Protección exterior contra el rayo mediante Pararrayos con Dispositivo de Cebado

The first main period of Rebecca’s educational life history was between 1991 and 2000, which consisted of her time studying at the USM and her first five years of teaching. Like the other four participants, Rebecca studied her undergraduate degree at the USM’s School of Languages. When she graduated from her degree in 1995, she was immediately offered an EFL teaching position at the same University. Her first teaching post was not in the city of San Martín, but in one of the USM’s regional campuses, where she began teaching at the Schools of Agriculture, Veterinary Medicine and Administration.

4.2.1.1. Evolution of beliefs

The two Figures below summarise how Rebecca perceived her beliefs between 1991 and 2000:

Fig. 4.2.1.1(i). Summary of Rebecca’s beliefs about teaching between 1991 and 2000 (extract from timeline)

Fig. 4.2.1.1(ii). Graph summarising Rebecca’s perceptions of how student-centred her beliefs were between 1991 and 2000

What seems clear from the two Figures above is that Rebecca considered her beliefs to have been predominately teacher-centred between 1991 and 2000. As the graph above shows, she felt that the extent to which her beliefs were student-centred would have been a ‘0’ at the start of her degree, and only about a ‘2’ by the time she graduated.

In Fig. 4.2.1.1(i) (the extract from her timeline), Rebecca also states that these early beliefs were “unconscious” in nature. This may have been due to the fact that she had not received any explicit teacher training on her degree. At the present time, the undergraduate degree in Languages at the USM is aimed at producing (English) language teachers; however, when Rebecca took it in the early 90s, it was much more general, with more of a focus on the linguistic aspects of English, as well as other areas such as tourism and administration. Therefore, when Rebecca started teaching at the USM, she had not been trained to be a teacher, and had never consciously thought about what might be the best way to teach.

In fact, Rebecca feels that the only guidance for her first few years of teaching would have her experiences as a language learner, which, on reflection, appear to have been almost totally teacher-centred. It was therefore understandable that she would begin to teach in the only way she had been exposed to:

Beliefs 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 <---- Te ach er -ce n tred St u d en t- ce n tred ---- > Graduation from under- graduate degree. Starting working at the USM Starting under- graduate degree

“My beliefs at the time were very traditional. I was teaching in the way I had been taught. […] I didn't actually know what I was doing; it was unconscious; I was just

doing it because I thought it was the right thing to do at the time.”

Rebecca, Interview 2, 00:01:36 – 00:02:08

“I didn't follow a methodology; actually I didn't even know there was a methodology.” Rebecca, Interview 2, 00:00:39 – 00:00:45

During this period, Rebecca also felt that her (albeit unconscious) beliefs about the role of the teacher were generally teacher-centred. Fig. 4.2.1.1(iii) below shows four words and phrases which she chose to describe her role between 1991 and 2000, all of which seem consistent with a typically teacher-centred view of education:

Fig. 4.2.1.1(iii). Words Rebecca used to describe the way she saw herself as a teacher between 1991 and 2000 (extract from timeline)

“I was an "information provider"; I was a "gatekeeper"; I just gave grades and marks and that was my role; who passed and who didn't pass, that was it. I didn’t even think about whether [the students] learnt or not, because I placed the responsibility, or blame

for learning, on the students. I was an "expert" and an "authoritarian", because I thought that was the only way of making students learn.”

Rebecca, Interview 2, 00:04:35 – 00:05:19

“What I thought before is that I needed to make it clear that I was the teacher and they were the students.”

Rebecca, Interview 1, 00:50:58 – 00:51:12

The last quotation above indicates a certain degree of distance between Rebecca and her students. She expressed this relationship on one of the concept maps which she provided on her timeline:

Fig. 4.2.1.1(iv). Rebecca’s concept map showing her perceived relationships with students, authorities and other EFL teachers between 1991 and 2000 (extract from

timeline)

When describing her concept map in the second interview, Rebecca explained that she had purposely decided to place the students below the teacher:

“I put [the students] slightly lower, because that's how I saw myself and how I saw my students. I was friendly with them, but still distant; "you are the student, and I’m the

teacher".”

Rebecca, Interview 2, 00:15:50 – 00:16:10

As she had started teaching at a relatively young age, she felt that this may have also been a contributing factor in her wanting to establish more of a distance between herself and the students:

“I also think it has to do with age, because I started teaching very young, so I really needed to make the difference clear. I think I had students who were slightly older than

me at the time, so I said "I need to send out the message that I'm the teacher".” Rebecca, Interview 2, 00:16:13 – 00:16:39

The top-left circle in the concept map above represents the way Rebecca perceived the relationships between herself and authority figures. At the time, Rebecca’s bosses were a combination of those at the University English Department and the Heads of the individual Schools (at this time, Agriculture, Veterinary Medicine and Administration).

