Who are we

Who are we? – Interesting Results of a Boring Questionnaire

Zosia Grudzińska, TD &AL SIG Newsletter Editor

At the SIG meeting in Kraków in December 2002 13 participants answered a questionnaire designed to survey our little community of teachers devoted to developing the learner autonomy in Poland. I have received two more filled questionnaires since then. The initial reason for initiating the action was to survey whether there exists something which could be described as the “profile of an autonomy-supporting teacher”. Although the questionnaire was very basic, not intended to discover profound truths, the data proved quite illuminating. The number of the “researched population” (as it might be technically called) is too scant to treat the analysis as more than an amateur crack at gathering statistics. Nonetheless, I am hoping to get some more responses which would yield data sufficient to draw some modest conclusions.

I have decided to publish the results of the analysis so far - partly in the effort of inciting your curiosity, which might spur you to fill the questionnaire which you will have received with the latest Newsletter. Like I have mentioned, the initiative remains purely an amateur undertaking. On the other hand it is not inconceivable that some of our members associated with higher education institutions might consider writing a learned thesis about the development of learner autonomy in Poland. They would then find the modest data gathered in the questionnaires quite useful for their purposes.

The analysis

Out of 16 respondents, 14 were female and 2 male, the result which reflects the gender relations within the teaching profession at large. All were relatively experienced teachers (in whatever field), with more than 5 years work history. Eight had been teaching up to ten years, two up to fifteen and six had more than fifteen years working experience.

Only 3 of them were EFLTs by education, the rest re-qualified. Out of the 13 “newcomers” three had been teaching English for less than 5 years, seven of them had from 6 to 10 years EFL teaching experience, two had been active in the EFL up to fifteen years and four had the EFL teaching work history going back for more than 15 years.

They came from various fields, not only teaching other subjects. As a matter of fact (contrary to what might be expected) only a “tiny” minority had been teachers of other subjects originally (2).

The reasons for re-qualifying were described as: lack of job in the original profession (5 cases), “a calling for the EFL teaching” (7 cases), due to family or life circumstances, making the teachers work structure with longer holidays and flexible hours preferred (3 cases) and in one case there was the wish to live in another country added.

It seems that our SIG members teach either in state schools (mostly elementary and gymnasium) or in private language schools. Two of out fifteen are mainly active in the tertiary education, while none teaches in a “społeczna” or private comprehensive school. In my opinion this is a peculiar inconsistency, but we must remember that the analysed sample is just too small in its scope to allow for any sweeping conclusions.

The number of groups taught by the respondents is so varied that it does not present any homogenous profile. All types of learning environment are represented – one-tp-one, small groups, groups up to 16 and typical “school classes” of up to 30 students.
Eleven respondents are using a course book on the regular basis (among the titles were: Reward, Snapshot, Opportunitites, NCE III, Project, Way Ahead, Cutting Edge, Inside Out, Click On, Brainwaves, Cambridge English for Polish Schools). The titles constitute a fair representation of the market, none of them being in any way favoured over others. Two people mentioned using a course book “with one group only” – seems to be the case with groups of specific needs, like preparation to a CAE or FC; in yet another case there is a remark that the book was “imposed by the school authorities”. From one of the respondents there is an interesting mention that the course book is used “with pre-intermediate and intermediate levels only”. On the other end of the attitude spectrum we find a frank rejoinder that the contributor has found the course book used in the classroom “inspiring”. Teachers who use a course book and feel therefore slightly “non-autonomous”, take heart – only 3 respondents admitted they provide service exclusively without the help of this traditional “teacher’s friend”.
The next two questions concerned other resources and authentic materials. All of the respondents mentioned a fair range of additional materials used in the classroom. The most popular are magazines and newspapers (mentioned by 9 respondents), next with 8 mentions is the Internet (proving that our community is state-of-the-art!), 6 teachers use videos and TV programmes a lot, the same number mentions using leaflets and other authentic corpora, 5 teachers use games run by themselves and songs, there are 4 mentions of flashcards, cards and visual aids, 3 of the respondents rely on material from other course books and/or the use of graded readers. Only three have mentioned using student-generated materials. An unwitting omission or a significant neglect? There is one case where the teacher uses self-recorded monologues with an accompanying question, which might provoke answers from the readers of this report: “Is a student’s composition authentic or my recordings?”
Last but not least, a fistful of quotes for the reason of “favouring the autonomous learning approach”.

One respondent didn’t like the phrase and said that he/she “doesn’t favour it, it is only one of the inspirations” – I admit it sounds rather quizzical for me, which proves that one can always count on surprises, no matter how “schematic” the initiative might sound (a questionnaire – how predictable! – ran the comment of one of the colleagues when I told them about the idea of surveying the SIG members in such a way).

“I believe that people even very young should be taught to be responsible for their life […] I’m an autonomous personality myself and it would be difficult to deceive myself and the students”

“It inspires me”

“I see no other way, though admittedly some other approaches are easier”

“My personal approach to teaching”

“I want to know how to help my students learn effectively […] I’d like to encourage [them] to learn English outside the classroom”

“It makes me reflect on what I am doing”

“I feel it’s the only “right” way of teaching from the depth of my heart”

“It sounds humane as contrasted to the “I’m your boss” of traditional teaching”

“I noticed that students learn more effectively when they decide what and how to learn […] it lets people grow as human beings – both the students and the teacher […] I personally find it inspiring […] the important thing is to have something to say”

“preparing the learner for future interaction in English […] I make them practice English […] make them decide about the material they want to learn etc.”

“I have been trying to elicit ideas from students but the majority is not interested”

“I believe that this is the only approach to any kind of teaching”

“It seems the most natural to me. I want to find a way that suits the whole group. I want to encourage the group to build, for individuals to feel they have some influence in the process, to give people with ideas and the desire the chance to create something for the rest of us. I don’t want to put a limit on their potential for contributions.

I can’t really work any other way.

Is it the best or most effective way? God knows, but teaching for me involves the how the group works with each other, how the individual feels in the group, where the teacher fits in etc. These aspects are crucial for me. As far as the individual and their progress is concerned they are the masters of it, not me.”

The above comments may be divided into two categories: the personal and the professional reasons and there seems to be a fair intermingling of both. In a job which is closer to a vocation than a career it is indeed difficult to distinguish one from the other.

ã Zosia Grudzińska 2003