2.4 Designing and Delivering the Course

3. Allow for a variety of communication channels:

‘The use of local mentors was vital in maintaining communication and keeping the tone of the course, and adequate time should be spent on induction/training for these key roles’ (Bell/BRAZ-TESOL)

‘A learning contract was developed by CABITA – this along with additional support and encouraging participation was very valuable’ (CELT/CABITA)

‘The engagement of the Ministry of Education with the project … allowed us to onboard a large number of participants successfully. Detailed CP lists were supplied by MINED and appropriate arrangements made to allow CPs to attend live sessions’ (ARU/ANPI)

‘A useful strategy was giving AINET access to our registers so they could follow up and contact non-attendees’ (IH London/AINET)

‘Ensure potential participants have access to varied ways to sign up to the course to increase overall project enrolment, potentially by including local school supervisors from the start (of the project)’

‘Divide participants into different groups as per preferred communication channels’ (Peartree/PATEFL) ‘We suggest implementing a small win approach by inviting CPs to share single ideas activities or experiences, etc.’ (ARU/ANPI)

‘We set out to create a warm, caring atmosphere so that teachers would lose their shyness. For example, one of the first activities on Telegram was to share a favourite English word’ (Bell/BRAZ-TESOL)

‘For courses aimed at CPs with low English levels and low confidence, initial communication in L1 avoids barriers to participation’ (Languages Utd/ETAG)

2.4 Designing/delivering the course

2.4.1 Diagnostics

The importance of the initial context research and diagnostics has already been noted in relation to the building of the working partnerships on the projects, the management of expectations and the facility with which participants were recruited. But the research activities of this stage were also the basis upon which the courses were designed.

Although placement testing was carried out in some projects, most investigations in the area of course content were in terms of diagnostic profiling (e.g. what levels/ages do they teach? How do the teachers use English in the lesson? What are they least confident about? What level would they consider themselves to be? etc.) In general, there was a feeling that placement tests tend to focus solely on declarative grammar and vocabulary knowledge at the lower levels, which is not going to be the focus of a course which develops teacher confidence in the classroom. Some projects relied on a self-rated level of English, but this is ‘not always a reliable indicator of actual level … based on this small sample, there is a tendency for teachers to under-rate their English level’ (NCG/BELTA).

One successful approach here was for CPs to write about their own expectations for the course. One project, for example, found that ‘participants used a lot of idioms and had a rather formal and descriptive way of expressing themselves. This helped guide the course content towards encouraging the participants to use more natural English’ (Celtic/LATAZ). This, together with an exploration of the ‘factors that affect confidence in using English’ (NCG/BELTA) formed the base of the diagnostics.

In addition to identifying language and content focus, the partners also stress the importance of sharing information on:

1. Key demographic information about possible

CPs (e.g. rural/urban, gender, age of students taught, etc.) 2. Working patterns and availability for both synchronous and asynchronous engagement along with anticipated amount of commitment levels 3. Technical information (e.g. CPs’ smartphone operating systems, 3G/4G access and internet costs, preferred platforms, messaging/social media platforms, etc.) 4. Expertise and comfort with digital working 5. Previous experience of CPD activities For many UK providers this analysis stage within the PRELIM project offered a new perspective on course preparation. ‘Normally, students come to us and they join us. But PRELIM is us going to them’ (Lewis School/HELTA). This was the reality for all the projects and the levels of flexibility required has become one of the key features of the PRELIM success noted by all involved. ‘A difference was starting with the certainty of the outcomes. Our uncertainty was how to reach them. Initially, PRELIM was almost defined by what we didn’t know. This made it ok – essential, even, for everyone to ask lots of questions’ (LILA*/ThaiTESOL). The impact this has had on a number of the UK institutions is described below. The individual reports identify the rationale for the choices made in selecting delivery platforms. In Uzbekistan, for example, ‘the sheer volume of potential participants … (led to the requirement) that the course would be purely asynchronous self-study content with a light-touch tutoring’ (CES/UTEA). In Guinea-Bissau, due to ‘connection problems, limited electricity supply … (and the fact that) ELTA-GB had already been making use of WhatsApp to provide CPD to teachers remotely’ (Inlingua/ELTA-GB) meant that WhatsApp became the obvious choice.

In some contexts, a range of platforms were preferable – ‘we are delivering the synchronous live content as one-to-one tutorials and the rest is asynchronous groups on WhatsApp (with emphasis on the voice recording function for oral work) and Google Docs for written work, along with mobile friendly off-line tasks on a website for self-study’ (Sheffield/ELTAA).

As noted elsewhere in this report, the raised awareness and competence of a range of remote digital learning platforms and tools for the project partners and the CPs themselves was a key outcome.

