(PDF) Educating language teachers through distance learning: The need for culturally-appropriate DL methodology

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254325790 Educating Language Teachers Through Distance Learning: The need for culturally-appropriate DL methodology Article in Open Learning · February 2003 DOI: 10.1080/0268051032000054095 CITATIONS READS 4 25 2 authors, including: Richard Fay The University of Manchester 11 PUBLICATIONS 33 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Fay on 15 April 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. This article was downloaded by: [East China Normal University] On: 24 March 2014, At: 16:01 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/copl20 Educating Language Teachers Through Distance Learning: The need for culturally- appropriate DL methodology a b Richard Fay & Moira Hill a The University of Manchester , UK b The Hellenic Open University , Greece Published online: 19 Aug 2010. To cite this article: Richard Fay & Moira Hill (2003) Educating Language Teachers Through Distance Learning: The need for culturally-appropriate DL methodology, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e- Learning, 18:1, 9-27 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268051032000054095 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions Open Learning, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2003 Educating Language Teachers Through Distance Learning: the need for culturally-appropriate DL methodology RICHARD FAY Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 The University of Manchester, UK MOIRA HILL The Hellenic Open University, Greece ABSTRACT For it to be effective, distance learning (DL) methodology must be sensitive to the cultural complexities of the provision involved. Collaboration between the Hellenic Open University and the University of Manchester on three DL programmes for experienced teachers of English and French exemplifies such cultural complexity. This has involved: the inter-institutional ‘transplant’ of courseware (with inherent ‘tissue rejection’ risks); writer mentoring towards DL methodological competence; and inter-programme comparisons of ‘methodological cultures’. With this backdrop, we present a conceptualisation for the development of appropriate DL methodology, and then some writers’ reflections based on it. Further, we argue that the cultural complexities can be effectively managed through a process of meaning negotiation which we illustrate in relation to the assessment process. The conceptualisation, reflections and meaning negotiation example are offered as a stimulus for practitioners to better understand their emerging programme cultures and thus be better prepared for the task of developing appropriate DL practice. 1. Introduction Two Scenarios Scenario 1 Three experienced foreign language teachers (from neighbouring schools in their country) meet at a publisher’s promotional evening. As they chat, they realise that they share a professional development activity: studying for a distance learning (DL)-mode masters programme in the teaching of their foreign lan- guage. They find that their DL study experiences are similar but also different. They ask themselves why this is so and whether it is a good thing. They try to assess which programme is the best for them, and they speculate about the ideal design, content, and modus operandi of masters programmes for language teachers like themselves. Scenario 2 Three experienced language teacher educators (working mainly in the university sector) meet at a conference. They realise that their work is similar: tutoring and ISSN 0268-0513 print; ISSN 1469-9958 online/03/010009–19  2003 The Open University DOI: 10.1080/0268051032000054095 10 R. Fay & M. Hill TABLE I. Three experienced foreign language teachers and three DL-mode Masters programmes Teachers: Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3 Language teaching English English French specialism Teaching context Greek public education Greek public education Greek public education 1 Institution HOU UoM HOU organising studies Programme title2 Masters in Arts (MA) Masters in Education Masters in Arts (MA) Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 in TEFL (MEd) in ELT in TFFL Courseware Developed by UoM Developed by UoM Developed by HOU (although final module (with UoM as DL developed by HOU) methodology mentors) Mode of study DL ⫹ contact sessions Full DL DL ⫹ contact sessions Type of DL Largely print-based ⫹ Largely print-based ⫹ Largely print-based ⫹ provision3 contact ⫹ ad hoc use systematic use of contact ⫹ ad hoc use of of CMCs CMCs CMCs 1 HOU ⫽ The Hellenic Open University, Greece [in Greek, Elliniko Anoikto Panepistimio, (EAP)]; UoM ⫽ The University of Manchester, UK. 2 TEFL ⫽ teaching English as a foreign language; ELT ⫽ English language teaching; TFFL ⫽ teaching French as a foreign language. 3 CMCs ⫽ computer-mediated communications. writing materials for DL-mode masters programmes for language teachers in their specialist language area. They find that their programmes are similar but also different. They ask themselves why this is so and whether it is a good thing. They wonder how providers can ensure that programmes are appropriate (in terms of content and approach) for the intended students and how possible this is when programmes are located in different institutions, operate in differing contexts, and attract teachers from potentially very different backgrounds. The above scenarios have been suggested by experiences gained during collabora- tion between the Hellenic Open University (HOU) and the University of Manchester (Manchester) which involved the development of DL-mode masters programmes for experienced teachers of English and French [1]. The HOU–Manchester Collaboration As Table I shows, the three teachers in Scenario 1 each represent one of the three programmes within the collaboration which has involved. • The use of common DL courseware across programmes (i.e. the MEd in English Language Teaching (ELT) and the MA in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). The HOU, formally established in 1997 (Lionarakis, 1996), wanted to Educating Language Teachers Through Distance Learning 11 begin offering programmes before its own courseware was ready. Thus, for its first full programme (i.e. the MA TEFL), it licensed existing DL courseware from Manchester’s MEd ELT programme. • The localisation of the licensed courseware. With Manchester as ‘donor’, the HOU as ‘recipient’, the licensed courseware represents a transplant in which the Manchester courseware functions within an HOU-designed administered pro- gramme delivered by HOU tutors according to HOU norms. To avoid ‘tissue rejection’, localisation has been necessary. For example, although the HOU MA TEFL programme is based on the same courseware as the Manchester MEd programme, it