UGC-Sponsored National Seminar on
Reflective Practice in the English Classroom
(August 11-12, 2008)
Dr ML Tickoo delivering the key-note address
The Centre organized a 2-day UGC-sponsored national seminar on ‘Reflective Practice in the English Classroom’ on 11 and 12 August 2008. 139 college and university teachers of English from Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, and Jharkhand participated in the seminar. The resource persons included Professor M L Tickoo, formerly Head, Specialists Department, Regional Language Centre (RELC), Singapore; Professor V Robert Bellarmine, formerly English Studies Officer, British Council (South India); Professor Malathy Krishnan, English and Foreign Languages University (formerly ‘CIEFL’), Hyderabad; and Dr Champa Tickoo, formerly Head, Department of Education, Osmania University, Hyderabad, and formerly Faculty Member, National University of Singapore. The seminar was held under the direction of Dr P Ramanujam, Director of the Centre.
Need for the Seminar
The national seminar was part of the efforts of the Loyola ELT Centre to find a workable model of professional development for ESL (English as a second language) teachers in higher education in this country.
ESL teacher education in our country is largely an undefined affair. Unlike school teachers, teachers in higher education are not required to be trained teachers at the entry level, but they may take part in short in-service programmes such as conferences, seminars, and workshops, or attend the orientation course and/or the refresher course at the Academic Staff Colleges established by the University Grants Commission. But, while programmes of the former category are few and far between, the latter, the programmes of the Academic Staff Colleges, are beyond the reach of the majority of teachers, given the small number of Academic Staff Colleges. Besides, the Academic Staff College programmes, in particular, the Refresher Course meant for teachers of English, do not seem to have been designed keeping in mind what the teacher is required to do in the classroom. While the focus of the Orientation Course, which is meant for teachers across disciplines, is on awareness of the linkages between society, environment, development, education, management, and personality, as well as what the Academic Staff Colleges call subject upgradation, the Refresher Course meant for ESL (English as a second language) teachers is largely a subject-upgradation course rather than a teacher development one. Furthermore, the course is heavily slanted towards literature rather than language teaching with superficial attention to the latter, and this certainly takes away from its intended value in training ESL (English as a second language) teachers. The inadequacy of the Refresher Course as a means of teacher education has been regretted by the Director of an Academic Staff College himself who, in an article in the University News (January 11, 1993, pp 11 & 13), has pleaded for the collapse of the model represented by the Refresher Course and the introduction of a teacher development model ‘with emphasis on the teacher-in-the-classroom’. Fifteen years have passed since the plea was made, but the teacher-in-the-classroom model still remains elusive.
It is against this background that the Reflective Approach that the ELT Centre proposed through the seminar as a viable means of ESL teacher education should be seen. However, the seminar intended the Reflective Approach to supplement the existing in-service programmes rather than supplant them. While the latter represent an initial – and even essential – phase in teacher development, the former represents an ongoing process – a process which continues throughout a teacher’s career.
Value of the Reflective Approach
The Reflective Approach derives its value from the fact that it is based on how professionals develop professionalism and is, therefore, grounded on a broad base of professional knowledge and experience. Central to professional development is the process of reflecting on one’s own practice, and it involves collecting data about one’s practice and using the data as a basis for critical reflection. In the ELT context, this will mean teachers observing their own classroom practices, collecting data about their classroom, and using the data as a basis for self-evaluation and their professional growth. Thus the Reflective Approach is an “insider” or teacher-initiated approach to professional development in which teachers “experience” knowledge, construct their own theories of teaching, and take responsibility for their own professional development.
Objectives of the Seminar
The aim of the seminar was to encourage teachers of English to manage their own professional development. The seminar proposed to realize this aim by disseminating information about the Reflective Approach, by presenting a number of exploratory task and activities, and by motivating the participants to practice one or more of them. To be precise, the seminar set itself the following objectives:
Some Key Issues Discussed at the Seminar
The keynote address by Prof. Makhan Lal Tickoo, formerly Head, Specialists’ Department, Regional Language Centre (RELC), Singapore, was an exploration of the main events in the evolution and development of teacher reflection in the teaching of English as a second/foreign language (TES/FL). He described four models of reflection in practice which included Dr N S Prabhu’s Bangalore Project on which Dr Prabhu put to test a new theory about how languages are acquired; Prof. Rama Devi’s two-year-long experiment which explored the problems and possibilities in learners’ efforts to convey meanings in English; two or more teachers working together and learning from each other’s informed comments and criticism; and keeping a careful record of one’s own teaching. He concluded his presentation with the cautionary remark that reflection ‘with disregard for existing and ongoing professional wisdom might prove of less value than one wherein the two work in harmony’.
