Critical Friends Group for EFL teacher professional development

Long Thanh Vo and Hoa Thi Mai Nguyen

For the best student outcomes, teachers need to engage in continuous professional development. As a result, models of teacher professional development have been developed, among which is the Critical Friends Group (C F G) technique. However, whether it works well with EFL teachers in an Asian context like Vietnam, where EF L teachers in particular do not seem to have the habit of working together, is as yet undiscovered. This study aimed to explore the experiences of a small group of Vietnamese E F L teachers during their participation in a C F G over one semester in a specic context in Vietnam. Through observations and interviews, this study offers insights into the participants experiences as well as the application of CFG as a model of EFL teacher professional development in Vietnam.

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at Open University on September 27, 2011

Introduction

Generally speaking, teachers play a key role in changes to teaching methodology and contribute to improvements in the quality of education, especially E F L teachers who have to meet the needs and standards of English as an international language. Several educators (such as LarsenFreeman 2000; Nunan 2003) have called for reforms and changes in EFL teacher education in order to raise the quality of teaching and learning. It is believed that the poor quality of E LT is partly attributable to a lack of sound teacher training and teacher professional development. As a result, some models of teacher professional development have been introduced, among which is the Critical Friends Group (CFG) technique. This is a method where critical friends, as described by Andreu, Canos, de Juana, Manresa, Rienda and Tari (2003) and Bambino (2002), who are colleagues from the same educational institution work to help each other. According to Dunne and Honts (cited in Franzak 2002: 260), CFG is a practitioner-driven study group that reects the growing trend for site-based professional development in which practitioners behave as managers of their own learning. Different research studies have suggested that teachers enjoy C F G (Bambino 2002; Franzak 2002; Andreu et al. 2003; McKenzie and Carr-Reardon 2003). However, with the exception of the research by Andreu et al. (ibid.) at universities, most studies have been conducted in Western primary and secondary schools. The writers were not able to locate any research into CFG in Asian countries like Vietnam where the notion of organizing in-service development in the form of class observations, seminars, workshops, or even informal talks that give colleagues from the
E LT Journal Volume 64/2 April 2010; doi:10.1093/elt/ccp025

205

The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. Advance Access publication April 17, 2009

same working context the opportunity to exchange ideas and share experiences and innovations, seems uncommon (Pham 2001). Rather, teachers in this context seem to work in isolation from one another. According to Gemmell (2003: 10), teachers who work in isolation often resort to familiar methods rather than approaching concerns from a problem-solving perspective in attempting to meet the diverse instructional needs of todays students. Thus, it seems likely that there is a need for reform in teacher education at both the pre-service and in-service level. As such, greater efforts should be given to the education of teachers who will be expected to guide students learning. Within the scope of this pilot research, this study aimed to explore EFL teachers experiences when they were involved in a CFG. More specically, it offers insights into the participants experiences of CFG in a specic context in Vietnam as well as what could be done in order for CFG to be appropriately accepted as a model for teacher professional development in an Asian country like Vietnam.

Composition and operation of a CF G

A CFG is composed of peers where there is no hierarchy of expertise and it must support a democratic, reective, and collaborative community of learners (McKenzie and Carr-Reardon 2003). Different authors vary in their opinions as to how many members a C F G should have, as well as how often and for how long they should meet. Franzak (2002: 261) proposes that a typical CFG should consist of 1012 teachers who meet once a month for at least two hours. Andreu et al. (2003) maintain that a CFG usually consists of 410 members and should hold periodic meetings approximately one hour per week. McKenzie and Carr-Reardon (2003) nd 812 members an ideal size. However, they also remark that the composition of a CFG should ultimately be up to those interested in starting it. As described by Franzak (2002: 261), there are three types of CF G protocols. The rst type involves looking at student work where a teacher brings a sample and presents it along with a focusing question. Members of the group then take turns describing and hypothesizing about the work while the presenting teacher takes notes. After several rounds of comments, the presenting teacher shares what she found useful in the conversation. Then, the group debriefs the entire process. The second type of C F G protocol, used for peer observation, involves two teachers using a predetermined format and focus for observing each others teaching. The last type, problemsolving protocols, opens with the presenter asking a question about a specic dilemma. Participants then ask probing questions and discuss the problem among themselves, while the presenter takes notes until the discussion is nished, at which point the presenter shares what he or she heard that was useful or important for his or her dilemma. In this project, the sole focus is on the second type of CFG protocol, which involves peer observation; therefore, the term CFG will hereafter refer exclusively to this type of CFG protocol.
CFG is believed to promote both teacher learning and student outcomes. For this reason, CFG is strongly advocated in the literature as an effective model of teacher professional development.

