It is widely accepted that the ultimate goal for a national MOE is the pursuit of higher standards in its educational services. The Syrian MOE is no exception to this rule as the different schemes adopted by the Ministry have aimed at improving the quality of teaching and learning in the country with the National Education Initiative,
Effective Teaching Curriculum Innovation
Professional devel- opment & learning
P a g e| 21 involving the implementation of a national CLT-based textbook, being the latest in a series of initiatives to improve the quality of ELT in Syria (see section 2.5).
Towards the end of the first decade of the 21st century the then Minister of Education stressed the importance of rectifying weaknesses in the prevailing teaching and learn- ing practices in Syria (MOE, 2010). The MOE interpreted ‘quality education’ in terms of:
Motivating students’ quality teaching and learning through cultivating stu- dents' minds, developing their practical competence in solving problems, updating the new exam-oriented education system and increasing learners’ communicative competence in the foreign language education. Further, teachers are required to use active learning strategies and to enhance stu- dents’ ability to use learning strategies to extend their communicative competence. (MOE, 2010, p. 6, my translation).
Such ambitious reforms required a shift in the teaching paradigm, moving from teach- er-centred to more learner-centred approaches.
However, defining the term ‘quality education’ has been problematic and multifaceted, especially when it is concerned with several aspects of education such as policy- making, funding, accessibility, accountability, safe learning environment, supportive community, inclusiveness, classroom quality and teacher training. Adams (1993) ar- gues that ‘quality education’ is usually associated with terms like ‘effective instruc- tion’ and ‘best practice’. For the purpose of this study, ‘quality in education’ will be conceptualised in terms of teaching and learning processes. Within this, Crabbe (2003, p. 9) points out that an understanding of the quality of learning opportunity is central to the process of learning as ‘quality is important, not only for those who are paying for instruction, an issue of value for money, but also for those undertaking the task of designing and implementing a curriculum, and an issue of professional achievement’. In an attempt to provide a holistic view of the ‘quality’ concept, several frameworks for understanding quality in education have been proposed.
Alexander (2008) believes that most approaches to defining quality in education have mainly focused on outcomes, neglecting the role of process. Likewise, Crabbe (2003,
P a g e| 22 p. 11) maintains that the emphasis on 'outcomes or objectives has been a central fea- ture of curriculum development for most of the 20th century.’ Outcomes exemplified by students’ attainment and exam results have been for a long time viewed as the main criteria for defining the level of quality in an educational system. It is believed that outcomes promote quality by channelling effort in a specific direction ‘through as- sessing how well the learner has achieved the outcomes specified’ (Nikel & Lowe, 2009).
However, the achievement of educational outcomes requires a focus on classroom processes so as to broaden, in the present case, the range of pedagogical practices in the Syrian secondary schools within distinctly teacher-centred classrooms. In this way, dialogue and discussion can be included alongside the more traditional drilling, closed questioning and telling, thereby raising cognitive engagement and understand- ing (Hardman & AbdKadir, 2010).
Other approaches to quality learning have focused on the input offered to students (e.g. Krashen, 1998). ‘Input’ here refers to the curriculum, learning materials and ped- agogical practices. However, pedagogical processes have received the least attention in studies of educational change despite their vital role in defining the quality of edu- cation in a particular system. Unlike input- and output-oriented approaches, studying the teaching and learning processes in the classroom context empowers researchers as well as policy makers to make informed decisions about the direction of any education innovation. Stones (1994), accordingly, argues that the best starting point to achieve quality is through examining the pedagogical processes that happen inside the class- room.
Unlike Stones, Crabbe (2003) suggests that it is not sufficient to focus entirely on classroom processes, as there are other domains of enquiry that need to be considered in order to fully understand the issue of quality in a language learning context. Firstly, there is a need to research what conditions need to be met in order for language learn- ing to occur. Secondly, the cultural context needs to be considered as contextual fac- tors interact with pedagogical practices depending on the traditions, cultural mores, policy environments and school conditions. Rote learning, for example, so eschewed
P a g e| 23 in Western approaches, may have a positive effect in certain contexts. For Crabbe (2003), cultural enquiry seeks to understand the specific contexts in which language learning and teaching are taking place. The principal task of cultural enquiry, then, is to understand current language learning and teaching practices, and the values and be- liefs that underlie those practices. The final enquiry is a management enquiry, which should focus on how good practice can be established and fostered in a particular con- text, so that there is a constant search for improvement in the teaching and learning that takes place.
