.columbia.edu/i/a/document/15460_Digest_110.pdf
Silva, E. (2007). On the clock: Rethinking the way
schools use time. Washington D.C.: Education sector reports.
Tochon, F. V.
(2009). The role of language in globalization: Language, culture, gender and
institutional learning. International Journal of Educational Policies, 3(2), 107-124. Retrieved from http://ijep.icpres.org/2009/v3n2/fvtochon.pdf
UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, &
Access. (2003). Opportunity
to Learn (OTL) Does California’s school system measure up? Retrieved
from http://just-schools.gseis.ucla.edu/solution/pdfs/OTL.pdf
UNESCO. (2004). La Educación Chilena en el cambio de siglo: Políticas,
resultados y desafíos. Santiago de Chile: Oficina Internacional de
Educación.
About the Authors
Rosalba Cárdenas Ramos, BA in Philology and languages,
Universidad del Atlántico, Colombia. MA in Linguistics and FL education, University of
Louisville, USA. Research
attachment in testing and evaluation, University of Reading, England. Teacher development, Thames Valley University, England. Professor of FL methodology and applied linguistics, Universidad
del Valle, Colombia. Coordinator of Teacher Development Program at
Universidad del Valle.
Fanny Hernández Gaviria, BA in Modern Languages and MA in Linguistics,
Universidad del Valle, Colombia. Assistant professor. Member of the EILA research
group. Teaches English and Classroom research at Universidad del
Valle. Director of the Licenciatura
Program. Participates in the research project on conditions
of implementation of the PNB in Cali, Colombia, describing English
teachers’ profiles.
Appendix: Workshop on Opportunity to Learn Standards
Universidad
del Valle
Facultad de
Humanidades
Escuela de Ciencias del Lenguaje
Group Discussion 1:
General aspects that underlie opportunities to learn
–
What is, in your
opinion, the role, if any, of these elements in you students’ and your
own opportunities to develop as individuals and members of society?
In groups of four, read the following items and decide
whether or not and to which extent they have an influence on opportunities to
learn. Then, complete the table below.
Plenary Discussion
1
Based on your own experience as an individual and as a
teacher, what kind of opportunities have contributed to your development?
Plenary Discussion
2
In your opinion, what is the responsibility and role
of educational authorities as providers of opportunities for teachers and
learners within the Programa Nacional
de Bilinguismo (National Bilingual
Program—NBP)?
Group Discussion 2
Standards and
conditions in the institution I work for.
In the next chart, list all the factors that would
affect the implementation of standards in your institution. Work, if possible,
in institutional groups.
Discussion 3: Human
development/ Personal aspects
These include emotional factors such as fear,
disappointment; attitudinal aspects (expectations, resistance to change,
willingness to work with standards & personal responsibility)
Group Discussion 4
What impact will the implementation of standards have
in your institution?