The presentation of Prof. Robert Bellarmine, formerly English Studies Officer, British Council (South India), was concerned with professional development on the reflective model. The discussion was in two parts. The first part dealt with the “technical” meaning of the term ‘reflective practitioner’ and also discussed in what sense teachers could be professional or become professionalized. The second part presented examples of reflective practices, such as running teacher development groups and teacher resource centres, and proposed practices which could be easily pursued at the individual level by most teachers. Prof. Bellarmine also pointed out why a few of the reflective practices followed in the West were not adoptable in our situation.
In his paper, Dr P Ramanujam, Director, Loyola ELT Centre, Andhra Loyola College, Vijayawada, addressed the concern voiced by experts about the major obstacles to professionalism in English language teaching, and pointed out the need to go beyond voicing concern and explore ways of developing professionalism in ELT. Accordingly, he examined the implications of the idea of English teachers as professionals and found reflection on action opening up possibilities of professional development in ELT. He outlined a few strategies for teacher reflection and pointed out that, in India, where the higher education system was finding it difficult to cope with in-service teacher education, the Reflective Approach held considerable promise for the professional development of teachers. He also recommended that the Reflective Approach should form an essential component of the Refresher Course offered for ESL teachers in higher education in the Academic Staff Colleges.
Dr Malathy Krishnan, Professor, The English and Foreign Languages University (formerly ‘CIEFL’), described reflection on action as “scientific self-reflection” which seeks to bridge the gap between non-participant research through objective observation and unsystematic intuitive practice, and stressed the collaborative dimension of reflection on action. She also examined a few approaches to self-monitoring that are adopted in reflective practice.
Prof. Champa Tickoo’s paper was about an experiment she had conducted in a government-run secondary school in Hyderabad and the positive changes that the experiment effected both in the learners’ language learning skills, and attitudes, and in the teachers’ perception of their own work. The change in the teachers’ attitude was due as much to their reflection on their own teaching practices, which the conference sessions with the experimenter encouraged them to carry out, as it was to their observation of the experimenter’s classes. Ms Samrajya Lakshmi’s paper discussed vignettes of “critical incidents” from her own diary, and advocated diary writing as a possible means of reflecting on one’s own classroom practice. Action research, team teaching, and best practices in English language teaching are a few other subjects which were deliberated upon.
Some of the papers dealt with specific strategies for maximizing student learning. Dr Gopal Reddy’s paper presented a variety of procedures for facilitating classroom interaction. Ms Sanjukta Sivakumar examined how learner autonomy through shared decision-making and peer collaboration could contribute to cognitive development in learners. Ms Sharada Allamneni’s paper dealt with strategies for activating critical reading skills. The other papers dealt with a wide variety of issues ranging from syllabus design to pedagogy for a digital age.
Recommendations Made at the Seminar
The following recommendations were made at the seminar:
Need for the Seminar
The national seminar was part of the efforts of the Loyola ELT Centre to find a workable model of professional development for ESL (English as a second language) teachers in higher education in this country.
ESL teacher education in our country is largely an undefined affair. Unlike school teachers, teachers in higher education are not required to be trained teachers at the entry level, but they may take part in short in-service programmes such as conferences, seminars, and workshops, or attend the orientation course and/or the refresher course at the Academic Staff Colleges established by the University Grants Commission. But, while programmes of the former category are few and far between, the latter, the programmes of the Academic Staff Colleges, are beyond the reach of the majority of teachers, given the small number of Academic Staff Colleges. Besides, the Academic Staff College programmes, in particular, the Refresher Course meant for teachers of English, do not seem to have been designed keeping in mind what the teacher is required to do in the classroom. While the focus of the Orientation Course, which is meant for teachers across disciplines, is on awareness of the linkages between society, environment, development, education, management, and personality, as well as what the Academic Staff Colleges call subject upgradation, the Refresher Course meant for ESL (English as a second language) teachers is largely a subject-upgradation course rather than a teacher development one. Furthermore, the course is heavily slanted towards literature rather than language teaching with superficial attention to the latter, and this certainly takes away from its intended value in training ESL (English as a second language) teachers. The inadequacy of the Refresher Course as a means of teacher education has been regretted by the Director of an Academic Staff College himself who, in an article in the University News (January 11, 1993, pp 11 & 13), has pleaded for the collapse of the model represented by the Refresher Course and the introduction of a teacher development model ‘with emphasis on the teacher-in-the-classroom’. Fifteen years have passed since the plea was made, but the teacher-in-the-classroom model still remains elusive.
