Anestin Lum Chi is a multiple award-winning Cameroonian English and French languages teacher, a language consultant and a teacher educator known for investing extensively in teacher development in Cameroon, in particular, and Sub-Saharan Africa in general. She amplifies local voices while advocating for decentred practices in ELT. She’s also the founder of WeKonnekt, a not-for-profit organization committed to fostering educational connections at local and global levels through connecting classroom projects, intercultural link-ups and international exchange partnerships. Affiliation: Government Technical School, Ndimi. Email: anestinelum@gmail.com

 

Introduction

Learner disengagement remains a major challenge, especially in low-resource contexts with large classroom sizes, affecting both classroom dynamics and learning outcomes. When learners are disengaged, they are likely not to complete assigned tasks or may even exhibit visible boredom and lack of participation in class discussions. Engaging learners in the classroom is a critical aspect of effective teaching. Regulating learners’ engagement entails creating an environment where students participate meaningfully, stay focused and develop a sense of responsibility for their own learning. Given that learners’ engagement with tasks directly influences their learning outcomes, understanding the reasons behind learners’ disengagement and implementing strategies to maintain learners’ engagement at every stage of a lesson is crucial for effective teaching/learning.

This article reports exploratory action-research (EAR) focused on monitoring learner engagement in an EFL classroom. It begins with a brief overview of the research context and the problem, then presents the research methodology and findings and concludes with discussions on how I implemented change, improving my teaching practice. By sharing insights into my EAR, I hope that other educators, especially those working in similar contexts and perhaps facing a similar challenge, will learn from my experience and improve on their practice too.

 

Research context and the puzzle

This EAR was conducted at Government Technical School, Ndimi situated at the outskirts of the capital city of Cameroon. Learners enrolled in this school have French as medium of instruction and little or no exposure to English out of the classroom. Participants recruited for this study were specifically Grade 10 learners who, like every other student in the school, study English as a compulsory subject.  

Despite learners’ relative enthusiasm to learn, I noticed that they were not completing in-class tasks effectively. This hindered full consolidation of concepts taught and affected their success rate in exams. This was an issue of concern to me because in-class tasks, which function as formative assessments, enable students to interact with lesson content and have the potential of fostering long term retention thereby helping learners to perform better in summative assessments. For example, a concept mapping activity, wherein students create visual maps linking key ideas, or an in-class debate on a topic would be instrumental in helping learners to write a coherent (argumentative) essay. Although I put in effort into planning and designing classroom materials and activities, students fell short of expectations when assigned tasks despite manifested enthusiasm at the lesson presentation stage and this puzzled me.

At the lesson presentation stage, wherein I delivered input while eliciting, learners were engaged. But at the production stage, wherein they were expected to complete assigned speaking and/or writing tasks, they were disengaged. This  paradox between learners’ relative enthusiasm, perceived through their engagement at the presentation stage, and their apparent disengagement at the production stage spurred me to investigate how I could assist my learners to complete in-class tasks effectively by exploring two questions:

a. Why are my learners unable to complete in-class tasks effectively? 

b. How can I support my learners to complete tasks effectively

In this study, ‛tasks’ refer to “any structured language learning endeavour which has a particular objective, appropriate content, a specified working procedure and a range of outcomes […]; a range of work plans […] – from the simple and brief exercise type, to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem-solving or simulations” (Breen, 1987, p.23). Hence, I use the word tasks to refer to the activities given at the production stage of a lesson delivery, where learners complete speaking and/or writing activities to help them to consolidate knowledge.

 

Methodology

EAR was selected as the methodology for this study because it supports practitioner inquiry in the context of evolving practice, allowing for a more flexible and reflective approach rather than testing a predetermined intervention. Prior to commencing the study, I didn’t have any planned interventions for the puzzle. So, I  focused on exploring and understanding the problem before taking action based on the insights generated via the literature accessed. 