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at Open University on September 27, 2011

How does a CF G work?

Benets of C FG

206

Long Thanh Vo and Hoa Thi Mai Nguyen

The National Union of Teachers (2004: 2), in the UK, maintains that a CFG puts teachers in control of their own professional development, allowing them to start from where they are, and further claims that it can be used by teachers throughout their careers and applied to any teaching and learning situation. In other words, CFG allows for exibility and continuity and requires no resources other than time. Furthermore, Bowman and McCormick (2000: 256) contend that collaboration among teachers is a valued and often necessary factor for effective schooling because it fosters expert instruction. Evidence they presented indicates that CFG is a feasible vehicle for instituting collaborative efforts. Through the social interaction of discussion, active learning evolves, and each participant interprets, transforms, and internalizes new knowledge as a result of collective thinking. Within the CFG framework, such collaborative discussions allow individual teachers to develop their own perspectives and to model strengths for others. The theoretical foundation for CFG is that teachers belonging to a group learn to collaborate by participating in professional development activities. This participation leads to greater reection on teaching techniques, which then supports a change in practice aimed at improving student achievement. As a result, student achievement improves (Cushman et al., cited in Franzak 2002: 261). Also, by sharing instructional strategies and techniques, teachers pool not only their physical but also their intellectual resources. Consequently, C F G has the potential for furthering a teachers individual professional development, improving the school climate, and, ultimately, enhancing school effectiveness when a model appropriate to school goals is applied (Galbraith and Anstrom 1995). In other words, CFG offers support and guidance to ensure that professional development truly is learning and growing as a professional, while reducing feelings of isolation and strengthening collaboration with colleagues. Research reveals that teachers who have taken part in CFG generally hold positive opinions of it. They believe that they can affect student outcomes (McKenzie and Carr-Reardon 2003). The structure and format of CFG create opportunities for colleagues to challenge their own practice as well as that of their peers (Bambino 2002). In fact, research studies reported by Bambino (2002: ibid.) indicate that C F Gs have been the catalyst for changes in the teaching, learning, culture, and climate of learning communities in a variety of schools. Similar positive ndings about this model of teacher professional development have been mentioned in the literature. In the study of Slater and Simmons (2001: 75), the majority of the participants expressed a newfound awareness of their own personal strengths and an acceptance of new ideas and strategies through collaboration. Teachers participating in the research conducted by Arnau, Kahrs, and Kruskamp (2004: 26) reported that C F G gave them meaningful feedback, motivation to direct their learning, increased levels of trust and morale among themselves, and justication to do more work. Likewise, the study of Andreu et al. (2003: 36), conducted at a university, revealed that thanks to C F G, they had made good progress in informal communication, learnt to work in teams, understood the importance of evaluating their job practices as a means for
Critical Friends Group for EF L teacher professional development 207

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at Open University on September 27, 2011

self-improvement, and created a working environment which had prime motivation and mutual trust. One very probable implication of all the above studies is that the teachers who had participated in CFG were more professionally motivated than before and very likely to perform their job better than if they had not. In addition, CFG may improve student learning because good instructors teach their students more (Weimer, cited in Slater and Simmons 2001: 68).

The study

In light of the above general aims and purposes, the research questions addressed were: n How do the participants feel about their CFG experience? n To what extent (if any) do they believe it can help them to improve their teaching performance? n What are their attitudes towards future CFG activities and how these will impact on their professional development? Data were collected by the means of observations and interviews. The procedure of data collection was as follows. First, we asked the participants to implement a full CFG process which involved three feedback meetings. Second, within the two weeks after the completion of the CFG process, we conducted four interviews with individual participants. In addition, one of the researchers observed the participants in their feedback sessions, while the other played the role as a facilitator. Finally, all the data were collected for analysis. Data analysis followed an iterative (Miles and Huberman 1994) process employed in qualitative research where data collection and analysis are continuously revised and refocused based on emergent themes. Relevant sections were identied or underlined from observation and interview. The contents were sorted into categories based on the research questions, and then emergent issues were further dened within each.