It is against this background that the Reflective Approach that the ELT Centre proposed through the seminar as a viable means of ESL teacher education should be seen. However, the seminar intended the Reflective Approach to supplement the existing in-service programmes rather than supplant them. While the latter represent an initial – and even essential – phase in teacher development, the former represents an ongoing process – a process which continues throughout a teacher’s career.
Value of the Reflective Approach
The Reflective Approach derives its value from the fact that it is based on how professionals develop professionalism and is, therefore, grounded on a broad base of professional knowledge and experience. Central to professional development is the process of reflecting on one’s own practice, and it involves collecting data about one’s practice and using the data as a basis for critical reflection. In the ELT context, this will mean teachers observing their own classroom practices, collecting data about their classroom, and using the data as a basis for self-evaluation and their professional growth. Thus the Reflective Approach is an “insider” or teacher-initiated approach to professional development in which teachers “experience” knowledge, construct their own theories of teaching, and take responsibility for their own professional development.
Objectives of the Seminar
The aim of the seminar was to encourage teachers of English to manage their own professional development. The seminar proposed to realize this aim by disseminating information about the Reflective Approach, by presenting a number of exploratory task and activities, and by motivating the participants to practice one or more of them. To be precise, the seminar set itself the following objectives:
- evaluating the prevailing approaches to ESL teacher education in India;
- proposing the Reflective Approach as an alternative ESL teacher education model;
- exploring the possibilities (e.g. keeping a teaching journal, peer observation, action research) of implementing the teacher-as-a-reflective-practitioner model;
- studying models/examples of reflective practice; and
- motivating participants to draw up an action plan for their own professional development on the reflective model.
Some Key Issues Discussed at the Seminar
The keynote address by Prof. Makhan Lal Tickoo, formerly Head, Specialists’ Department, Regional Language Centre (RELC), Singapore, was an exploration of the main events in the evolution and development of teacher reflection in the teaching of English as a second/foreign language (TES/FL). He described four models of reflection in practice which included Dr N S Prabhu’s Bangalore Project on which Dr Prabhu put to test a new theory about how languages are acquired; Prof. Rama Devi’s two-year-long experiment which explored the problems and possibilities in learners’ efforts to convey meanings in English; two or more teachers working together and learning from each other’s informed comments and criticism; and keeping a careful record of one’s own teaching. He concluded his presentation with the cautionary remark that reflection ‘with disregard for existing and ongoing professional wisdom might prove of less value than one wherein the two work in harmony’.
The presentation of Prof. Robert Bellarmine, formerly English Studies Officer, British Council (South India), was concerned with professional development on the reflective model. The discussion was in two parts. The first part dealt with the “technical” meaning of the term ‘reflective practitioner’ and also discussed in what sense teachers could be professional or become professionalized. The second part presented examples of reflective practices, such as running teacher development groups and teacher resource centres, and proposed practices which could be easily pursued at the individual level by most teachers. Prof. Bellarmine also pointed out why a few of the reflective practices followed in the West were not adoptable in our situation.
In his paper, Dr P Ramanujam, Director, Loyola ELT Centre, Andhra Loyola College, Vijayawada, addressed the concern voiced by experts about the major obstacles to professionalism in English language teaching, and pointed out the need to go beyond voicing concern and explore ways of developing professionalism in ELT. Accordingly, he examined the implications of the idea of English teachers as professionals and found reflection on action opening up possibilities of professional development in ELT. He outlined a few strategies for teacher reflection and pointed out that, in India, where the higher education system was finding it difficult to cope with in-service teacher education, the Reflective Approach held considerable promise for the professional development of teachers. He also recommended that the Reflective Approach should form an essential component of the Refresher Course offered for ESL teachers in higher education in the Academic Staff Colleges.
