Entretiens and temoignages

 

The main issues addressed in entretiens and témoignages concern:

• the expectations of the responsable and other staff
• the timetable and teaching arrangements
• class observation
• the attitude and conversational manner of the responsable
• the responsable as role model
• creating an impression and receiving feedback
• advice, planning and communication

 

The welcome

It was vitally important to the assistants to have someone present at the school to welcome them on arrival and answer their initial questions. Yet there were a number of schools where the assistant was not recognised and several instances where staff appeared unaware that the school had a language assistant at all.  This situation occurred the most frequently in the primary sector in France, especially when the assistant had been allocated to more than one school.  Data from the workshops suggests that this is due to the delay over the summer in the communication between the Académie, the Délégation Académique aux Relations Internationales et à la Coopération (DARIC), the Inspection Régionale and the individual schools. Schools sometimes do not know themselves until September whether or not their application for an assistant has been successful and in a number of cases, while the Head might have been informed, the advice had not reached staff in the English department.

The most successful mentor-student relationships were those where the mentor took an interest from the start in the assistant’s personal welfare and helped with finding accommodation and advising on bureaucratic procedures such as bank accounts, tax, residence permits etc. This type of assistance was not an integral part of the mentors' duties but was very much appreciated by the assistants. The number of mentors helping in this way was roughly equivalent in both countries.

Mentors who attended the workshops agreed that the post of mentor, with its added administrative responsibilities, should be officially recognised within schools . Few had volunteered for the post and most had been informed by their Head of Department or by the Head Teacher of the school that they should take on the job.  Some claimed not to know what it entailed.  This feeling was more strongly expressed by language teachers in France than by those in England.

 

The expectations of school staff

The stereotype of staff expecting assistants to be trained teachers proved to be the exception rather than the rule and mentors in both countries were able to empathise with the assistants' situation through their own experience as language assistants. However, there were some mentors who placed assistants in sole charge of complete classes and where there was a mismatch between the expectations of the school and the assistants' real state of preparation this made it very difficult for assistants to cope and sometimes led to misunderstandings. This happened more often in France than in England,where the assistants' role tended to be more clearly defined by the curriculum.  Data from the assistants indicates that the assistants’ ability to cope is often taken for granted.  The mentors tend to ignore the assistants' degree of preparedness and to view them rather as a resource for meeting the language teaching needs of the institution.

 

The timetable and teaching arrangements

Apart from the welcome by the school, the single most important factor in helping the assistants settle into their schools was having a clearly defined timetable from the outset. The best-case scenario was for a timetable to have already been prepared and for this to form the basis of the initial meeting.  This happened more often in England, where the the assistant’s teaching responsibilities were more likely to be driven by the examination syllabus and where the school was more likely to have had time to make plans.  Timetabling was usually co-ordinated by the head of the French department who then allocated the assistant in advance to different groups.  However, while the assistants appreciated the level of organisation in English schools, they often found their teaching activity tedious and repetitive, because of its emphasis on rehearsing examination topics. 

In France the timetable was more likely to be the outcome of negotiation with different teachers, led by the assistant   This seemed to be due to two factors - the responsable was less likely to be head of the language department and had less control over the nature of the teaching to be delivered and the timetable - and perhaps surprisingly in view of national stereotypes, the type of learning activity was less driven by the examination system . The assistant would negotiate with each of the English teachers the best time for her/him to be available to the teacher concerned before reporting back to the responsable.  The nature and timing of what had been agreed was a frequent topic of the entretiens.

Overall, the position of the English assistant in France is more complex than in England.  The conditions under which the assistant operates are likely to vary from teacher to teacher, in terms of the timing of the classes, the number of pupils the assistant may be required to teach and the topic or tasks which s/he is called on to undertake.  The English language assistant in France may have greater freedom, but has greater teaching responsibility and has to negotiate teaching tasks with a greater number of people.  This means that there is greater potential for misunderstanding and probably demands a higher degree of organisation and self-discipline on the part of the assistant.

It was common practice in France for assistants to take half a class (10-15 pupils or more), in parallel with the teachers with whom they were working.  This applied most frequently at secondary level while at primary level, the assistant often acted as a chargé de cours, taking responsibility for a whole class.  In England, this was not permitted, even at primary level, and mentors at the workshops confirmed that they always respected this rule.  The French practice of ‘teaching in parallel’, means that it becomes all the more important for teacher and assistant to coordinate their activities.  This can lead to difficulties as it increases the importance of negotiation between the two parties,. Some teachers are much more specific than others in defining what they expect the assistant to do, and are more efficient in giving the assistant time to prepare.  Knowing what is expected of them in a particular class is a particular concern of assistants and was one of the most frequent topics of discussion between assistants and teachers.

