The reasons why professional development does not often occur in the language school seem as numerous as the research studies suggesting its value. Common complaints of teachers working in this setting include the number of contact hours per week; schedules including classes in the early morning, afternoon, and late into the evening; last minute schedule changes (usually meaning additional classes); and the travel time required to get to and from class. Teachers may also have to contend with adapting company materials to their class needs, and balancing the demands of being an educator with being an entertainer. Additionally, employers are generally unwilling to sacrifice potential profit by allowing teachers a regularly scheduled time for teacher development. The time constraints placed on teachers by their schedules, the lack of organizational support, and the lack of interest among co-workers often block avenues for professional development beyond the occasional visit from a textbook company representative.
Understanding the need for continuing professional development, I spent two years as the organizer of a peer mentor group at the Four Seasons Language School in Hamamatsu, Japan. This paper outlines the group's formation and evolution, and evaluates the success of the peer mentor group as a means of teacher development.
Initial Organization
Information Dispersal
My first step in establishing a peer mentor group was information dispersal, as no one on staff other than myself had previously participated in such a forum. The primary objectives of the initial handout were to define the purposes of a peer mentor group and to explain how the group functioned. I had participated in a peer mentor group when teaching a language course at the School for International Training (SIT) and adapted the structure we used there to suit the constraints of a language school. Ideally, both the format and objectives of the group should have been decided collectively. However, given the teachers' differing personalities and educational priorities, and the mutual lack of time--and possibly as a result of my own eagerness--I thought that the other teachers would be unreceptive to that idea, and therefore determined the group's format and objectives by myself. I hoped that by participating in the group, the teachers would make modifications to the structure to suit their needs and interests. At the beginning, I was not sure that an organizational meeting would yield the same results.
The group in which I originally participated met once every two weeks for two hours. The first hour was devoted to one member and the materials that person wished to discuss, usually journal entries and/or video clips. Near the end of the first hour, the speaker provided feedback to the group about what in the session had or had not been useful, and attempted to make her/his thoughts coherent. In the second half of the meeting, each member of the group had ten minutes in which to provide an update on their personal objectives and share recent teaching experiences. Coordinating the schedules for a two hour block was not a feasible option at a language school, nor did teachers initially have any desire to meet for longer than an hour, thus the time frame for each component was reduced.
Orientation Handout
I gave a handout to the teachers at the Four Seasons Language School in order to raise interest for starting a peer mentor group. It defined the purpose of the group, the roles of the group members, and described a possible format for the meetings to follow. Excerpts from this handout appear below (Table 1).
Table 1: Orientation Handout (Excerpts)
Peer Teacher/Mentor Support Groups
Purpose: A Peer-Teacher/Mentor Support Group provides teachers with the opportunity to come together and discuss educational and professional issues in a (somewhat) structured yet informal atmosphere. Inherent in the format of a mentor group are the ideas that:
- teachers can learn about teaching by clarifying/presenting their own problems, questions,
- issues regarding the field of TESOL to other teachers
- teachers can learn from the responses of their peers
- this process can occur in a supportive, non-judgemental environment which encourages honesty and sharing.
Roles of Group Members: There are four roles for the members of a mentor group (thus, ideally four members in each group)--Presenter, Facilitator, Participant/Observer and Timekeeper--and these roles rotate for each meeting.
The Presenter doesn't really give a presentation (unless he/she chooses) as much as present the topic of discussion on her/his week. Before the meeting, the presenter gives the other group members a journal entry/paragraph describing the issue or problem that will be discussed, together with comments and questions. During the meeting, the presenter begins the discussion regarding the topic, and may choose to do most of the talking or may solicit the thoughts of the other group members.
The Facilitator ensures that the presenter has the opportunity to address the issue. The facilitator may try to draw out the presenter, pinpoint areas of confusion, or may offer help. Above all, the facilitator ensures that the group does not digress and discuss other people's issues unless relevant to the presenter's topic.
The Observer/Participant may observe or participate depending largely on the desires of the presenter. The presenter may spell this out for the observer/participant or the observer/participant may have to decide for her/himself which role to assume as the session progresses.
The Timekeeper keeps everyone aware of how much time remains for each portion of the meeting and prompts people to move on when their time has finished. This ensures that everyone at the meeting will have a chance to speak.