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at Open University on September 27, 2011

Participants

We chose four teachers (three females and one male) for our research. All four participants were beginner teachers who had worked with one another before in our faculty. Furthermore, they were teaching the same course of elementary English and using the same textbooks. Although the sample size of this research is only limited to four participants, this group was studied in-depth for a semester. It is believed that this study can still offer great insights into this issue. At the beginning of this project, the participants and the researcher held a two-hour orientation meeting at a cafe, and the researcher gave an overview of C F G, helping them to understand its core principles. Also, during this initial session, we discussed and negotiated the specics of the CFG process. The results of the meeting were that the participants agreed to: n begin CFG from the second week of their ten-week semester n divide their CFG process into three three-week cycles n put themselves into two pairs (the pair had to observe each other; it was not compulsory for other participants to observe but they were welcome to come to their friends classes and make comments)

Research procedures

208

Long Thanh Vo and Hoa Thi Mai Nguyen

n observe their pair partners class once during the rst two weeks of each cycle, with the observational focus on motivational techniques n hold a subsequent feedback meeting in the third week among the four participants, and pair with another colleague after each cycle n hold a subsequent feedback meeting after each circle among the four participants n establish what should be included in the class observation form. At the end of the semester, when our CFG process was complete, the participants had each done three class observations, and they had all attended three feedback meetings, which took place at a fairly quiet garden cafe. We chose this location in order to help produce a friendly atmosphere. During each feedback session, the participants discussed what they had learnt from each others teaching performance, and what they thought should be improved, as well as how. The researcher served as the meeting facilitator because it was the rst time the participants had taken part in this type of CF G. Having a facilitator there helped them to be actively involved in the reection and discussion. It did not affect the process because the researcher was considered as their peer.
Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at Open University on September 27, 2011

Interview feedback The C FG experience

Despite the differences in the extent of their relationships, all four participants expressed very positive feelings about their CFG experience. I like it very much was a widely used answer during the interviews. All the participants enjoyed their CFG experience for various reasons. First, it satised their growing need for feedback from colleagues. One of the participants revealed that As a new teacher, I badly want feedback. Our CFG process gave me plenty of feedback from colleagues, which was very useful. I welcomed feedback from my C F G partners no matter how the relationships were. The participants also reported that peer observation made them feel less pressurized: Were young teachers, so we need someone to observe us and give feedback on our performance. In our CFG model, we received feedback without pressure. Second, the CFG experience provided good opportunities for exchanging professional ideas in a relaxed manner. It was felt that issues such as sensitivity and peer support, combined with a lack of pressure, prompted their learning through the others. The participants also enjoyed their CFG experience because it helped them to learn from their partners. This was one of the more frequent quotes from the interviews: Through peer observation, I learnt about my colleague[s] strengths and weaknesses and that gave me a chance to develop my teaching abilities. Finally, the four participants revealed that they felt more positive because they believed that the CFG process had helped to build up good work relationships, resulting in a sense of community and a mutual understanding because just sitt[ing] together in itself produces a sense of community a sense of belonging to something. Most of the participants

Critical Friends Group for EF L teacher professional development

209

expressed the opinion that with this model, they rarely talked to each other in a group with a professional focus: I like it very much. It took a little time, but it was very good and useful. We got to understand each other better, and exchanged teaching experience and ideas. I wish we had similar projects or experience. In a word, the participants greatly enjoyed their CFG experience because it offered them four desired benets which otherwise might not have been provided: n n n n
CFG and teaching performance

colleagues feedback to their teaching performance opportunities to exchange professional ideas opportunities to learn from colleagues the development of good work relationships and a professional community.

During the interviews, the participants were asked about the effects of the CFG process on their motivational techniques (the focus of our C F G work) as well as on their teaching performance in general.
Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at Open University on September 27, 2011