The study started with me noticing a problem - learners’ disengagement with tasks. In order to address this issue and in a bid to help learners to complete in-class tasks effectively (not necessarily accurately – effectively, in the context of this study, means hitch-free), I collected and analyzed data, reflected on my practice,  read some articles and blogs after data collection and analysis in search of solutions to the problem and implemented changes based on the insights generated via the literature accessed.

After noticing the problem, I moved on to gather data to help me to understand the root cause(s) of the problem. To achieve this, I used different data collection methods: focus group interviews (FGI) with my learners (n=35) and peer observation of a video recorded lesson. FGI and peer-observation were selected as data collection tools because of the exploratory nature of the research questions which aimed at exploring participants’ perceptions of classroom practice, rather than providing statistical data. Consequently, non-numerical data was collected and analysed in an interpretative manner to understand how both learners and the observer/s interpret classroom experiences. These tools, unlike questionnaires which “reflect beliefs about what should be” (Phipps & Borg, 2009, p.382), allow respondents to voice their thoughts and develop their ideas, expanding opportunities for wider discussion. I had FGI with learners  because I felt that seeking a solution to a problem without involving those directly concerned might be futile. Because I felt it was important to listen to learners՚ views to determine the exact source of the problem, I randomly put learners into five groups made  up of seven students each.

Each FGI session lasted approximately twelve minutes for a total of 60 minutes for all five groups. The FGI were conducted in a semi-structured manner with prompts exploring learners՚ reasons/challenges for being unable to complete tasks and what form of support they might need to help them to complete tasks effectively. Next, I recorded one of my class sessions and sought peer observation from a colleague. To help the colleague to provide targeted feedback aimed at helping me to uncover the puzzle, I developed an observation checklist which I handed over to her with the video recording of the lesson. Prior to commencing the observation, the colleague and I discussed the checklist to ensure that we had a common understanding of the questions, especially with regard to section B of the checklist (see appendix).

Thereafter, I proceeded to do data analysis. First, I did an intelligent verbatim transcription of the recorded FGI. Then, I read the transcripts many times, identifying key ideas. This data was supplemented by comments from a peer observation of the video recording and my own reflections, recorded in a journal, throughout this EAR.

After analyzing the issues raised by my learners and my peer observer, I set out to look for solutions to the problem. To generate new insights to help me to support learners more effectively and improve on my teaching practice, I read literature related to managing lessons. Finally, I implemented the new ideas learned consistently over three months and assessed impact.

 

Findings and discussion

This section discusses findings in relation to the two exploratory questions above as well as the lessons learned.

 

Why are my learners unable to complete in-class tasks effectively

I discovered, through FGI, that students had problems understanding instructions prior to tasks. They said that because they “were often unsure about what to do”, they “got discouraged most of the time and just abandoned tasks midway”. Their response corroborates the comment made by my peer observer who stated that my “instructions were unclear” and “students spent a lot of time asking their classmates what they were required to do instead of getting straight on task”. Sowell (2017) opines that instructions have an impact on how well students carry out activities (pp. 10-11). So, unclear instructions are likely to impede tasks completion as was the case in my class. Sowell (2017) suggests modeling instructions first personally and then by assigning a student to help the whole group understand what they are supposed to do (p. 14). As I reflected on my past practice, I noticed that I never modeled my instructions adequately and I also used generic questions to check understanding of instructions given.

Cooley (2015) stresses the importance of checking learners’ understanding of instructions. He argues that questions like ‛do you understand?’ or ‛is that clear?’ are likely to induce a ‛yes’ response from learners who “might have understood only partly or have completely lost interest and want to move on to task without admitting lack of understanding” (p. 15). The behaviour described by Cooley (2015) correlates that of my learners whenever I asked these generic questions and possibly explain why they simply gave up on tasks. It is evident that a good approach would be to use instruction check questions (ICQs) to check whether or not learners understand what they are expected to do prior to starting a task. To design ICQs, Sowell (2017, p. 15) recommends breaking an instruction into bits and asking short simple Yes/No questions or questions that provide options for learners to choose. This would ensure that learners know exactly what to do and do not waste time enquiring from their peers as used to be the case in my class.