Format: The first 15 minutes of the meeting are devoted to the presenter and her/his topic. Following that, the presenter has 5 minutes in which to give feedback to the group regarding how s/he felt it went, how they did(n't) benefit from the session, what should (not) change. Following the presenter's feedback, the other group members have 5 minutes (total) to give any feedback they have regarding the initial segment of the session. Finally, each of the remaining group members have 5-10 minutes to "check-in" and briefly discuss how their classes are going, current problems/issues, etc.
In retrospect, the initial handout did not make it clear that everyone was welcome, including those with no background in education. I hoped that the group would be a place where participants would be listened to as equals and, as my mentor Carol Rodgers said, "could voice their ideas and their doubts without fear of being judged (1993, p. 2). However, even the name seemed to be intimidating as indicated comments written on a community bulletin board such as, "Who's mentoring whom?" It was initially unclear that the mentor group was not teacher training and that all of the group members were to function as peer mentors. Though all of the teachers who initially participated in the program had either two or more years experience prior to their work at Four Seasons or extensive teaching qualifications, the group later included members with no background in teaching whatsoever.
Logistics
Setting a meeting time was an exceptional challenge, given the teachers' varying schedules. As there were initially six teachers interested in joining (about a third of the full-time teachers at Four Seasons), we had the option of splitting into two groups or remaining as one rather too-large group. We began with the latter option so that everyone could get used to the format together, with the possibility of breaking into smaller groups at a later date. In the end, we stayed in the large group throughout the two years I participated in the group, as it ensured the presence of at least three to four teachers. Additionally, the large group ensured a number of core members stayed in the group despite the high turnover of teachers throughout the course of the year. The group, which ranged from four to ten people over the course of the two years, averaged from three to six members at each meeting.
Meeting Followup
The first meeting, held in January, 1995, was essentially a trial run; it was more to learn about the process rather than from it. The first half of the session ran according to the format, but most of the second half was devoted to a discussion of format in lieu of individual time. We arranged a schedule for the following meeting and I asked the members to fill out a feedback form using the following questions regarding the mentor group meeting:
1. I liked . . .
2. I didn't like . . .
3. I felt I learned . . .
4. I didn't understand . . .
5. I wish you/we had. . .
6. Other:
Following the meetings, I wrote up a summary of what was discussed to see what directions the group might follow at its next meeting. This summary usually included the schedule for the next meeting, the date and time of the meeting, as well as the roles the members would play.
Evolution of the Four Seasons Mentor Group
The group's format evolved over the course of time from that described in the initial handout. It was by no means perfected, as we had no model of an ideal group to which we were aspiring, and, of course, we were not able to change the constraints placed on the group by the institution itself. Rather, the evolution reflected the needs of the members participating in the group at any given time. Many of the changes may seem incomplete when compared with the ideas we had for further change. However, the success of the modifications were due to the group's continued existence. The group members were satisfied enough with the group and with the results of their participation to continue.
Defining Roles and Concepts as a Group
Not surprisingly, even during the first session, the format was called into question--could the roles be explained again, were the roles necessary, what was the feedback time for, etc. In addition to reflecting the members' uncertainty about the process, the questions reflected our disparate understanding of the concepts of facilitation, feedback, "I-statements", even listening. While three of the initial participants had completed coursework at SIT and had a similar ideas of what we felt each term implied, the group needed to reach a consensus. In her initial review of the two years of the mentor program at SIT, Rodgers wondered if a group not sharing a common language would cause things to move more slowly, as each member would have to take the time to translate the other's ideas into their own teacher language (1993, p. 7).This was not the case in the Four Seasons (FS) Peer Mentor Group. Rather than the process occurring on an individual level, these concepts were reviewed by the group fairly frequently (particularly in the beginning), until the members seemed to have a mutual understanding of meaning.
In her article about the Fukuoka Peer Mentor Group, McClain presented the group's working definitions of effective feedback and reflective listening (1995, p. 22):
Reflective listening. This is information that is reflected back to the speaker. It is not a verbatim memorization, but includes one's own understanding of the information, given along with its reverberations so that the main speaker's understanding of the information they have given is heightened and clarified.
Effective feedback. This is information that: (1) can be heard by the receiver as evidenced by the fact that s/he does not get defensive; (2) keeps the relationship intact, open, and healthy (though not devoid of conflict or pain); (3) validates the feedback process in future interactions. Feedback does not assume that the giver is totally right and the receiver wrong; instead, it is an invitation to interaction (Porter, 1982, p. 43, cited in McClain, 1995, p. 22).
