As far as theories on teaching and learning are concerned, a potential tension worth considering is that despite the considerably large volume of literature on teaching and learning in HE (e.g.
Biggs and Tang, 2007; Fry et al, 2003; Fox, 1983; Entwistle and Saljo, 1976), it hardly relates to the quality literature. Most of the theories are rather pedagogic in nature. For instance, among Fox’s four personal theories of teaching, only one – “the shaping theory” (which treats teaching as a transformational process that shapes or molds students into a pattern that is already determined, i.e. “fit for the intended purpose”) could be said to be related to quality. The assertion of Biggs and Tang that “[h]ow effectively we teach depends, first, on what we think teaching is” has a bearing on quality (Biggs and Tang, 2007: 15). Every teacher, they believe, has some personal theory of what teaching is, just like quality which, like ‘beauty, dwells in the
54
eye of the beholder’. Their “blame model” integrates learning and teaching and sees “effective teaching as encouraging students to use the learning activities most likely to lead to the achievement of intended outcomes” (Ibid.). This fits into the quality debate because it falls in line with the definition of quality assurance as “fitness of purpose” and the supporting of appropriate student learning activities and discouraging of inappropriate ones as “fitness for purpose.” As far as language teaching and learning are concerned, Richards and Rodgers (2001) and Brown (2007) provide some valuable approaches and principles, but even so, they do not also seem to have a direct bearing on the quality literature. This situation might have arisen because QA has sometimes been regarded as just creating a “compliance culture” with little or no relationship to actual processes of teaching and learning. However, this stance is debatable because both teaching and learning have strict compliance regimes that must be followed in matters relating to curriculum content; assessment and appraisal; deadlines; provisions of statutes; strategic plans; students’ handbooks and professional code of ethics, which are all meant for assuring quality. On the teaching side, quality may well be referenced against subject standards [and benchmarks] rather than pedagogic theories. For instance, EAP programmes are designed to equip students who are undergoing training through the medium of English with the requisite (i.e. standard) language and related skills. Like QA, which is context-specific, EAP courses take “studying in context” into account through the identification of the social as well as academic requirements of a particular situation and thus equip students to cope (Robinson, 1991).
2.4.1 Pedagogical paradigms and language teaching
There has been a considerable volume of debate on which pedagogical paradigm yields the best results and leads to a more rewarding learner experience: a teacher-centred approach or a learner-centred classroom instruction? While some scholars argue that the two are not entirely different in the sense that they both aim at a common outcome of ensuring that students do what they are supposed to do – learning; others contend that it is not just about outcomes, but rather process:
how teaching/learning is done (Blumberg, 2008; Weimer, 2002; Conti, 1979). A teaching style that is student-centred tends to engage students in the learning process whilst a teacher-centred approach mostly aims at transmitting information. This therefore suggests that a teacher-centred teaching may be limited in its engagement of learners during the learning process. In recent times, a “learner-centred” approach to tertiary-level education has been advocated by many
55
including Weimer (2002) and Blumberg (2008). As far as language teaching is concerned, Hart (2003:228) advocates that “language learners should develop their understanding of the convention of language used by engaging in the kinds of language activity found in real life rather than by learning a list of rules.” Paradoxically, results from a recent survey by Liu et al.
(2006) in south-western universities of the US showed that in spite of the apparently dominant position of the learner-centred approach in adult education literature, in practice, there is still a very high reliance on the teacher-centred approach in university settings. Currently in Ghanaian HE environments, the most widely-used instructional approach has been the teacher-centred.
Recent attempts aimed at shifting to a learner-centred paradigm saw the introduction of competency-based learning (CBL) to the teaching of some selected courses in some tertiary institutions, especially the polytechnics. In the face of the tensions relating to a better pedagogical paradigm to adult education, this author shares the view of McCollin (2000) that factors such as the personalities of the learner and the teacher; the learning situation, and curriculum content all contribute to determining the teaching style.
2.4.2 Why apply QA procedures in language education
Like any field of endeavour, language education must meet the expectations of its stakeholders – learners, parents, employers, the government and society at large. It is therefore essential that relevant standards and criteria are set for assessing the quality of teaching and learning activities.
As Heyworth puts it, “in the field of language education there is the need to have a clear and coherent idea of what are “the right things” that we are doing, and procedures for checking that we are “doing things right” ” (Heyworth, 2011: 2). Ghana is a multi-lingual country with English as her official language and the main language of politics and law. For the majority of students, English is their L2. EAP is taught in almost all tertiary educational institutions in the country, but unlike in other countries, the reason for its teaching goes beyond just equipping students with the requisite competences in academic English to helping improve upon their general performance in English, which is considered ‘abysmal’ for most students. The language policy of education in Ghana, though developed with good intentions, has been blamed for this unfortunate situation partly because of its ‘checkered history’ and partly due to lapses in implementation. The acknowledgement by researchers like Baker (2000) and Lewelling (1991) that the level of first language proficiency can impact positively on second language development and cognitive and
56
academic achievement has been the basis for the policy recommending the use of Ghanaian languages as media of instruction in lower primary (i.e. primary one to three). However, since 1525 there has not been a consistent language policy. While some governments have continued with the full implementation of the policy; others have discontinued it, and rather subscribed to the use of English only in teaching at all levels (Owu-Ewie, 2006). For instance, in 2002 a law was promulgated mandating the use of English language as the medium of instruction from primary one. Owu-Ewie (2006) observes that the problem is not with the policy but its implementation, pointing out that the teachers and learners have not been provided with the needed resources to teach the English language. The mere use of a child’s L1 at the lower primary level, he argues, does not guarantee achievement in English language. Citing Carroll (1962), he notes that for a programme to ensure success in L2, it must provide quality instruction and enough opportunities for learning the language, including adequate time. He laments that “as a nation, we have not trained teachers to teach English as a foreign language in a meaningful way and use it for academic purposes in a way that could lead to maximum returns” (Owu-Ewie, 2006:79).
As the application of QA procedures to teaching in general, and to language teaching in particular in Ghana are examined, it is appropriate to take into account the language teaching field of Europe, the origin of the English language, so as to determine how far it can (or cannot) be usefully applied locally. Three documents: The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (2001), the QAA’s Benchmark Statement on Language and Related Studies (2007) and the European Language Learning Materials Study: Examples of Good Practice (2000) provide some useful guidelines. First, a brief discussion of the CEFR and its role in enhancing the quality of L2 teaching and learning:
2.5 The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for Languages