differs from it with regard to assessment modes and instruments, Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 administrative arrangements, the objectives and frequency of face-to-face contact sessions, the use of CMCs, the roles of the tutors and the relationships between tutors and participants. Above all, the two programmes ‘feel’ different in ways which are not always easy to describe. The practitioners involved struggled to find a meta-language with which to capture their understandings of this difference in ‘feel’. • the mentoring of the MA TFFL materials writers. The HOU developed its own courseware for the ‘French’ programme (i.e. the MA TFFL) as influenced by models from the HOU, Manchester, CNED (Centre National d’Enseignement a` Distance) in France and the UK Open University (UKOU). The collaboration involved the French materials writers being mentored with regard to DL method- ology by Manchester staff, who had more of an EFL than FFL methodological background. Thus, the writers had to find compromises between the methodolog- ical models available to them, compromises appropriate to their programme context. • The development of additional HOU courseware for the MA TEFL programme. In addition to the licensed courseware, the HOU’s MA TEFL programme uses courseware developed by HOU staff as influenced by DL models from the HOU and Manchester. This required the writer to make methodological choices as he sought to produce effective DL materials which were sensitive, on one hand, to the HOU’s MA TEFL programme culture (based, in part, on Manchester courseware), and on the other hand to the emerging HOU institutional culture (based, in part, on established Greek higher educational norms). • The revision of DL practice at Manchester. The collaboration has been two-way, with DL practice at Manchester also being influenced. For example, the HOU’s growing experience of delivering the MA TEFL programme to relatively large numbers of students (120 per cohort) has helped Manchester in the development of administratively sensible ways of delivering its popular content flexibility to participants as the overall participant numbers increased from those of a cottage industry to an overall DL community of several hundred. 2. Our Focus Scenarios 1 and 2 above raise specific questions about the cultural aspects of the DL programmes concerned. However, this article is not concerned per se with particular- ities, although they form the backdrop to our discussion. 12 R. Fay & M. Hill Instead we have a major concern with the struggle of DL practitioners such as those in Scenario 2 to understand the cultural aspects of DL provision. How might they assess whether or not the DL methodology used in a particular programme is appropriate for its participants and operating contexts? What are the implications for their developing DL practice? To be able to answer such questions, practitioners need a way of understanding these cultural complexities of the DL provision. To this end, after reviewing the relevant literature (Sections 3 and 4), we present a cultural framework for appropriate DL methodology derived from the work of Adrian Holliday (e.g. 1994, 1999) (Section 5). We illustrate this in relation to the HOU–Manchester collaboration (Section 6) and the reflections of writers involved Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 in it (Section 7), but our purpose throughout is on the implications of such thinking for all those involved with DL programmes. We have a secondary concern with how DL programmes manage the cultural complexity within them to ensure effectiveness and equity for the participants. Here, we draw on insights from the field of Intercultural Communication to argue that a process of meaning negotiation should be included within DL programmes in recognition of their cultural complexity (Section 8). 3. A Review of Culturally Oriented Discussions of DL In the literature, the cultural aspects of DL are discussed in several distinct ways. Perhaps the most conventional usage sees ‘culture’ as a national–geographic anchor when discussing the particularities of developing DL in specific national and re- gional contexts (e.g. Elsiddig, 1993; Lionarakis, 1996; Lyall & McNamara, 2000; Murphy & Yum, 1998). These discussions sometimes involve a cross-cultural dimension, both internationally (e.g. Smith & Smith, 1999) and intranationally (e.g. Hendersen & Putt, 1999). One way of addressing such complexities is in terms of educational globalisation (and, with it, e-technologies and e-learning). Discussions linking culture to globalisation are rare, however (e.g. Chen et al., 1999; Collis, 1999; Wild, 1999), although they are very much needed: … the big issue in global education is the cultural one, and … most practitioners have hardly begun to tackle it. Much of the promise of the globalisation movement in education depends on how successfully cultural differences are addressed … (Mason, 1998, p. x) Educational globalisation prompts many questions about DL methodology similar to those being asked by the practitioners in Scenario 2 above. For example, Mason asks: In what ways does the growth of global education impinge on the traditional content and methods of teaching and assessment in higher education and train- ing? Is the quality of global courses to be assessed any differently from national or campus-based courses? Do the cultural sensitivities and considerations of global teaching affect the curriculum? And if not, should they? (1998, p. 38) Educating Language Teachers Through Distance Learning 13 She argues that all global educators should re-examine the appropriacy of their practices, a view we would extend to all DL practitioners. No discussion of the cultural aspects of DL at the present time would want to ignore the rapidly expanding and insightful literature on the educational develop- ment of e-technologies, virtual communities and e-learning (e.g. Aronowitz et al., 1996; Bell, 2001; Herring, 1996; Ho, 1997; Kiesler, 1997; Lull, 2001; Smith & Kollock, 1998; Warschauer, 1999; Wood, 2001). For example, it has been noted that technological environments do affect traditional educational understandings: … the new technological environment opens access to study across sectoral, Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 disciplinary, and cultural boundaries which will quickly erode traditional ideas of the course of study: selective access, sequenced and carefully integrated content, and level-based progress rules that are pre-determined by the institution. On the contrary, curricula will be increasingly disassembled, modularized and cus- tomized to suit a wide range of clients requiring flexibility of delivery… What constitutes a course will be increasingly negotiated between provider institutions, students, and client groups. (LeGrew, 1995 in Mason, 1998, p. 41) However, it