An Evaluation of the International Teacher Education Program (ITEP)
of the Church Education System (CES) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
and Brigham Young University, Hawaii School of Education
by
Dr. Nick Eastmond, Professor
Dept. of Instructional Technology
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322-2830
and
Irene S. Eastmond, M.Ed.
Special Instructor, BYU-Hawaii
and Videoethnographer
During the 2005-06 School Year on sabbatical leave
at
Center of Instructional Technology and Outreach (CITO)
Brigham Young University-Hawaii
Laie, Hawaii 96762
Email address: nick.eastmond@usu.edu
June 5, 2006
1
CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary
4
II. Introduction
7
III. Evaluation questions
11
IV. Procedures
13
V. Findings
15
A. Results of the Questionnaire to Focus Groups
15
B. Findings from Administrators
18
1. Supporting the principal and the established order
19
2. Supervisory visits and inservice training responsibility
20
C. Initial question: What is ITEP?
21
1. A closer look at ITEP
21
2. Some unspoken but real roles in addition
26
3. Challenges to the ITEP couples
28
4. Two Bonuses: Humor and Spirituality
37
5. Programmatic challenges to ITEP
41
D. The four subquestions
46
E. Questions from Elliot Eisner’s framework
53
F. Final Evaluation Questions
61
VI. Recommendations
64
VII. Conclusion
70
VIII. Sources examined in conducting the evaluation
71
2
Appendices
A. Case Study of an ITEP couple: The Eberhards
B. Teaching observation of an ITEP class: Elder Kohler
C. Interview with an IWES Scholarship student: Sister Aofia Ah Chee
D. Interview with an ILDS Student: Tuasivi Elisara
E. Teacher observation of a Form 2 Class: Sister Mary Lal
F. Data Collection Instruments
G. Participant Comments from Focus Group Initial Questionnaire
H. Biographical Interview of Nick & Irene Eastmond
3
An Evaluation of the International Teacher Education Program (ITEP) of the Church
Education System (CES) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the School
of Education, Brigham Young University-Hawaii
I. Executive Summary:
This report summarizes findings of an evaluation of ITEP, the International Teacher Education
Program, currently operating in schools sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints in the New Zealand/Pacific Islands Area. This evaluation combines findings from a stay
at BYU-H, from October to June, and a visit of schools in Samoa, Tonga, New Zealand, Fiji and
Kiribati by Nick and Irene Eastmond, during the six-week period from February 12 to March 24,
2006. Visits to each island lasted roughly one week, plus a one-week break midway. Nick went
as a program evaluator and qualitative researcher, and Irene went as researcher and video
ethnographer.
The International Teacher Education Program (ITEP) offers a unique way to build teaching skills
in the Pacific region. Instead of sending teachers in the LDS Church-sponsored schools from
the islands back to BYU-Hawaii (BYU-H) or BYU-Provo (BYU-P) to get their teacher
certification, for the past 12 years, the Church Education System has been sending senior couple
missionaries to the islands to teach classes and to help certify teachers. At least one of the
couple must have taught at the university level or been a school principal or superintendent. If
possible, the other spouse should have had some background in teaching and education. The
couples spend 18 or 23 months on their particular island, working with the school faculty. The
school principal decides how much to involve the couple in the school’s inservice training. The
courses taught by the couple carry academic credit from BYU-H. Teachers receive salary
increments for completion of ITEP courses – each 15 credit hour increment results in a salary
increase. These teachers are paid about 10% more than the comparable teachers in public
schools; thus, the ITEP program represents a tangible way for them to increase their salaries. In
addition, when teachers have completed 3 years of undergraduate work toward a B.A. degree,
those selected through scholarship competition go to BYU-H for a final year to complete the
degree.
The main evaluation questions were as follows:
1. What is ITEP?
2. What elements are working well and what elements are not?
3. Are there other dimensions for expansion or improvement of ITEP that should be
considered?
4. What ways should it develop in the future, given a long-range perspective?
In addition to these main questions, some additional subquestions (15 more) were asked and
provide additional examination of ITEP. The approach to doing this study was qualitative, using
educational criticism, ethnography, and video ethnography.
4
The ITEP program has been well received and is engaging at least 90% of faculty at each school
we visited. People express enthusiasm about their teaching and can cite examples of ways that
they have changed their teaching as a result of help from the ITEP couple. There is no question
of the ITEP couple’s being committed: they are paying their own way to be there, and they
seldom leave their assigned island areas. Some educators from these islands but outside the
system of LDS Church schools have inquired as to how they could set up a similar program in
their school.
Some of the major findings of this evaluation include: (1) In general, the ITEP program is well
accepted at these schools and operating well; (2) from the standpoint of the Church Education
System, this use of senior missionary couples to conduct inservice training is a highly efficient
way to operate: it brings the expertise of people with a lifetime of experience in education and
gospel commitment into contact with teachers from a different culture, provides a role model in
both dedicated service and English language proficiency, and costs the Church very little in
terms of allocated budget (the Church pays for the transportation, but couples pay their own
living expenses for the full time they are working, generally from retirement savings); (3) the
model is particularly cost-effective when compared with the prospect of sending teachers out of
the classroom and back to school thousands of miles away, at BYU-H or BYU Provo, because
when that happens, someone or some entity has to pay for tuition and living costs as well as pay
for the teacher’s salary for their replacement. (4) ITEP derives much of its strength from the
particular skills of the ITEP couples, and one couple may have skills that the previous one
lacked, but will likely have somewhat different ones from the next couple to arrive. (5) Given
the huge challenge to both students and faculty of teaching exclusively in English, we see an
ongoing need for measures to build English language competency into different content areas;
and (6) from the standpoint of American educators which we represent, we saw many confident,
capable teachers. We also saw patterns emerging in the school classes we observed, one being a
seeming lack of formative evaluation as the class proceeded and some repeated patterns of
teaching that do not push student thinking beyond rote memory and basic concept mastery.
The following are our recommendations: (1) that the ITEP missionaries explore ways to maintain
the basic teaching competency courses for new teachers, but at the same time (2) provide
advanced training in the subject matter specialties of teachers, since many of them are now
certified, but feel that they need more content, and (3) that ITEP couples coordinate their efforts
with the school principal to make sure that they are working toward common purposes. One
recommendation (4) requires support from technology: Connect these sites with the Internet or
use the LDS Church satellite system to allow multiple courses to be offered in a distance
education mode. One final recommendation is that (5) ITEP teachers should make a point of
visiting the classes of the teachers they work with, both during the courses that they are teaching
to see if the ideas are being implemented effectively, but also afterward, to gauge the long-term
effects of these ideas. Elliot Eisner, a Stanford University professor , has criticized much of the
inservice training that occurs in the USA as being “like a coach that comes to tell the team how
to improve, but that never watches the team play.” (Eisner, 1991, p. 12). ITEP does not have to
be like that, since the ITEP couples are in country for 18 or 23 months, and they would seem to
ample time for classroom observation. It appears to us that for most of them, that kind of direct
observation and critique has not been a high priority for their activities.
5
The findings are summarized in this final written report and are supplemented with a video
evaluation summary. We also provide video examples of teaching observed, with interviews
with teachers and administrators, to possibly serve as a training video for ITEP couples.
6
I. Introduction
The International Teacher Education Program (ITEP) is a response to the
problem of certifying teachers to teach in the schools funded by the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints in the South Pacific. It involves a unique partnership
between the Church Education System (CES) that administers the schools, the School
of Education at Brigham Young University Hawaii (BYU-H) that trains teachers, and
the Church Missionary Department that selects and orients the missionary couples for
their service. A final entity with some involvement currently is BYU Provo, in its
placement of student teachers in some of the schools in the South Pacific. The
program is more than the missionary couples, in that it coordinates scholarships for
islanders wanting to specialize in teaching who come to BYU-H and it sponsors
workshops and other experiences for academic credit, sometimes taught by local
people, in the various island groups.
The historical background of the ITEP program is described in the orientation
materials given to ITEP couples as they begin their missions (ITEP, 2006). Starting in
1991, a series of decisions by various administrators led to the present system of
placing couples missionaries on various islands to handle courses leading to teacher
certification. The year 1994 seems to have been a key year in this development, with
Dan Anderson, then CES Consultant for the Pacific, and Jack Johnson, then Associate
Vice President of BYU-H, being two of the key players. Many people deserve credit
for their contribution in getting this program off the ground, and helping it evolve.
Some important milestones in ITEP’s development were: (1) the placement of
missionary couples to handle ITEP classes; (2) the decision to have ITEP coordinators
7
located in Hawaii; (3) the rewarding of teachers with salary increments for each
additional 15 hours of ITEP course credit; (4) the linking of work in ITEP with
scholarship opportunities at BYU-H; and, most recently, (5) the inauguration of an
external degree in education that can be earned without leaving the island. An
important evaluation of ITEP occurred in 2000, conducted by John Bailey and the
ITEP Coordinators at the time, Elder and Sister Loosle, based mainly upon survey
results of faculty and principals in the various schools. This current report provides a
view of ITEP six years later, based upon observations, interviews, and focus groups.