Dr Malathy Krishnan, Professor, The English and Foreign Languages University (formerly ‘CIEFL’), described reflection on action as “scientific self-reflection” which seeks to bridge the gap between non-participant research through objective observation and unsystematic intuitive practice, and stressed the collaborative dimension of reflection on action. She also examined a few approaches to self-monitoring that are adopted in reflective practice.
Prof. Champa Tickoo’s paper was about an experiment she had conducted in a government-run secondary school in Hyderabad and the positive changes that the experiment effected both in the learners’ language learning skills, and attitudes, and in the teachers’ perception of their own work. The change in the teachers’ attitude was due as much to their reflection on their own teaching practices, which the conference sessions with the experimenter encouraged them to carry out, as it was to their observation of the experimenter’s classes. Ms Samrajya Lakshmi’s paper discussed vignettes of “critical incidents” from her own diary, and advocated diary writing as a possible means of reflecting on one’s own classroom practice. Action research, team teaching, and best practices in English language teaching are a few other subjects which were deliberated upon.
Some of the papers dealt with specific strategies for maximizing student learning. Dr Gopal Reddy’s paper presented a variety of procedures for facilitating classroom interaction. Ms Sanjukta Sivakumar examined how learner autonomy through shared decision-making and peer collaboration could contribute to cognitive development in learners. Ms Sharada Allamneni’s paper dealt with strategies for activating critical reading skills. The other papers dealt with a wide variety of issues ranging from syllabus design to pedagogy for a digital age.
Recommendations Made at the Seminar
The following recommendations were made at the seminar:
- Considering the potential of the Reflective Approach in the ongoing professional development of teachers, educational institutions and educational administrators may promote the Approach by organizing teacher education programmes on the different means of practising the Reflective Approach, such as action research and peer observation.
- The Refresher Course organized by the Academic Staff Colleges may include the Reflective Approach as an essential component.
- Considering that the majority of teachers of English who attend the ASC-organized Refresher Course meant for teachers of English are teachers of the English language rather than teachers of English literature, the usefulness of the course may considerably be enhanced by paying greater attention to language teaching.
- Considering the twin advantages of the Reflective Approach, namely, its proven value in the ongoing professional development of teachers and its cost-effectiveness, in-service teacher education programmes meant for teachers of English, especially the ASC-organized Refresher Course for teachers of English, may be based on the Reflective Model.
- Considering that the Reflective Approach is an empowering model of professional development, in that it enables teachers to “experience” knowledge, construct their own theories of teaching, and take responsibility for their own professional development, teachers of English, especially the participants in this seminar, may, on their own, implement the teacher-as-a-reflective-practitioner model through means such as keeping a teaching journal, peer observation, and action research.
UGC-Sponsored National Workshop on
Action Research for Professional Development in ELT
(December 10-12, 2009)
The participants with the resource persons and the organizers
The Centre organized a 3-day UGC-sponsored national workshop on ‘Action Research for Professional Development in English Language Teaching’ on December 10, 11 and 12, 2009 with forty university / college teachers of English from five States – Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Jharkhand – as participants. Dr P Ramanujam, Director of the Loyola ELT Centre, was the Director of the workshop which was inaugurated by Prof V Robert Bellarmine, formerly English Studies Officer, British Council (South India).
The workshop was part of the Loyola ELT Centre’s efforts to find a workable model of professional development for ESL (English as a Second Language) teachers in higher education in this country. The Centre’s initial effort in this direction was in the form of a UGC-sponsored national seminar on ‘Reflective Practice in the English Classroom’ (August 11 – 12, 2008) which proposed, in the context of the higher education system finding it difficult to cope with in-service teacher education, the Reflective Approach as a viable means of ESL teacher education, and acquainted the 160 participants from different parts of this country with some of the tried-and-tested procedures for carrying out reflective practice. The Centre wanted to take that initiative further forward and help teachers of English in higher education pursue their own professional development on the reflective model by carrying out action research which, in simple terms, means teacher-conducted classroom research whose purpose is to clarify and resolve practical teaching issues and problems. Hence the UGC-sponsored action research workshop which was the first in a series of action research workshops the Centre is planning to organize.
