• 沒有找到結果。

Research Question Five: What factors foster and inhibit NET-LET collaboration (NLC) according to the various stakeholders?

Actually I think one thing from the PNET Scheme that is helpful to our school is the encouragement to students to take part in … speaking … The activities are to build up

4.4.3.5 Research Question Five: What factors foster and inhibit NET-LET collaboration (NLC) according to the various stakeholders?

4.4.3.5 Research Question Five: What factors foster and inhibit NET-LET

Figure 29. Concept map of parents’ view of collaboration.

CF24. Holding regular co-planning meetings prior to co-teaching was widely perceived as a key factor in promoting collaboration between NET and LETs.

I think co-planning bridge the RSP [Reading Success Programme] and GE lessons.

They are linked together, but not working independently. Of course there’re things to be taught respectively. The co-planning sessions allow us to know the progress of each, so that we can complement each other. Students can learn better in this way.

(LET focus group) Other than sharing what we think about the lesson and telling him [the NET] our need, it is also a good time for us to reflect on our resources and curriculum for further refinement. The co-planning meeting is a good opportunity for us to reach a consensus.

(LET focus group) ... because of the co-planning, because everyone at each level knows what they're doing, there's a lot of collaboration.

(NET interview) CF25. NET Section programmes such as PLP-R/W and DTS depend on effective collaboration.

The PLP-R/W is a vehicle for collaboration, with co-teaching materials providing clear guidelines as to the roles of each collaborating teacher in implementing the lessons. NET Section personnel noted that PLP-R/W was designed to promote teacher professional development and NET-LET collaboration. When first introduced, it was felt to be a breakthrough, giving schools the platform for collaboration through scheduled co-planning and structured co-teaching. The challenge facing ATs and schools is to sustain the momentum for collaboration.

Because I had taught at a non-programme school, I understand the dramatic difference.

In the past, it depended on the proactivity of the NET. I was lucky that the NET at my previous school was professional and took the initiative to work out a lot of things. But when NETs were less mature or without much experience in curriculum development, they would only do what they were asked to do. In that case the effectiveness might be questionable. After the establishment of the PLP-R/W, NETs can [extend] their strengths. This is because the programme is foreign-oriented but localised to Hong Kong.

(EPC interview) In this school, I think the way we’re moving is actually quite, the way [the AT is] helping us is really quite good, she’s shown us quite a good way of doing co-planning I think in P- in P1 with the DTS. And the ... the way the school has previously run … means that it’s taking, it will take time to get the teachers to really take on board what we’re doing and I think doing it level by level and slowly moving, moving it through the levels, will make it so that the teachers are slowly more on board.

(NET interview) CF26. In non-programme schools (schools not signing up for a project like PLP-R/W), the failure to set aside time for co-planning is perceived as an impediment to effective collaboration.

Non-programme schools rely on the NET and the AT to promote regular co-planning, since it is not built into the curriculum. In these schools, co-planning seems sometimes to be neglected, or relegated to after-school timeslots which means that teachers may be less willing to participate at the end of a busy teaching day. This is reflected in the experience of two NETs working in schools not adopting the PLP-R/W.

[Co-planning for the DTS project in P1] is really much more regular than my P2 and P3 lessons [in] which … I’m mainly following stuff that has happened in the past and editing it a little bit so, the teachers, I only see them maybe once a month because they are already pretty familiar with this, the stuff.

[…]

Well, I guess, in this school, the co-planning is not really as thorough as it should be. I think we can make it more thorough … I think we could spend a lot more time, especially with P2 and P3, trying to find a way of integrating more of what we do in terms of skills into the other classes and that’s my aim moving forward, I guess.

(NET Interview) I wouldn’t call it a co-plan, a formal co-planning, but I would have an informal chat with my teachers and give them a basic idea of how I think that unit is going to structure. I give them a unit plan that I have drafted, and ask them if there’re any comments, or any suggestions, usually there won’t be, usually they’ll just give it back to me

[…]

co-planning is, from this school, not what I expected or had hoped for. … I think I’ve had ONE co-planning meeting and that’s it. And, because co-planning is not in my timetable, whereas in my previous job it was. And I had weekly co-planning, which was something I was very used to because then I could let everyone know what I was doing, but here there’s just no time allocated for co-planning

CF27. The model of co-planning and co-teaching envisaged in the projects (PLP-R/W and DTS) is one which specifically promotes teacher collaboration in the classroom. When the model is not followed, what results is often a lesson which is prepared by the NET, in the absence of a system for co-planning, and in which the NET is considered to be in charge, and the LET just an assistant; this practice militates against collaboration.

