Improving ELT Provision through Administrative Measures

Eva Fungkuen Lai
Independent Learning Centre
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Email: fungkuenlaw@cuhk.edu.hk

Paper presented at the MELTA Biennial International Conference
Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, May 20-22, 2001

AbstractThis paper presents a description and an evaluation of a series of measures implemented to improve the quality of ELT courses for university students. The measures taken are as follows. First, periodic needs analysis surveys were conducted to investigate whether there were any changes in student expectations. Second, regular meetings were held between ELT professionals and teachers in major departments to find out how faculty members looked at student needs. Third, teaching quality was monitored by end-of-term evaluation questionnaires, standardized grading criteria, peer sharing and class observation. Fourth, management of the Unit was shared by having different sub-committees to oversee essential administrative work such as audio-visual equipment, computer usage, library book acquisition, student-staff consultation and teaching & research development. Fifth, problematic issues were brought to the Board Meeting or Strategic Planning Meeting. Sixth and last, the image of the Unit was enhanced by organizing a regional conference on ELT and by publishing a collection of selected papers. In this presentation, the successes and failures of these measures are analyzed and recommendations made. It is hoped that such a report can help ELT professionals in other places understand each other better and provide a framework for discussion of ELT improvement.

IntroductionThis paper reports the successful or unsuccessful administrative measures in implementing innovations and in maintaining effective English Language Teaching (ELT) at the tertiary level. Before going on to the management of ELT, it should be helpful to give a brief description of ELT in Hong Kong in general.

Since the introduction of nine-year compulsory education in 1978, we have experienced great difficulties in ELT in Hong Kong. More than half of the students find it hard to use English as a medium of learning or as a means of communication after learning English as a subject for six years in the primary and five years in the secondary school. The government takes the view that all other things being equal, teaching and learning would be generally more effective if the medium of instruction is in the mother tongue and encourages schools to adopt Chinese as the medium of teaching (Education Commission Report No.1, 1984). But that was not carried out on a territory-wide scale until 1998.

With school children having problems with English learning, it is quite natural that the vicious cycle would spiral up to the tertiary level. Many business people were not happy with the situation, among them the Chairman of HSBC who put it down in black and white, “Our Group’s international business depends on it having managers and staff who can competently communicate in the international language of business – English. Like other companies in Hong Kong, HongkongBank finds it difficult to recruit employees with adequate English language skills.” (HongkongBank Language Development Fund, 1993, p.3). That was written at the end of the Hong Kong Language Campaign started by major business corporations in 1988 to improve English in the workplace. It was obvious that success was rather limited.

Nearly ten years later, the situation has stayed very much the same. Business people are still concerned about the declining standard in English. “English is essential for the future of Hong Kong and the SAR must improve the language skills of its workforce to be globally competitive.” (Regan, 2000). There was yet another workplace English campaign focusing on English language skills needed in four types of jobs – secretary, clerk, frontline service personnel and receptionist/ telephone operator.

Apart from campaigns targeting at the work force, the Government is also taking other improvement measures to stop the decline. To ensure that tertiary students can get a boost in English, earmarked Language Enhancement Grants have been distributed to UGC funded institutions since 1991 and a total of HK$610m was used in nine years (Report of IITF, 2000). For our University, First Year students who come in with Grade E in the Use of English Examination (similar to but a little bit easier than GCE A-levels) are required to take one ELT course (about 40 hours of class contact) for English enhancement. Our task is to help these students improve as much as they can during the course and to offer them strategies to continue their English learning independently after the course.

This paper reports a series of administrative measures to improve the quality of mandatory or elective ELT courses in our Unit. As White (1988, p.142) pointed out, “the history of curriculum innovation in ELT is littered with instances of lack of success arising from the failure of management”. Given the limited resources for such a gigantic task, it is crucial to look for effective means to achieve the goal. This paper will focus on the management of ELT and discuss how to avoid failures.

Improvement measuresNeeds analysis
According to Robinson (1991), needs analysis can involve a target situation analysis to find out what the students need to do at the end of a course, or a current situation analysis to establish the proficiency level of the students at the start of a course or a combined of the two.

In our Unit, we conducted needs analyses to solicit feedback from graduates employed in various sectors to inform ELT course design. In 1992, we conducted one such large scale survey. It was found that 81% of the 550 respondents had to use English for part of or all of their working hours, but about 20% felt they were not very confident in oral communication (Lai & Jor, 1993). This kind of data proved to be very useful in showing us which direction to take when we develop new courses.

Another survey of a similar nature was carried out in 1996. The sub-group on Language Enhancement conducted a survey to collect views on language requirements for the work place. 370 companies/ organizations responded and indicated that written English (59%) was more widely used in the work place than spoken English (26%). Grammar and organization of ideas (both at 88%) were considered most important in writing skills, and organization of ideas and fluency (both at 80%) were considered important in spoken English. Understanding the gist (85%) was considered the most important reading skill (Interim Report, 1996).