Also, keeping instructions short is important, especially with complex tasks. Lengthy instructions require a lot of processing effort from learners, hence the need to cut off extra information and use simple language (The TEFL Academy, 2021). My peer observer noted that my “instructions were too long and clumsy”. The “complex structure of [my] instructions” certainly made it difficult for learners to understand what they were required to do. Perhaps a better approach would be to break instructions into chunks when they involve several steps (Sowell, 2017, p. 15).

Overall, I discovered that “the quality of [a teacher’s] instructions determines learners’ output per task” (Reflective Journal, 2022, November 24). Hattie (2009) posits that well-designed instructions have the potential of moving learners from a lower level of competency to a higher level. Inversely, poorly designed and clumsy instructions are likely to lead to failure to complete tasks as was the case in my class. To help my learners to complete tasks effectively, I learned that I needed to improve on my practice of giving “clear, concise, chronological, checked and demonstrated” instructions (Reflective Journal, 2022, November 24). This entails “using simple language, making instructions short and direct to the point, giving instructions step-by-step in a logical order, using ICQs to check understanding of instructions and providing a model/example for learners to build on” (Ibid.).

        

How can I support my learners to complete in-class tasks effectively?

To address this question, I explored solutions offered by others to help me to resolve my puzzle.  First, I asked my peer observer to make suggestions for improvements via the observation checklist. Then, I also read articles and blogs on managing tasks. The points from the literature, discussed in this session, are in relation to problems raised by the peer observer and reflections on my practice.

Ching (2019) notes that it is important for teachers to check that an activity is going on as planned and provide some encouragement, re-instruction, repair or modeling when learners are on task (p. 101). The ‛good’ practices suggested by Ching (2019) are contrary to my past classroom practice. As noted by my peer observer, I “did not monitor sufficiently” while learners were on task. Instead, I was “busy with administrative formalities – taking attendance and filling-in record of work done”. It became evident that “learners were abandoned to themselves” with no support to help them through tasks whereas effective monitoring would perhaps help them to engage fully. As Butler et al. (2001) note, monitoring progress on tasks is essential for both students and teachers because it deepens understanding and learning for students  and provides feedback to teachers about students’ learning. However, Darn (n.d) advises that teachers monitor by moving around the room and from behind so that learners focus on tasks. He argues that close monitoring of particular learners may cause anxiety.

As I reflected on my past practice, I noticed that the emotional reaction described by Darn was the reason I quickly stopped monitoring and went on to administrative duties. I understood that my learners’ anxiety was related to my monitoring approach – Each time I stood in front of learners, they stopped working and instead of changing my position or offering support to build their confidence, I simply walked away. As observed by my peer, “learners never resumed working thereafter” arguing that “the problem might not be anxiety only but also lack of understanding of what to do”. My peer observer advised, just as Ching (2019), that “instead of moving away, I should re-instruct” or model the activity. It became evident that inappropriate monitoring took away every opportunity I had to either repair instructions and scaffold for slow learners or encourage and praise fast learners, which would have increased their motivation and kept them on tasks.

As I continued exploring possible solutions to my puzzle, I read about Anderson’s (2017) task cycle, which is made up of three phases: the preparation phase in which the teacher sets up the activity – gives clear instructions and provides a demo; the activity proper in which the teacher monitors learners’ progress on task and provides support; and the feedback phase wherein teacher leads correction and praises good content and language (Anderson, 2017). The quality of feedback, which is dependent on students’ output, is greatly impacted by the quality of the set up (instructions) and the monitoring phases (Reflective Journal, 2022, November 24). Perhaps my dissatisfaction with learners’ output, characterized by incomplete tasks, was only a consequence of their frustration with the quality of the support received while they were on tasks.

All in all, I understood from this study that for my learners to complete in-class tasks effectively, I needed to design clear, concise and orderly instructions, check instructions using well designed ICQs, present models for learners to build on and adequately monitor learners’ progress on tasks – praising good content, repairing instructions or scaffolding in the process. This understanding got me ready to implement change.