Besides providing an update of the previous report, it includes a video component that
allowed documentation in several video versions.
Just a word about terminology: we have used the terms “ITEP couples” or
“ITEP missionaries,” to refer to the couples placed on the islands, because these were
the terms in common usage. We have avoided the term “Teacher Development
Coordinators” as used in the previous report, because we never heard this title used in
practice. When we speak of “ITEP teachers,” we are referring to the teachers from
the schools who participate or who have participated in the ITEP classes. When we
talk of the “ITEP Coordinators,” we are referring to the one couple stationed in
Hawaii, currently Elder Jay Monson and Sister Jane Monson, whose organizational
efforts and frequent communication keeps the program running. The two types of
scholarships are now given each year, One spot is available to a selected person from
each island group for the International Work Experience Scholarship in Education
(IWES-ED). The International Leadership Development Scholarship (ILDS). The
IWES-ED opportunity brings two single, would-be teachers as students to BYU-H,
8
and expects those persons to work 19 hours per week at the Polynesian Cultural Center
(PCC) or on campus, during the two or more years they are in Hawaii. The ILDS pays
full tuition expenses as well as lodging and living expenses for the person, but only for
a one year period and only under strict conditions that the person pledges to return to
their home island to work. The ILDS Scholarship recipient also works 19 hours a
week, to provide money for food and incidentals for dependents.
Each of these elements of the ITEP program will be described in more detail in
the sections that follow.
Method
This study uses the framework for qualitative research provided by Dr. Elliot
Eisner of Stanford University called Educational Criticism (Eisner, 2001). This
approach is supplemented by a focus upon culture provided by ethnography, and in
this case the specific focus is upon the culture experienced by the ITEP couples. The
evaluators worked in the role of participant observers, interviewing and conducting
focus groups during their stay in the islands.
Data collection came from a variety of sources: interviews with ITEP couples,
administrators and teachers; focus groups with ITEP participants and non-participants.
We did classroom observations in ITEP classes and in other classes in the school,
recorded on video when conditions permitted. Our general observation of life and
conditions, were supplemented by conversations and questions asked of actual people
in everyday life. The videotaping of classes and of some ITEP couple interviews
allowed us to complete two videoethnographies, one summarizing the evaluation
results and a second for training purposes with future ITEP missionaries.
9
The Institutional Research Boards (IRBs) of two institutions: Brigham Young
University Hawaii and secondarily, Utah State University cleared the procedures
followed in the study. The approved procedures called for maintaining anonymity for
teachers in the focus groups, but recognized that anonymity for the ITEP couples and
administrators would be impossible if conclusions were to be drawn for specific
islands. In the briefing to participants in the study, these aspects of the study were
explained and where required, informed consent documents signed. Procedures for
obtaining permission for videotaping was observed for adults, but proved impossible
to follow for students (and was counter to the cultural practices of these islands). An
explanation of the amendment of these procedures has been filed with the respective
IRBs.
Summarizing the extensive field notes and videotapes has been a two-month
task. We have used a procedure labeled the “constant comparative method” by
researchers Glaser and Strauss (1985), in completing this report. What that means is
that conclusions were drawn from the data while in the field and back in Hawaii,
examining data at each stage. Wherever possible, the written report has been
corroborated with the video footage taken, for example with the observation of the
classes taught by Bro. Kohler and Sis. Lal in Fiji. It is worth noting that many of the
corroborations occurred in conversations over the dinner table or at other times of
conversation between Nick and Irene. It is our first opportunity to work together as
researchers since our needs assessment work on the island of Guam in 1972. (See
appendix H for a fuller description of researcher backgrounds).
10
The views expressed here are those of the researchers and not of the
institutions we represented: Brigham Young University Hawaii, the Church Education
System, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Both Nick and Irene are
active members of the Church, and during the visits were immersed in both secular
and spiritual aspects of the schooling. In two instances we were asked to speak to
assemblies of students (asked to “bear our testimonies”). In each case we were hosted
at the housing facilities of the school and, as much as possible, shadowed the activities
of the couple missionaries. For the answers to our questions, generous hosting of us
on the islands, and general trust in us placed by all people concerned, we want to
express our heartfelt thanks. It was an experience of a lifetime for us.
III. Evaluation questions:
The following four major questions guided our inquiry:
1. What is ITEP?
2. What elements are working well and what elements are not?
3. Are there other dimensions for expansion or improvement that should be
considered?
4.
What ways should it develop in the future, given a long-range perspective?
In addition to the main questions, four subquestions were explored: (1) Some
teachers currently do not take ITEP classes. What changes in the program, either
incentives or requirements, might bring them in? (2) How rigorous are the classes, in
terms of being demanding, considering long-term effects on attitudes and behaviors?
(3) Are the credits provided by ITEP teachers equivalent to what they would have
11
encountered if they were enrolled on the BYUH campus? (4) What factors in ITEP or
in the situation in New Zealand might make ITEP attractive to the educators working
there?
In this framework, Eisner suggests that programs be examined in terms of five
dimensions of schooling:
1. Intentional, the goals or aims of the system. What are the differences
between the intended and actual results of the program? How valuable,
and how achievable are the results?
2. Structural: Considering how learning is organized. How is time divided
up? Is there graded progress? How well does it work?
3. Curricular: What is the content taught in the program? What alternatives
should be considered? Is it up to date? What activities engage students?
What is graded and what is not? How much work is individual and how
much is group-centered? What is the “boundary strength” of subjects
taught?
4. Pedagogical: What are the values conveyed through the teacher? What are
the demands of these particular students, and how do teachers cope with
them? How is diversity, rather than uniformity, promoted?
5. Evaluative: How is learning assessed? How does measurement
operationalize school values? What are the consequences of testing?
The main evaluation questions will be the central focus of the study, but the
other ones listed above, including those for the five dimensions supplied by Eisner,
will be included. The order of reporting them will be to take the first question, “What
12
is ITEP?” as the first topic, and give it considerable exposition. Then the four
subquestions will be examined, and then the Eisner questions. A final section will
explore the findings related to the last three of the basic four questions, examining
what works well and what does not, what future developments to consider and our
assessment of how ITEP can be improved. Some of the detailed findings about this
program are presented in the Appendices, with one case study of an ITEP couple, a
teaching observation of an ITEP class, interviews with both ILDS and IWES
scholarship recipients, and the class of an ITEP teacher (Sister Lal), are given. Three
additional appendices provide the instruments for data collection used in the study,
participant comments from the questionnaire given to focus groups prior to beginning
our discussions, and a biographical interview with us, the Eastmonds.
IV. Procedures:
The general framework proposed for conducting the evaluation comes from Dr.
Elliot Eisner’s approach of Educational Connoisseurship and Criticism, as described
in his book, The Enlightened Eye (1991). To some extent, when describing what
ITEP is, this framework is supplemented by the qualitative approach of ethnography,
providing a focus upon culture of the ITEP couples (Fetterman, 1997) .
To conduct this study, two of us, Irene and Nick Eastmond, first tried out our
procedures in Hawaii, and then visited schools in the South Pacific from the period of
February 12 to March 24, 2006. Our travels took us to Samoa (both Savai’i and
Upolu), Tonga (Tongatapu and Vava’u), New Zealand (North Island), Fiji (Viti Levu)
and Kiribati (Tarawa).
Table 1 provides a listing of the interviews conducted for this report.
13
Table 1: Interviews conducted for this report
Place
Samoa
Tonga
Fiji
Kiribati
New
Zealand
Hawaii
Total
ITEP
missionaries
2
4
2
2
-
School
Administrators
2
5
2
2
1
2
12
3
15
Teachers in
Focus Groups
11
30
16
11
(6)**
74
CES
Administrators
1
1
1
1
3
0ther*
7
1
1
3
5
* The “Other” category includes 3 teachers interviewed at BYU-H about their
scholarship activity (Reported in Appendices C & D), one former CES administrator,
and one teacher interviewed individually.
** The focus group conducted in Hawaii contained students from various islands. The
initial questionnaires were not tabulated or included in the totals below in Table 3.
Table 2: Class observations made
Place
Samoa
Tonga
Fiji
Kiribati
New Zealand
Total
School classes observed
(both ITEP & non-ITEP
1
4
5
4
4
18
ITEP classes observed
2
1
1
1
-5
We interviewed administrators and conducted focus groups with teachers in
each of the island groups. In addition we visited classrooms and spent extensive
periods of time with the ITEP missionaries, making notes and recording on video. We
attended social events that involved the ITEP couples, like devotionals or the mission
14
conference in Kiribati that coincided with our visit and, in Hawaii, the luncheon
welcomes or sendoffs for ITEP couples. After returning to Hawaii, we continued to
conduct interviews and to analyze our data. This report summarizes our findings, but
the original data is extensive, with over 500 pages of typewritten text and 14 hours of
video recording.
