Provisions for knowledge upgrading include not only training but access to relevant resources. Eighteen months previously, we heard that the length of the training provided for teaching the highest level of the curriculum had left teachers concerned about the adequacy of their knowledge to fulfil their students’ needs. We also heard that the project design had paid little attention to the relevance of the existing resources in the Self Access Centres AusAID had previously established for the benefit of teachers and government officials (cf. Chapter 4, page 73).
For those who had now taught the Level 3 course a number of times, difficulties had diminished as they became more familiar with the course book. Many, like Teacher 3, quoted below, had worked hard to overcome their limitations by making use of the limited available resources to upgrade their knowledge:
I feel confident about my teaching now. Before I wasn’t confident enough. Even though I know [knew] the steps of teaching, at that time I was weak at English. But this time my language is quite good. I can explain according to the instruction I can show my knowledge what the students need to know. I can talk about legal words like I can talk about economic, about education or agriculture. I learnt from the ‘Vientiane Times’ [newspaper] and from the UNDP reports we got from LEFAP. Also from teaching Level 3. I feel confident about teaching the topics now. But I need more so I listen to the radio in the morning, like the ‘Voice of America’. They speak very slowly and I understand. When I want to do something, I must do everything to reach my goal (Teacher 3).
Nevertheless, difficulties remained with the ‘uncontrolled’ work-related vocabulary that surfaced in the classroom:
The content we have taught before is OK for us. We’ve taught this book 3 times now. But the vocabulary in Level 3 is difficult. Students want us to translate but sometimes we don’t know. It’s not the vocabulary in the book that’s difficult but the specialist vocabulary of their field (Teacher 3).
Some students were more able than others to independently gain the specific English of their field. One, for example, said, ‘My work is irrigation and roads construction. I studied irrigation vocabulary myself’. However, many, like those quoted below, agreed that their teachers’ lack of specialised vocabulary was a constraint to their learning:
‘The teacher must make an effort to know more on ‘official words’ [specific vocabulary] and teach more of these words’ (Student: Information and Culture Division, Vientiane Province).
‘The problem for English teachers is they don’t understand work vocabulary’ (Ex-student: Savannakhet Department of Finance).
‘It’s a problem when we want to know some vocabulary or some words in my job, but teacher don’t know’ (Ex-student: Luang Prabang Irrigation and Roads Construction Enterprise).
These constraints were exacerbated in provinces where experienced Level 3- trained teachers were temporarily unavailable to teach the highest level of the course because they were studying in another country. In the absence of these experienced teachers, administrators were forced to assign other teachers – teachers who had not had the opportunity of either LEFAP training or previous teaching in order to expand their knowledge base. Difficulties were particularly pronounced in Savannahket Province where both of its two Level 3-trained teachers were now absent, although the HRD had prepared for their departure as adequately as possible within the limits of their budget by funding a one-week workshop conducted by the two Level 3 teachers and one of the ex-counterparts.
With teachers feeling ill-equipped and insecure after six weeks training (see Chapter 6, pages 123-124), it is not surprising that the one-week HRD-funded training was proving inadequate. One teacher commented, ‘Some lessons, the teacher doesn’t have knowledge, for example, about justice – and so it’s difficult to teach’ (Teacher 22). A disturbing lack of knowledge was revealed when one teacher confided, ‘Before I taught about economic development I asked many people “What is this? What is economic development?” But many people, they don’t know’ (Teacher 23). Eighteen months earlier, teachers had commented on the difficulty for themselves and their students in accessing information because of the lack of relevant resources in the Resource Centres/ Self Access Centres. Eighteen months later, former students agreed. One considered that ‘The Resource Centre needs up-to-date documents and information’ (Ex-student: Savannakhet Organisation Department),while another said, ‘I think it needs a lot of materials in the Self Access Centre, for example, on public health, finance, trade, communications’ (Ex-student/Administrator 16). The difficulty this caused was summed up by a teacher who remarked that, without other access to information, ‘We have to help each other and so we don’t know if we’re right or not’
(Teacher 25).
A survey of provincial students revealed their views of their teachers’ knowledge. Significantly, students in provinces with teachers with the highest levels of English, and where at least one teacher had studied abroad, reported the most
satisfaction with their teachers’ level of knowledge. In the remaining provinces, students expressed higher levels of dissatisfaction. In contrast to the LEFAP project design, their comments, some of which are recorded below, show an acute awareness of the socio-economic factors which had led to their teachers’ lack of knowledge:
The teachers haven’t the knowledge but the Lao government cannot upgrade them and to promote the facilities for teachers: high salary, vehicle, land and house. This situation affects to the responsibilities of the teachers’ (Ex-student: Provincial Finance Department, Savannahket).
The majority of teachers are not good in some of the issues in Laos. Some of the teachers have never been on excursions to other provinces. They have only learnt from newspapers (Student: Agricultural Promotion Bank, Vientiane Province).
Teachers have limited scientific, historical and social knowledge, as well as general knowledge (Student: Vientiane Province Office of the Governor).
Some teachers haven’t enough general knowledge to teach the course well because they have less experience, they have only studied in University of Laos or at the TTC [teacher training college] (Ex-student, Organisation Department of Savannahket Province: Head of Division to Upgrade the Knowledge of Lao Government Officials).
From these comments it is clear that a disjunction remained between the provision for upgrading provincial teachers’ knowledge – the training and resources provided by the project – and the knowledge needed to teach the courses. The inadequacy of the project response – the lack of attention to the social reality of provincial teachers – is highlighted by the responses of students studying at the highest level at the ELRC. In contrast to the responses of provincial students, 77% of these were satisfied with their teachers’ levels of knowledge. Unlike the provincial teachers, those at the ELRC had all travelled abroad, some extensively and to a number of countries. Some had also travelled within Laos for work purposes and had previously worked on projects. In addition, being in the capital city, they had access to a more extensive, although still limited, range of resources. These experiences contrast strongly with the parochial experiences of their provincial colleagues and suggest that an appropriate response would have been to broaden teachers’ knowledge base by facilitating access to information and by providing a training program extensive enough to incorporate experiential activities.