Effective co-planning would entail the mutual engagement, reciprocal interaction and shared repertoire associated with a community of practice. As described by NET section personnel, this was a model in which all teachers participate, they all participate in the lesson design, go through the resources, scrutinise them and see whether things have to be adapted. A model of co-planning along these lines was observed in three out of the four more effective schools, as reflected in the quotes for field notes compiled during observation of co-planning:

No strong organisation of roles, although the NET is the one driving the solicitation of opinions from LETs and AT. Good level of participation, including AT who contributes suggestions. Although the NET drives the meeting, his aim is to solicit the opinions of others and does this in a low key, non-dominating manner. Strong evidence of collaborative decision-making - the NET had inclined to discard the materials, but agreed with the overall view that they could be suitably modified to make them more appropriate and more motivating for students. Strong evidence of discussion related directly to pedagogical practices as the discussion related to pedagogical ideas for modifying and exploiting the materials. The relationship between NET and LETs seems cordial and friendly. The NET seemed to have deliberately avoided giving his own ideas for the materials until the LETs had expressed theirs. When he saw that local teachers favoured keeping the worksheet, he came up with interesting ideas for modifying it which were creative, interesting, generally welcomed and finally agreed.

(Observation Data) NET is the Chair, other participants contribute with questions (mostly), suggestions and issues. A relatively high level of participation is evident in the meeting, equally balanced between all participants. The NET dominated, as the expert on the topic since PLP-R/W is clearly his domain of responsibility and he is very familiar with the content, but there were no passive participants. The evidence of collaborative decision-making in the meeting was limited as the PLP-R/W teacher’s guide tended to determine direction;

discussion was largely related to how to implement the directions effectively. Some collaborative decision-making regarding what the CA should do in her after-school remedial class. There was significant evidence of discussion related directly to pedagogical practices: How to deal with Shared Reading, sentence-making, content words and pictures etc. A cordial, friendly atmosphere was observed with mutual respect and familiarity.

(Observation Data) The co-planning meeting that was the most carefully prepared meeting of all, with supporting documents prepared by the NET and distributed to all participants, took place in the least effective case study school:

This was a briefing on planned activities for upcoming PLP-R/W lessons which involve co-teaching, but not always with the NET. Documents tabled contain very detailed lesson procedures. Decisions are not overtly recorded and there is no secretary/note taker. It is a regular, scheduled, weekly co-planning meeting, but within the one hour allocated, both the PLP-R/W and the GE curriculum have to be discussed, the latter in Cantonese. Roles are not allocated beyond the NET being in charge of the meeting; other participants make minor contributions. Very low level of participation. Most LETs say nothing and appear passive. The AT and EPC make minor contributions. No decisions were reached in the meeting, which was more like a briefing on what to do in the next unit with highly detailed specifications/steps laid out in advance than co-planning in which participants discuss and contribute pedagogical ideas equally. Each planned lesson has a detailed specification. Pedagogical practices appear pre-ordained and not subject to discussion.

Relations appear cordial and polite, but lacking in warmth. The detailed pre-determined lesson specifications and the ‘briefing’ style did not encourage active participation. The impression was created that while requests for clarification were welcome any alternative suggestions might be less welcome. After discussing the co-taught lessons, local teachers went on to discuss the GE lessons for the same level. The NET was not involved in this part of the discussion, and was excused. This raises the question of how PLP-R/W-GE integration is achieved.

(Observation Data) The preferred model of co-teaching was articulated by NET Scheme personnel as one where both teachers have shared responsibility for the success of the lesson, where they are both sharing in delivery of the content, and keeping the kids on task, where they are both active players. In such a model, the NET and the LET would be exchanging ideas, doing demonstrations, taking different roles, and modelling interaction so that the students can do pair work just like the two teachers at the front. There would be a lot of incidental language going on between the LET and the NET that the children could pick up on, so that then they could start using incidental language too.