One shortcoming of the process of concept negotiation in the FS Peer Mentor Group was that we never took the time to explicitly define our understanding of these concepts on paper once we reached a consensus.This left the members at a loss as to how they could best function as mentors. A further consequence was having little material for newcomers to clarify the way in which the group functioned and the means of communication expected from a mentor. As one teacher wrote after her first meeting, "I was somewhat focused on procedure...which detracted from my attention to actual content." Furthermore, the group often failed to maintain the roles of timekeeping and facilitation, despite voicing the desire to do so.
Occasionally the lack of shared language led to miscommunication and hurt feelings as a result of people feeling silenced or personally criticized (as opposed to hurt feelings from one's beliefs being challenged). On the whole, however, the group members seemed fully aware that building a mutual comfort level of trust and understanding would require time. One member stated:
These meetings have the potential to become explosive. So, they can be scary and intimidating, but they are also passionate and rewarding. I think we are still in the process of building a trusting environment where people can expose their vulnerabilities. It will take time.
Over time, the group's agreed method of interaction centered on honest communication with leeway for lots of questions when necessary. Often people's positive response to the meetings revolved around ideas of "trust," "insightfulness," "honesty," "humor," "sharing vulnerability," and being "understanding," "frank," and "enthusiastic." Significant in building this trust was overcoming the challenge of having both administrative teachers and regular teachers in the group.
Feedback
As the language school's busy time of the year approached, and overtime increased, I no longer had the time to write an account of each meeting. Instead, the feedback form became a standard followup to each meeting, and was expanded to include feedback on content as well as process. Members filled out the form on the day of the meeting and placed it in the presenter's mailbox. The feedback was then circulated through the mailboxes of the other participants. Finally, they were passed on to the organizer, who kept a file, holding the feedback forms and any handouts distributed during the sessions for reference by any other group members. Eventually, an open file of the presenters' journal entries and supplementary handouts was kept in the staffroom to be available to all interested teachers, and only the feedback forms were held in the personal file.
Although feedback eventually became a closure activity of sorts, there were suggestions to include a specific opening and closing activity. Other discussions of format changes included meeting every week, possibly alternating idea swap weeks with teachers' more personal agendas. Teachers often used their time as a presenter to present a lesson plan, sometimes within a larger context of questions about an issue (e.g., explaining an idea for poetry in the context of "Should I be teaching creative writing in a conversation class?"), or in order to share a successful activity. As one member stated, "I think the most effective ways of learning lessons is to participate in them."
Time and Location
The most discussed aspect of format was time. We needed to determine the classroom meeting place beforehand and meet there, rather than in the teachers' room, where conversation and coffee making delayed the meeting's start. Because the sessions were short, starting and ending on time, and making the most of the time we had were very important.
Time Limits in the Group
In order to ensure that everyone had a chance to speak and still finish on time, the role of the time keeper was essential, but this role also seemed the most difficult to sustain. After giving the speaker some advance warning and then letting the speaker know when the time had ended, it was often difficult to cut short an interesting conversation. Furthermore, cutting a speaker off also proved difficult when simultaneously trying to build group security.
Another issue was the contradiction of the group's desire to explore the presenter's topic in depth without giving up the option for the individual check-in time and the group's desire to do both without meeting any longer or more often. In regard to the former, a newcomer to the group wrote, "I'm not sure about the five minutes time for each person at the end. They weren't connected at all and points are left open without begin solved." After several months' participation, another member wrote about feeling restricted by the limits:
I was a bit disappointed that (understandably) other people's 5 minutes directed the focus of X's presentation. We all have things going through our minds and affecting our classes, of course, we want to air them out in this forum...but! Somehow I feel that we let a good chance to explore...more deeply slip away.
However, when the group questioned whether it should do away with the individual time, nothing was changed, reflecting feedback from earlier meetings, "I want to keep to five minute time limits. It helps me be concise and I don't ramble as much."
Timekeeping Alternatives
When working to resolve the issue of time, the group tried various timekeeping variations: using a timer, a timekeeper, and not keeping time at all, the latter of which prompted the following comments: "We spent a lot of time asking about how much time we had. This wasted even more precious time," and "I didn't get to say what I wanted in my five minutes--everything was necessary and valid at the time, but in the end, I didn't get to make myself be heard." A successful variation was thematic, that any member whose five minutes would address a personal interest in the continuation of the presenter's topic immediately followed the speaker and people wishing to address their own topic wrapped up the meeting. It also helped if people considered what they would discuss in their five minutes before the meeting.