NEED FOR THE WORKSHOP
In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on research, thanks to the heightened awareness about the close relationship between research and teachers’ professional development, and incentives are also being offered to promote educational research. At the same time, however, there is a growing dissatisfaction with educational research because of its failure to focus on teachers’ own classroom practices. This is especially so in the teaching of English as a second language where the wide gap between educational research and classroom practice raises serious questions about the relevance of the research.
The need for action research (AR) should be seen against this background. AR is not research for its own sake (which, unfortunately, is the case with educational research in the majority of cases), but research conducted to resolve classroom problems. The research is conducted in the classroom itself during the process of regular classroom teaching, and it involves the teacher investigating an issue that has puzzled him or her for a period of time by engaging in a process of planning, action, observation, and reflection. It thus adds a research dimension to the teacher’s existing practice as a means of understanding the practice and improving it. It also seeks to redefine the role of the teacher by giving teachers the means to set their own agendas for improvement and by shifting the responsibility for change or improvement from an outsider to teachers themselves.
AR can serve the following purposes:
Thus AR is problem-focused in its approach and very practical in its intended outcomes. It helps teachers develop personal theories of teaching and is, therefore, ‘a prime tool for teacher development.
In progressive educational systems, action research has been recognized as one of the best ways of ensuring continuing professional development and of developing teaching as a research-based profession. Andrew Pollard who, in his book on reflective teaching, reports on the contemporary educational development in the UK, points out that ‘in recent years, the Teacher Training Agency in England and the General Teaching Councils across the UK have been strongly encouraging teachers to engage in classroom research as a means to raise standards of both professional development and pupil learning’ (Pollard 2006: 64).
OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP
It was on the basis provided by all these perceptions and considerations that the Loyola ELT Centre organised a national-level workshop on action research with the following specific objectives:
WORKSHOP DYNAMICS
At the workshop, the participants, who were from five States – Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Jharkhand – discussed their identified classroom problems to gain clarity of understanding, drew up action research plans for implementation in their classrooms, and presented their individual action research plans in the form of posters for comments by the workshop facilitators. They took their fine-tuned action research plans to their institutions for implementation over a period of nine months in their own classrooms. Throughout the nine-month period, the Loyola ELT Centre will provide, with the help of the resource persons, the required guidance to the participants and help them carry out the projects successfully. At the end of the nine-month period, we expect the participants to present a report on the findings of their experiments at a follow-up workshop to be organised by the Loyola ELT Centre.
OUTCOME OF THE WORKSHOP
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE
The following recommendations were made at the workshop:
The workshop was part of the Loyola ELT Centre’s efforts to find a workable model of professional development for ESL (English as a Second Language) teachers in higher education in this country. The Centre’s initial effort in this direction was in the form of a UGC-sponsored national seminar on ‘Reflective Practice in the English Classroom’ (August 11 – 12, 2008) which proposed, in the context of the higher education system finding it difficult to cope with in-service teacher education, the Reflective Approach as a viable means of ESL teacher education, and acquainted the 160 participants from different parts of this country with some of the tried-and-tested procedures for carrying out reflective practice. The Centre wanted to take that initiative further forward and help teachers of English in higher education pursue their own professional development on the reflective model by carrying out action research which, in simple terms, means teacher-conducted classroom research whose purpose is to clarify and resolve practical teaching issues and problems. Hence the UGC-sponsored action research workshop which was the first in a series of action research workshops the Centre is planning to organize.
NEED FOR THE WORKSHOP
In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on research, thanks to the heightened awareness about the close relationship between research and teachers’ professional development, and incentives are also being offered to promote educational research. At the same time, however, there is a growing dissatisfaction with educational research because of its failure to focus on teachers’ own classroom practices. This is especially so in the teaching of English as a second language where the wide gap between educational research and classroom practice raises serious questions about the relevance of the research.
The need for action research (AR) should be seen against this background. AR is not research for its own sake (which, unfortunately, is the case with educational research in the majority of cases), but research conducted to resolve classroom problems. The research is conducted in the classroom itself during the process of regular classroom teaching, and it involves the teacher investigating an issue that has puzzled him or her for a period of time by engaging in a process of planning, action, observation, and reflection. It thus adds a research dimension to the teacher’s existing practice as a means of understanding the practice and improving it. It also seeks to redefine the role of the teacher by giving teachers the means to set their own agendas for improvement and by shifting the responsibility for change or improvement from an outsider to teachers themselves.