All these can be considered external needs analysis or target situation analysis. As we run our programmes on an elective basis we conduct internal needs analysis among our students as well. We have been doing this regularly to inform us of needs as perceived by students. Sometimes we even assign needs analysis as a group project for our Business Communication students to design their own questionnaires. Apart from these surveys, useful data can be obtained from the student enrolment figures fo elective courses. When there is a long waiting list for a certain course, we would try to increase the number of sections next term.

Knowing what is required by the society and by the students can point the ELT Unit to the right direction in terms of curriculum design. Generally speaking, providing relevant courses to match the needs of the society would be the best way out. But there are times when students look at their needs from a rather short-sighted angle. For instance, while survey results show that written English is more in demand and that Grammar and organization of ideas are valued in the work place, many weak students find writing courses too demanding and go for oral courses instead.

As Robinson (1991, p. 2) put it, “ESP is normally goal directed, i.e. students study English not because they are interested in the English language (or English-language culture) as such but because they need English for study or work purposes.” Our students are really goal directed and we have to show them why they must invest time to get the proper exposure to improve their English and that they cannot improve their English overnight for a job interview.

Both external and internal needs analyses are useful tools to identify what the learners need. But needs analyses, especially the large scale ones, are both expensive and time consuming. When the expectation of the community changes drastically and when student intake differs significantly from previous years, needs analysis should be conducted. But if there are not many changes socio-economically and if the teaching staff are experienced we do not need to carry large scale analyses every year. Sometimes, we found that surveys were conducted frequently because new expatriate teachers would like to find out more about the students before they started to develop ELT courses. It took up quite a lot of departmental resources, but results may not be that obvious for a long time. It would be better to ask experienced colleagues to share with new teachers or pass relevant local publications to expatriates instead of reinventing the wheel. In our Unit we conduct analyses only when we need data to initiate new programmes.

Exchanges between major faculties and ELT professionalsApart from serving the community and the students themselves, we also try our best to serve the students’ parent departments by enabling them to study effectively in the medium of English. When certain departments entrusted the ELTU to provide ESP courses for their students, we hold regularly meetings with teachers in these major departments to find out if they are satisfied with their students’ English. An example is the meeting between six ELTU teachers and six counterparts from the Business Administration Faculty after the ELTU had provided courses for them for a year. Having reviewed the progress made the students, the BA teachers were still concerned about the complaints made by the business community about the declining English standard of graduates. Thus the two teams discussed how to fit in more English in a very tight Business curriculum. Such a meeting was very useful because it addressed the specific need of students of a certain department.

Another example is the meeting with the head of a Faculty that has no specified ELTU course for their students. Because their teachers were frustrated with students’ repeated grammatical errors, they wanted a new course on grammar for all their low proficiency students. Our Unit met with some of their teachers discussing in depth their expectations of this new course. Then we drafted the course objectives, course contents, kinds of assignments etc. and got back to them for their feedback. During the first term the course was run, we were in close contact with them. Each side conducted its own evaluation at the end of the course and then met again to work out ways to improve.

We have yet another example when our teachers received materials from the parent department to develop the course and then collaborated with them on a joint project in process writing to examine work done by their students. This kind of action research is inspiring to academic departments as well as beneficial to students concerned.

We find that meetings between subject teachers in major departments and ELT professionals are extremely useful because it helps ELT teachers to identify the needs of students from a different angle, a professional one as well. But we also find that such meetings cannot be held too frequently (meaning more than once per term) because colleagues in other major departments may feel that we are not knowledgeable enough and cannot identify student needs ourselves. On the other hand there can be departments with colleagues who are interested in collaborating with us to examine, for example, improvement in their students’ writing performance after a specifically designed writing enhancement course. We have to be responsive to the special requirements of different departments. If we have expatriate teachers who may not know the local scene well enough, we can ask these colleagues to team up with local staff in our Unit rather than bothering colleagues in other departments.

Internal monitoring measures for qualityAs required by the University, end of term evaluation questionnaires are given out for each course on the last teaching day. The normal practice is for teachers to finish teaching and leave about 20 minutes for the class representatives to distribute the questionnaires. The teachers will leave the classroom for the students to handle the whole evaluation process. The class representatives will pass the sealed packets of questionnaires to the General Office for data processing.

