Change within ELT can happen for a variety of reasons. It can be driven by, for example, changes in government policy, trends within the teaching profession, developments in technology, guru-led innovations, value-driven changes and/or influences from other disciplines (Burns and Richards, 2012).
According to Hayes (2012), successful change is more likely if it is systemic in nature, it has grassroots stakeholder involvement, there is adequate support during the implementation phase, and there is strong and supportive leadership. He highlights, in particular, the need for joined up thinking, with a change in one part of the educational system needing to be matched by changes in related areas, for example making sure there are adequate numbers of well-trained teachers, appropriate materials, adequate time to prepare new materials, appropriate INSET and advisory support, appropriate evaluation procedures in place, sufficient financial resources and consideration given to any wider impacts such as fitting with local pedagogic norms.
112
Murray (2013) also discusses the effect of context on innovation and change, suggesting three local factors contribute to their introduction and diffusion: whether the organisational structure is integrative - with good communication, being forward- looking, emphasising long-term planning, aiming for the same goal, and building sense of community - or segmental; whether or not the leadership has the managerial skills and understands the change process; and the degree to which the change is acceptable to those involved in implementing it. Along similar lines, Waters and Vilches (2013) suggest that i ple e te s o ha ge age ts eed to ot o l e ed the ha ge i to existing practice but to integrate the change by managing any ripple effects to other pa ts of the edu atio s ste , hi h a i tu e ui e se o da i o atio s su h as changes in the teacher education process.
Kennedy (2013, p.21) suggests a e ologi al odel of ha ge i ol i g i te a tio between participants at all levels rather than being top-down and:
a st ateg of de o e t atio … de ol i g espo si ilities to the ost appropriate level of implementation, though not to the degree that classroom innovations will not have any impact on the system as a whole.
Similarly, Stoller (2009, p.75) advises involving stakeholders at different levels of any change process, pointing out that:
top-down innovations are rarely successful without teacher enthusiasm and endorsement. Similarly, bottom-up innovations rarely sustain themselves without the support of the administration.
Waters and Vilches (2013) similarly emphasise the need to involve those who are being asked to a ept a ha ge, highlighti g the e efits of foste i g e-i e tio , the deg ee to which a change is modified by the user in the process of adoption, as this gives adopters opportunities to explore what the change involves and encourages them to gradually take more responsibility for and ownership of the change, while Derewianka (201 , p. poi ts out that otto -up, incremental change is, in the long run, more
113
likely to result in real change than accepting low-fidelity, superficial, mandated compliance by the masses as a i di atio of su ess ,
Hyland and Wong (2013, p.2) also highlight the i po ta e of tea he -initiated innovation, though at the sa e ti e a of the practical difficulties associated with fostering this kind of bottom-up pe spe ti e , while Rinvolucri (2007) suggests that teachers often decide not to incorporate certain ideas into their teaching because the ideas fail to get through their filtering process. He believes that new ideas need to get past a ious filte s efo e the a e o e pa t of the tea he s epe toi e, i ludi g the pe so al likes a d dislikes filte , the pe eptio of stude ts filte , the tea he s p ofessio al eliefs filte a d the ultu al filte .
Hayes (2012) expresses concern over the support provided for teachers during the implementation phase, suggesting that INSET following a cascade model of training can often have little or no impact and/or dilutes the change. He also advocates a more cyclical and ongoing approach to INSET, rather than it being one-off in nature, and the efo e eeti g the goal of de elopi g supportive conditions and establishing p ofessio al lea i g o u ities a o gst tea he s i all s hools … that a e ital if i o atio s a e to su eed i id., p. . Mo e ge e all , I g a so et al , p. suggest that u less the o side a le gap et een the conditions that research i di ates a e opti al fo p ofessio al de elop e t a d those that a e p o ided i the majority of schools is reduced, successful innovation is unlikely to happen.