V. Findings:
In the paragraphs below, the findings for the initial questionnaire given to
focus group participants is discussed, to give a sense of the cross-section of faculty
involved. In addition, certain themes that were evident with school administrators
only are discussed. But the bulk of the findings, from that point on, are oriented to the
basic evaluation questions: (1) the initial one, dealing with ‘What is ITEP?’ (2) four
subquestions about the program; and (3) the questions of five areas of the curriculum
as posed by Elliot Eisner:
Before discussion began in each focus group, we administered an initial
questionnaire, usually taking 5-8 minutes to complete. A copy of the form is included
in Appendix F. It is a good place to begin, because it gives an idea of the cross-section
of teachers that were included in the focus group portion of the study.
A. Results of the Questionnaire to Focus Groups
Here are the important data from those questionnaires:
Table 3: Focus Groups held and number of participants
Location
Number
Samoa: Vaiola High School & Primary
5
Samoa: LDS Church College of W. Samoa
6
15
Samoa, Vavau: Saineha High School
24
Tonga: Liahona High School
6
Fiji: LDS Church College of Fiji
7
Fiji: Primary School in Suva
9
Kiribati: Moroni High School
11
Total
68
In addition, respondents were asked to note how many ITEP credits they had
completed.
Table 4: Numbers of ITEP credits completed
ITEP credits completed:
20+ credits
Number of teachers
42
10-19 credits
9
1-9 credits
6
None (yet)
8
No response
3
Total:
68
The Male/Female breakdown of the 68 participants was 38 female and 30 male.
The number reporting having current ITEP certification was 39. (Note: Sister
Monson at the ITEP office in Hawaii confirmed 43 from this list as being certified as
16
of a month later, possibly indicating additional certification occurring in that month.)
The average number of years experience teaching in CES Schools for the teachers in
the focus groups was 10.3 years.
These additional findings are gleaned from the questionnaires:
1. Most of the people have been teaching for quite some time (15 for 20 or more
years, 28 for 5 to 19 years, and 17 for 2-4 years, 7 beginners –0-1 years, 1
unknown).
2. For their background when they started teaching, 24 reported having had the
equivalent of a bachelors degree or higher, 12 with a teaching certificate from
their country’s institute of education, and the remainder indicated 1, 2, or 3
year diplomas or nothing.
3. Thirty-six report having taken additional credits from an institution since they
began teaching. The average number of credits taken, as reported by these
people, is 76 credits.
4. Six mention that they are working toward a degree and 6 stated that they have
obtained a degree since being hired.
One final question reflected the respondents’ initial evaluation of ITEP’s effectiveness.
Table 5: Pre-Focus Group ratings of ITEP effectiveness
“Please choose one blank below that describes how you feel about ITEP.”
Response options
Number of responses
17
Extremely effective
46
Basically effective
15
Moderately effective
3
Basically ineffective
0
Extremely ineffective
0
No response:
4
Total
68
The major conclusion to be drawn from these data is that the feeling toward ITEP is
generally quite positive, with 68% of respondents rating the program as extremely
effective, the highest ranking, and 94% rating it as at least moderately effective.
Recognizing that the people attending focus groups were invited either by the principal
or ITEP missionary and that not all those invited chose to attend, we believe that this
survey provides a useful cross-section of teachers and is reasonably representative of
the total. On two occasions, both in Fiji, we did interviews with teachers who are not
involved with ITEP, and their opinions about ITEP were generally positive, though
they did not see how the program could be useful to them personally (for example, if
they had the basic certification and had received or were working on a masters
degree). Our rationale for these interviews with non-ITEP participants was to answer
specific questions about teachers choosing not to be involved with ITEP.
B. Findings from Administrators:
A total of 14 interviews were conducted with School Principals and Country
Directors, to include CES administrators in New Zealand. In most cases these
18
interviews were conducted individually, usually in the person’s office. In a couple of
instances, the person asked that the Assistant Principal be included in the interview,
and in each case that was allowed. Most of the findings from these sessions are
reported in the sections describing the program and answering the evaluation questions
below. However, there were some themes that were unique to administrators that
deserve to be discussed separately.
1. Supporting the principal and the established order. Typically, when a
career professional in education, as at least one member of the ITEP couples is, arrives
on the scene and watches how one of these school on the Pacific Islands is operating,
there will be a tendency to want to intervene with suggestions or to take administrative
action. One of the most important virtues that an ITEP missionary can possess is the
ability to control that tendency. The school does not need another leader with strong
opinions, parachuting in from the outside. So the ITEP missionaries have several
options: (1) they can make suggestions to the principal and established leadership,
diplomatically or otherwise; (2) they can talk to others in the system and somehow
subvert current operations; (3) they can earn the respect of the administrators and be
asked for their opinions on how things should work when asked; or (4) they can keep a
stiff upper lip and keep their opinions to themselves. Our discussions with school
administrators suggested that options 1 and 2 are generally counterproductive or
worse, but that 3 and 4 are acceptable. One of the top compliments given by an
administrator about the ITEP couple was: “They attend to the business of ITEP.”
What was implied in that statement was that the ITEP couple did a good job with
19
ITEP, but did not make it a practice of trying to influence the other activities of the
school.
Considering that many of these ITEP missionaries have worked in settings that
were politically charged, where political infighting was common, it would be
unrealistic to think that all this experience would be completely left behind. And
under ideal circumstances, it is not. Couples have had considerable experience with
teaching and administration in Church contexts, and they will have been socialized to
accept current leadership and allow for growth, as this is the prevailing norm in
Church settings. In the best of circumstances, the expertise of the ITEP missionary
will be recognized and drawn upon in an advisory role, as described in the section on
“counseling” above suggests. But where it is not invited or welcomed, the ITEP
couple is best advised to remain diplomatic and keep suggestions to a minimum.
2. Supervisory visits and inservice training responsibility. We encountered
principals and assistant principals who welcomed possible ways to share the
responsibility for observing classes with the ITEP couples. We see this role-sharing as
both promising and problematic for ITEP. The ITEP couple can provide invaluable
service in observing and coaching ITEP teachers, particularly when trying to
implement concepts from ITEP classes. On the other hand, principals are recognized
as the instructional leader of the school, with responsibility for inservice training.
ITEP couples can provide classes that serve as part of the inservice program of a
school, but they should never be expected to carry the whole of it. Principals want to
be kept aware of the ITEP classes taught and the extent of implementation occurring.
However, the principals have the dual role of observing teachers for formative
20
evaluation purposes, to help improve teaching performance, and for summative
evaluation ends, to award promotions based on merit or salary increments. The ITEP
couple is interested in the formative side of evaluation but can be hampered if
perceived to be part of the latter, summative evaluation. Thus, it seems that while
information about classroom observations can be shared between the ITEP couple and
school administrators, there is a danger for the ITEP couple if perceived to be part of
the summative evaluation role in the school.
C. Initial Question: What is ITEP?
The deployment of ITEP missionary couples in these South Pacific schools, in
our view, is both ingenious and effective. During our visits to schools, we saw
evidence that the use of the resources of the retired couples, at a time when they are
not burdened with family responsibilities and when they are willing to work as
volunteers, is an ingenious solution to the problem of professional training and
certification for these teachers. From a cost/effectiveness point of view, it would be
difficult to devise a solution that would cost the Church less but deliver so much as
ITEP.
1. A closer look at ITEP. One way to obtain an overview of what ITEP is
all about is to look at a diagram produced by one of the ITEP volunteers (Elder Kohler
in Fiji) that we found on a bulletin board in their meeting room. To our way of
thinking, this chart did an excellent job representing ITEP, completed by someone
who is filling that role now.
21
Figure 1: The Functions of ITEP : Bulletin Board of Elder Kohler
TEACHING
BYU Hawaii
University Course
Work
TESTING
Michigan Test
Of English Language
Proficiency
ASSIST with
Scholarships ILDS &
IWES-ED
Scholarship Program
CLASSES
Often repeated,
never duplicated.
ITEP: International Teacher
Education Program
ADVISING
Teachers regarding
their programs
AWARD
Certificates, Achievement awards,
teaching Certificates
FACILITATE
Online degrees
SUPERVISING
Student teachers
from BYU-Provo
22
The original bulletin board had arrows going out from the center, showing a
connection between all the roles to the central box, the ITEP (coordinator). To
comment briefly on the different functions noted:
• Teaching: This is a major function, providing courses that carry BYU-H credit.
The lower box gives an adage about the courses that is quite insightful: “Often
repeated, never duplicated.” That statement says that the courses come around and
get repeated, but they are really never the same (duplicated), because the teachers are
different and even if the teacher is the same, the students and their questions are
different.
• Advising: The ITEP couple advises the teachers regarding their program, but also
regarding their teaching. As one former ITEP student expressed regarding the
experience of studying at BYU-H: “I had no idea how valuable it is to have the ITEP
couple generally available. If you wanted to go into their office and talk for 45
minutes, that was just fine, because they were there to help you solve your problem.