The Faculty Course Questionnaire (FCQ) focuses on evaluating three areas, course effectiveness, teacher performance and student participation. The first 14 multiple choice questions require the students to express their views ranging from slight agreement to strong disagreement on a 6-point scale. The next 4 questions are open-ended ones asking for student feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the course and how it can be improved. The average of each course and the average of all courses are calculated. Teachers can compare their performance with the departmental mean. For a more in-depth understanding of students’ views, they can read the responses to the open-ended questions. After each teacher has read individual FCQs, the head of the Unit discusses with teachers whose ratings or written feedback suggest some potential problems. The discussion helps to improve teaching performance of staff as well as to examine effort and motivation of students. Apart from the FCQ, some teachers also add their own survey to find out how students rate certain special features of the course. Such feedback would be very useful for the individual teacher’s preparation of teaching materials for the next year.

To ensure fair grading and criterion-reference standardization, we ask teachers offering the same course to meet in their own teams coordinated by team leaders or convenors to establish basic criteria for assessment, for example, agreeing on the course objectives, content, materials, type and number of assignments at the start of the term. During the teaching term, teachers build a collection of students’ work showing A, B, C and D grades. Towards the end of the term, they hold another meeting to moderate how strict and how fair they have been by sharing their graded assignments among teams and re-grading them.

Weir & Roberts (1994, p. 23-24) raised the question,
“How should evaluation be carried out in accountability-oriented summative evaluation? There can be a mistaken view that it comprises the collection of student test results and their statistical analysis and interpretation. A broader approach suggests that summative evaluation should not necessarily be restricted to obtaining test data which can be quantified or subjected to psychometric manipulation. Tests are an important, possibly an essential part, but nevertheless only one part, of language programme or project evaluation.”

We do not just rely on tests. To demonstrate to the community that we uphold our standard, we build a portfolio of students’ work illustrating different levels of attainment. For instance, in Business Communication we ask all students to write a memo for a certain situation and we draw up descriptors to evaluate students’ work. This can guarantee an A grade from our Unit is really of the top standard. With students’ work assessed based on a criterion-based scale, we can help the community to judge our students’ English proficiency more easily.

To help colleagues to improve in their teaching practice we encourage them to observe each other’s class teaching or to bring problems to the team meetings. Team leaders and the Head of ELTU have observed a number of lessons and given useful feedback for colleagues to consider. But as White et al. (1991, p. 179) pointed out, “the introduction of an appraisal scheme which is seen as an application of sound management principles by senior management as change agent may be perceived to be a threat by teachers as receivers, especially if the innovation is linked to a merit-related pay or promotion scheme.” Our class observation, designed to improve teaching, may indeed be seen as a threat by some staff members on contract terms because they link it to job security. Nonetheless, the monitoring measures described above really helped to ensure delivery of quality teaching. While great care must be exercised in interpreting FCQ ratings and an impartial appeal system must be set up, such fair means of seeking feedback should not be stopped because of possible uneasiness.

Sub-committees for sharing administrative duties
To make sure that essential administrative work of the Unit is handled efficiently, the different tasks are shared out among all teachers. At the end of an academic year, each teacher fills out a preference form for these duties. Based on how heavy the responsibilities of individual sub-committees, and based on teacher preference, the membership of the five sub-committees is decided. Then each sub-committee elects its own Chair using a ballot form provided by the Unit. The process is fair and simple. The elected Chair then calls meetings to discuss various issues related to their area.

The Audio-visual committee is charged with the duty of overseeing the need of the teachers in delivering our courses effectively in terms of technical advice. While AV equipment is provided in all classrooms, we need additional equipment such as video cameras to record student performance for peer evaluation, note book computers for PowerPoint presentation where there is no computer in a certain classroom, etc. This group of teachers will also monitor the quality of the equipment provided by the University and make recommendations if necessary.

The Computer committee is charged with the duty of screening requests for upgrade or new computers from colleagues as well as keeping an eye on the ELTU homepage. Even though the routine technical problems are handled by colleagues in the Computer Service Centre, there are quite a number of academic issues related to the computer like software, web pages, etc. that come under the administration of this group.

The Library committee helps to process acquisition request from teachers of the Unit. Each department/ unit of the university is given a budget to order books for the university library and it takes time to check catalogues from different publishers to find relevant books for our students and teachers.

The Publicity committee promotes ELT elective courses to all students at the start of each term and organizes an information day during term break. Teachers in this team also puts up a board show during the Open Day of the University.

The Student-staff Consultative committee handles relationship between students who have taken our courses or who are taking our courses. The group of teachers in this committee meet with student representatives or colleagues of other departments to find out what their needs are.

The Teaching & Research Development Committee organizes in-house seminars for peer sharing. It also invites outside speakers to share their expertise with us. When colleagues have some preliminary ideas about research projects they want to start, very often they present their proposals in these seminars. Thus this group has helped a lot with action research and curriculum development.