On the concept map, Rebecca chose to place these people higher than herself as a teacher, indicating their superior position within the USM’s power structures. Indeed, whilst it appears to have been a fairly amicable relationship, it seems clear that Rebecca saw these people as the authorities:

“I don't want to say "obey", but we needed to "comply" with what the English Department said. It was like "this is how it should be done, you should follow this

content".”

Rebecca, Interview 2, 00:10:17 – 00:10:36

“Of course there was respect, and the relationship was friendly, but as I see it now, there was no communication; it was just like "they're over there, and we're here".”

Rebecca, Interview 2, 00:11:26 – 00:11:47

“We had meetings, but we didn’t do anything together; we didn’t collaborate at all; we just did what they told us to do.”

Rebecca, Interview 2, 00:12:11 – 00:12:24

The final relationship shown on Rebecca’s concept map was her relationship with other EFL teachers. Rebecca placed these on the same level as herself, indicating a certain degree of friendship and collegiality. However, given that each teacher was assigned to their own groups within particular Schools, she felt that there were few opportunities to interact and collaborate:

“I put them more or less on the same level, but they were still distant. […] There was some collegiality; everyone understood each other's problems, because we were going

through the same thing […]. But we were still working alone. I mean sometimes when we were gathered together in meetings […] we would catch up with what was happening, but when the meetings finished everyone went back to their workplaces and

that was it.”

4.2.1.2. Evolution of teaching practices in relation to beliefs

The previous sub-section established that Rebecca considered her (albeit unconscious) beliefs about teaching to have been generally teacher-centred between 1991 and 2000. In terms of her actual teaching practices, she also felt that these were very teacher-centred. This is summarised in Fig. 4.2.1.2(i) below:

Fig. 4.2.1.2(i). Summary of Rebecca’s perceived teaching practices between 1995 and 2000 (extract from timeline)

When asked how student-centred she felt her teaching practices were between 1995 and 2000, Rebecca answered that she would have rated them as a ‘2’. This was the same score as she gave to her beliefs, which suggests that she was teaching in a way that was generally consistent with her (albeit unconscious) beliefs. This is illustrated in the graph below:

Fig. 4.2.1.2(ii). Graph summarising Rebecca’s perceptions of how student-centred her beliefs were in relation to her teaching practices between 1991 and 2000

Beliefs Teaching practices 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 <---- Te ach er -ce n tred St u d en t- ce n tred ---- > Graduation from under- graduate degree. Starting working at the USM Starting under- graduate degree

4.2.2. Period 2: 2000-2007: The ICELT course and subsequent teaching

In 2000, Rebecca took the In-service Certificate in English Language Teaching (ICELT), which was run by the British Council but delivered at the USM. This was the first formal teacher training course that Rebecca had taken. It was a practical course which included observed teaching practices, and had a special focus on Communicative Language Teaching. After completing the course in 2001, Rebecca continued working at the USM. A few years later, she was transferred from the USM’s regional campus back to the main campus in the city of San Martín.

4.2.2.1. Evolution of beliefs

Fig. 4.2.2.1(i) below indicates that Rebecca’s perceived beliefs were fairly similar in Period 2 in comparison to Period 1, given that she still considered them to be largely traditional, eclectic, and unconscious in nature:

Fig. 4.2.2.1(i). Summary of Rebecca’s beliefs about teaching between 2000 and 2007 (extract from timeline)

However, Rebecca did consider that her beliefs became somewhat more student-centred after having attended the ICELT course. This is illustrated in the graph below, in which she reported an increase from about a ‘2’ in 2000 to a ‘5’ in 2001:

Fig. 4.2.2.1(ii). Graph summarising Rebecca’s perceptions of how student-centred her beliefs were between 1991 and 2007

This change from a ‘2’ to a ‘5’ might be viewed as an important change in Rebecca’s beliefs. However, Rebecca was quick to point out that she does not feel that her fundamental beliefs about teaching changed as a result of the ICELT course. In fact, during the interviews, she mentioned a number of the course’s limitations:

“It was a very active course […] we were observed teaching and we were given feedback, but it was just like that. […] I cannot find very meaningful things from the

experience.”

Rebecca, Interview 1, 00:07:04 – 00:07:32

“It was a long course, and we did some assignments, but it was very fast and just like strategies or tips, things to do in your classroom to make it more communicative,

that was it.”