Alexander (2008) examines the notion of ‘quality education’ from a critical perspec- tive. He criticizes the different ‘measures and criteria’ that have been employed, argu- ing that ‘the specific problems of monitoring the quality of pedagogical process […] are problems of conception and evidence as much as procedure’ (Alexander, 2008, p.6). It is therefore essential that language teachers develop their awareness of what is actually going inside their own classrooms. For him, and for other researchers, what and how teachers teach closely reflects the pedagogical skills they possess (Alexander, 2010; Johnson, 1995; Tsui, 1997).
Nikel and Lowe (2009) argue that quality in an educational system is achieved when teachers maximize student learning opportunities and when students demonstrate higher levels of ‘cognitive achievement’. Similarly, Tikly (2011, p. 11) proposes a framework for education quality shown in Figure 3.2. His model reflects the complexi- ty of the issues ‘surrounding what constitutes a good quality education’. The com- pounding elements of the model are arranged in a way that emphasises the interrelat- edness of home, policy and school environments.
Despite the macro focus of this model, the elements of ‘teacher professional develop- ment’, ‘structured pedagogy’ and the ‘relevant curriculum’ places the classroom at the very heart of achieving good quality education. This will, as argued, eventually lead to improvements in teaching practice and student engagement.
P a g e| 24 Figure 3.2 Tikly’s (2011) framework for understanding education quality
For Lockheed and Verspoor (1991), however, enhancing the quality of education im- plies improving both curriculum and teaching through increasing students’ learning faculty and prolonging instructional time. However, their model for enhancing the quality of education looks at the macro level (i.e. accountability, cost and effective- ness) rather than the micro-level of the education (i.e. issues to do with improving the curriculum, providing learning materials, time for learning and effective teaching). In this regard, O’Sullivan (2006) argues that what ultimately matters for enhancing the quality of education is the teaching and learning that takes place in the classroom. In her view, what is required is a close examination of the practices which are ‘effective and feasible in their context and that bring about effective learning’ (p. 244). O’Sullivan suggests that classroom observation can provide illuminating insights into the current state of educational quality in schools. She argues that:
P a g e| 25 The ‘‘why’’ questions have to be supported with other data, most notably teacher observation data, in order to more fully understand the teaching and learning processes currently being used and the extent to which partic- ular processes are likely to be implemented. This leads to the area of teacher thinking, which is also critical to improving quality (O’Sullivan, 2006, p. 245).
Drawing on the importance of classroom observation to identify the quality of teach- ing, several studies have used classroom observation to measure the quality of teach- ing inside the classrooms (e.g., Ackers & Hardman, 2001; Moyles, 2003). Ackers and Hardman (2001) analyzed the recordings of 102 lessons from Kenyan primary schools in order to define the quality of classroom processes. The study was designed to serve as a baseline for improving the quality of teaching in Kenya through the provision of in-service education and training for primary school teachers. The study stressed the importance of training teachers in the use of more active approaches to teaching and learning.
Although predominantly Eurocentric in nature, most studies into effective teaching have highlighted the importance of teaching in an interactive way. For example, Muijs and Reynolds (2010) view effective teaching through the lenses of direct instruction in which interactive teaching and classroom management are at the core. They believe that ‘good’ or successful teaching is 'discursive, characterised by high quality oral work' (p.43). Likewise, Hardman et al. (2009) also considered successful teaching as being interactive and expecting, extending and building on pupil contributions. Focus- ing on the communicativeness of teachers, Ellis (2005b) and Brown (2009) assumed that an effective language teacher should be able to:
Present a range of communicative situations creating real situation from the environment
Preserve and maintain high level of motivation among learners and handle learners' errors tactfully and provide for habit formation and real life use of the target language
Prepare, use and evaluate appropriate materials Produce supplementary materials and teaching aids Provide for cross-cultural insights content
P a g e| 26 In the same vein, several researchers (e.g. Calderhead & Shorrock, 1997; Claxton, 1990; Dillon & Maguire, 2007; Kyriacou, 1997) contend that the qualities that con- tribute to effective teaching cover a range of qualities such as being well prepared, es- tablishing a good pace and flow to the lesson, encouraging pupil contribution during the teacher-pupil interaction and building spontaneity into the discussion. Teachers should also be seen as subject experts, facilitators, motivators, and upholders of moral standards. By taking such personal dimensions into account, other researchers suggest that the profile of a good teacher assumes appropriate personal qualities including the development of a high level of intercultural communicative competence (Sowden, 2007).