is important to remember, as the relatively small-scale use of CMCs in the HOU–Manchester collaboration reminds us, that DL is not synonymous with these newer technologies. We can learn a great deal from this literature but, in itself, it cannot provide us with a sufficiently broad conceptualisation to understand DL provision regardless of the educational technologies employed. The phrase ‘appropriate methodology’ is not common in the DL lexicon and its use is often by writers from disciplinary backgrounds (such as language edu- cation) where the term is more established (e.g. Edge, 1995). However, there are DL discussions concerned with developing DL methodologies appropriate for their contexts of use. Some studies deal with factors such as student age or national–cultural background (e.g. James, 1984; Lyall & McNamara, 2000; and Smith & Smith, 1999); others are concerned with student behaviours, expectations, learning strategies, study preferences and support needs (e.g. Carnwell, 2000; Fung & Carr, 2000; Morgan et al., 1998; Stevenson & Sander, 1998); another group addresses the attitudes and perceptions of tutors, writers and mentors (e.g. Inglis, 1996; Joughin & Johnston, 1994; MacPherson & Smith, 1998; Roberts et al., 1994); and there are discussions of culture and quality assurance (e.g. Allen, 1993), of textuality (e.g. Marsden, 1996; West, 1996), tasks (e.g. Valcke et al., 1993; West & Walsh, 1994/95) and pedagogic orientation (e.g. Garrison, 1993; George, 1995; Young & Marks-Maran, 1998). From such discussions, we gain a sense of the possible range of factors influencing the culture of a particular DL programme— thus, we might identify geographical, technological, methodological, institutional, interactional and participant factors. However, we still need a conceptual framework in which to locate such factors. In the context of globalisation, Mason (1998, p. 156) suggests that one way of achieving appropriacy might be the adaptation of DL courseware for differing contexts. Thus, developers might create globally oriented materials for use within a 14 R. Fay & M. Hill national context or create materials which teach without imposing a cultural per- spective. The former possibility, as exemplified by the content of the Manchester courseware, results in a global orientation for what would otherwise be national educational initiatives. The latter suggestion can be related to Mason’s concern with the pedagogic orientation of DL provision. In this regard, she contrasts the ‘liberal tradition of discussion, questioning, constructivist approaches to learning’ of her own institution with the deeply-held contrary views, experiences and understandings of students from other backgrounds. The contrary orientation has been described as follows: Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 … listen, not speak; receive, not give—the teacher imparts the knowledge and the students receive it. It is a reflective approach to learning rather than an active one. In addition, this tradition is an oral one — written texts are less ‘honourable’ or ‘trustworthy’. Lack of knowledge, experience or status will mean that contribu- tions from ‘the floor’ are not welcomed by either the teacher or other students — it is merely wasting time. (Kingsley, 1997 in Mason, 1998, p. 48) To address such pedagogic tensions, she argues that a model of global education is needed ‘which is not so much an exporting as a re-engineering of the educational paradigm to include people from many countries, studying materials designed for a multicultural audience, using technologies which facilitate cross-cultural communi- cation’ (1998, p. 61). This goal is ambitious but it may be aided by insights from Crosscultural Media research: [Lundin, 1996] cites media researchers who see a third culture being constructed when materials from one culture are being studied by people in a different culture. Material from both the interacting cultures is used to fill locally and temporally defined functions outside both cultures but intelligible to participants from both who are involved in the interaction. (1998, p. 156) Finally, the DL literature occasionally discusses the use of culturally oriented research methods such as ethnography in the study of DL practice (e.g. Morgan, 1984; Minnis, 1985; Kember, 1998). 4. The Need for a Cultural Framework for Considering DL Provision The DL literature provides some insights into the cultural complexity of the HOU–Manchester collaborative programmes. Thus, national–geographic discus- sions are useful regarding the particularities of Greek versus British Higher Edu- cation, for example, but are less so for Scenario 1 above in which Teachers 1 and 2 are both Greek using the same courseware but at different institutions, one of which (i.e. the HOU) has an explicitly national remit whereas the programme of the other (i.e. Manchester) is international. Similarly, Mason’s (1998) discussion of global pedagogy seems to suggest that e-technologies may enable a culture-neutral DL methodology, or that DL methodol- ogy will be informed by a technology-based rather than regionally based cultures. However, neither the HOU nor Manchester have articulated a global rationale for the print-based core of their provision and so the cultural complexities involved Educating Language Teachers Through Distance Learning 15 cannot be approached directly from either a global pedagogic or technological culture perspective. What is needed is a way of understanding appropriate DL methodology whatever the geographic remit and whatever the technologies involved. There is also mileage in following Mason in the exploration of how contrasting pedagogic orientations can be described and how the implications of such contrasts can be addressed. Her reference to ‘third cultures’ and other ideas from Crosscul- tural Media research resonate with the ideas we discuss below. However, although many insights into particular aspects of DL methodology can be gained in this way, an over-arching conceptualisation of appropriate DL methodology still seems to be lacking. For example, there is as yet little discussion of ‘cultures of DL’ comparable Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 to explorations of ‘cultures of learning’ in face-to-face classrooms (e.g. Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Kato, 2001). Nor is there anything analogous to Holliday’s (1994) work in relation to appropriate ELT methodology. Such discussion would help us tease out the appropriate DL methodology issues raised by the scenarios presented above. The next section is intended as our contribution to this discussion. 