Meanwhile Freeman (2013) contrasts the more visible and observable aspects of a change, such as public documents or teacher behaviour relating to the change, with the more hidden, context-based and subjective elements such as teacher thinking, making sense of the change process and the effect of the change on professional identity, positing that these later elements are more important to the success of the change process. In a similar vein, Kiely (2012) suggests that any change needs to acknowledge i fo al o de s - which Holliday (1992) refers to as the processes that keep an existing system stable, coherent and locally accepted, despite any deficiencies that may exist within it - of the existing system and move forward from these.
114 4.3.2. Managing change
Within the setting for this study, there is a great deal of discussion of the need for change in ELT methodology, but there is much less discussion on or awareness of how to manage that change. This issue is discussed below.
In terms of the management of change, Bolitho (2012) highlights the gulf between strategic planning for educational change and what actually happens in the classroom. He calls for more joined-up thinking in terms of planning change, for example recognising that assessment needs to be changed in line with any curriculum change or change in teachi g app oa h. He otes also that i a e ultu i g Fulla , p. - the process by which teachers change their beliefs and habits - resistance is likely and any change can get diluted, particularly where the change is imposed. He therefore believes that empowerment of local stakeholders is essential if change is to be sustainable. This again highlights the need for engagement with stakeholders at all levels, without the approach being either top-down or bottom-up.
Woods (2012) draws together twenty-one case studies relating to managing change, and from these comes up with a number of key issues in change management. These include: the eed fo suppo t fo i ple e te s a d the efo e a positi e o te t fo e ultu i g (Fullan, 2007); creating opportunities for development and empowerment of those involved; avoiding mismatches in perception, for example between teachers and policy makers; integrating different aspects of the change such as new textbooks, teacher training and development, assessment and wider educational reforms; staying focused on classroom realities, for example including classroom-focused training; allowing time for the embedding of new ideas, such as by building in time for reflection and in-school follow-up on in-service training; and identifying and/or creating catalysts, or agents of change, who might co-ordinate local support groups, model good practice and/or attend state/national events; and ensuring sustainability via, for example, ongoing support.
Two of the case studies reported in Woods (2012) relate specifically to settings in India. O Do ahue , i a stud ased i Ta il Nadu, suggests that fo effe ti e implementation of change, the key factor is engagement, the buy-in from key players.
115
She also highlights the need for training programmes that allow reflection and sharing of ideas, and for materials to be adapted to suit the local context. Mathew (2012, p.196), in a curriculum implementation study across India, highlights the risks of washback from the assessment system in terms of creating a barrier to innovation, noting that o pleti g the s lla us, i.e. the p es i ed te t ooks, as see tea he s a d principals as a main measure of tea he o pete e . The suggestion here then is that tea hi g to the test as stifling the change process. Having sais that, in an earlier study, Mathew does highlight that there are silent innovators working without the support of the wider education system to make change happen (Mathew, 2006).
Having now explored approaches to ELT in a more general sense and more specifically communicative app oa hes, alo g ith o ha gi g i te p etatio of CLT , and considered the process of educational change with respect to ELT, the next section attempts to relate this discussion to the setting for the study.
4.4. English in India and in Kerala
From the outset of this section, I should point out that it is influenced by my outsider status in and distant eyes perspective on the setting, with the choice of literature, the decisions on what might be the more relevant points to make and the emphasis given to particular issues all affected by this. Further, as with this chapter as a whole, this section moves from a more global to a more local perspective, looking first at India and then at the setting for the study, Kerala.
The section explores some of the issues surrounding the status of English and current state of ELT in India generally and in Kerala specifically to attempt to shed light on the perceived need to change ELT methodology, and in particular to focus on the emphasis being given to adopting a more o u i ati e approach to ELT, as discussed in Chapter 1. In order to do this, it will briefly look at the role of English and the position of ELT in India as a whole before narrowing the focus to concentrate on Kerala, ELT classrooms within Kerala, and possible ways forward for ELT in Kerala.
116
In addition to providing an overview of the position of English and ELT in India, and in particular within Kerala, the section highlights that ELT in this region has developed in a different way, on a different timescale and with different issues and trends than those that tend to get discussed in relation to Weste TE“OL ; for example, as will be discussed, ELT in India did not follow the trend towards CLT in the 1970s or 1980s.