[By contrast] at BYU-H, you are lucky to find the professor in the first place and if
you do, you will not find that they have 45 minutes to spend with you.
[paraphrased].“
•Award: ITEP teachers receive recognition for effort with certificates, achievement
awards, and teaching certificates. Part of this recognition, as described below,
involves obtaining incremental pay increases through CES for course completion.
While generally not the only motivation, the teachers are certainly aware if that
feature of ITEP.
23
• Facilitate: Online degrees. This is a relatively new role, and it is in the process of
being worked out. BYU-H is offering a distance education, online degree program
courses that can be completed without the teacher ever having to leave the island or
do residency in Hawaii. That kind of degree is possible because ITEP courses receive
“residency credit,” an expression of the confidence that BYU-H’s School of
Education faculty have in the capability of the ITEP couples and their teaching.
• Supervise: Student teachers from BYU-Provo. This function of the ITEP
volunteers dates back to an era in the early 1990’s when both BYU Provo and BYUH sent student teachers to the Church schools in the islands to do their student
teaching. Given the nature of the highly cultural experience of student teachers in
Hawaii, and under some pressure from the State, BYU-H stopped sending student
teachers beyond Hawaii. But BYU Provo continues to send a limited number of
student teachers out, and the ITEP missionaries provide the supervision for them. We
saw evidence of this role in Fiji, where the Kohlers were awaiting the arrival of seven
new student teachers for the next school term. Four will also be going to Liahona
High School in Tonga. This role becomes a major task while the students are
completing the semester of student teaching and takes considerable time in arranging
housing, transportation, etc., and it is part of the expected role.
• Assist with scholarships: ILDS and IWES-ED. In some ways this is the payoff for
teachers who want to study abroad and who make a concerted effort in their ITEP
classes. The local ITEP couple is responsible to help identify, interview, and prepare
candidates for the two scholarship programs. The following description of the two
24
scholarship programs was provided by Elder Monson (personal correspondence, May
2006):
The International Leadership Development Scholarships (ILDS) are
for teachers who have completed at least 80 credits from ITEP and BYU-H or
other universities for which BYU-H accepts credit (e.g. Tonga Institute of
Education, National University of Samoa, or the University of the South
Pacific). The local ITEP couple, working with the school principal and
Country Director, annually review and prepare a list of all those eligible.
Those who meet the criterion for this scholarship are then interviewed by the
ITEP Coordinators from BYU H and local CES Administrators to prepare a
nomination list from which BYU H and Area CES Administrators select one
teacher each year from each high school or college to come to BYU-H, with
their spouse and family, from January to December of the following year, in
order to obtain their bachelor’s degree. The teacher must return to the school
and teach following the year in Hawaii. A substitute is hired during that
teacher’s leave of absence. The ILDS Scholarships are entirely funded by
private donors. All costs of transportation, registration, tuition, housing,
medical insurance, for the recipient and family, are part of this scholarship
program. CES pays for the trip back to the island for the teacher and family.
While on campus, ILDS scholarship recipients “work” 19 hours a week for
[the] income they use for food and incidentals.
The International Work Experience Scholarships (IWES) are offered
by the Polynesian Cultural Center and are the primary means of most
international students being enrolled at BYU-H. IWES-ED scholarships are
set aside for two single students per year at each high school/college location
to come to BYU-H for 3 to 4 years to complete a bachelors degree in
education. They make a commitment to return to their island to enter a ‘pool’
of degreed/certified potential teachers from which CES and other island
schools can consider for employment as vacancies occur.
• Testing: Administering the Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency is
often the responsibility of the local ITEP couple, as well as reporting the results to the
teachers (Scoring is done only at BYU-H). A score of 70 or higher is required for
admission to the ITEP-CES teaching certification program. Attaining a higher level
of proficiency (80%) on this test can be used to obtain a permanent salary increment.
For some teachers, this level of English proficiency is a final boost to salary that they
25
seek, and for some it is highly elusive. The ITEP couple often helps prepare teachers
to take the test.
2. Some unspoken but real roles in addition:
Advising the principal. The ITEP couples fill a number of roles, some
obvious and others less so. One or both of the husband-wife pair has typically had a
career in school administration or university teaching, and they bring their wisdom
from decades of experience, plus raising a family, to the task of providing courses
with the BYU credit attached. They can often serve as an advisor to the school
principal, assistant principals, or even the Country Director in providing ideas that
have worked in another environment, frequently the mainland USA.
English Language Role Models: One equally important but often overlooked
role for the ITEP couple is to serve as models for the speaking of English. For all of
the ITEP couples that we met, both spouses are native speakers of English. In a place
where English is a foreign language, having two native speakers on hand is a very
important contribution. Besides frequently being editors of documents that must go
external to the school, having these two English speakers serve as role models in
speaking, but also in behavior, for both teachers and students is most valuable.
Students and teachers alike can pattern their speech and their lives after these people.
Leadership in the Church: [Quoting from Nick’s personal journal of 18
March:]
Another key role for the ITEP couple is providing leadership in the Church.
We watched Sis. Eberhard coaching a group of young women to do a round
dance, “Oh, Johnny, Oh,” to prepare for a Relief Society festival on Saturday
afternoon. Bro. Eberhard is now teaching the Elders Quorum, explaining the
structure of the various priesthood quorums in the Church. The message in
the lesson is basic knowledge that must be understood by all priesthood
holders (male members) and must be reviewed by all from time to time.
26
These kinds of contributions by the ITEP couples are extremely important for
church members to experience, particularly in the dormitory wards where the couples
are often assigned to work. By extending English instruction to the activities of
Sunday, more fluency in the language is acquired, drawing upon the knowledge of
words and concepts that Church activity provides.
Overall Bridging Role: The role of an ITEP couple can be seen as a kind of
bridge between North American culture for school and church and that of the Pacific
Islands. Nowhere is that more evident than in the dealing with bureaucracy to obtain
a scholarship or to get an increase in pay from the CES main office. The ITEP couple
understands how to fill out applications and what to do to accomplish these tasks. If
they hear no response from an official for a full month or so, they know how to
follow up and get results, while someone from the Pacific Island culture may not
know this or feel empowered enough to exercise pressure or to inquire further. The
ITEP couple’s ability to deal with records, to access information and to act upon it
can be extremely valuable.
This bridging idea applies to ideas and technology as well. Frequently the
ITEP couple has been in contact with developments that may not reach these islands
for years, if at all. Specific professional knowledge, like Elder Brady’s intimate
understanding of techniques to reach special education students or his extended effort
to use the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) with the students on Savai’i, or Elder
Kohler’s expertise with speech pathology, may be tapped into to provide cuttingedge, progressive ideas and to promote professional progress among these teachers.
27
3. Challenges to the ITEP couples
The adjustments required to work as an ITEP couple should not be
minimized, because the role is quite demanding. The sections below detail some of
the specific challenges we identified in our visits and observations of these couples
in their daily life. The reader is urged to read the Case Study of the Eberhards, the
ITEP couple on Kiribati, for a flesh and blood example of these challenges in
operation.
Adjusting to a new culture and way of life. Getting accustomed to
working in the new setting is a challenge. The evidence we had from interviews
with couples stressed the effective job that the Monsons are doing in Hawaii as part
of the orientation meeting and training, in helping the ITEP couples understand the
kinds of cultural differences they will face in the new country. Couples cited as
helpful the time they had spent visiting with students working in the Polynesian
Cultural Center who hailed originally from their destination country, as well as email exchanges with couples working in the country. But as with any foreign
assignment there is really no way to imagine all the aspects of the new culture. It
appeared that having been on an earlier Church mission or similar kind of
assignment, particularly in a developing country, could be helpful in easing the
transition. One couple had served a prior mission in Russia; another had worked as
English language teachers in China, another in Spain, and this kind of prior
experience seemed to be helpful. We did not meet any couple that had done more
than three missions prior to this one. Sometimes these missions had been served
28
closer to home, as that kind of assignment has become more common in the Church
for older couples.
In no case did we encounter a missionary couple with prior experience with
the language of their assigned country, as is sometimes the case with mission
presidents, who sometimes are assigned to return to the mission field where they
served. There is some question as to whether speaking the local language would be
of help anyway, since, as Elder Monson noted, “All our couples are to speak
English, not the language of their assigned country.” Given the nature of their
assignment, speaking the local language would only occur when shopping, touring,
or other outside activity, rather than on the job.
Only in Fiji were ITEP couples actually “living on the economy,” meaning that
they rented homes and lived in the local community, where they would presumably
have more daily contact with the local culture, rather than on the grounds of the
Church school compound. In the role as English language role model, there is little
encouragement for the couples to learn the local language (Samoan, Tongan, Fijian,
Kiribati or an Indian language like Hindi in Fiji) and in fact there are plenty of signs
urging “Speak English Only,” posted in the corridors of the various schools. In
some ways that requirement for English language usage serves as a barrier for ITEP
couples to getting an intimate knowledge of the local culture, a feature of the
assignment that was noted by more than one couple.
