Download - Search

172 ADRIAN HOLLIDAYAmlirosc-Yeoh reports how eighty-scvcn secondary school teachers arr consultcd ‘in afcasibility study’, antl in the resulting training:A generally friendly and interactive style \vas adoptcd to counter any sense of isolation.[. . .] To pcrsonalise the materials and to cstalilish rapport ivith the teachcrs, passivelanguage was generally avoided and there was also deliberate choice of pronouns suchas ‘we’, ‘1’ antl ‘you’ over pronouns such as ‘they’ or ‘he’ or ‘shc’.(1 997: 89-90)In Malta, Jarvis and Cameron (1 997) monitor the changing roles of teachcrs as they adoptand interpret innovation. Also, Martin antl Ralahanis (1995) describe how in Egypt, ‘workingparties’ are set up to involve senior rqx-escntativcs from USAID, the Ministry of Educationand the language centre where the innovation \vas to take place, and ncgotiate conscnsus.Similarly, Weir and Roberts (1994) tlcscribc ho\v ‘insitlcrs’ Iiecomc involved in the evaluationof the innovation process, in, for cxamplc, the cstahlishmcnt of ‘liasclinc’ data, and howformative evaluation liecomcs integratcd with self-directed tcachrr development.er a problcm \vith this stakeholder-centred approach, similar to thcarncr-centred approach which I have already described. As with theclassroom, there is a strange irony. As bvith learner-centrcdness, a tcchnologised professionaldiscourse has bccn created. Weir and Roberts (1994) rightly note that as the concept offormative evaluation inTESOL maturcs, it takes on the role of quality control. Indeed, itfalls in line with the growing dominant ideology of late modern society in which everythinghas to be accountable to the client. Even the pro project has to lie commodified alongwith the other aspects of cducation ant1 other institutional practices such as medicine noted117 Usher and Edlvards (1994) and Fairclough (1995). Thus, we have a professionallyconstructed image ofthc ‘stakeholder’, as lvc do of the ‘learner’(Figure 14.3).As with the technologised discourse of learncr~ccntredness, the technologiscd discourscof stakeholdcr~centredness has an emphasis on control (right hand bubble). Here the controlis situated in a prolifcration of highly technical project documrnts, at the centre of whichare the current log-frame and time-lines for resource input. Although these documcnts are,quite rightly, intended as the product of ‘agreement’ with key stakeholders, thcy are verync\v curriculumIitcmattempts to bc ‘stakcholtlcr~ccntretl’~’concern with institutional needs, oiimmhip,management ckr /Is undo car in tu hi /i