Current Issues of English Language Teaching in Ethiopia

A system Loop -Evaluation of the current English Language Teaching in Ethiopia

By:Fekadu Dagnaw Aweke (Master of Arts in

Teaching English as Language(MA in TEFL),
Ambo University, Ethiopia
Email: [email protected]

November, 2019
Ambo, Ethiopia
 • Introduction
Individuals have a natural tendency to focus on their actions when they encounter a problem
and try to give short term solution to the problem. This ignores the underlining causes of the
problem and the experience that individuals gain from this process can be described as single-
loop learning. On the other hand, when individuals go more deeply into the cause of the
problem to detect errors and reexamine rules and procedures the learning process is termed as
double-loop learning. Organizations and systems also follow this similar pattern of learning as
far as they learn through the collective experiences and actions of individuals in them.
In the following sections of this paper, I have presented my arguments to show that the English
language education policy and the teaching practices in Ethiopian secondary schools and higher
education institutions are characterized by single loop model of action. The Single and double-
loop models of action proposed by Argyris and Schön (1978) are briefly presented in the first
section and a discussion of my evaluation follows in the next sections.
 • Model I Theory of Action
Argyris (2001, 2004) argues that people have espoused theories and theories-in-use. Espoused
theories are the stated values and beliefs. Theories-in-use are the actual behavior of individuals.
Argyris (2001, 2004) found that most people have a Model I theory-in-use. Model I is when
organizations are governed by four values: (1) achieve intended purpose; (2) maximize winning
and minimize losing; (3) suppress negative feeling; and (4) behave according to what one
believes is rational. These governing values lead to the following behavioral strategies: (1) control
environment and tasks unilaterally; and (2) protect self and others unilaterally by: (a)
advocating personal position; (b) evaluating the thoughts and actions of others and yourself; and
(c) attributing causes to whatever you are trying to understand. The consequences of these
prevalent behavioral strategies are: (1) miscommunication; (2) self-fulfilling prophecies; (3) self-
sealing processes; and (4) escalating errors through single-loop learning.

• Model II Theory of Action

Argyris (2001, 2004) says that, for many people, the espoused theory contradicts the theory-in-
use. However, if they wish their espoused theory to match with their actual theory-in-use, the
governing values must change and they must consciously switch to Model II theory-in-use. In
this case, the governing values are: (1) valid information; (2) free and informed choice; and (3)
internal commitment and responsibility to monitor one’s effectiveness. The key behavioral
strategies are: (1) sharing control; (2) attribution and evaluation illustrated with relatively
directly observable data; (3) surfacing conflicting view; and (4) encouraging public testing of
evaluations of ideas. The consequences of such behavioral strategies are: (1) reduction of self-
serving, (2) self-sealing and (3) error-escalating processes through double-loop learning
(Argyris, 2001).
Model I theory-in-use produces single-loop learning. Single-loop learning puts emphasis on
routine and incremental improvement (Fulmer and Keys, 2004, p. 25). Whether this is a good
policy or not is never discussed. Double-loop learning requires people to ask questions about the
reasons and motives behind the policy (Argyris, 1994). The ultimate aim of double-loop learning
is to publically understand and discuss the shared mental model of the group (Senge, 1990).
Single-loop learning is useful for routine tasks and it has a place in business. It is
counterproductive for non-routine and complex tasks. Double-loop learning is essential for
transformational change (Argyris, 2004). The following diagram after Argyris and Schön (1978)
illustrates Model I and Model II theories of action and the resultant learning processes.
 Figure 1: Single- and double-loop learning

• Policy Indications for ELT in Ethiopia

The new education and training policy of Ethiopia formally gave English a status of independent
subject starting from grade one, and as a medium for all subjects from lower secondary schools
(grade 9) to higher institutions although different regions have adopted different regional
policies and attitudes towards English in their education system (Heugh et al, 2006). Apart from
its educational roles, English has also a role as an official language in private and public
organizations, a medium of diplomatic relations, commerce, trade and truism etc. However, the
role of English language has been defined in the Ethiopian Educational and Training Policy
document (1994; p. 37-38) only in the context of education: the teaching of English as a subject
in schools, the use of English as a medium of instruction (Amlaku, 2010). Otherwise, the
document does not contain any statement about the role and application of the language in
other sectors.

