Late in the semester, what began as a general discussion on curricular continuity at a faculty meeting quickly revealed the larger question of understanding one’s role as an experienced faculty member at an intensive English program (IEP), especially in the context of curriculum and teacher supervision. The curriculum for our IEP is primarily skills-separate, with an experienced teacher having administrative oversight of one skill area (e.g., reading). These administrative responsibilities fall across levels, with the individual supervising multiple levels of that particular skill.

In preparation for external accreditation, the program underwent major curricular revisions, including an extended alignment process which involved articulating student learning outcomes (SLOs) across levels and skills. Following this alignment, the supervisors were then responsible for ensuring that curricula, assessments, and teaching addressed those SLOs. Developing a common understanding of the new supervisory responsibilities within the unfamiliar framework of the accreditation requirements presented a challenge for our program, one that would require a negotiated dialogue.

Process

To better illustrate the process the IEP went through, I apply an interpretivist approach to explore the theory-practice dynamic. Roles within any program are necessarily socially constructed and can be framed, or interpreted, using existing information to guide programmatic decisions (Freeman 1996; Bailey 1997); this includes situating questions raised collectively by the group about current practice against the available literature. Within our IEP, the process to redefine supervisory roles included two formal meetings, with a reflective activity in between meetings. What follows is a summarized review of the outcomes of this process along with parallels that can be applied to other IEPs facing similar changes.

Understanding Roles

Experienced teachers often assume roles and responsibilities that extend well beyond the walls of their individual classrooms, frequently including teacher supervision (i.e., teacher mentorship) and curriculum development (Pennington & Hoekje, 2010). Embedded in these duties is the underlying assumption that those experienced teachers called upon to lead the program have a shared understanding of what their roles entail. This seems a reasonable supposition given a well-established program led by seasoned faculty.

Major structural or curricular revisions in an integrated program, however, can result in role uncertainty among those individuals the program depends upon the most to lead the change process. Evidence of this surfaced in our IEP during a routine faculty meeting. Despite having spent well over 1 year on the curriculum alignment process, the teacher and curriculum supervisors (and change leaders) raised the following two questions:

1. Do teachers need to teach the same way using the same materials and methodology?
2. How can teachers balance freedom of materials and instructional methodology with covering prescribed SLOs?
   
   

On the surface, these seem to be elementary questions for this supervisory group. The fact that these questions emerged well after the major curricular changes had been made, however, highlight the complex nature of an IEP as a dynamic system, where alterations in one area affect how individuals perceive and carry out their work in another.

After reflecting, it emerged that the impetus for the above questions lay with the supervisors' concern that students at the same level, but in different classes, would have disparate experiences within the program. Identifying this concern simultaneously underscored the accreditation's emphasis on program alignment and gave voice to a collective awareness (implicitly understood prior to this point) that teachers and students are unique, with distinct needs between classes regardless of level.

To explore this internal dialogue, these two questions can be situated in the literature on program administration, postmethod theory, and faculty professional development. Bailey (2006) addresses autonomy and authority in a larger organization, where "some procedures must be standardized, while other actions require interpretation and expert judgment" (p. 59). For example, teachers can be called upon to determine sequence or methodology to meet a diverse range of student needs, yet still be required to carry out certain set functions to ensure program continuity, such as administering uniform tests or covering prescribed SLOs. This intimates the importance of developing teachers' decision-making skills within a larger organization so that they are capable of balancing tailored instruction with institutional requirements.

Kumaravadivelu's (2003) postmethod pedagogy of particularity, practicality, and possibility is well suited to the present discussion, where teachers must adapt to their particular context, apply theories as relevant to that context, and then explore their roles through ongoing reflective practice. From the postmethod perspective, decision making emerges as a critical skill, one which is essential for long-range teacher career growth (Pennington & Hoekje, 2010). Teachers make countless decisions on both a macro- and microlevel, from error correction to sequencing. This suggests that the answer to our two questions is not necessarily related to materials and methodology (or at least not exclusively), but rather to developing teachers as autonomous agents capable of tailoring instruction to their students as appropriate within the institutional context.

As with most programs, there is a wide range of teaching experience within our IEP, from veteran teachers to graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). The outcome is that the supervisors work with a diverse mix of pre- and in-service teachers who, depending on where they are in their careers, have varied needs for their professional development and self-inquiry. The challenge comes administratively; the range of experience levels among teachers has become an issue when supervisors have tried to balance their functional support roles overseeing curricular continuity between new GTAs and expert practitioners. That one prescribed classroom approach would work for every teacher and every student is a false assumption for any program. Where novice teachers may focus on what to teach, more experienced faculty benefit from asking how to teach (Bailey, 2006).

During the follow-up meeting, the group established that, while the program needs to predetermine the set of SLOs a teacher must cover, applying a uniform approach to materials selection, methodology, task design, and/or pacing is unreasonable given the complex dynamics of teaching and learning. Students in different classes should have unique learning experiences based on both their individual differences and those of the teacher. The role of the supervisor, then, is to provide different levels of support to meet the range of teacher needs, fostering teachers' development as autonomous decision makers within the context of their professional practice.

Moving Forward

Intensive language programs are dynamic systems, where major changes can have an unanticipated ripple effect. For many programs, the most experienced faculty members are summoned to lead the change process, a function which becomes difficult—if not impossible—to carry out when they themselves are unclear about their roles. For programs anticipating similar transformations, I offer the following questions to help the faculty leading change navigate the process:

• What standardized procedures are experienced faculty members responsible for overseeing? Will changing standardized procedures change those responsibilities?
• What role do experienced faculty currently play in ensuring curricular objectives are met? How will curricular changes affect this role?
• What are the current expectations for teachers with different levels of in-service experience in carrying out the curriculum? How might changing the program change those expectations? What support will they need?
• What is the program’s current practice with in-service faculty mentorship? How will changing the program change the mentorship process and/or expectations?
  
  

When faced with considerable change, as in the case of preparing for external accreditation, questions can arise about supervisory expectations and responsibilities. The interpretivist process of contextualization used in the current program serves as an example of negotiation, where our most experienced teachers wrestled to define their roles and responsibilities while identifying the external factors influencing the same. By engaging in this dialogue, the program was able to clarify expectations, challenge accepted practice, and move the program forward.

References

Bailey, K. M. (1997). Reflective teaching: Situating our stories. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 7, 1–19.

Bailey, K. M. (2006). Language teacher supervision: A case-based approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, D. (1996). Redefining the relationship between research and what teachers know. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative research in second language education (pp. 88–115). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Pennington, M. C., & Hoekje, B. J. (2010). Language program leadership in a changing world: An ecological perspective. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group.

Erin N. O’Reilly serves as the director of the Intensive English Institute at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where the program recently received its initial CEA accreditation. Her interests include faculty and program development.