As time progressed, and perhaps as security increased, members also became more attuned to their needs in the meetings:
I felt a little selfish today because I was afraid that I wouldn't get a chance to talk and say my piece. I began questioning whether what I had to say was really important...I truly believe I learn a great deal from others, and perhaps, today, because of time constraints, it was unnecessary for me to speak. And, in some other meeting, another member will forfeit their opportunity.
The changes made with regard to timekeeping came about slowly as each adaptation had to be tested over several meetings. As was the case with building a shared language, nothing was written as reference or explanation for potential new members.This probably made the transition less smooth for people who joined at a later time.
Group Facilitation
As the group's organizer, I usually ensured that the group got on track again following a vacation period. At these times, I put out a call for new members, checked that the meeting time was still convenient, and posted the meeting time (the presenter was determined before the break). While I believe having someone perform these tasks was necessary to the success of the group, in retrospect I think my extended role as the group facilitator may have hindered the group from even further success.
In the initial stages of the group, it was useful to stick to the "rules" of the format, to have a common experience from which to deviate. However, the group could have benefited from setting time aside to explore specifically how changes should have taken place. The decisions regarding the shared language and time distribution mentioned above could have been discussed and documented at such a meeting, as could have been the role and term of the organizer. Had the role of organizer rotated amongst the group members, the role would have been defined, the collective process enhanced, and perhaps the group would have continued to meet. In fact, the group met erratically after my departure from the school and has since stopped meeting.
Evaluation of the FS Peer Mentor Group as Teacher Development
Lange summarized the definition of teacher development as "a process of continual intellectual, experiential and attitudinal growth of teachers" (1990, p. 250). The external forces of the language school environment as well as the group's shortcomings in the area of self-monitoring, reflect the limitations of the FS Peer Mentor Group as a tool of teacher development. Despite these limitations, however, the success of the group is no less valid.
Evaluation of Reflective Development
The idea that teacher development can occur through participation in a mentor group experience is based on reflective teaching, the notion that "experience alone is insufficient for professional growth, and that experience coupled with reflection is a much more powerful impetus for development" (Richards & Nunan, 1990, p. 201). At surface level, the FS Peer Mentor Group met many of the criteria Wajnryb (1992) attributed to reflective practitioners, who: are discovering more about their own teaching by seeking to understand the processes of teaching and learning in their own and others' classrooms" in a process of active learning; view learning as the "construction of personal meaning" and consider learning as not occurring solely through the acquisition on new information but through "thinking about new ideas in the light of past experience" and are "therefore absorbed in a way that is creative, dynamic and personal and that will mean something different to each person receiving the information;" "are the primary initiators of their own development;" and who respect the individual's agenda and aim toward teacher autonomy. (pp. 9-10)
However, when examining the group more closely, there existed a disparity as to what extent the group truly incorporated the practices of reflective teachers. Nunan (1989) wrote, "Reflective teaching should be school based, experiential, problem-centered, developmental and open-ended" (p. 102). Insofar as the FS Peer Mentor Group is concerned, the group was school-based in that it was "in line with the communities [it] serve[d]", it was developmental in that it allowed for teachers to be in different stages of development, and was open-ended in that the group "cater[ed] for lifelong learning and professional renewal" (Nunan, 1989, p. 102). The extent to which the group was either experiential or problem-centered seems less certain.
Nunan's explanation of the experiential aspect of reflective teaching (similar to those of Richards, 1990; Bartlett, 1990; and Woodward, 1991) clarifies that "the ideal is for theory and principles to be tested out in practice, and for the process to be documented and reported" (1989, p. 102). While the FS Peer Mentor Group members' focus was primarily the individual's actual classroom practice, the group did not define specific individual and group goals. Thus, while the group was able to touch on a wide range of topics, the topics were not discussed in great depth, the hope being that the group members would do so outside of the meeting time when coming across a particularly powerful issue, which did happen.