5. Developing a Cultural Framework for Understanding DL Provision This section assembles a cultural framework from Holliday’s discussions of appro- priate methodology, small cultures and Host Culture Complex. There are other conceptual discussions which cover similar territory [2], but Holliday’s relative simplicity and broad scope lends itself to a practitioner-friendly approach. Further, we have restricted ourselves to this one stimulus because our concern here is not to develop a ‘sophisticated’ model but to show how a particular conceptualisation can be used to gain deeper understandings of the cultural complexities of educational realities such as those in the HOU–Manchester collaboration. Appropriate Methodology For us, the term ‘appropriate methodology’ signals a desire to develop educational practices appropriate for their contexts. This objective may be stimulated by a professional instinct to maximise the value and effectiveness of our educational processes. It may also be shaped by a motivation to avoid ‘educational imperialism’ (re ELT see, for example, Canagarajah, 1999). Holliday (1994) argues that the methodology of international English language education ‘has been developed mainly in the English-speaking countries of “the West” and does not always fit the needs of the rest of the world’ (1994, back cover). Parallels can be drawn here with the international field of DL: the methodological preferences of English-medium DL writers prominent in our development context (e.g. Race, 1995; Rowntree, 1990) are also products of particular contexts. This may render them not entirely appropriate for the actual contexts in which the DL provision is being developed. For example, DL is only now becoming part of Greek educational practices [3] and thus the DL methodologies involved in the HOU provision are, in many ways, products of other contexts. 16 R. Fay & M. Hill Are the DL methodological assumptions embedded in the HOU–Manchester developments appropriate for the contexts in which they are being used? Given that the HOU’s MA TEFL programme involves ‘transplanted’ courseware carrying a particular DL methodological orientation, that the HOU’s MA TFFL programme has been influenced by methodological models from elsewhere, and that DL is a new mode of study in Greek Higher Education, this is clearly an important question. To begin answering it, further elements from Holliday’s work are useful. The Small Culture Paradigm Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 Holliday (1999) delineates two uses of the term ‘culture’ in research. The dominant paradigm understands ‘culture’ in ethnic, national and international terms. Thus, we might explore ‘Greekness’ (e.g. Broome, 1996) or compare educational practices in Britain and Greece. This culturist paradigm contrasts with an operationist, or small culture, paradigm which focuses on small social groupings or activities wherever there is cohesive behaviour; for example, the culture of classroom or DL tutorial group. Such small cultures are constantly in flux, constantly emerging. Where large culture constructs are vulnerable to reductionism, the small culture paradigm avoids ethnic, national or international stereotyping (1999, p. 237). Instead of focusing on the issues of ‘Greekness’ and ‘Britishness’ in relation to the HOU–Manchester developments we can, following Holliday, focus on the small cultures involved. Thus, we might ask: ‘Are the DL methodologies influencing the HOU–Manchester developments appropriate for the emerging small programme cultures in which they are being operationalised?’ The Host Culture Complex What influences the emergence of such small cultures? How can we map out the myriad possibilities and thus ensure they are taken into account? Taking the idea of small cultures further, Holliday suggests that: … there can also be a system of cultures which are not mutually exclusive, with cultures overlapping, containing and being contained by other cultures. Relations between cultures can be both vertical, through hierarchies of cultures and subcul- tures, or horizontal, between cultures in different systems. (1994, p. 28) In educational terms, the small culture of our classroom (or DL tutorial group) is located within a Host Culture Complex constituted of a range of overlapping cultural influences and centres of gravity (see Fig. 1). In such a model, the national large culture has its place as just one of many influences. To adapt the Host Culture Complex for DL, ‘classroom culture’ might be replaced with ‘tutorial group culture’. This will interact with the larger ‘programme culture’. The tutorial group and programme cultures will be influenced by the small cultures associated variously with the students, the tutors, the materials writers, the DL methodologies employed and the administrative practices; they will also be influenced by the interactions between these small cultures. It is within this Host Educating Language Teachers Through Distance Learning 17 Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 FIG. 1. The host culture complex (adapted from Holliday, 1994, p. 29). 18 R. Fay & M. Hill Culture Complex conceptualisation that a consideration of the possible factors influencing the DL provision (see earlier discussion) can be most effectively mar- shalled. To do so, each practitioner would need to consider which of these factors were the dominant influences determining the emerging characteristics of the Host Culture Complex in which their DL small culture was located. Finally, Holliday (1994) recommends ethnographic action research as the means of gathering data about the small cultures (and interactions between them) within the Host Culture Complex. For our purposes, this would mean the participants in the DL programmes should adopt a reflective stance and use data from observation and participant experience to formulate working hypotheses about the characteris- Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 tics of an effective and appropriate DL practice for the educational cultures with they are involved. Further reflection, participation and observation may, over time, facilitate the development of appropriate methodology. 