The challenge of fitting into the local culture may be more difficult than is
sometimes thought. Cultural conflict can arise, often inadvertently. Several cultural
conflicts surfaced with the ITEP role, with liking for a particular person taken as
29
“favoritism.” In one reported case of a previous ITEP couple, the husband had had
previous experience in making wood furniture. He saw that one couple living
nearby and part of the school community was lacking furniture. He decided to make
them some furniture as a gift and used the school wood shop after hours to do so.
Unfortunately, in the community in Samoa where this happened, such an action
singling out one family for a benefit caused resentment among other families. This
was an example of well-meaning action on the part of an ITEP couple that was
interpreted as favoritism by other members of the community.
As was described above, the allocating the IWES and ILDS scholarship
opportunities follows very strict procedures to make sure that all qualified people are
considered. However, the choices of people to receive this benefit can be seen as
“showing favoritism,” and was openly acknowledged as being problematic in one
focus group. Others who have been left out may feel excluded or resentful.
As one knowledgeable CES administrator pointed out:
Palage [pronounced “palangi”] people (Americans or Europeans, i.e. whites)
have an immense amount of power. We drive the air-conditioned cars, we
make the decisions that get people promoted, and we get sent out to evaluate
the programs. We can get into a car and drive to a [remote] beach anytime
we want. We do not realize how disruptive we are. We are like a pebble in a
pond: we aren’t intending to do bad things, but sometimes what we do in the
local culture can have effects we did not foresee.
Steering clear of these cultural mistakes requires experience and sensitivity. Much
of this skill, fortunately, comes with experience, and generally the local people are
generous with their friendship while allowing this learning to occur. It is fair to say
that the ITEP couple will deal with cultural issues and be learning more from the
start to the end of their mission. These cultures are all complex, both to an insider
30
but even more so to an outsider. Cultural adaptation remains a challenge for all
ITEP missionaries (and it is also the source of much of the delight with the
assignment!).
Maintaining couple unity. Serving as ITEP missionaries would be a
challenge for any married couple. These people have the advantage of having had a
long-term, presumably stable marriage (usually 40-50 years) and having been
through child rearing and career development stages beforehand. However, working
together in the same office can be a challenge, as the couple has to work out all kinds
of new patterns of interacting. As we lived and worked with these couples on a dayto-day basis, we saw evidence of strain in the relationships at times. One husband
mentioned that working in such close proximity with his wife over extended periods
of time was a challenge at times, implying that having a bit more personal space
would be more comfortable. But the relationships seem to survive and in some cases
get better. The many tools provided for spiritual strengthening – scripture reading,
companion study, daily personal and family prayer, and reminders about forgiveness
and love – must have their influence on keeping these relationships working well.
The division of labor between couples will often depend on the relative level
of preparation of both husband and wife. For all but one of the couples we saw, both
husband and wife were teaching classes for ITEP credit. The preparation for these
classes would take time, and that might entail dividing the workload differently to
accommodate this time demand. We often saw the wife cooking meals and the
husband doing dishes, but under some circumstances that might change. When one
partner was preoccupied, the other might step up and help out in ways out of the
31
ordinary, and that seemed to be a way people had adapted to married missionary life
over time with some needed flexibility.
If there are differences in outlook on the Church and its programs in the
couple, being in a remote location and under somewhat trying conditions will bring
these points to the surface. There are sometimes situations of ambiguity in lines of
authority that will challenge the couple to handle. Here are the views of one couple,
husband first and then the wife:
(Husband’s view, from my notes): The ITEP missionaries often feel that “we
have 5 bosses but have no boss.” Because the ITEP couples are off working
independently in the schools, the mission presidents do not spend much time
thinking about their whereabouts or what is happening [with them]. When
things come up, it is frequently to make restrictions. [Generally, the ITEP
couple, well schooled in the obedience required in the Church, simply
swallows their feelings and goes along, a case in point being the six-month
restriction on swimming in the ocean – later rescinded -- imposed upon all
couples in the mission following the drowning of a CES senior missionary
couple in Fiji].
(Wife’s view, from a letter to a new ITEP couple) We also have been called
on at several occasions to help with the Seminary and Institute Program both
here and on the other side of the island. . . But the sand shifts often here and
just when you think you have solid footing there is a different program,
something you are requested to do or Human Resource needs a Michigan
Test administered or essays need to be monitored, etc.!
I think the “typical day” is as unique as the couple that comes is. You are
given freedom to do as you see fit. They [the people you work with] are very
kind, supportive and appreciative. You are under the jurisdiction of several
different people: country director, mission president, area director, but the
ITEP coordinators in Hawaii (The Monsons) are the main ones we work with
and they are wonderful.
Dealing with these situations requires judgment and maturity, elements that these
couples have from years of experience in a variety of situations. The point is that the
ITEP gives them another chance to practice all of these qualities in dealing with a
complex organization.
32
Health and Age. For these couples, health is a key factor to their success.
As John Bailey, ITEP Director and Dean of the School of Education at BYU-H,
stated in a recent conversation, there is a window of opportunity for these couples,
after they have retired but prior to the onset of a debilitating condition, when their
health and energy allow them to travel and work. He noted that their energy level
puts a limit on the extra tasks that they can take on, and that assigning them more
simply means that either that task or some other one gets omitted. There have been
instances where health was a limiting factor in the assignment (e.g. one couple could
be assigned to Hawaii, where medical care is readily available, but not to Kiribati,
where it is not). There have also been instances where couples’ assignments had to
be cut short, sometimes only after a couple of months, sending them home early.
The age of the ITEP couple is important. Currently, the oldest ITEP missionary
serving (a man) is 74, and the youngest (a woman) is 59. The mean age for men
among the 7 couples is 69.3 years; and for women it is 66.2 years. This statistic is
significant for men, because in the past, the missionary department had a cutoff age
of 70 for senior missionaries. Today the policy is to accept someone of any age, if
they can do to the work and are judged medically sound (possibly having a President
of the Church who is vigorous and active at age 96 has had something to do with that
policy). In any case, age is a factor, but health is the overriding one.
A recent article in the LDS Church News (2006) gave some guidelines for
“senior service” missionaries. The position is likely quite accurate in describing the
health expectations for ITEP couples: “Senior missionaries are typically retired and
in good health, although their health may not be stellar. They must be able to
33
manage health issues (p.9).” The couples we visited were in very good health,
although there were occasional reminders that health could be a concern: e.g.
walking with a slight limp, acknowledging having a sore shoulder that would
preclude hedge trimming in a yard, mentioning a prior medical condition that had
now been overcome.
It does not take much probing to find instances of ITEP couples who had to cut
their time short due to the onset of a serious health crisis. And there is some
evidence that, at least in a case where member of a couple had “less than stellar
health,” it became possible for that couple to serve in Hawaii, where modern health
care would be more readily available, as opposed to Kiribati or Savai’i in Samoa,
where it would be far less accessible. Clearly, the couple’s health is factored into the
choice of the ITEP assignment they receive.
Some parts of the health equation are mental. As one of the women in one
interview pointed out, the confinement of working on a small island can get
oppressive:
Island depression is a real thing. Women are more likely to get it than men.
Wives often feel less purpose in being on these assignments, since the
selection often was dependent upon the man’s career. This seems to be a
hazard of the CES mission (heat, bugs, lack of medical help).
It was clear to us that couples needed to take steps to keep their emotional health
high: things like walking in the morning, taking in recreation on weekends, and
generally doing things that could keep them enjoying the unique island experience.
As is mentioned in the case study, having other missionary couples nearby can be a
great help; however, it is clear that in places like Fiji, where couples live out in the
34
community, a sense of neighborliness and friendships can certainly occur with or
without other missionary couples living nearby.
Attitudes toward the assignment. In keeping with Church attitudes toward
service, the sense of sacrificing for the good of the Church is minimized, with people
maintaining that this work is rewarding enough in its own right that “no real sacrifice
is required,” [because the rewards quickly outweigh the apparent difficulties].
Sometimes the reasoning behind the thinking is rather surprising to the outsider.
Here are portions of an interview with “Sally” (Aleen B.) Kohler, mother of seven
children, from St. George:
How did you find out about ITEP? We decided to call CES and see about a
CES mission. And then they said we could go to New Zealand, but when
they found out about Elder Kohler’s PhD, they started talking about a little
island in the Pacific. I didn’t have any question, but I could see that there
would be plenty for me to do. My motto has always been: If there is a
harder way to do it, I’ll figure it out, so I always have plenty to do wherever I
have been. [I smile at her humor]. We have been out 15 months now. What
attracted us is that Elder [Farrel] Monson needed someone to fill a position. I
gave up grandbaby hugs and reading books with them. I knew I’d have
plenty of church opportunities.