• The Curriculum Framework as a Source of Governing Variables

The curriculum is the top governing variable for all individuals working under the English
language programs at any level. It incorporates other important variables in it. The vision,
mission and values of English language programs, the goals of teaching and learning English
language, the teaching and assessment methods, and other action strategies and techniques have
all been stated there. School communities are also guided by other governing variables such as
school rules, professional roles, operating standards and professional responsibilities.

• ELT Practices in Ethiopia

English language teaching practice in Ethiopia is characterized by strict adherence to the
curriculum. Teachers and students follow the curriculum and if they need additional resources
for their class that would be a departure from a curriculum. The Standards for the English
Language Teachers (K-12) (MoE, 2013) on the other hand, provides that English language
teachers in Ethiopian schools should have professional English Language Skills and content
knowledge. It also states that teachers should have the ability to modify or adapt ill-designed
language activities/tasks in the English textbooks they teach. In fact, this contradicts with what
is happening on the ground. Teachers can of course comment on the curriculum, but they cannot
have the power to modify curriculum contents. English language teachers in public schools are
subjected to strict control when it comes to implementing the curriculum. On the other hand,
teachers in private schools have some degree of freedom in using an alternative school
curriculum (Tonkyn, 2017). Even though they can use their own curriculum, they are obliged to
use the state curriculum for planning.

Teachers also have several negative feelings about the English language education in the
Ethiopian context. Their voices are not often heard. For instance, they complain about the
practical problems of applying certain teaching methods such as communicative language
teaching, student-centered teaching, active learning methods and continuous assessment. For
example, the teaching approach permitted by the curriculum is communicative language
teaching (CLT). A number of local studies indicate that the method requires taking important
considerations to be applicable in Ethiopian schools and universities (Habtamu, 2011; Ebissa,
2014; Ebissa and Bhavani, 2017). Habtamu (2011) states that CLT is not suitable to the context of
Ethiopia where facilities and classroom resources are poorly structured. The participants
(teachers and students) have low level of English language proficiency and the approach
requires making effective interaction in the language. In addition, teachers and students have
misconceptions about CLT. Due to such difficulties, there is a resistance from teachers and
students to apply communicative activities in the classroom. Ebissa and Bhavani (2017) also
indicate the challenges of implementing CLT in Ethiopia. They argue that the problem emerges
from a mismatch between practice and policy. The finding from their study indicates that CLT is
incompatible with the existing examination system and the existing syllabus is not suitable
with CLT approach. Classroom facilities are also lacking to aid CLT practices and the sizes of
classes in most schools are large. Consequently, students’ communicative competence has never
improved.

Double-loop learning requires people to ask questions about the reasons and motives behind the
policy (Argyris, 1994). Therefore, an education system that suppresses teachers’ feelings and
complaints or that does not take the underlying causes of the problems into a reexamination and
yet aims to achieve goals is a single loop system. May be the recently introduced “Ethiopian
Education Development Roadmap”, if approached from a double loop model of cation, will come
up with a long term solution to the problem.

The curriculum in use has demanded a greater focus on learner-centered teaching with the use
of active learning methods. But classroom realities are far from what the curriculum proposes
(Tonkyn, 2017). Tonkyn pleads curriculum leaders to pave the way by understanding how to
actually apply new theories and focuses in the classroom. Existing studies show that most
classrooms are teacher dominated. The primary barriers of implementing active learning
techniques in EFL classrooms, according to Kitaw (2017), are: students’ poor background
exposure to the English language; students’ negative associations with language learning; EFL
instructors’ ineffective classroom management; the adverse influence of students’ external social
environments; dependency in group work; low relevance of English Language support courses
and lack of administrative support from universities.