2.4.3 Emergent course design

As mentioned above, all projects relied on flexibility towards course design and delivery to best serve the outcomes of the project. This was apparent in a number of different areas.

Access to internet and hardware

Where internet availability was not guaranteed, making attendance at live sessions unpredictable, solutions included offering classes on different days and at different times, providing catch-up sessions, and recording classes to them available online. ‘As CPs’ circumstances changed during the course, e.g. returning to F2F teaching and no longer having a laptop to work on at home, the teachers adapted the delivery to allow for audio-only attendance’ (Languages Utd/ETAG). The range of platforms and tools described in the individual reports certainly suggest that ‘where internet accessibility is still very limited – a remote language course for teachers is possible thanks to tools like WhatsApp, and can be of great benefit’ (Inlingua/ELTA-GB).

Appropriateness of course content and processes

Negotiation: In addition to responding to the initial analysis carried out in Phase 1, many projects found it useful to take a more negotiated approach to content during the course itself, which ‘motivated the participants by giving them direct influence in the course content and led to participant engagement in lessons’ (Celtic/LATAZ). This ongoing participant contribution was enabled during live sessions, one-to-one meetings – ‘as the teachers developed a better understanding of the CPs’ teaching context, through mentoring, it became apparent that some of the looped input being provided was less relevant’ (Languages Utd/ETAG) – and sometimes through innovative digital options inviting CPs ‘to select from a menu of possibilities’ (CELT/CABITA).

Language and methodology: The most frequent area for negotiation was the balance between language improvement and methodology development. Many projects report that the expectation on the part of both the ETA partners and the CPs was that there would be a focus on methodology, and that acknowledging this, along with the PRELIM intention to raise teacher confidence through improved classroom language competence, was an important contributor to project engagement. The perspective shared by many was that ‘a language improvement course aimed at teachers cannot and should not be detached from methodology – both aspects reinforce and strengthen the other’ (Bell/BRAZ-TESOL). This recognises the fact that it is probably unrealistic to ‘separate being a teacher from being a learner; they will always be wearing both hats, so all courses need to include explicit reflection and exploration of task, topic and theory’ (IH London/CINELTA). Indeed, methodology as content sometimes proved to be unavoidable when ‘interactive tasks were well received, but the group chat became a forum for discussing the teaching ideas rather than a class actually doing the tasks’ (Inlingua/ELTA-GB), and where ‘most of the English for teaching language input and a lot of the mentoring hours resulted in discussions of methodology’ (OIEG/SPELT).

The reports reveal different ways of achieving this combination from ‘the inclusion of methodologyoriented asynchronous projects and use of weekly quizzes alongside the more language-focused activities’ (LILA*/ThaiTESOL), to ‘using the course material as a springboard for discussion and, while still delivering the class material, then allowing time for analysing the activities and approaches that they had used’ (IH London/AINET). As can be seen from the CP evaluations below, this was a very useful development during the project.

Culture: An extremely gratifying feature of PRELIM is the way the project interactions and partnerships have enhanced awareness of different cultural contexts and an appreciation of collegiality between educational professionals across them. The realisation that ‘The best thing by far was meeting this wonderful group of people and their generosity in sharing their thoughts and opinions on all and every topic’ (Celtic/LATAZ) is one shared across many of the projects. In Vietnam, for example, ‘The course participants seem to engage most with more cultural topics, especially when asked to describe what people generally do during Tet’ (WSE/ VietTESOL). As the reports highlight, links were discovered, such as the shared mining traditions of Wales and Zambia; skills were shared such as British scone-baking and Brazilian Carnival costume-making; and images and details of the daily lives of both tutors and CPs became one of the key takeaways for many of the project participants. This aspect of development occurred within the process of the courses themselves as the shared input formed the basis of both language and methodology activities, but it was also an outcome of the more non-academic interactions. The latter was highly motivational for everyone involved and many have pointed out its importance in defining the overall experience of PRELIM. The recommendation to ‘make space for social media interaction between tutors and participants and encourage it to build trust and rapport, build this into course planning’ (Bell/BRAZTESOL) is shared across all the projects. For some, WhatsApp was ‘key to creating rapport within the groups … (as it) led to instant and responsive interactions, peer support and low-pressure opportunities to practise using English. It was also an opportunity for cultural exchanges, as our teachers indirectly gained insights into life in Honduras, and the CPs learned about our teachers’ UK experiences’ (Lewis School/HELTA). Elsewhere ‘the overwhelming majority of cultural awareness raising activities – in both directions – was facilitated through Facebook. The closed group was the non-academic content forum for sharing, predominantly YouTube links and photos’ (Languages Utd/ETAG).