How did you feel about your orientation? I think I got enough for me, maybe
not enough for some people. I grew up in a poor family, no toilets. I have
been to Russia, and South America. We haven’t been wealthy. I am the kind
of person that can accept where I am; that that is how it is. In Utah we had
CES training, which wasn’t harmful, but not specific to us. We learned about
safety issues. Some couples have been robbed here, even when other people
were in the house. The thieves also cut cables in the car just outside our
window, got into the trunk and took the CD player. They [the missionaries]
need to be prepared for that. Those training did a lot more teaching about
safety when we went to Russia.
The orientation in Hawaii was enough and appropriate, but until you have
some experience you don’t know what they are talking about anyway. The
PCC helped more than anything else to get a feel for Fiji. The ITEP
Coordinators [Elder and Sister Cottle) showed us how to fill out the records
and when to turn them in and why. They introduced us to John Bailey and
some people from Fiji before we actually got here. . .
35
How do you feel about “roughing it” out here? When I get thinking of some
hardships we face, I think of the pioneers [who came to the American West
in the mid-1800’s under extremely trying conditions] and ask myself: “Do
we have it harder than they did?” Somehow I don’t think that we do.
Actually, I’ve had harder transitions than coming on a mission. Going to
Russia (on their previous mission) was a relief, because I had been caring for
my mother for the past 19 months, concerned for her dementia 24 hours of
the day. My sister took over while we were gone. In the new assignment, I
could get a full night’s sleep and I was free to leave the house anytime, for as
long as I needed or wanted. It was a picnic by comparison.
When there was some concern about our safety in Russia, I felt and said: “If
they kill us, they kill us. We’re doing what we should be. That will be the
most important thing.”
Not all ITEP couples have as much “spunk” as Sis. Kohler, or they might not
express their feelings in just this way, but many share the general attitude: that this
assignment is work, but it is not outlandish or excessive, that they are used to
working hard and would be doing it anyway as long as their health and strength
would permit it, so why not have that work be in the Pacific Islands?
Maintaining Educational Expertise. Spending two years in a remote
location can undermine anyone’s currency in teaching any field, particularly if the
person does not maintain contact with others in the field. These retired professionals
would not normally have been keeping up with developments in their discipline.
[However, as Elder Monson notes, most do not have much of a gap between their
working in education and their missions]. But while working in the islands, the
ITEP missionaries can use the time for preparation. One missionary had become a
more avid reader with the time provided by the evenings without community
demands; he reported having read 45 books since the previous July. In other cases,
where the Internet is available, ITEP couples sometimes search out needed
36
information for others, and in the process stay updated themselves. Especially where
the couples are now teaching material that is somewhat new to them, they report
reading with the purpose of preparing for their classes. Rather than being a time of
slacking off in professional preparation, our assessment is that these couples are
much more involved with professional upgrading and training than they would have
been if not serving on this mission.
4. Two Bonuses: Humor and Spirituality
Humor. It would be difficult to even visit in the South Seas without noting
that the humor of the Polynesians is a strong part of their cultural identity. While
humor is certainly a part of every culture on earth, acknowledged or not, it seems
that the humor of the islanders somehow matches that of the visitors from North
America in rather marvelous ways. It seemed to us, during our visits, that humor
was one of the perquisites that come from serving with these people.
One short incident from Tonga, on the island of Vav’au, is indicative. We
were walking toward the harbor, about half a mile distant, when we saw one of the
school people we had met that day, driving in an older car with her husband. They
swerved to come across the street and talk to us. Here is my account of it:
On the way to buy treats [for the focus groups] we happened to talk with one
of the teachers on her way home from shopping with her husband and a
child. We asked her what she would like for a treat [when she came to the
focus groups]. She gave us a small dose of Tongan humor: “I probably will
not have had my breakfast, so I would like a McDonalds Big Mac with fries
and a shake. Or maybe two slices of pizza with extra cheese. A taco from
Taco Bell would be nice.” Of course, her quip made us laugh. I don’t think
that you could find one of those stores on this island. She had studied at
BYU-H, and she knew what kinds of things she had enjoyed eating there (or
thought that we would enjoy).
37
Part of the humor came from how foreign these foods were, and how foreign we
were, dropping into their world to conduct some focus groups and then abruptly
going out. This humor caught a bit of the discontinuity of our world in the USA
with life in Tonga.
Humor is too complex a subject to deal with in depth in a short segment of a
report like this one. There is humor directed toward oneself, humor expressed in a
group toward itself or toward an outgroup. Humor can be biting and even vicious,
but that was not the kind we experienced in these settings. We did hear of humor
that could be used to make fun of someone, but that was not part of what we
experienced. The kinds of humor we witnessed were the healthy kinds, when people
hold others in high esteem, but are able to point out the anomalies and ironies of life,
to the enjoyment of all.
It seemed to us that the ITEP couples quickly became adept at the banter and
joking that characterize life in this part of the world. It was obvious as we
encountered people in the office, or as the ITEP couples reminded teachers of
upcoming events or assignments that were almost due, that they frequently used
humor to do so. We have visited many places and have profited from humor in a
variety of cultures. We are not aware of a cultural milieu where the humor more
closely matches our own. These people in the Pacific Islands come across as
genuinely funny, and they know how to laugh. Such humor is an additional feature
of life in these settings.
Spiritual aspects of ITEP. One aspect of ITEP that certainly emerged in
our study was the sentiment that “the Lord’s hand is in this work,” and that the
38
people chosen to work in it are “called of God,” citing from the Church’s Fourth
Article of Faith. These are sentiments that are commonly expressed by people
working at BYU-H, for CES, and in other Church assignments. The tone is not one
of bragging, i.e. “God has acknowledged my worth with this assignment,” but rather
to serve as a humble instrument in His hands to carry out important work. This
report examining ITEP would not be complete without discussing the spiritual side
of the work, since that is freely acknowledged as the major motivation behind the
work of these couples.
As we made our visits, we accompanied the ITEP couples to their church
meetings and saw them present lessons and carry out their Sunday responsibilities.
We were also privileged to attend one missionary zone conference (taking up the full
day on Saturday in Kiribati), as well as several devotionals held at the schools. We
were asked to speak in two of them. So we were very much involved in the spiritual
side of this lifestyle.
The mention of spiritual events is generally not made in a brash or boastful
way, and certainly not to convince others of the divinity of their own callings.
“Signs follow them that believe,” we are told in the New Testament (Mark 16:17).
These people have a strong commitment to begin with, and then have exercised the
faith to come out and do this work. They then see elements of their lives that reflect
inspiration, sometimes dramatically.
In setting up the coordinator position in Hawaii, a former administrator
reported that the couple called to serve there, the Waltons, had been initially called
to Kiribati. But due to medical reasons, this assignment seemed risky. As the
39
husband was interviewed for a coordinator position in Hawaii instead, he related
how he had been informed spiritually that such a calling would come, and he was
prepared. This occurrence was an indication to this administrator that the Lord was
inspiring the people serving in ITEP. And similar occurrences are reported
frequently.
On several occasions, people connected with ITEP have alluded to the
inspiration involved in its operation: “Just get in and have a look,” we were told.
“You will see how the Lord’s hand is evident in this work.” And we did hear
inspiring messages, ideas that have influenced our own lives. And we had faithpromoting events happen to us, both in Hawaii and in the South Seas, things that
might be explained away by someone else as simply chance or happenstance, but
they were spiritual signs for us. And so, we have no difficulty documenting the
conviction among those associated with this program that the work of ITEP is
inspired and that the people doing the work were called to do it.
For us the most inspiring aspect of ITEP was not the messages given or the
spiritual events that occurred, though these were not minor. The most inspiring
thing about ITEP is the dedication of those called to serve and seeing firsthand how
they do it. These couples put in full days, working in a cultural environment that is
strange at first but never feels exactly like home, sometimes living in cramped
conditions, always encountering challenges and obstacles but always facing them
and coming out strong. None of them know that their health will last intact to the
end of their mission service, and there are plenty of instances around them where it
40
does not, so they have to go forward with faith each day. To outside visitors like us,
that resolution is inspiring.
5. Programmatic challenges to ITEP
Giving an account of ITEP requires some examination of the challenges that
remain. No program could exist without some areas of challenge. In some cases,
these are the opposite side of the program’s advantages. For example, relying upon
missionaries to perform this vital role means that there may be some difficulty in
obtaining or retaining talented people, since there is no way to hire them or to
advertise through professional channels. Again, referring to the case of the
Eberhards in Appendix A may provide some examples of how these elements of the
current program are working.
Locating the right people. The task of finding the right ITEP couples for the
specific assignment is not trivial. We were only able to note this process from a
distance, learning about it from the ITEP couples as they described how they had
come to take on this assignment. From our conversations with ITEP couples, typical
steps in being assigned were:
1. The couple themselves determines that they are available for a missionary
assignment and can locate the financial resources to fund it. Taking on an
ITEP mission entails a substantial amount of time (18 months to 23 months)
and a financial outlay of roughly $12,000 to 15,000 US per year (estimated
by Elder Monson and squaring with our conversations with these couples),
depending upon the specific island and the length of stay. The Church News
article (2006, p. 9) estimates $14,000 to 18,000 US per year as “typical”
41
costs, making the South Pacific somewhat less expensive than the norm. In
recent years there has been increasing emphasis in the Church on
encouraging “mature couples” to give at least some of their retirement years
to serving as missionaries. The population projections in the Church suggest
that, with the Post-World War II Baby Boomers approaching retirement age
in 2010 and beyond, the largest growth in missionaries will have to take
place with older missionary couples.