This kind of co-teaching was observed in the current evaluation (see observation data cited in support of CF16 above), but in the 8 lessons observed in the case study schools, this style of co-teaching was observed twice. In the case-study schools, there was a tendency for co-taught lessons to be ‘NET lessons’ as reflected in the following quotations from observation data and from interviews with stakeholders in one school where the perceptions of the EPC seemed to contrast with the experience of the NET.

Co-teaching in less effective schools was marked by more distinct roles being performed by NET and LET, rather than the similarity of roles we have noted in relation to CF16 above. In some cases, the LET even performed a role more like that of a classroom assistant than a fully qualified teacher:

The NET was evidently in control of the lesson and for the most part directed the LET, or relied on the LET to provide support and reinforcement. However, the LET did take the initiative to model and drill sounds, independently of the NET on at least one occasion.

(Observation Data) The NET monopolised the instructional role from the front of the class, capturing

performance, distributed and collected materials, provided assistance to students as required (which involved some instruction on a one-to-one basis). The NET was in control of the lesson, the LET played a minor supporting role. Both NET and LET monitored pair and individual performance and provided assistance as required during pair and individual work activities. Instructional and facilitation roles unique to NET.

Support role was unique to LET.

(Observation Data)

… sometimes it’s difficult to get some teachers to be involved in the lesson. They, they, it’s quite maybe the, the role is seen as “NET”, it’s “NET lesson”, so it’s quite difficult to get them to be involved in the lesson but, generally it, it’s using the opportunity of having two teachers and creating those interactions for the students to see, so “Oh what do you think, Miss Lam?” “Oh I think this, what about you?” and then asking the students to, to interact in the same way and so it’s about using the co-teaching opportunity to, to give those interactions that the students maybe normally can’t see unless they it’s, they read it or they watch it on say YouTube. It’s not as easy for them to understand.

(NET interview) I think we are working on a platform where professional communication is encouraged.

Our school in itself stresses the sharing and practices of good things. We have developed such a culture. He naturally integrated himself into it when he started working here. So I think it’s related to the mission of our school. We emphasise professional development, [sharing] of resources, and teacher collaboration.

(EPC Interview) There’s a, it’s quite difficult in this school, actually particularly in this school, to make those big changes. There’s quite a lot of friction from some teachers, I think, not all, but some, there’s maybe a split of teachers that, where some are really on board with everything and maybe difficult part is making those changes with teachers who are used to their routines.

(NET interview) There were also differences in perceptions of co-teaching coming from the NET and from the EPC as well as LETs in another school. EPC and LETs seemed to base their view on the questionable assumption that if the NET can manage the discipline, and ‘if he is good’, then local teachers should not have a role and simply let him teach the whole lesson:

I mean the main role of ours is to maintain the discipline. We don’t need to encourage students to put up their hands or participate because they do. What we need to, they are overjoyed sometimes, so maybe they stand up, and then we have to cool them down, that is our main role. And some students may make trouble. We stop that. That’s our main role. Because this NET is a very independent one, and a very experienced one so we don’t need to have too much help here in the lesson. ... Really depends on the ability of the NET teacher. If the ability is not good, then we need to co-teach together, like half-half lesson, but if he is good enough, then what is the point of correcting him or disturbing him?

The perception of the LET as assistant, rather than as an equal co-teacher, was shared by LETs from the same school:

I will walk around the classroom and check whether the student can understand or they can hear what the NET is talking about and try to help the student to achieve the task.

(LET focus group) For the lessons with the NET, um, mainly my role is assist role and for one of the lessons, they will teach some sound, phonics with the students. While they’re doing some card games, I will assist [NET’s name]. ... After the activities, students need to do the worksheet together and after they complete the worksheet, I will walk around the classroom and to help the students to tick the answer whether it is correct or not.

(LET focus group) Although the classroom observation data revealed that ‘the NET was evidently in control of the lesson and for the most part directed the LET, or relied on the LET to provide support and reinforcement’, the LET did actually ‘take the initiative to model and drill sounds, independently of the NET on at least one occasion’ (Observation Data). This more collaborative model of co-teaching was also reflected in the NET’s description of the process.