Because the group members had no set objectives, they had no particular goal, no time frame in which to achieve that goal and therefore had no direction or impetus to do the systematic practices of self-monitoring. While the FS Peer Mentor Group's prowess at inquiry flourished, the results of that inquiry were perhaps insubstantial and certainly unsubstantiated due the lack of attention placed on systematic critical study of one's own actions and potential change. Thus, the group's imbalance was on the side of action instead of research.
Bartlett (1990) noted that being a reflective teacher entails being a critically reflective teacher: This effectively means we have to move away from the "how to" questions, which have limited utilitarian value, to the "what" and why" questions, which regard instructional and managerial techniques not as ends in themselves but as part of broader educational purposes. (p. 205)
Due to the number of people new to teaching in the group, the group very often focused on the "how to" questions. In such activity-based sessions the lack of shared understanding regarding, for example, listening, and feedback became more apparent. McClain (1995) noted of the Fukuoka Peer Mentor Group:
We try to avoid giving advice, suggestions, or teaching tips which may direct the speaker's reflections rather than to help her look more closely at her own questions. Second, by waiting until the end the mentors have time to reflect on the ideas they want to share and to deepen their own understanding of the importance or relevance of the information. This waiting time also allows the mentors to concentrate more fully on understanding the main speaker, thus enhancing their own development. (p. 22)
The idea that the critically reflective teacher uses the group to find one's own solutions to classroom issues was not always the ultimate result of a session--nor the particular desire of the presenter. At the same time, other members' opinions were certainly weighed against the presenter's own, which was reflective.
Group Success
Despite drawbacks in the way the FS Peer Mentor Group functioned, I consider the group a success. One basis for success is that the group functioned at all. Despite the business-oriented environment of the school, the group consistently made time to come together with the conscious intent of discussing what occurred in their classrooms and raising awareness about their teaching practices toward the ultimate objective of improving their abilities as educators. Thus, the group continued to "evolve in the use, adaptation and application of their art and craft" (Lange, 1990, p. 250). As one member stated, "It's possible to share ideas, questions, feelings, concerns about my work (teaching) with my colleagues and thereby get a broader picture of what I'm engaged in doing." Perhaps the process of critical thinking did not progress as much as it could have, nor even as much as some members wished, but neither did the teachers sink into routines in order to merely "get by."
Additionally, it is possible that Nunan's developmental consideration may apply to the mentor group within the structure of the language school. Generally, teachers work at a language school for less than five years, many less than three. For the most part, language school teachers are at the start of a career in which the ultimate career objective may or may not be teaching but probably will not be continued work in a language school. If the FS Peer Mentor Group was based more on inquiry than research, perhaps it is because that is the level most appropriate to the needs of the teachers involved. Richards (1990)wrote, "The best way to determine whether self-monitoring has anything to offer is to try it on a small scale using the experience to assess its use on a more regular basis" (p. 131). It is possible that the members will now be more ready to participate in a mentor group which truly incorporates and strives toward the ideals of a wholly reflective practitioner, and will wish to do research based on the directions in which the group took them.
Finally, the group was successful because the teachers who participated in the group considered it a success. A common comment at the end of the meeting was, "You know, I really didn't feel like coming today, but I'm so glad I did." The teachers involved in the group found participation reassuring and energizing, in addition to being educational. Their comments are the best summary: "I learned about some common experiences/ problems--since I work alone, I sometimes feel it's only me!" "It's important to have your efforts affirmed by people that you respect." "I also learned to trust my own ideas and not to be so self-critical." And, "His interest in what he's doing, his serious consideration of his rationale and the potential consequences and the way he clearly conveyed his ideas were stimulating."
Journal excerpts used by permission of Four Seasons Peer Mentor Group members.
Special thanks to Lisa Swain and Glenna Viega for their help in editing this paper.
References
Bartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through reflective teaching. In J.C.Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 202-214). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Lange, D. A. (1990). A blueprint for a teacher development program. In J.C.Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 245-268). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
McClain, B. (1995). Peer Mentoring and Teacher Development. The Language Teacher, 19 (8), 21-22.
Nunan, D. (1989).Understanding Language Classrooms: A Guide for Teacher-Initiated Action. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Porter, L. (1982). Giving and receiving feedback: "It will never be easy, but it can be better." In L. Porter & B. Mohr (Eds.), Reading book for human relations training (pp.42-46). Alexandria, VA: National Training Laboratories.
Richards, J. C. (1990). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. and Nunan, D. (1990). Second language teacher education. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.