2. The couple meets with their local bishop and turns in application forms
(“their papers”). It is here, in consultation with the Bishop that the options
for serving are explored. We learned of numerous instances where, upon
finding of their past experience with education, the couple is informed about
ITEP.
3. Placement is approved through Church headquarters. We were informed in
one interview that the number of requests for couple missionaries far exceeds
the number available. The statistics cited to us were 1200 missionaries each
year available for placement and 4,000 available spots, indicating a much
larger demand than supply. The Church News article (2006) estimates that
there are 5,000 couple missionaries currently serving out of 52,000 full time
missionaries, but we were told that the number of requests for missionary
couples far exceeds the number of people available.
Here is Elder Monson’s description of how this process works: (personal
communication, May 2006).
One of the primary responsibilities of the ITEP Coordinators at BYU-H is
to obtain replacements for the departing island ITEP couples. This
42
process begins considerably earlier than most realize. About 6 to 8
months prior to a release date [of the currently serving couple], the ITEP
Coordinators begin the process to try to find qualified replacements.
Inasmuch as ITEP Missionaries must have special qualifications (one must
have a masters degree in education or related area, doctoral degree
preferred; teaching experience at a college or university and/or public
school teaching, administration), the process for selecting ITEP
missionary couples differs from the processes for most couple missionary
service determination.
A special separate ITEP ‘category’ listing is included on the “Blue Form”
which goes to all stake presidents and bishops monthly. This “Blue Form”
identifies the critical need areas for couple missionary service in the
Church.
If a couple reads this statement, or an aware bishop or stake president
brings it to their attention, and if the couple is interested further, they
contact a phone number at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City (SLC).
A CES missionary coordinator at that phone number then interviews the
couple to determine if they do indeed have the qualifications necessary to
possibly be ITEP missionaries. If so, they are asked to send (FAX) a
resume for both husband and wife. The contact person in SLC then
contacts the ITEP Coordinators at BYU-H who work with the Director for
the ITEP program there, to determine if this couple has the necessary
qualifications to qualify as BYU-H adjunct professors. If so, the ITEP
Coordinators in Hawaii contact that person and the contact person in SLC
to ‘orchestrate’ their missionary applications for special ITEP
consideration. The couple is told very clearly that only the Apostle
making the missionary assignments the day their applications are
considered really knows where they will go, and there is no ‘guarantee’
they will be ITEP missionaries. About half the currently serving couples
were placed following this process.
The remaining ITEP couples were ‘recruited,’ or ‘sought out’ by the
BYU-H ITEP Coordinators from among qualified former
professors/teachers/administrators they either knew before coming on their
mission or who have been recommended by other education professionals
who know of the ITEP program. This includes former ITEP missionaries
who are an increasingly valuable source of recommendations.
Since ITEP began, this is how the couples are most often ‘selected,’ with few
exceptions.
43
The important element, we believe, is the sense of personal contact that ITEP
couples feel with the Coordinators and how much they feel that this is a “calling”
that was meant for them. When out on the islands working conditions get
demanding or when the amenities like power or water are availably only
intermittently or some other inconvenience surfaces, that feeling of this being a
“calling” is most important to sustain the ITEP couple.
Maintaining continuity between ITEP couple transitions. One of the
more difficult challenges for the ITEP Coordinators and for the program to succeed
in the long run is to have continuity of missionary couples. It would be ideal to have
about a week of overlap between the previous couple and the new one arriving. In
practice that smooth transition seldom happens, partly due to the complexity of the
assignment and finding a couple qualified to fill it and the problems of obtaining
work permits, visas, and the like. We were aware of couples being replaced within a
week of their departure, but often the process takes longer [Bro. Monson estimates
that a swift replacement can be made about 60% of the time. That pattern was
clearly the case with the Ratliffs replacing the Kohlers in Fiji]. The two couples we
met in Hawaii, one coming back from working at the LDS Church High School in
Pesega, Samoa (the Bensons) and their replacements (the Smarts), was 3 months to
the day (Jan. 20 to April 20, 2006). [Elder Monson comments: This is the longest
gap for any couple now serving and was due to a health challenge that was
questioned by the “church doctors” for the husband of a couple being recommended
to follow the Bensons. This couple was sent elsewhere, so a new search was
initiated, too late for the desired overlap]. Another couple, the Harrisons, who
44
replaced a couple who had to return early due to medical concerns, went to Tonga
fairly quickly, once their assignment had been approved at Church headquarters. It
appears that different countries’ visa and work permit requirements can play a major
role in how quickly this transition can occur.
When a couple is not in place, the program goes “on hold” until the new
person is there and working. We heard from one missionary couple that one solution
proposed to bring continuity to the program, namely having a permanent local
employee working as a secretary to the ITEP program had been turned down for
budgetary reasons at CES (it could also introduce a new source of difficulty as a
secretary assumed many of the functions now performed by the missionary couples).
Handling the perceived dilemma of ILDS Scholarship recipients. One
scholarship program has BYU-H’s criteria for selection to the program in an
apparent conflict with certain other Church values. One problem concerns awarding
scholarships to parents of large families: if the person came to BYU-H, the policy
with this scholarship allowed the parents to bring 2 children only, due to housing
constraints. Because the Church encourages large families, the conflict came when a
person wanted to be selected but felt conflicted about leaving youngsters at home.
Here is the view of one teacher from a focus group in Samoa who felt caught in this
dilemma:
I am a father of 8 children. I am adopting one child now. Four of my
children are coming to [the LDS high school]. Three are at a government
school. I am being honest with you: I struggle with the financial part of life.
I have married in the temple and served a full time mission. I have attended
ITEP courses from the beginning. . . I have earned close to 100 credits, I
don’t really know for sure. I was chosen to take a scholarship at BYU, but I
missed that chance because my family is too big. I am still praying for
another chance to get a degree, if not in Hawaii, then locally. But if they
45
give me another chance, I will [be able to] take only part of my family. I
have been teaching for CES since 1988. Before that I served as a teacher for
the government.
Speaking of this policy and the apparent dilemma faced by parents of large families,
Elder Monson explained:
The family size problem stems from the fact that BYU-H married student
housing, where all scholarship families reside, has only 7 units which can
legally house more than a family with two children. Thus, while officials at
BYU-H surely do not mean to imply that a large family is incorrect, housing
becomes a real constraint.
For the current ILDS school year, Jan-Dec 2006, two of the ILDS ‘families’
consist of father/mother and three children, and one has [the two] parents
with four children. These were all able to be housed in [the] few larger units.
(Personal correspondence, May 2006).
Working out of this dilemma is not easy. Three new apartment buildings are under
construction near the Temple View Apartments in Laie, and that addition may
provide some more married student housing [however, all are to be two bedroom
units only, and thus not suitable for large families]. The newly inaugurated distance
education bachelors degree from BYU-H may offer the best solution “on island.” In
this case, the person would not have to move away to complete the requirements for
a bachelors degree. That degree may offer a long-awaited solution to several
problems. It appears that the ITEP program is helping things work out, given the
long-term shortage of affordable large family housing in Laie.
D. The Four Subquestions
(1) Some teachers currently do not take ITEP classes. What changes in the
program, either incentives or requirements, might bring them in?
46
As we interviewed teachers and administrators, we found that nonparticipants in
ITEP were fewer than anticipated. From the 68 focus group participants on all the
islands, only 8 report that they have not been involved with ITEP, while 39 reported
that they had been certified by ITEP (checking records in the Hawaii office of ITEP
verified that 43 have CES certification, possibly indicating a lag in notification for
these people, or possibly a lapse in memory for some. It is notable that roughly 2/3 of
these people – 63% -- are now certified, a substantial increase over previously
reported levels). For one thing, having the ITEP classes tied to salary has made
participation something sought after by new teachers and generally viewed highly by
more experienced ones. In two schools in Fiji we interviewed groups of these
individuals who had not been involved with ITEP. It would be fair to say that in no
case is there more than 10 to 15% of the faculty who have had no contact with ITEP.
The teachers most likely not to be involved with ITEP, at least those cited most
frequently by administrators, are those nearing retirement or who are so involved with
athletic activities activities after school that they see no time for ITEP.
Some teachers not taking part in ITEP classes reported to us that the program is
not providing classes that they need or that can challenge them. For example, some
new hirees who have teacher certification are not repeating the basic teacher
education courses in classroom management and foundations of education provided
by ITEP. Rather, they are waiting until courses that they have not taken previously
become available. Similarly, teachers with masters degrees or who are working on
masters degrees from local universities, like we encountered at the LDS Church
47
College of Fiji, are waiting until something sufficiently advanced in their content area
becomes available.