He perceived the role of NET and LET as broadly similar. While he acknowledged the LET’s role in classroom management, he insisted that the actual teaching was shared more or less equally:

The co-teaching is a new thing for me. Usually, I’m so used to being by myself, so it’s been a learning curve to sort of share the stage with somebody else. But I find that it’s most useful at the moment, because it’s so new to me, for classroom management because the teacher that I teach with is quite often the class teacher of that class as well, so they know students so well, they know if we’re going to do an activity, who should work together, who shouldn’t work together, you know. So, a lot of the classroom management stuff is handled by the local English teacher. But they’re also very aware of their students’ abilities, they see the students more often than I do, so actually if they know a better way of delivering something, then I’m quite happy for them to take over that part, and I’ll back them up as it is, or the other way around.

[…]

No, [it’s] absolutely not [a case of the LET just taking care of discipline]. ... I feel like they have their own classes, I only have my co-teaching classes, I feel like I need to maybe work a bit harder. There’s that feeling of, you know, ‘You’ve got all your classes and you’re helping me with these classes too, co-teaching with me’. So there’s an element of [me] wanting to work harder I suppose, and also I enjoy teaching so I want to teach as much as I can without overpowering.

[…]

No, not … When we’re co-teaching, because we’ve discussed everything previously, we know exactly what activities are going to happen before. We both know the lesson plan. We will generally assign roles for activities before the lessons starts, and for things like phonics, the lesson plan is very similar every week so we know now who does what, what happens, when we move from one area to another physically, we know who’s going to be at what table, you know, it’s quite systematic, I suppose.

(NET Interview)

CF28. Another factor which militates against effective collaboration is unpreparedness for co-planning meetings, while successful co-planning supports it.

One experienced AT articulated the importance of preparation with the adage ‘Co-planning meetings are only as effective as the preparedness of the people who come to the meetings’. In a situation where time is limited, having read the meeting materials is clearly preferable.

Among the observed co-planning meetings in the current evaluation, however, it was more often the case that lesson and unit plans were tabled and that participants were seeing them for the first time, or possibly re-visiting materials that they had been involved in co-teaching a year ago. This is reflected in the notes and quotations from a NET and an EPC below.

He reported that in the co-planning meeting some LETs were not prepared and assumed him to do everything because of being well-paid. Some LETs would critique his lesson plans but without offering productive suggestions.

(NET interview notes) I can’t think of any way to improve the co-planning meeting. I think if teachers are better prepared in advance, the progress would be faster. But I know the limitation of teachers.

You know, for the planning, it is in the co-planning itself and if you need to plan for the co-planning beforehand, that’s way too much.

(EPC Interview) CF29. A theme which emerged repeatedly in the interviews was the issue of NET qualifications, with a perception that the level of experience and qualifications among NETs has declined. This was seen as impacting on the nature of the collaboration possible between very experienced LETs and less experienced NETs, as well as on the role of the ATs in supporting the NETs.

The objectives of the PNET Scheme include an expectation that the NET will ‘help local teachers develop innovative learning and teaching methods, materials, curricula and activities suited to the needs of local children; and disseminate good practices in language learning and teaching through region-based teacher development programmes such as experience-sharing seminars/workshops and networking activities’14. A NET capable of meeting these expectations would ideally be an experienced and qualified teacher. The job description of the AT also suggests that the current model of NET deployment is built on the assumption that the NET is a qualified teacher15. In the interviews, several stakeholders articulated a perception that a proportion of current NETs were not qualified or experienced enough to meet the expectations placed on them, even though it is the schools that do the selection and hiring of the NET at their school. A situation where LETs were better qualified and more experienced than the NET could impact on NET-LET collaboration and the mutual trust and respect collaboration is based on.

We once had a disaster [with a] NET [who was not] not experienced. To be honest, they only speak English and they only knew a little bit ... about English teaching. ... Some just graduated from the university but not in teaching, they learn from us. This is not our target, because we would like to work with the NET and we would like to learn from

14 http://www.edb.gov.hk/en/curriculum-development/resource-support/net/pnet-objectives.html

15 For example, ATs are expected to ‘support NETs in the preparation and delivery of professional development

Outline

相關文件