Part of the action strategies in the English language teaching is the practice of continuous
assessment. Even though the curriculum specifies that a greater proportion of the assessment in
the subject should be covered by continuous assessment, the practice in many schools and
universities is not adequate. Abiy (2013), for instance, observed that high school English
teachers do not properly practice continuous assessment.

• Action research and professional development

Teachers’ reflective practices through action research and professional development efforts are
arguably one of the areas that reflect a single loop model of learning under ELT programs in
Ethiopia. Practitioners engaged in single-loop learning emphasize the importance of methods
and techniques and struggle to ensure their efficiency (Jeylan, 2006, p. 17). This is true in the
context of Ethiopia where teachers force themselves to apply language teaching methods and
assessment techniques with little success.

Though reflective practices are presumably the professional responsibilities of teachers at all
levels, it is not fair to be judgmental about teachers’ reluctance to engage in action research and
professional development activities. Several local studies (Firdissa, 2007, 2015; Eba, 2013; Belilew
and Hailemariam, 2017) largely point out that English language teachers have some awareness
about the importance of action research for their professional practice and professional growth,
but they do not practice them due to a number of internal and external hindering factors. Based
on the findings of the aforementioned studies English language instructors’ lack of motivation;
time constraint; paucity of research fund, facilities and materials; dissatisfaction in their job;
knowledge gaps and skills in doing action research; misconceptions about CPD; large class size
and work load are the major obstacles for action research and continuous professional
development practices in Ethiopia.

The current atmosphere in educational institutions presents only a single loop learning
opportunity for reflective action research and professional development. This situation can be
transformed into a double loop learning platform if schools and universities are able to create a
permissive and supportive environment by designing different sustainable professional
development strategies that enhance the language teachers’ professional, content and pedagogic
knowledge. In this respect, Jeylan (2006) advises teacher educators that instead of holding
complaints about teachers’ low level of reflective practice, it is better to design a system that can
help them to unlock their reflective potential.
A model of the action research cycles we commonly known in the existing literature is a model
depicting a single loop model. What can be truly described as a double loop-learning model of
action research reflective cycle has been constructed by Brooke (2017). He took the elements of
the model from three authors: Daloglu (2002), Valli (1993) and Walker, et.al, (2004). Daloglu
(2002) presented a simple but effective framework of questions to facilitate action research
projects. The questions can guide a practitioner through the single learning loop of the model.
These are:
• What do I already know but benefited from observing/ teaching?
• What did I not know but learnt from my observations/ teaching?
• What would I like to implement in my own teaching?
• What are my comments on and reactions to the experiences I have had?
Brooke took the second element from Valli’s (1993) deliberative reflection. Deliberative reflection
is an act of using knowledge from the literature in the field to inform practice. This concept can
inform the responses to Daloglu’s (2002) questions. The final element is from Walker, et.al,
(2004) meaningful dialogue within a text.