As White et al. (1991, p.61) pointed out, “Successful organizations are learning organizations, and the potential to learn is present in all who work therein. Staff development is a way of ensuring that people learn and develop and that the organization can grow and respond to a changing environment” Our Teaching & Research Development Committee has partially fulfilled this mission and hopefully can make the Unit a successful organization.

Having these committees established help to encourage more participation in the administration of the Unit. In each ELT Committee meeting (similar to a board meeting), the Chairpersons of various committees are invited to report their progress. In this way, teachers have a stronger sense of belonging and the Unit can be run more efficiently. The drawback may be the lack of time for these extra duties or the weak leadership of certain teachers in a committee resulting in poor development in some areas. The Head of the Unit has to be cautious with staff relationship and yet be ready to step in when problem arises.

Solving bigger problems in whole Unit meetings
The ELTU holds at least three Board Meetings each academic year when important issues are discussed and budget passed. Each teacher has one vote and whenever there are controversies on an issue, secret ballots are cast to make sure there is freedom of expression. In this way, teachers have a stronger sense of belonging to the Unit and they are more ready to put decision into action because that is reached by the whole Unit.

To solve bigger problems, we adopted the strategic marketing planning as suggested by White et al. (1991, p.231 ):
“A crucial process in developing strategies is a sound and sharp SWOT/PEST analysis. Based on the internal and external audits conducted as market research, this analysis will appraise a school’s:
Strengths and take into Political factors
Weaknesses account Economic
Opportunities Social
Threats Technical
A good SWOT will help to pinpoint the really important issues to be addressed and make concise statements which should in themselves lead to further action.”

Each year the whole Unit spends 5 solid hours in a Strategic Planning Meeting doing an analysis based on SWOT. The meeting starts with the Head introducing the political, economic, social and technical factors that would affect the development of the Unit. Then the whole Unit breaks up into 4 smaller groups examining the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats that might confront us. After that each of the 4 groups presents their findings to the whole Unit. Lastly, the whole Unit works intensely to plan for the future years taking into consideration all the points covered. So far, we have come up with very useful proposals and concrete plans.

The pros and cons of solving big problems in these meetings may be a delicate issue. While the pro would be better participation and clearer sense of direction, the cons could be weakening of central leadership and loss of chances due to slow response.

Organizing a regional conference on ELT to promote effective teaching
The ELTU organized the First Regional Conference in College English Teaching jointly with the Guangdong Association of College English Teaching and Research two years ago. The aims of the conference were to enhance quality English teaching in the Chinese context and to explore innovative classroom approaches to TEFL. It drew a total of more than 200 participants with at least one representative from each of the tertiary institute in Guangdong province, PRC. It was a very good chance for teachers to explore ways to teach more effectively. The product of this conference was a collection of selected papers on practical teaching ideas for teachers in Hong Kong and in Mainland China, hence the name Crosslinks. This publication can facilitate the exchange of ideas between teachers helping learners of similar linguistic backgrounds.

The status of the Unit can be promoted when the conference is held successfully, but it can also backfire when things go wrong. It is rather stressful to organize big functions like this. It is important that the matter is discussed fully in the whole Unit meetings or strategic planning meetings because it involves funding, staff power and various other resources.

ConclusionTo provide effective ELT, the most important factor is the quality of the teachers. Next is the relevance of curriculum. Therefore, the internal monitoring of quality language teaching is the most important, followed by needs analysis and team work with major departments for curriculum. Periodic SWOT analysis can encourage staff to perform better and to devise strategies for the Unit as a team. In general, improving ELT is a task for the whole team and administrative measures should be implemented with full consultation of everyone involved. If not, it may create unnecessary threats to some staff and hamper the enthusiasm of others. The measures described in this paper may work well in our situation and it may work well in other similar situations after modification by staff concerned.

ReferencesEducation Commission Report Number 1 (1984). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.
Hongkong Bank Language Development Fund Work Report (1993). Hong Kong: The Hongkong Bank Foundation.
Interim Report of Sub-group on Language Enhancement. (1996). Hong Kong : monograph, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, May 23, 1996
Lai, E. & Jor, G. (1993). Needs Analysis of CUHK Graduates 1992. Occasional Papers in English Language Teaching, vol. III, pp13-25
Regan, M. (2000). Language ‘essential to future of SAR’ Hong Kong: South China Morning Post, p.23 Feb.29, 2000.
Robinson, P. C. (1991). ESP Today: A Practitioner’s Guide. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Report of the Inter-Institutional Task Force on Language Enhancement Grants (2000). Hong Kong: UGC monograph, March, 2000.
Weir, C. & Roberts, J. (1994). Evaluation in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell.
White, R., Martin, M., Stimson, M. & Hodge, R. (1991). Management in English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.