Burns and Myhill (2004) consider interactive teaching as being the main ingredient that brings about effective teaching and learning. Interactive teaching, in this regard, is defined as engaging students with challenging questions and feedback on their an- swers, and involving them in problem solving and collaborative activities. Along these lines, Beard (2000) defines interactive teaching as falling into three phases of ques- tioning in which teachers use: (a) questions of increasing difficulty to solve an initial problem to assess skills; (b) rapid recall questions to assess students’ knowledge; (c) slower paced higher-order questions within whole class discussion to promote higher order thinking. Nunan and Bailey (2009) also argue that the use of high-order ques- tions is central to interactive teaching.
I have found that most studies tended to look at the affective and conceptual aspects rather than procedural aspects of pedagogy. In line with Alexander (2008), it can be argued that the previous models have assessed quality from an input-and-outcome per- spective. Therefore, there has been a ‘history of ignorance’ of context and of the actu- al process at the expense of examining input and outcome. Alexander stresses that re- search on the ‘process’ aspect in pedagogy remains a ‘no-go area’. Cameron-Jones (1991) argues that it is not sufficient for language teachers to show that they have an academic qualification to teach English properly. What they should show is that they are equipped with the right pedagogical skills and are professionally well-prepared and developed in a recognized way to deliver quality language teaching.
P a g e| 27 Hence, the present study places ‘process’ at its heart, arguing that unless we under- stand teachers’ actual practices, policy makers and teachers in Syria are likely to carry on reinforcing the status quo. Although the argument presented here is that interactive teaching should constitute the main ingredient to any quality teaching, English as for- eign language (EFL) classes present particular challenges that need to be addressed carefully when examining the notion of quality education.
3.3.1 Quality in EFL contexts
Many researchers acknowledge that quality in the context of the English language teacher education literature has received and is still receiving relatively little attention (e.g., Ellis, 2005a; Savignon, 2007; White, 1998; Widdowson, 2003). The problem of defining quality in English language teacher education is compounded by the fact that some researchers link it to the idea of 'excellence', whereas others associate it more with the ‘professional competence’ of teachers, (Muijs & Reynolds, 2001; Seedhouse, 2005; White, 1998).
Crabbe (2003, p. 10) argues that the term ‘quality’ is now used more frequently, as English language teaching becomes ‘more business oriented and more accountable to funding agencies.’ Therefore, there is a need to clarify the ‘quality’ aspects of lan- guage use in EFL classrooms if we are to arrive at a set of guidelines which will even- tually add up to ‘good practice’ in the language classroom.
For Walsh (2002), teachers’ awareness of their use of the target language inside the EFL classroom is crucial in achieving quality. He suggests that teachers can improve both the quantity and quality of learner output by using language more carefully and by understanding the nature of classroom discourse. This can be achieved through rec- ognizing the important relationship between language use (i.e. teacher talk inside classroom) and pedagogic purpose (e.g., enhancing interactive ELT). This inevitably implies improving academic outcomes and empowering students to continue to learn and to engage effectively with the complexities of the 'outside' world. On the other hand, Ellis (2005a) stresses the importance of theorizing how a language is learnt in- side the classroom, otherwise language teaching will not take place. For example, in
P a g e| 28 learner-centred pedagogies, teachers are required to understand what and how they are teaching within their educational context (e.g., Ackers & Hardman, 2001).
In foreign language classrooms, many researchers believe that effective teachers are those who give their students the floor to speak in the target language by using ‘a’ lan- guage that facilitates students’ output (e.g., Cullen, 2002; Mackey et al. 2001; Mackey & Oliver, 2002). Instead of dominating the verbal utterances in the classroom, depriv- ing students of opportunities to speak, the good teacher should allow his or her stu- dents to participate in conversations and even initiate topics for discussion. Nystrand et al. (1997) summarize the issue by stating that:
ultimately the effectiveness of instructional discourse [in EFL] is matter of the quality of teacher-student interactions and the extent to which students are assigned challenging and serious epistemic roles requiring them to think, interpret,, and generate new understandings. (p. 6)
Overall, it seems that while there is an on-going concern about the quality of EFL, there is relatively little empirical evidence of what goes on inside language teaching classrooms. Teaching, in many secondary school systems, is believed to be dominated by traditional teacher-centred methods. While more learner-centred methods are en- couraged during teacher training there is often little evidence that these are being im- plemented in practice, even by newly qualified teachers. Hence, the purpose of this re- search is to investigate the actual practices of Syrian EFL teachers to provide empirical evidence about what is going inside such learning contexts.