AR can serve the following purposes:
- for remedying problems diagnosed in specific classroom situations or for improving a given set of circumstances in a teaching-learning situation;
- for in-service training, providing teachers with new skills and methods and heightening their self-awareness;
- for injecting additional or innovative approaches to teaching and learning into a system which normally inhibits innovation and change;
- for improving the normally poor communication between the practising teacher and the academic researcher; and
- for finding an alternative to the common practice of adopting a subjective, impressionistic approach to problem-solving in the classroom.
Thus AR is problem-focused in its approach and very practical in its intended outcomes. It helps teachers develop personal theories of teaching and is, therefore, ‘a prime tool for teacher development.
In progressive educational systems, action research has been recognized as one of the best ways of ensuring continuing professional development and of developing teaching as a research-based profession. Andrew Pollard who, in his book on reflective teaching, reports on the contemporary educational development in the UK, points out that ‘in recent years, the Teacher Training Agency in England and the General Teaching Councils across the UK have been strongly encouraging teachers to engage in classroom research as a means to raise standards of both professional development and pupil learning’ (Pollard 2006: 64).
OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP
It was on the basis provided by all these perceptions and considerations that the Loyola ELT Centre organised a national-level workshop on action research with the following specific objectives:
- to introduce the participants to the concept of action research as well as to the processes of designing an action research project;
- to provide them with examples of action research, demonstrating the use of research techniques on specific projects and the kind of results that the action research approach could yield;
- to help them identify practical problems of teaching / learning English in their own situations for investigating them through action research; and
- to guide them to implement the projects identified and report their findings after the completion of the projects.
WORKSHOP DYNAMICS
At the workshop, the participants, who were from five States – Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Jharkhand – discussed their identified classroom problems to gain clarity of understanding, drew up action research plans for implementation in their classrooms, and presented their individual action research plans in the form of posters for comments by the workshop facilitators. They took their fine-tuned action research plans to their institutions for implementation over a period of nine months in their own classrooms. Throughout the nine-month period, the Loyola ELT Centre will provide, with the help of the resource persons, the required guidance to the participants and help them carry out the projects successfully. At the end of the nine-month period, we expect the participants to present a report on the findings of their experiments at a follow-up workshop to be organised by the Loyola ELT Centre.
OUTCOME OF THE WORKSHOP
- The fifty participants in the workshop, who were from six States in this country, were convinced of the need for classroom-based research both for their own ongoing professional development and for more effective teaching and learning.
- Twenty-five action research proposals emerged at the workshop. Ten of them are about oral-communication-related problems; four of them about writing-related problems; four others about grammar-related problems; and two about pronunciation-related problems. The problems the other action research projects propose to resolve range from poor attention of students in the English classroom to classroom interaction-related issues.
- The twenty-five participants (out of 50) who worked hard at the workshop (almost all of them worked on their action research plans till about midnight in their rooms on the first and the second days) and produced action research proposals are committed to their implementation in their own classrooms. They have also promised to attend a follow-up workshop (which this ELT Centre proposes to organize with support from the UGC) presenting the findings of their action research proposals.
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE
The following recommendations were made at the workshop:
- that, considering the value of the reflective approach / inquiry-based approaches in the professional development of teachers, teachers of English adopt one or more of the formal procedures available (such as action research) for practising it;
- that action research be adopted by all the participants for resolving their classroom problems; and
- that, considering the services the Loyola ELT Centre has rendered in the last two years in professionalizing teachers of English in general and teachers of English at the tertiary level in particular, the University Grants Commission be requested to strengthen the Centre for organizing professional development programmes for teachers of English in higher education throughout the year. The strengthening of the Centre will involve a formal recognition of the Centre for this purpose with the necessary funds for the expanded role the workshop participants envisage for it.
UGC-Sponsored Course in
English Language Teaching Research Methodology
(February 20 – 21, 2010)
The participants with the resource persons and the course director
The Centre organised a 2-day crash course (in the form of a workshop) in English Language Teaching (ELT) Research Methodology on February 20 and 21, 2010, with 53 novice researchers, who were university / college teachers of English from three southern States (Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh) as participants. Two ELT research methodology experts, namely, Prof. Mukta Prahlad and Prof. Malathy Krishnan, from EFL University, Hyderabad, were the resource persons at the workshop which was inaugurated by Mr K Chandrasekaran, Regional General Manager, The Hindu, Vijayawada. The workshop was held under the Educational Innovation Scheme of the UGC. The Course Director was Dr P Ramanujam, who is the Director of the Loyola ELT Centre.