6. Illustrating the Cultural Framework with the HOU–Manchester Provision Systematic Considerations First, the queries raised in Scenarios 1 and 2 above represent raw questions that would need to be systematically pursued as part of an appropriate DL methodology endeavour. Ethnographic Action Research is one research methodology that could be used to this end. Some systematicity is also useful in shaping the questions being asked. There are a number of resources which practitioners could employ to this end, for example: Mason’s global education checklist—which deals with ‘the kind of critical information the global student needs in order to make an informed decision before registering’ (1998, p. 61); or with adaptation, Cushner and Nieman’s (1997) intercultural and international education checklists—which address the needs of all participants in an educational programme by providing a breakdown of the key concerns involved in the different stages of planning and delivering a (face-to-face) course; or Goodman’s (1994) training materials which use case studies to problema- tise crosscultural educational encounters and provide a cultural framework (derived from Hofstede, 1986) to consider them. Whichever resource is employed, this should not distract from the driving force behind the endeavours; namely, the questions which the practitioners, after a period of reflection on their practice, determine to be important. Mapping Out the Characteristics of Emergent Educational Cultures Secondly, taking each of the three HOU–Manchester programmes involved, we could map out the emerging small cultures contributing to the Host Culture Complex in which the programmes develop. For example, Teacher 1 is taking the HOU’s MA TEFL programme. The development of this programme culture is influenced by small cultures including: • The cultures of the student community. This includes the cultural background they have acquired previously, both as students within the Greek educational system Educating Language Teachers Through Distance Learning 19 (which, for example, tends to be tutor-centred and examination-driven) and as teachers trained and working within that system. It also includes their expecta- tions of masters-level study (for example, about the level of directed as opposed to independent study) and about distance learning (for example about types and frequency of contacts with tutors). Focusing on this small culture enables us to distinguish the similar HOU DL student communities to which Teachers 1 and 3 belong and to highlight differences from the small culture of Teacher 2 on the Manchester MEd ELT programme (which is influenced, for example, by educa- tional values from British Higher Education). • The culture of the materials (content). This includes the cultural background Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 involved in the theoretical and practical worlds of ELT/EFL (which will be similar to but different from those of TFFL) and related fields such as Applied Linguistics, Communication Studies, Educational Studies and so on. Focusing on this small culture enables us to recognise commonalities between the HOU MA TEFL and the Manchester MEd ELT programmes as well as the differences between this EFL/ELT content and the TFFL content which Teacher 3 experiences. • The culture of the materials (DL methodology) and of the materials writers. This includes the cultural influences associated with the pedagogic orientation of the materials. Regarding the MA TEFL programme, this consists of a task-based, constructivist, learner-centred approach to DL with materials displaying a com- plex textuality and a tight task-and-text relationship (see West & Walsh, 1994/95; West, 1995, 1996). Here, Teachers 1 and 2 will be in the same situation since both experience the same courseware. Teacher 3 has a different experience because the methodological inputs into the HOU’s TFFL programme differ from those of the Manchester MEd ELT programme. • The culture of the tutors’ community. This includes the cultural background of the tutors which, in the case of the MA TEFL programme involves mainly Greeks who are professionally oriented towards the English-speaking world, who have experience of English language teaching, who may be working in the university, and/or schools advisers sectors of language teacher education, and who will have experience of masters- and often doctoral-level studies overseas, but who will have only limited previous experience of DL in Greece or elsewhere. This background contrasts with the tutors on the Manchester MEd ELT who, for example, are not Greek and who have a writers’, as well as a tutors’, identification with the materials. • The culture of the programme. This includes all those practices, products and procedures which have built up around the programme, and this will involve the localisation of the materials that has taken place to minimise the danger of ‘tissue rejection’ (e.g. assessment procedures and assignments and tutorial relationships and patterns of behaviour). Here, all three programmes will differ. • The national culture of the HOU’s remit (i.e. Greece and Greek education. This includes all those cultural consequences of the MA TEFL programme being based in Greece and targeting teachers usually trained in Greece and currently working in Greece. This contrasts with the MEd ELT which has an explicitly 20 R. Fay & M. Hill international remit with students from over 40 countries world-wide. However, the MA TEFL and MA TFFL programmes share a similar Greek focus. Extending the Process This mapping process could clearly be extended further. However, we hope that the above discussion has illustrated adequately the usefulness of the cultural framework in teasing out the complexities which distinguish apparently similar DL pro- grammes. Having mapped out these complexities, and accepted that they are Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 constantly evolving, the next challenge is to consider what DL providers can do to enhance the likelihood of their provision being effective and appropriate because it recognises that cultural complexity. 7. Working Towards Appropriate DL Methodology with Writers Awareness-raising as a First Step Our main recommendation is the need to explicitly raise the issue of appropriate DL methodology with all DL participants. Here, we illustrate what this might involve with two materials writers and in the following section, we look at how such issues might be raised with students and their tutors on DL programmes. As part of the collaboration, we held an appropriate DL methodology awareness- raising seminar attended by both the writers presented below. Prior to this event, their decisions about the pedagogic orientation of their materials, although influenced by training and specific models, were largely instinctive and were not recorded in any way other than through the final products. This did not mean they were insensitive to the need to develop appropriate materials, but rather that they did not then possess the meta-language with which to formulate their thinking about such considerations. Once provided with that awareness, they could record their reflections as described next. A ‘French’ Materials Writer Reflects … A. is a materials writer for the HOU’s MA TFFL programme. He knows the Greek social and educational contexts and the subject area well but, at the time of the seminar, his DL experience was limited and influenced by a variety of models of DL practice (see below). He had been mentored (regarding DL methodology) by Manchester colleagues but had had an HOU critical reader (for content). His challenge was to decide what these different DL models might mean for the MA TFFL courseware. After the seminar, he noted that: … as I had no previous experience in the field of DL, I found and read: (a) the MEd ELT material from Manchester; (b) the material from the HOU’s module on DL; (c) several books from the UK Open University; and (d) some disparate materials distributed by CNED, France. Educating Language Teachers Through Distance Learning 21 Which of these DL models were of most use? ‘Strangely (I mean despite working for a “French” programme in a Greek context), I was mainly influenced by Manchester and, less, by the OU’. Why? [whereas] the HOU and CNED were of little use for me … the Manchester material gave me many ideas, both with content … and design … Manchester and the OU are what I understand today as DL materials: continuous feedback from the writer to the student, case studies, frequent and useful questions and activities (with answers), summaries, sign-posts and a good design (general ‘line’) of writing. Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 However, having decided on his preferred model, he then ‘had to battle against the “French tradition” and the desire for the presence of more theory in our HOU French materials’. It was a ‘battle’ that led to a realisation of the ‘real conflict between the English (realistic, down-to-earth) and the French (philosophical, sky- high) academic writing’. From these experiences, he argues that: ‘ … in DL writing, you have to respect the students … they want to be guided I think, but I am not so directive’. This student-centred view contrasts with the local norm: ‘our programme and [also more] generally … people who follow education in Greece, they stay evaluation-centred. They don’t do the free activities, just the SAQs, and they start reading a unit from the end: from the assignment!’ An English Materials Writer Reflects … B. is a tutor on the HOU’s MA TEFL programme who was invited to write some additional courseware for this programme. After the seminar, Nicos identified two main sources of DL methodological influence on his materials: (i) the HOU’s in-house orientation; and (ii) the Manchester orientation contained in the HOU’s MA TEFL courseware. These differed significantly in ways characteristic of ‘the different way of thinking that permeates pedagogy in tertiary education … in the Greek and English cultural contexts’. Specifically, the Greek materials seemed to be more formal in style, favouring ‘open-ended SAQs (e.g. SAQs in the form of a series of question-answer sessions)’ and ‘emphasising the counselling factor’. In contrast, ‘the English authors seem to go for a more structured approach (e.g. framing activities with tables or lists), which means they don’t have to use counselling language that much (except, of course, at the beginning of Units)’. Because he was writing for the HOU’s MA TEFL programme which was Greek-based but used the Manchester courseware, he tried in his materials ‘to combine the best of both approaches’. Using the Meta-Language of Appropriate DL Methodology In both these examples, putting the appropriate methodology deliberations into words was not easy but, once achieved, facilitated a discussion ‘on another level’ about the pedagogic orientation of their materials. It enabled the nebulous difference 22 R. Fay & M. Hill of ‘feel’ mentioned earlier to be pinned down. Such informed discussion can only be beneficial, we believe, to the objective of appropriate DL methodology. 8. Managing Cultural Complexity Within DL Programmes Appropriate DL methodology issues are of concern, not only for writers but also for tutors and students. If we accept that our educational programmes are culturally complex and constantly evolving, then we need to build into the educational processes opportunities for negotiating meanings so that practice can be continually fine-tuned. Understandings from the Intercultural Communication literature are Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 helpful in this regard and the assessment process (which is, we find, particularly prone to culturally divergent expectations) can be used to illustrate this. The course provider may make clear statements about the assessment procedures and what is meant by the various instruments it employs, but each participant may bring different values to the assessment regime. For example, what does a top mark mean and for what kind of performance is it awarded? What do tutors mean by criteria such as ‘originality’ and ‘criticality’ and are these meanings understood and shared by their students? Adopting an Intercultural Communication stance (see Porter & Samovar, 1994, p. 7ff), we can see this as a matter of meaning attribution with each participant potentially attributing a slightly different meaning to the same course characteristic (see Fig. 2). To avoid damaging mismatches between meaning attributions, we need to de- velop a process by which the meanings can be negotiated explicitly (see Fay & Walsh, 1996, 1997). Such a process would seek to: (a) make all participants aware of the likelihood of cultural similarities and differ- ences between their expectations and those of the programme; (b) help participants surface their own educational expectations; (c) help participants identify the expectations of the programme culture; (d) encourage participants to record the cultural similarities and differences be- tween their position and that embedded in the programme; and (e) enable participants to ‘negotiate’ (i.e. clarify and personalise) an intercultural compromise between their expectations and those of the programme.(process adapted from Fay & Walsh, 1996, pp. 80–81) Assessment is one of many areas which might benefit from such a process. Others include: roles (of tutors, participants and administrators); learning (and teaching) styles; materials design; additional resources (over and above course materials); uses of technology; support systems (academic and administrative); and feedback sys- tems. 9. Conclusions We have used the DL programmes associated with the HOU–Manchester collabora- tion to highlight how culturally complex DL provision can be and to consider the implications this complexity has for the task of developing and ensuring that Educating Language Teachers Through Distance Learning 23 DL Participant X (studying on an international DL programme at) Institution Y Participant X receives and reads Institution Y’s assessment criteria as part of the programme documentation Institution Y (i.e. its staff) assumes that Partici- Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 pant X now knows (and understands) what is required Participant X interprets (i.e. attributes meaning to) the assessment criteria on the basis of their cultural background and related educational expectations Conclusions: Participants X’s interpretation of the assessment criteria may differ from that of Institution Y. Possible Outcome: Miscommunication when assignment feedback and grading is given; evident through