The experience of being the researcher and the teacher on the course was a cause of some strain throughout stage two of this AR study. Despite having experience as a project manager and teacher, I felt the effects of organising the entire project and of teaching on the course. At times, I felt under pressure to deliver the programme and to satisfy every whim the ESLs had, so that their experience was positive. I was also conscious that my overarching goals were to challenge them to work, to involve them in their learning and create an atmosphere in which they felt they were in a learning partnership rather than in the traditional teacher-student role. A second source of stress was the feeling of being ‘on duty’ and watching
171
myself as the teacher, wanting to ensure progress and respond to learner’s queries and concerns. I wondered if I was doing it right and how my teaching was coming across. Was I up to the mark? Was Sinéad, the second teacher, more in command? As I had been doing 1-1 work for some years, I had to relearn the practice of group teaching. I had confidence issues, but they helped me understand how the YP were feeling as they reacted to various things in the course. This made the teaching experience very intense.
Coupled with this was my concern that the constructivist teaching strategies be applied with rigour so that that we were teaching these ESLs to self-direct their learning, in as far as this was manageable. I found this aspect particularly challenging as I wanted to make sure we were coaches, not teachers, and remained true to the constructivist principles. This sense of a stressful experience may be put down to wanting to ensure the research project did not founder or that ESLs did not leave as a result of teaching situations which they did not like.
In addition, being aware of the external circumstances affecting ESLs in the study also caused stress. At times, I felt empathy for the YP, at other times distress and anger at their parents or partners for affecting their ability to participate in the course. I often struggled with this and, as leader of the project and onsite researcher, I sometimes felt at a loss and would have welcomed the opportunity to discuss concerns or individual issues that arose during the course.
Throughout this implementation stage of the AR cycle, the capacity of the teachers to engage in any type of ‘emotion work’ as described by Huyton (2009) was very limited and indeed my role as teacher and coach was stretched as it was, leaving me very little time to work with individuals in this domain. Emotion work is generally understood as work carried out
172
with students to help them recognise and manage their emotions in a structured manner. Its goal is to create stability and independence, not dependence. It is argued that training in managing emotions and dealing with self-disclosure facilitates transformative learning (Brockbank and McGill, 2006; Beard et al., 2007). The ESLs’ learning environment can tend to be governed by the YP’s emotional state and it is here that the role of the teacher is critical and very often, taken for granted. In general, there is limited attention paid to the fact that staff, by the very nature of what they do, are expected to manage emotional situations without too much fuss. In my experience as a practitioner in the field, I have witnessed ‘emotion management’ carried out by staff on a daily basis and without specific theoretical foundations, as part of normal work practice. It is simply part of the territory.
However, while practitioners in the field might be experienced at carrying out emotion management work, it takes its toll on staff due to the intense and normally stressful features of ESLs’ lives. This study highlights the importance of having sound professional support in place for staff. Opportunities to engage in debriefing sessions with colleagues are important, as are options for external supervision.
Despite the tensions involved in such a study, my experience was a positive, if challenging one. I went into the course with certain expectations and outcomes that I wanted to realise. It was important to me to deliver the Communications course in its entirety and to a high standard. I was particularly committed to making sure the ESLs were involved in their experience and that they succeeded in achieving the qualification that we, as their teachers, had suggested they were able for. I am happy with what was accomplished in this regard.
173
ESLs are a naturally untrusting group: I wanted to change their view of education by involving them in an experience which would put them in control of some of their learning. Overall, I am satisfied that this was achieved to some degree and that these ESLs had a new experience of involvement in their VET. The constructivist strategies had a role here and I would single out the strategy of teacher as coach as being the most significant in shaping my future practice.
What surprised me, and what I found most difficult, is that I did not anticipate how some of these ESLs would react to the literacy issues that affected their progress, and how their lack of emotional regulation would dominate their learning. These two items affected their self-management, which was challenging for their teachers but also upsetting for them.
If I were to replicate the study, I would make some changes to the areas outlined below, as follows:
I would address literacy issues by providing a course in basic literacy skills, parallel to the Communications course, so that grammar and punctuation could be addressed throughout the course.
I would use the speaking and listening elements of the curriculum to work on emotional regulation (for example, work on moods, or role- play and drama techniques) to manage conflict and stress.
In addition, I would focus more on engaging the ESLs in learner involvement by revisiting the learner contracts throughout the taught course and including ESLs more in selecting curriculum materials.
With regard to constructivist strategies, I view the strategies of teacher as coach and self-directed learning as powerful ways of creating learner autonomy and I would apply these to future
174
teaching practice. I would not repeat the use of generative learning, (trying to create links between old and new learning for ESLs) as a strategy for ESL learning.