Rebecca, Interview 1, 00:05:43 – 00:06:02

“We were involved and we did a lot of things, but there was no thinking behind the doing; we were just doing it because they told us it worked.”

Rebecca, Interview 1, 00:06:34 – 00:06:52 Beliefs 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 <---- Te ach er -ce n tred Stu d en t- ce n tred ---- > Start of ICELT course End of ICELT course

The last quotation (“we were just doing it because they told us it worked”) suggests that the ICELT course was fairly prescriptive in nature, and might even be defined as somewhat teacher-centred. It seems that Rebecca was expected to learn and implement the “right” method (in this case, Communicative Language Teaching), without much opportunity for flexibility or critical reflection about how feasible these new approaches might be within her teaching contexts. This appears to be an important shortcoming of the ICELT course (and others), an issue which I explore in more detail in the Cross-Case Analysis and Discussion chapters.

4.2.2.2. Evolution of teaching practices in relation to beliefs

Fig. 4.2.2.2(i) below shows how Rebecca summarised her teaching practices between 2000 and 2007:

Fig. 4.2.2.2(i). Summary of Rebecca’s perceived teaching practices between 2000 and 2007 (extract from timeline)

The box above indicates that although there was a slight change in Rebecca’s teaching practices after the ICELT course, she still felt that she was teaching in a largely teacher- centred way:

“I think there was a slight change in my teaching behaviour; it was a bit more communicative […] but [my classes were] still grammar-based and teacher-centred.”

Rebecca, Interview 2, 00:02:44 – 00:03:01

This is illustrated the graph below, which shows that although Rebecca felt her beliefs rose from about a ‘2’ to a ‘5’ after the ICELT course, there was only a small change in her actual teaching practices, which she felt increased from a ‘2’ to a ‘3’:

Fig. 4.2.2.2(ii). Graph summarising Rebecca’s perceptions of how student-centred her beliefs were in relation to her teaching practices between 1991 and 2007

During the interviews, Rebecca was able to provide an explanation as to why there was such a minimal change in her teaching practices:

“Now I understand why the [ICELT course] didn't work: because there was no connection with the classroom. Teachers go on courses and they leave the experience

there, and then they forget about everything and go back to the classroom.” Rebecca, Interview 1, 01:10:51 – 01:11:12

“There was no follow-up; no one was there to give me feedback on what I was doing, so why would I change if I was so comfortable doing it that way, and because I thought

that worked, and that was the only way I could do it?”

Rebecca, Interview 2, 00:03:31 – 00:03:53

I explore the issues that Rebecca raises (courses failing to make connections with teachers’ classroom realities; lack of follow-up after initial training sessions) in more detail in the Cross-Case Analysis and Discussion chapters.

In addition to the perceived shortcomings of the ICELT course, Rebecca also identified certain external obstacles which she feels prevented her from implementing the more

Beliefs Teaching practices 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 <--- Te ach er -ce n tred St u d en t- ce n tred --- > End of ICELT course Start of ICELT course

communicative approaches which had been encouraged to do on the course. She summarised these obstacles on her timeline, as shown in Fig. 4.2.2.2(iii) below:

Fig. 4.2.2.2(iii). Summary of obstacles preventing Rebecca from implementing Communicative Language Teaching after the ICELT course (extract from timeline)

The first obstacle Rebecca identified was that she was teaching too many hours. Given that she was often teaching up to 12 groups at a time, it is understandable that this would have affected her ability to provide the individualised attention, planning and energy needed to teach English in a more communicative way:

“I was tired. I was teaching too much I think; I taught almost 40 hours a week.” Rebecca, Interview 1, 00:48:49 – 00:49:06

The next obstacle which she included was the amount of students in some of her classes, with even the “smaller” groups containing between 20 and 30 students:

“Classes were large: 50 to 55 students. But not all of them, some of them had 20 or 30.”

Rebecca, Interview 2, 00:05:47 – 00:05:58

As Fig. 4.2.2.2(iii) above shows, Rebecca also felt that her somewhat negative attitude towards trying new things as an obstacle, as well as a certain degree of “disappointment” in her students, who she often perceived to be putting in a minimal amount of effort: “I thought that [the students] didn't find my work valuable. I was investing so much time

and effort, […] but they didn't appreciate it. So I got kind of disillusioned because of that.”

Rebecca, Interview 1, 00:47:50 – 00:48:22

The ICELT course had therefore not been successful in making significant changes to Rebecca’s beliefs or practices. It would not be until 2007, when she went to the UK to study a Master’s, that the most important event in her educational life history happened.