the unhappiness of Participant X and/or of their course tutor. Explanation of this possible outcome: Participant X had expectations which were not met and the Institution (and tutor) had expectations which were not met and Participant X and Institution Y had both failed to ensure that their expectations were mutually compatible and commonly understood, and, if their expectations were not compatible and understood, had failed to provide a supportive ‘space’ or process in which an acceptable compromise could be found. FIG. 2. Meaning attribution and assessment criteria (adapted from Fay & Walsh, 1997, p. 3). our DL methodology is appropriate. We believe that the best guarantor of appropriate DL methodology is the high level of understanding that the practitioners can develop about this cultural complexity. Such understandings benefit from being articulated within an over-arching framework such as that developed by Holliday. They can then be used to map out the cultural complexity of any DL programme in a more meaningful way. 24 R. Fay & M. Hill The next step involves working with writers, students, tutors and all those participating in DL practice to raise awareness of the complex cultural consider- ations and the dangers that can result from them. Then we need to create opportu- nities for all DL participants to explore the specific cultural issues involved in their programmes. In this way, tensions may be eased between contrasting pedagogic orientations as well as between the divergent meaning being attributed to the programme’s procedures and values. Although much remains to be done, we hope that this discussion has identified a path to be followed in pursuing DL practice which is culturally sensitive and therefore appropriate and more likely to be effective. If the teachers and tutors in the Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 initial scenarios had been armed with the cultural framework, if they had been able to map out the cultural complexities, and if they had been provided with an Intercultural Communication process through which they could clarify understand- ings of the cultural expectations involved in their programme, then we hope they might have been able to begin answering the questions they so pertinently raised. Acknowledgements We wish to thank the many colleagues who have supported our work, in particular: in Greece, Marie-Christine Anastassiadi, George Androulakis, Alexis Kokkos, An- tonis Lionarakis, Sophia Papaefthymiou-Lytra and Nicos Sifakis; and in the UK, Gillian Walsh and Richard West. Richard Fay (contact author)is a Lecturer in Education at the University of Manchester and Manchester co-ordinator of the HOU-Manchester collaboration. E-mail: ⬍

⬎ Moira Hill is the Tutor and Academic Registrar for the Hellenic Open University’s masters programme for English language teachers with day-to-day involvement in ensuring that the ‘transplant’ of Manchester’s DL courseware is effective and appropriate for the HOU context. E-mail: ⬍

⬎ Notes [1] For more detailed discussion of these programmes, see Fay et al. (2000). [2] For example, see work on discourse communities (see Swales, 1998, for a review of this term), identity groups (Singer, 1998) and communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). [3] For example, Keegan notes that Greece is ‘a country in which previously distance training was little known and educational technology played only a small role’ (2000, p. 135). References ALLEN, A. (1993) Culture as a learning variable: implications for quality assurance in distance education, in: A. TAIT (Ed.) Conference Papers: quality assurance in open and distance learning, pp. 7–24 (Cambridge, Open University East Anglian Region). ARONOWITZ, S., MARTINSONS, B. R. & MENSER, M. (1996) Technoscience and Cyberculture (Lon- don, Routledge). Educating Language Teachers Through Distance Learning 25 BELL, D. (2001) An Introduction to Cybercultures (London, Routledge). BROOME, B. J. (1996) Exploring the Greek Mosaic: a guide to intercultural communication in Greece (Yarmouth, Maine, Intercultural Press). CANAGARAJAH, A. S. (1999) Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching (Oxford, Oxford University Press). CARNWELL, R. (2000) Approaches to study and their impact on the need for support and guidance in distance learning, Open Learning, 15(2), pp. 123–140. CHEN, A.-Y., MASHHADI, A., ANG, D. & HARKRIDER, N. (1999) Cultural issues in the design of technology-enhanced learning systems, British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), pp. 217–230. COLLIS, B. (1999) Designing for differences: cultural issues in the design of WWW-based Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 course-support sites, British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), pp. 201–215. CORTAZZI, M. & JIN, L. (1996) Cultures of learning: language classrooms in China, in: H. COLEMAN (Ed.) Society and the Language Classroom, pp. 169–205 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). CUSHNER, K. & NIEMAN, C. (1997) Managing international and intercultural programs, in: K. CUSHNER & R.W. BRISLIN (Eds) Improving Intercultural Interactions: modules for cross-cultural training programmes, Vol. 2, pp. 129–145 (London, Sage). EDGE, J. (1995) Taking responsibility for appropriate methods, Journal of TESOL France, pp. 39–52. ELSIDDIG, M. (1993) Planning higher education: towards an Open University in Sudan, Distance Education, 14(1), pp. 138–146. FAY, R., SPINTHOURAKIS, J.-A. & ANASTASSIADI, M.-C. (2000) Teacher education for teachers of English and French: developing parallel distance learning programmes in Greece, in: M. BEAUMONT & T. O’BRIEN (Eds) Collaborative Research in Second Language Education, pp. 109-121 (Stoke, Trentham Books). FAY, R. & WALSH, G. (1996) Some intercultural perspectives on distance education. Paper presented at the ’Distance Education for Language Teachers 2nd Symposium’, University of Manchester, UK and published in the Proceedings (G. MOTTERAM, G. WALSH & R. WEST (Eds), pp. 73–85. FAY, R. & WALSH, G. (1997) Cultural barriers in a distance teacher education programme. Paper presented at ‘The Use of Open and Distance Learning in Developing Adult Educators and Trainers’ conference hosted by the University of Sheffield, and published subsequently in the Proceedings. FUNG, Y. & CARR, R. (2000) Face-to-face tutorials in a distance learning system: meeting student needs, Open Learning, 15(1), pp. 35–46. GARRISON, D. R. (1993) A constructivist view of distance education: an analysis of teaching-learn- ing assumptions, Distance Education, 14(2), pp. 199–211. GEORGE, R. (1995) Open and distance education as social practice, Distance Education, 16(1), pp. 24–42. GOODMAN, N. R. (1994) Intercultural interaction at the university level: teacher–student interac- tion, in: R. W. BRISLIN & T. YOSHIDA (Eds) Improving Intercultural Interactions: modules for cross-cultural training, Vol. 1, pp. 129–147 (London, Sage). HENDERSEN, L. & PUTT, I. (1999) Evaluating audioconferencing as an effective learning tool in cross-cultural contexts, Open Learning, 14(1), pp. 25–37. HERRING, S. C. (Ed.) (1996) Computer-Mediated Communication: linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (Amsterdam, John Benjamin’s Publishing). HO, D. (Ed.) (1997) Virtual Politics: identity and community in cyberspace (London, Sage). HOFSTEDE, G. (1986) Cultural differences in teaching and learning, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), pp. 301–320. HOLLIDAY, A. R. (1994) Appropriate Methodology and Social Context (Cambridge, CUP). HOLLIDAY, A. R. (1999) Small cultures, Applied Linguistics, 20(2), pp. 237–264. 