‘This workshop is in response to persistent demands from college teachers of English who want to do research in ELT but do not know how to equip themselves for the task,’ said the Course Director, Dr P Ramanujam, who is the Director of the Loyola ELT Centre. Explaining the efforts the ELT Centre had made in the last two years in promoting classroom research, which included 30 ongoing action research projects in six States in this country under the guidance of the Centre, he urged the participants to try to find answers to their classroom-based questions through research.
The seven workshop sessions held on the 2-day programme dealt with the whole gamut of ELT research. Introducing ELT research to the participants, Prof Mukta Prahlad discussed both the possibilities and the “problems” involved in ELT research and asked the participants to decide whether they really wanted to do research in ELT.
Prof. Malathy Krishnan, who conducted a lively workshop on formulating research questions, pointed out the need for a research question being answerable within a research project and demonstrated different aspects of the process of formulating research questions. Distinguishing questions from statements among the research “questions” posed by the participants in the workshop, she pointed out that the problem with statements is that they ‘do not really transfer into mechanisms for driving the research design, the methodology or the overall structure of the research.’
Qualitative and quantitative research, data collection tools, data analysis and interpretation were a few other aspects of research dealt with in the course.
In his concluding remarks during the valedictory ceremony, Dr Ramanujam, Course Director, made a promise to the participants: ‘If this course has whetted your appetite for ELT research and if you decide to undertake research in ELT, I am ready to organise a follow-up workshop on ELT research methodology.’
‘This course has disillusioned us about research in general and ELT research in particular,’ said Ms T Sree Latha, a novice researcher teaching English at KL University. ‘Earlier, I had taken several things for granted about research. Now, I have realized the need to think about them seriously – in particular, the research question.’ Mr N Parthasarathy, Educational Consultant, Agri Gold Group, and Ms B Pooja, Head, Department of English, Ramachandra Engineering College, Eluru, who also gave their impressions of the course during the feedback session, spoke about the high learning value of the course, and thanked the Loyola ELT Centre for its efforts in professionalizing English teachers.
‘This workshop is in response to persistent demands from college teachers of English who want to do research in ELT but do not know how to equip themselves for the task,’ said the Course Director, Dr P Ramanujam, who is the Director of the Loyola ELT Centre. Explaining the efforts the ELT Centre had made in the last two years in promoting classroom research, which included 30 ongoing action research projects in six States in this country under the guidance of the Centre, he urged the participants to try to find answers to their classroom-based questions through research.
The seven workshop sessions held on the 2-day programme dealt with the whole gamut of ELT research. Introducing ELT research to the participants, Prof Mukta Prahlad discussed both the possibilities and the “problems” involved in ELT research and asked the participants to decide whether they really wanted to do research in ELT.
Prof. Malathy Krishnan, who conducted a lively workshop on formulating research questions, pointed out the need for a research question being answerable within a research project and demonstrated different aspects of the process of formulating research questions. Distinguishing questions from statements among the research “questions” posed by the participants in the workshop, she pointed out that the problem with statements is that they ‘do not really transfer into mechanisms for driving the research design, the methodology or the overall structure of the research.’
Qualitative and quantitative research, data collection tools, data analysis and interpretation were a few other aspects of research dealt with in the course.
In his concluding remarks during the valedictory ceremony, Dr Ramanujam, Course Director, made a promise to the participants: ‘If this course has whetted your appetite for ELT research and if you decide to undertake research in ELT, I am ready to organise a follow-up workshop on ELT research methodology.’
‘This course has disillusioned us about research in general and ELT research in particular,’ said Ms T Sree Latha, a novice researcher teaching English at KL University. ‘Earlier, I had taken several things for granted about research. Now, I have realized the need to think about them seriously – in particular, the research question.’ Mr N Parthasarathy, Educational Consultant, Agri Gold Group, and Ms B Pooja, Head, Department of English, Ramachandra Engineering College, Eluru, who also gave their impressions of the course during the feedback session, spoke about the high learning value of the course, and thanked the Loyola ELT Centre for its efforts in professionalizing English teachers.