 

Implementing change

In this section, I discuss how I implemented change with the goal of improving on the way I gave and checked instructions as well as monitored in order to help my learners to engage with in-class tasks more effectively.

First, I added a column for teacher’s activities (in my lesson plans) under which I spelled out what I will be doing at every stage of the lesson (especially at the production stage of the lesson) and also clearly wrote out instructions to be given and ICQs to be used when assigning tasks.

While in class, I provided clear, concise, chronological, checked and demonstrated instructions, used ICQs to check learners’ understanding of the instructions before they got on tasks, provided examples for learners to build on, and monitored groups while they were on task, repairing and scaffolding where necessary.

After a period of twelve weeks, I recorded some of my lessons, watched the recordings to observe both learners’ behaviours and mine when giving and doing tasks. The rationale for this was to assess how well I was implementing the change and how students were responding to the change. With this, I was able to assess the impact of the innovation which proved to be positive given sustained learner engagement with tasks and a sharp increase in the number of learners completing tasks at the end of the time allocated for every task. By the end of this EAR, 85% of the learners were completing every in-class task at the end of the time allocated for each activity.

 

Conclusion

This article presents details of an EAR geared at regulating learners՚ engagement to help them to complete in-class tasks effectively. What is fascinating to me are the insights I gained with regard to giving instructions and supporting learners to complete tasks. Although initially directed towards uncovering learners՚ challenges, it turned out to be a journey of self-discovery as I found out that the problem was with my practice, not the learners. Oftentimes, as teachers, we are quick to blame learners for “failing” to pull their weight without closely examining issues. Through this EAR, I learned that my learners were not lazy as I had imagined but most importantly,  I felt empowered to improve on my classroom practice.

 

References

 

Anderson, J. (2017) The Trinity CertTESOL Companion: A guide for English language teachers. Delta Publishing.

Breen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin and D. Murphy (Eds.), Language Learning Tasks. Prentice-Hall.

Butler, A., Phillmann, K. B., & Smart, L. (2001). Active learning within a lecture: Assessing the impact of short, in-class writing exercises. Teaching of Psychology, 28(4), 257–259.

Ching, G. (2019). Teaching English: A Practical Guide for Language Teachers. Canadian Scholars.

Cooley, D. (2015, February 6). English teachers, are you asking the right questions? Voices Magazine. https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/english-teachers-are-you-asking-right-questions. Accessed 25^th November, 2022.

Darn S. (n.d) Monitoring. Teaching English. British Council. Available at https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/monitoring. Accessed 25^th November, 2022.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. Routledge.

Phipps, S. & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System (Linköping), 37(3), 380-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002

Reflective Journal (2022). Government Technical College, Ndimi.

Sowell, J. (2017). Good instruction-giving in the second language classroom. English Teaching Forum, 55 (3) 10-19.

The TEFL Academy (2021, December 1). How should teachers give instructions? The TEFL Academy.  https://www.theteflacademy.com/blog/how-should-teachers-give-instructions/ 

                 Accessed 25^th November, 2022.

 

Appendix

Peer observation checklist

Section A

On a scale of 1- 5, state to what extent you agree with the following statements. 1 is strongly disagree while 5 is strongly agree.

a.	Teacher’s instructions are clear
b.	Learners understand concepts before they get on task
c.	Teacher demonstrates task/provides a model for learners before they get on task
d.	Teacher gives enough time for task to be completed
e.	Teacher monitors progress of task
f.	Teacher supports students during the task
g.	Learners are organised prior to task
h.	Learners focus on task
i	Teacher provides appropriate feedback

Section B

Provide detailed comments on the following aspects.

i) Overall suitability of tasks:

ii) Teacher’s behaviour during the activity: what she does or fails to do:

iii) Students’ behavior during the activity: what they do or fail to do:

iv) What worked well?

v) What could be improved?

 

Please check the Pilgrims in Segovia Teacher Training courses 2026 at Pilgrims website.