26 R. Fay & M. Hill INGLIS, F. (1996) Teaching-learning specialists’ perceptions of their role in the design of distance learning packages, Distance Education, 17(2), pp. 267–288. JAMES, A. (1984) Age-group differences in the psychological well-being and academic attainment of distance learners, Distance Education, 5(2), pp. 200–214. JOUGHIN, G. & JOHNSTON, S. (1994) The experience of collaborating: writing and instructional design in distance education, Distance Education, 15(1), pp. 6–22. KATO, K. (2001) Exploring ‘cultures of learning’: a case of Japanese and Australian classrooms, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 22(1), pp. 51–67. KEEGAN, D. (2000) Distance Training: taking stock at a time of change (London & New York, Routledge Falmer). KEMBER, D. (1998) Action research: towards an alternative framework for educational develop- Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 ment, Distance Education, 19(1), pp. 43–63. KIESLER, S. (Ed.) (1997) Cultures of the Internet (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum). KINGSLEY, J. (1997) Trials and tribulations of an ESL learner. Paper presented at the ‘Cultural Adaptation of Distance Learning’ conference, 28–29 October 1997, Walton Hall, The Open University Business School, and published subsequently in the Proceedings. LAVE, J. & WENGER, E. (1991) Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). LEGREW, D. (1995) Global Knowledge: superhighway or super gridlock? Applications of media and technology in higher education (Chiba, Japan, National Institute of Multimedia Education). LIONARAKIS, A. (1996) The establishment of the Hellenic Open University, Open Learning, 11(3), pp. 53–58. LULL, J. (Ed.) (2001) Culture in the Communication Age (London, Routledge). LUNDIN, R. (1996) International education 3: opening access or educational invasion? Paper presented at the ‘Internationalising Communities’ conference, University of South Queens- land, 29 November 1996. LYALL, R. & MCNAMARA, S. (2000) Influences on the orientations to learning of distance education students in Australia, Distance Education, 15(2), pp. 107–115. MACPHERSON, C. & SMITH, A. (1998) Academic authors’ perceptions of the instructional design and development process for distance education, Distance Education, 19(1), pp. 124– 141. MARSDEN, R. (1996) Time, space and distance education, Distance Education, 17(2), pp. 222– 246. MASON, R. (1998) Globalising Education: trends and applications (London, Routledge). MINNIS, J. R. (1985) Ethnography, case study, grounded theory, and distance education research, Distance Education, 6(2), pp. 189–198. MORGAN, A. (1984) A report on qualitative methodologies in research in distance education, Distance Education, 5(2), pp. 252–267. MORGAN, C. J., DINSDAG, D. & SAENGER, H. (1998) Learning strategies for distance learners: do they help? Distance Education, 19(1), pp. 142–156. MURPHY, D. & YUM, Y. C. K. (1998) Understanding Hong Kong distance learners, Distance Education, 19(1), pp. 64–80. PORTER, R. & SAMOVAR, L. (1994) An introduction to intercultural communication, in: L. SAMOVAR & R. PORTER (Eds) Intercultural Communication: a reader (7th edn), pp. 4–25 (Belmont, CA, Wadsworth). RACE, P. (1995) The Open Learning Handbook (London, Kogan Page). ROBERTS, D. W., JACKSON, K., OSBORNE, J. & SOMERS VINE, A. (1994) Attitudes and perceptions of academic authors to the preparation of distance education materials at the University of Tasmania, Distance Education, 15(1), pp. 70–93. ROWNTREE, D. (1990) Teaching Through Self Instruction (revised edn) (London, Kogan Page). SINGER, M. H. (1998) Perception and Identity in Intercultural Communication (Yarmouth, ME, Intercultural Press). SMITH, M. & KOLLOCK, P. (Eds) (1998) Communities in Cyberspace (London, Routledge). Educating Language Teachers Through Distance Learning 27 SMITH, P. J. & SMITH, S. N. (1999) Differences between Chinese and Australian students: some implications for distance educators, Distance Education, 20(1), pp. 64–80. STEVENSON, K. & SANDER, P. (1998) How do Open University students expect to be taught at tutorials? Open Learning, 13(2), pp. 42–47. SWALES, J. M. (1998) Other Floors, Other Voices: a textography of a small university building (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). VALCKE, M. M. A., MARTENS, R. L., POELMANS, P. H. A. G. & DAAL, M. M. (1993) The actual use of embedded support devices in self-study materials by students in a distance education setting, Distance Education, 14(1), pp. 55–84. WARSCHAUER, M. (1999) Electronic Literacies: language, culture, and power in online education (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 WENGER, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: learning, meaning, and identity (Cambridge, Cam- bridge University Press). WEST, R. (1995) Print-based materials (Unit 5 of MD462, Distance Learning and Distance Teaching) (Manchester, The School of Education, The University of Manchester). WEST, R. (1996) Concepts of text in distance education. Paper presented at the ‘Distance Education for Language Teachers 2nd Symposium’, University of Manchester, UK and published in the Proceedings (G. MOTTERAM, G. WALSH & R. WEST (Eds)), pp. 62–72. WEST, R. & WALSH, G. (1994/95) Inputs and outputs of distance education. Paper presented at the ‘Distance Education for Language Teachers’ symposium hosted by the University of Edinburgh and published subsequently in R. HOWARD & I. MCGRATH (Eds) Distance Education for Language Teachers, pp. 133–141 (Clevedon, Avon, Multilingual Matters). WILD, M. (1999) Accommodating issues of culture and diversity in the application of new technologies, British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), pp. 195–199. WOOD, A. F. (2001) Online Communication: linking technology, identity and culture (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). YOUNG, G. & MARKS-MARAN, D. (1998) Using constructivism to develop a quality framework for learner support: a case study, Open Learning, 13(2), pp. 30–37. Downloaded by [East China Normal University] at 16:01 24 March 2014 View publication stats