First, the four teachers agreed that the CFG model helped to improve their motivational skills. This happened as a result of their learning from observing as well as from being observed and then critiqued. The most compelling of all data from the interviews was the exchange of ideas in teaching and reciprocal learning about each others motivational techniques. Peer observation facilitated the participants awareness of the weaknesses in their teaching. When asked about the C F G effects on their teaching performance, in general, the participants reported several very positive results. For example, through the CFG process, they learnt particular instructional ideas and techniques from each other. One of them emphasized that she became more exible and used more techniques when planning a lesson because she thought of and applied my CFG peers ideas. Interestingly, Participant 4, who did not have much teaching experience, also noted that she did not feel isolated professionally. The participants also mentioned that participating in the CFG enhanced their motivation for teaching, helped them provide greater care for students, and improved lesson preparation. The value of CFG was described by another participant, who remarked in her interview that she felt more responsible for her own teaching because she wanted to be like her peers and see the success of her lesson. One instructor talked of her excitement when observing successful instructional techniques and the positive impact on her teaching: I also tried to adopt some of my peers strengths. I can read about these good points, but watching someone demonstrating them in practice with good effects gives me a stronger impression. To summarize, their C F G experience had helped the participants to achieve their original goal, namely to improve techniques for motivating students and, furthermore, to enhance several other aspects of their teaching.

210

Long Thanh Vo and Hoa Thi Mai Nguyen

CFG and future professional development

In response to the question whether they wanted to do CFG in the future for their professional development, all the interviewees gave the same answerYes. Their reasons included the belief in the ability of CFG to improve teacher performance and student outcomes: The C F G model gives me new knowledge and an opportunity to learn. I will be able to learn other teaching skills and techniques. Itll bring many benets, itll create a better environment for students, and students will learn better. With peer observers, well prepare better for lessons and thus form a habit of preparing more carefully. Another reason was the sense of professional community that the participants thought C F G fostered. All the participants believed that through this model, they could learn about each others teaching and reect on their own. In general, all four participants showed their desire to participate in this activity in the future because they believed that C F G could lead to the improvement of teacher performance and student outcomes as well as a good sense of professional community.

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at Open University on September 27, 2011

Observations of the participants interactions and attitudes

The observational data, collected during the feedback meetings, serve to provide:
1 some clues as to the seriousness and sincerity of the interviewees

answers, and
2 a way to examine two of the above categories of interview data, namely:

a the participants general feelings about their CFG experience, and b the participants feelings about giving and receiving feedback. The observational data also reinforce the interview data. First, results for the observations conrm that the participants were happy that C F G gave them a chance for group work and professional exchanges. During all three feedback meetings, all the CFG members contributed to friendly discussions. At the beginning of the rst meeting, the participants hesitated before commenting on each others lessons and avoided criticism partly due to a lack of experience in these types of activities and a fear of hurting others. However, acting as a facilitator, the researcher helped them to overcome their feelings by creating a friendly atmosphere and initiated their reection by asking the participants to talk about what they had learnt from their peers lessons and then what they recommended for improvements. At the end of the rst meeting, the discussion was open and all the participants actively contributed their ideas. In addition, at the second and third meetings, while waiting for one late participant, the others, in a cooperative and friendly way, discussed how to prepare their next lessons and how to design an end-ofterm test. These meetings occurred in an extremely open and friendly atmosphere in which everyone talked and commented on one anothers lessons. Sometimes, they even teased each other. Similarly, at the second feedback session, I happened to express my desire to undertake a curriculum development project in the future, and they excitedly said that they would like to participate. When one of them was asked why, she said
Critical Friends Group for EF L teacher professional development 211

that she liked group activities and hoped to be able to exchange professional ideas. After the third meeting, one of the participants even said that they should have had more feedback meetings. Second, the observational data verify what the participants had told us about their feelings regarding the giving and receiving of feedback. For instance, one participant said he was a little less comfortable when giving negative feedback. At the rst meeting, he was a little hesitant and did not give his negative feedback until he received encouraging smiles and words. The friendly smiles, tone, and body language (eye contact, gestures, and facial expressions) of all the feedback receivers reected their interview answers that they did not feel hurt by, and sometimes even appreciated or liked, negative feedback. At the last meeting, they were so eager to comment on their peers lessons that we forgot the time.