 

Class Observation

The assistants' programme recommends that assistants observe for a minimum of a week before beginning teaching and all who were given this opportunity found the experience valuable.  However, not all assistants were allowed to do so, even when they pointed out that it was normally a requirement.  It seems that it is not always clear whose responsibility it is to ensure that observation does take place and in whose classes.  The best practice is that where the mentor, in collaboration with the head of department, takes charge of co-ordinating the observation period by arrangement with the teachers concerned.  This is especially true in France where the assistant may be supporting a number of different teachers, each of whom may work in different ways.

 

Attitude and conversational manner of the mentor/responsable

Because the first entretien was a component of the PIC Project, it was more common for the exchange to be initiated by the assistant than the mentor.  Once under way, however, the roles tended to become reversed.  In the few cases where no mentor had been designated, the entretien took place with the member of staff with whom the assistant had the most contact.  In general, the mentor quickly took the lead role, asking questions of the assistant and then commenting on the assistant’s replies, or responding at length to the assistant’s questions.  The conversation often became an information session, in which the mentor explained to the assistant what was required of them, whom they should contact, what their role should be in the school etc.  It was very common for the mentor to dominate the conversation, leaving little opportunity for the assistant to interrupt the flow and ask further questions. Although they valued the information they were being given, this was not always appreciated by the assistants who wanted their own voice to be heard and for their mentor to listen to what they had to say.

The most successful entretiens were those where there appeared to be a real dialogue between colleagues, where the mentor is someone from whom advice can be sought, whilst at the same time being a partner in a common enterprise.  Very often, the assistant was seeking answers to questions and became frustrated if the questions were left unanswered.  The pressure on staff was, however, understood by the assistants and they appreciated all the more the time which their mentor was prepared to give them.  The most successful partnerships were those where meetings took place on a regular basis – once a week or once a fortnight during the early stages and then becoming less frequent.  The project was seen as a catalyst in this respect, bringing about meetings which might otherwise not have taken place and raising awareness of their value.

 

The mentor/responsable as role model

One of the main themes in the assistants’ perception of their mentor was their respect (or otherwise) for the mentor's degree of professionalism.  The role of mentor sets a standard for assistants which either motivates them or has the opposite effect.  As young teachers, assistants are extremely sensitive to what they see as good and bad practice and they are quick to judge the professional aptitude of their mentors.  From this point of view, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of the mentor's position as both a cultural icon and a professional role model.  The assistant is often described as a cultural ambassador but the label can be applied equally to the mentor, a fact which often appears to be overlooked.  Mentors are also teaching instructors – if only through example – and this heightens the importance of their role.

 

Creating an impression and obtaining feedback

Assistants are extremely concerned that they create a favourable impression.  One of the most telling features of the témoignages is the assistants’ anxiety as to how they are perceived, and the extent to which they appreciate positive feedback.  This cannot be emphasised strongly enough.  Assistants are extremely susceptible to feeling left out, to not being kept informed, and they are quick to blame the system or the institution if they feel excluded or misjudged.  They badly want to be treated as equals.  Their need for reassurance relates to their knowledge of the language, to their performance as teachers and to themselves as people.  This implies that the mentor needs to be informed of the assistant’s progress, not just in relation to the mentor's own classes but more widely.  Offering positive feedback and giving advice is a key aspect of their role.  While the English assistants were more prone to feel neglected than the French, assistants of both countries were equally appreciative if they felt that efforts were being made them to include them in the life of the school.

 

Advice, planning and communication

One of the most important things to the assistants was being informed in advance of what was expected of them in particular classes or if their timetable has been changed.  When they were not given sufficient notice of what they were expected to teach or were not informed of last-minute changes, the assistants had the impression that their contribution was being overlooked and that they were not valued in the life of the school.  The conclusion to be drawn from the assistants’ accounts is that proper co-ordination combined with regular meetings are vital ingredients of a successful experience, particularly in the early stages.  Often, the entretiens, particularly those recorded at a later point in the term, allowed the mentor to check the quality of the arrangements with individual teachers.  Even if the mentor was not in a position to change the state of affairs, it was valuable for assistants to make their feelings known, and for the mentor to be fully informed.