Figure 2: Facilitating the action-reflective cycle to engage in deep learning

 Works Cited
Abiy, Y. (2013). High school English teachers' and Students’ perceptions, attitudes and actual
practices of continuous assessment. Global Journal of Teacher Education, 1(1): 112-121
Argyris, C. (2002). Double-Loop Learning, Teaching, and Research. Academy of Management,
Learning & Education, 1(2): 206-219
Argyris, C. (2001), On Organizational Learning, 2nd ed., Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA.
Argyris, C. (2004). Double-loop learning and organizational change: facilitating
transformational change. In Boonstra, J.J. (Ed.), Dynamics of Organizational Change and
Learning, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Argyris, C. (1994). Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review, p. 77-85.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading,
Mass: Addison Wesley.
Amlaku, B. E. (2010). Language Policies and the Role of English in Ethiopia. A paper presented at
the 23rd Annual Conference of IATEFL BESIG (19-21 Nov. 2010), Bielefeld, Germany
Brooke, M. (2017). Process and Product: A depiction of an action researcher’s learning from
reflective writing in an Asian university setting. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching &
Learning, 10(3): 1-12
Belilew, M. and Hailemariam, M. (2017). An Insight into Professional Development Obstacles
Facing Ethiopian Primary School EFL Teachers. International Journal of Foreign Language
Teaching & Research, 5(17): 89-103
Daloglu, A. (2002). Fostering reflective teaching from the start: Journal keeping in preservice
teacher education. In J. Burton & M. Carroll (Eds.), Journal writing: Case studies in
TESOL practice series (pp. 87-101). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of
Other Languages.
Eba, M. (2013). The Need for Professional Growth of ELT Teachers in Ethiopia. Science, Technology
and Arts Research Journal, 2(3): 160-168
Eba, M. (2015). Examining English Language Teachers’ Beliefs in the Context of English
Language Education Reforms. Global Journal of Human Social Science 15(4): 1-9.
Ebissa, B. A. and Bhavani, K. D. (2017). Difficulties in Executing CLT in Ethiopia: Mismatch
Between Policy Imperative and Classroom Realities. Research on Humanities and Social
Sciences, 7(3): 39-44.
Ebissa, B. A. (2014). An Inquiry on University Level Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices of
Communicative Language Teaching in EFL Classes: The Case of Wollega and Ambo
Universities. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(25): 98-111
Firdissa, J. A. (2015). Action Research Practices of English as Foreign Language (EFL) Teachers
at Two Ethiopian Public Universities: Implications for Personal and Professional
Improvement. The Ethiopian Journal of Education and Science, 10(2): 113-131.
Habtamu, L. (2011). Challenges in Implementing CLT in Ethiopian Higher Institutions of
Learning. The Teacher, Bi-annual Bulletin, pp. 45-49
Hanson, M. (2001). Institutional Theory and Educational Change. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 37(5): pp. 637-661
Heugh, K., Benson, C., Bogale, B. and Yohannes, M. (2007) Final Report Study on Medium of
Instruction in Primary Schools in Ethiopia. Ministry of Education.
Jeylan, W. H. (2006). Which One is Better? Saying Student Teachers Don't Reflect or
Systematically Unlocking Their Reflective Potentials: A Positive Experience from a Poor
Teacher Education Faculty in Ethiopia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2). pp. 12-28.
Retrieved from: http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol31/iss2/1
Kantamara, P. & Ractham, V. V. (2014). Single-Loop Vs. Double-Loop Learning: An Obstacle or
A Success Factor for Organizational Learning. International Journal of Education and Research,
2(7): pp. 55-62. Retrieved from: www.ijern.com
Kitaw, Y. Z. (2017). Active Learning in Teaching English Language Support Courses to First-
Year Students in Some Ethiopian Universities. PhD Thesis: University of South Africa,
Department of Education.
MoE (2002). The Education and Training Policy and Its Implementation. Addis Ababa
MoE (2013). Standards for The English Language Teachers. Addis Ababa
Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of Learning Organization, Century
Business, London.
Tonkyn, P. (2017). Child-centered Curriculum Leadership for the Subject of English in Ethiopian
Primary Schools. Master’s Thesis (unpublished). University of Jyvaskyla.
Valli, L.R. (1993). Reflective Teacher Education Programs: An analysis of case studies. In J.
Calderhead and P. Gates, P. (Eds). Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development.
(pp. 11-22). London: The Falmer Press.
Walker, S. Whittaker, A. Stent, P. Maloor, J. Moore, M. Johnston, and Vasireddy, G. (2004).
User tailored generation in the match multimodal dialogue system. Cognitive Science, 28:
811–840.