Conclusion

All the four participants expressed their great pleasure and satisfaction with their CFG experience. It offered them a rare opportunity to exchange their professional ideas, learn from each other, and help each other to professionally develop, all in a relaxed manner. It also helped them to build up good work relationships and a sense of professional community. In addition to positive feelings about their CFG experience, the participants held a rm belief that this model of teacher professional development had helped them to improve their teaching performance a great deal. Through peer observation and discussion, they had learnt about and adopted some of the others instructional techniques. The evidence also showed that they adjusted their own techniques to improve the teaching of a particular class. They had become more inspired and more creative in enlarging their repertoire of micro-teaching techniques in order to make their lessons more interesting. The participants also said that they had become more motivated in teaching as a result of the C F G process. The feedback sessions denitely led to greater reection on their teaching, which then supported changes in practice. To the last questionwhether they will want to do C F G activities in the future for their professional developmentall four participants gave a rm Yes because they believed that C F G could lead to the improvement of teacher performance and student outcomes as well as a good sense of professional community. Within this research project, the many benets of C F G reported in previous studies have been conrmed in a Vietnamese context. CFG has gained some initial success and popularity with the participants of this project, as it did with Western teachers in previous research. For the wider application of CFG as an effective model of teacher professional development, the preparation and organization of C F G in this case study should be taken into consideration. After a complete CFG cycle with four participants, we found that the more members there are in a group, the more difcult it is to arrange feedback meeting times and places to suit everyone. First, we recommend that a CFG in our faculty should consist of four to ve teachers. Second, since CFG

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at Open University on September 27, 2011

212

Long Thanh Vo and Hoa Thi Mai Nguyen

involves mutual observation and criticism, in order for CFG to be useful in Vietnam, it should be composed of peers in many respects so that they work comfortably with each other. Third, when CFG is introduced to a faculty for the rst time, it should be started with rst-year teachers who enjoy group work. If this initial work produces some desirable effects, the model should gradually be introduced to other staff members. The more success CFG yields, the more likely it will become the norm of activities for professional development. Final revised version received January 2009
References Andreu, R., L. Canos, S. de Juana, E. Manresa, L. Rienda, and J. J. Tari. 2003. Critical friends: a tool for quality improvement in universities. Quality Assurance in Education 11/1: 316. Arnau, L., J. Kahrs, and B. Kruskamp. 2004. Peer coaching: veteran high school teachers take the lead on learning. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin 88/639: 2641. Bambino, D. 2002. Critical friends. Redesigning Professional Development 59/6: 257. Bowman, C. L. and S. McCormick. 2000. Comparison of peer coaching versus traditional supervision effects. The Journal of Educational Research 93/4: 25661. Franzak, J. K. 2002. Developing a teacher identity: the impact of critical friends practice on the student teacher. English Education 34/4: 25870. Galbraith, P. and K. Anstrom. 1995. Peer coaching: an effective staff development model for educators of linguistically and culturally diverse students. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education 1/3. Available at http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/ directions/03.htm (accessed on 16 November 2004). Gemmell, J. C. 2003. Building a professional learning community in preservice teacher education: peer coaching and video analysis. Unpublished Ed.D. thesis; University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA. Larsen-Freeman, D. 2000. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press. McKenzie, M. and A. M. Carr-Reardon. 2003. Critical Friends Groups: F A Qs about CFGs. Available at http://www.city.waltham.ma.us/S C H O O L/ WebPAge/cfg.htm (accessed on 15 November 2004). Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis (Second edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. National Union of Teachers. 2004. A to Z of peer coaching. Available at http://www.teachers.org.uk/ resources/pdf/A-Z-peer-coaching.pdf (accessed on 16 November 2004). Nunan, D. 2003. The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacic region. Tesol Quarterly 37/4: 589613. Pham, H. H. 2001. Teacher development: a real need for English departments in Vietnam [Electronic version]. English Teaching Forum 39/4. Available at http://eca.state.gov/forum/vols/vol39/no4/ p30.htm (accessed July 2007). Slater, C. L. and D. L. Simmons. 2001. The design and implementation of a peer coaching program. American Secondary Education 29/3: 6776. The authors Long Thanh Vo (M B A at Keele University, MEd in Educational Management at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RM IT)) is currently a lecturer in the School of Business Administration at Ho Chi Minh City International University (Vietnam). He has conducted research in Vietnam and England in the areas of organizational behaviour, human resource development, and language syllabus design. Hoa Thi Mai Nguyen (MA in T ES O L at The University of Queensland and MEd in Educational Management and Leadership at R M IT, Australia) is a PhD candidate in the School of Education at the University of Queensland. Her main research interests are in the areas of language teaching methodology and policy, intercultural communication, and E F L teacher education. She has participated in the editorial team of the Journal of English as an International Language. Email: maihoa158@yahoo.com

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at Open University on September 27, 2011

Critical Friends Group for EF L teacher professional development

213