The Centro de Idiomas
The logo for the Centro de Idiomas.
The Centro de Idiomas is the language-learning institute that is operated through the UNA. Although it is affiliated with the university, it is separate from the campus and enrollment is open to non-university students. Tuition at the Centro de Idiomas is 30 soles a month, or about 12 dollars, making it one of the most affordable language institutes in Peru. At the Centro de Idiomas, students can study English, French, Portuguese, and Italian; English is the most popular language among students. The curriculum lasts for 36 months, with 12 months at the Basic, Intermediate and Advanced levels respectively. Students take exams on a monthly basis to determine if they are ready to advance to the next level.
Evaluation
My host father and director of the Centro de Idiomas arranged for Elizabeth and I to carry out an evaluation of the English teachers. There are 28 English teachers at the Centro de Idiomas; for our evaluation, Elizabeth and I observed each of them in their classroom for 10-15 minutes. I noted grammar and pronunciation mistakes as well as other errors. Essentially, I was evaluating the teachers on how clearly, comfortably, and fluently they spoke English.
Although the director of the Centro de Idiomas assured us that he would inform the teachers of the evaluation beforehand, when Elizabeth and I began it was clear that our visit had come completely unexpectedly. I struggled with the fairness of this at first, worrying that it would affect the teacher's performance negatively, due to nerves or simply surprise. However, I remembered that at the Pastoral, many of our students and friends had said that there was corruption at the Centro de Idiomas, and that teachers were given (or allowed to keep) their jobs because of bribery or nepotism - and that many were actually unqualified to teach. With that in mind, I decided that maybe the unexpected element of an evaluation was for the best. Furthermore, I realized that I had to ensure that the evaluations were carried out as fairly and objectively as possible, and that if my impression of a teacher was poor, the evaluation needed to reflect that. I knew that there was a possibility that ultimately the director of the Centro de Idiomas could fire teachers based on the results of my evaluation. While having that kind of power was unsettling, I also had to remember that the teachers were not really being fired because of me or my evaluation. It was because of the reality that my evaluation was meant to reflect - the reality that they were unqualified to teach English.
Although the director of the Centro de Idiomas assured us that he would inform the teachers of the evaluation beforehand, when Elizabeth and I began it was clear that our visit had come completely unexpectedly. I struggled with the fairness of this at first, worrying that it would affect the teacher's performance negatively, due to nerves or simply surprise. However, I remembered that at the Pastoral, many of our students and friends had said that there was corruption at the Centro de Idiomas, and that teachers were given (or allowed to keep) their jobs because of bribery or nepotism - and that many were actually unqualified to teach. With that in mind, I decided that maybe the unexpected element of an evaluation was for the best. Furthermore, I realized that I had to ensure that the evaluations were carried out as fairly and objectively as possible, and that if my impression of a teacher was poor, the evaluation needed to reflect that. I knew that there was a possibility that ultimately the director of the Centro de Idiomas could fire teachers based on the results of my evaluation. While having that kind of power was unsettling, I also had to remember that the teachers were not really being fired because of me or my evaluation. It was because of the reality that my evaluation was meant to reflect - the reality that they were unqualified to teach English.
Our Results
Pronunciation was by far the most evident problem that I observed at the Centro de Idiomas. English has many consonant vowel sounds that do not exist in Spanish, and many of the teachers struggled to replicate them. Sounds like /th/ or /y/, for example, as well as nearly all vowel sounds were clearly marked by a Spanish accent. For example, the vowel /i/ in Spanish is pronounced like /e/ in English; many professors had the habit of retaining the Spanish pronunciation, making verbs such as "to live" and "to leave" indistinguishable.
Grammar was also a problem for some teachers. Almost every teacher who used the verb “listen” with their students omitted the “to,” resulting in ungrammatical phrases such as “Are you listening me?” Other times, this verb was used in place of the more standard “hear,” meaning that teachers would say, “Can you listen me?” instead of “Can you hear me?”
One of the most impactful moments involved a teacher who also struggled with vocabulary. Although she was one of the later teachers we visited, it was obvious that she was not aware that she would be evaluated, and became very nervous. At one point when the class was practicing a dialogue in pairs, a student called her over to ask a question. Upon being asked, she looked up at me and said, “How do you say barrio in English?” Barrio in English means ‘neighborhood’ and is considered a basic vocabulary word; however, an English teacher did not know it. I consider this incident to be a "critical moment" for me in Puno. During the first few weeks there, I had come to see that improvements in English education were certainly needed there, but in that moment, I realized that reforms needed to begin not with the students, but rather with the teachers, in the areas of qualifications and training.
Elizabeth and I agreed that the best course of action for us to take after completing the evaluation would be to offer the teachers sessions that would focus on correcting the most common and prominent errors that we observed in their speech. However, because our time in Puno was short, we were unable to arrange these sessions. I was disappointed to leave Puno only having documented the problems without providing any solutions, and felt that I had missed an opportunity to make a real difference. Still, the question of finding the most effective and appropriate solution has remained with me. The most important step that must be taken to improve the quality of English language education in Puno is the correction of mistakes that are common or in some cases nearly universal among teachers in Puno. For this, native speakers would be supremely beneficial. If native speakers primarily focused on preparing teachers and working with them to correct mistakes, then those errors would no longer be passed on to students. This is not to say that non-native speakers are inherently unqualified to teach English. As Llurda writes, “Non-native speakers have lived through the process of becoming bilingual and expressing themselves in different languages” (318). The current teachers at the Centro de Idiomas are helpful to students because they can relate to the struggles that learning English presents, and can act as guides through the process.
Grammar was also a problem for some teachers. Almost every teacher who used the verb “listen” with their students omitted the “to,” resulting in ungrammatical phrases such as “Are you listening me?” Other times, this verb was used in place of the more standard “hear,” meaning that teachers would say, “Can you listen me?” instead of “Can you hear me?”
One of the most impactful moments involved a teacher who also struggled with vocabulary. Although she was one of the later teachers we visited, it was obvious that she was not aware that she would be evaluated, and became very nervous. At one point when the class was practicing a dialogue in pairs, a student called her over to ask a question. Upon being asked, she looked up at me and said, “How do you say barrio in English?” Barrio in English means ‘neighborhood’ and is considered a basic vocabulary word; however, an English teacher did not know it. I consider this incident to be a "critical moment" for me in Puno. During the first few weeks there, I had come to see that improvements in English education were certainly needed there, but in that moment, I realized that reforms needed to begin not with the students, but rather with the teachers, in the areas of qualifications and training.
Elizabeth and I agreed that the best course of action for us to take after completing the evaluation would be to offer the teachers sessions that would focus on correcting the most common and prominent errors that we observed in their speech. However, because our time in Puno was short, we were unable to arrange these sessions. I was disappointed to leave Puno only having documented the problems without providing any solutions, and felt that I had missed an opportunity to make a real difference. Still, the question of finding the most effective and appropriate solution has remained with me. The most important step that must be taken to improve the quality of English language education in Puno is the correction of mistakes that are common or in some cases nearly universal among teachers in Puno. For this, native speakers would be supremely beneficial. If native speakers primarily focused on preparing teachers and working with them to correct mistakes, then those errors would no longer be passed on to students. This is not to say that non-native speakers are inherently unqualified to teach English. As Llurda writes, “Non-native speakers have lived through the process of becoming bilingual and expressing themselves in different languages” (318). The current teachers at the Centro de Idiomas are helpful to students because they can relate to the struggles that learning English presents, and can act as guides through the process.