The place where ITEP couples have played an invaluable role in the past has
been with newly hired teachers who have content expertise, like a practicing
accountant or a wood shop instructor who have worked in the field, but have never
been taught these skills. These kinds of teachers, skilled in a content area but lacking
in classroom skills at time of hiring, seem to be becoming rarer in the schools, but
they do emerge from time to time. [This conclusion is based upon our contact with
teachers at the focus groups and from conversations with principals]. [One
observation heard among the faculty at BYU-H is that perhaps some students coming
from the islands deliberately take a content area or professional course, when they are
90% sure that they will be taking a teaching job when they return to their home
island. But they enroll in no education courses while in Hawaii. If true, then in these
cases, students may be relying on the ITEP classes on the islands to cope with
teaching, but maximizing their exposure to courses in content areas, since these
classes are relatively rare on their home islands now.] In the recommendations
section, some options for addressing these concerns about content area classes will be
explored.
(2) How rigorous are the classes, in terms of being demanding, considering
long-term effects on attitudes and behaviors? (3) Are the credits provided by
ITEP teachers equivalent to what they would have encountered if they were
enrolled on the BYUH campus?
48
How rigorous are the ITEP classes? One person in our Laie practice focus
group who had taken ITEP classes in Samoa and had really loved the experience, said
that the classes are different in ITEP and at BYU-H. She indicated that the ones
through ITEP hadn’t really prepared her for the ones at BYU-H. She implied that the
ITEP classes weren’t as difficult. One ITEP missionary who had been in Samoa
commented to us as they were returning home through Hawaii, that the “ITEP classes
are not as rigorous as BYU-H.”
Dr. Robert Hayden, Director of CITO (Center for Instructional and
Technological Outreach) and Ivy Keawe, who manages Academic and Distance
Learning Programs for BYU-H, pointed out to us statistics which indicate that the
grades of the ITEP teachers are better during the ITEP courses than they are when
they come as university students to BYU-H. Dr. Hayden and Ivy both expressed
concern that the various island teachers do not have enough English skill, that they
aren’t able to model English usage with their students at a high enough level of
proficiency to prepare these students for university study, and that lack of preparation
in turn affects their students’ ability to succeed once they arrive at BYU-H.
Our observation, as we visited ITEP courses on the islands, was that a lack of
English fluency was a barrier to having in-depth courses in some of the places.
However, in Fiji, we were surprised at the much greater facility in English of the
ITEP students. In our focus groups in Fiji and in the ITEP course we attended, the
participants expressed complex ideas and feelings in English, expressions we felt had
been lacking to some extent in our focus groups in Samoa, Tonga and Kiribati. The
ITEP course taught by Elder Kohler on Foundations of Education, which we attended
49
in Fiji, reported in Appendix B, was stimulating to us and, we felt, of college quality.
His students made impressive presentations, in part because of their English language
facility. The ability to express and read in-depth material in English of the ITEP
students may well be the one factor determining how rigorous the ITEP course can
be.
One ITEP missionary commented, “We have to meet these people half-way.”
At one of the schools we visited, the ITEP couple had conducted an intensive class
that lasted through the Christmas holiday. These ITEP-teacher-students reported that
they had almost no vacation, and that it wore them out. Some seemed very tired
during our interviews and expressed a sentiment of fatigue [3 months later]. One of
the challenges the ITEP couples face is seeking to give rigorous classes to tired
people at the end of the day, people who may have trouble comprehending
sophisticated English.
After asking many people on several islands about equivalency between BYUH courses taught on campus and those taught by ITEP on the islands, a better
question, we believe, is “How effective are ITEP courses in preparing teachers to be
effective in their classrooms?” And that question begs another one: “Are these
teachers preparing their students effectively to meet the demands of further education
for successful transition into productive roles as members of their island’s society?”
The original question (#3) is problematic, because it assumes that courses at
BYU-H are the standard to be reached, and that anything that is different falls short of
that ideal. As pointed out above, there are some elements of ITEP courses taught in
the islands that, in our view, are superior to what BYU-H can offer. One of these is
50
the availability of the ITEP couples versus the relative difficulty of meeting with
BYU-H professors on campus. Because of the difference in the natures of faculty
assignments, the ITEP missionaries are simply more available, because theirs is a
singular focus on the teaching at the school they are assigned. University professors
will always have more distractions: teaching multiple sections of classes, running
research and publishing, attending professional conferences and doing consulting.
All these are expectations that are not placed upon ITEP missionaries.
Another positive aspect of ITEP classes is in the immediate applicability of
concepts taught. A teacher taking an ITEP class in Tonga or Samoa can implement a
good idea into classroom practice the next day, while a similar teacher, studying at
BYU-H, may have to wait a year or more before getting back into the classroom to
put the idea into practice, even though practicum portions of their courses are an
important part of BYU-H education classes. That is not to say that every good idea
taught in ITEP classes gets implemented in the classroom. In fact, one focus group of
teachers in Fiji made a strong point that after the initial enthusiasm for the new ideas,
that it was easy to slip back into the old patterns of teaching. Another focus group
discussion mentioned that without seeing a concept modeled, it is hard for teachers to
put an idea into practice.
It was not possible for us to observe principles taught in ITEP courses being
implemented in the classroom, as our visits to classrooms seldom followed the ITEP
classes. In one case, we interviewed a teacher who expressed very positive feelings
about how helpful ITEP courses had been and told us specific ways that the ideas had
been applied in classroom management. But later, an administrator expressed the
51
opinion that this specific teacher’s teaching behaviors in the classroom had not
changed at all. This was a teacher who had taught for a long time. [We did not
observe the teacher teaching, but there seemed to us to be an apparent disconnect
between what the teacher and the administrator were telling us].
In answer to our question, (3) How effective are ITEP courses in preparing
teachers to teach well in their classrooms? the answers we got were primarily
positive. One former CES administrator recounted classes in the Church schools in
the islands as characterized by teachers who seldom stood up from their desks while
students did lengthy assignments copied from the board. He noted that bulletin
boards in classes were nearly unheard of. We saw teachers who were animated and
who moved about the classroom, working over the shoulder of students or presenting
from the front of the room. And we saw classrooms with considerable evidence of
items of display: class rules, pictures of Church presidents, informative charts and the
like. Clearly, the typical class now is different than that view remembered from the
past.
A current administrator in Samoa had a lot to say about the effects of ITEP. He
said he could tell a difference between the plan books of teachers who were involved
in ITEP and those who were not. The ITEP ones had new ideas and were more
creative.
You can see the difference. The ITEP ones are more organized. They include
new types of testing, going beyond simple True-False tests to get to short written
answers. The teachers involved with ITEP are more likely to use English in their
classes.
He mentioned one teacher who was with us in the focus group – this man is a
person who teaches wood shop and who would seldom have to use English. But he
52
does use English in his classes because he is committed to make English work in the
school.
(4) What factors in ITEP or in the situation in New Zealand might make
ITEP attractive to the educators working there?
As mentioned earlier, we spent one half-day visiting the Church College of New
Zealand, recognizing that the school does not currently participate in ITEP. We were
able to interview both the principal and the Country Director. The principal showed
us flyers of a number of options for outside classes for the teachers at the Church
College of New Zealand. These choices appeared to be far more extensive than those
available on any of the other islands. The principal at the high school who expressed
a willingness to have a missionary couple available to provide help with his school’s
inservice training needs. But we observed some reluctance in administration to begin
such a program, in part because of the large number of inservice options available
locally, and in part because of the reported difficulty of finding housing for a
missionary couple in the community around the school (Temple View). Considering
the career path of many of the present administrators, themselves graduates of the
school in Laie, it seems surprising that currently support for schooling at BYU-H is
weaker than it was in the past.
E. Questions from Elliot Eisner’s framework
Eisner’s questions are difficult, probing questions about the school environment,
with many potential multifaceted answers. The responses to them will be fairly brief,
53
but indicative of our concern to address these important issues related to the ITEP
program, because ITEP operates within the environment of these schools. In this
framework, Eisner suggests that programs be examined in terms of five dimensions of
schooling: intentional, structural, curricular, pedagogical, and evaluative.
1. Intentional, the goals or aims of the system. What are the differences
between the intended and actual results of the program? How valuable, and
how achievable are the results?
On each of these islands, there have been dedicatory prayers spoken by
important Church leaders. Often these statements are taken as ideals, and they are
sometimes framed and displayed. One was from the prayer of then president David
O. McKay, when he dedicated the land for building the school that was to become
BYU-H in 1956:
The world needs men who cannot be bought or sold, men who will scorn to
violate truth, genuine gold. That is what this school is going to produce. More than
that, they’ll be leaders. Not leaders only in this island, but everywhere. All the world
is hungering for them.
That statement has been quoted widely and was featured in many presentation
connected with the recent Jubilee celebration for the 50 years of the school’s
existence.
Similarly, on the wall of the administration building at the Church College of
Fiji hangs a copy of the dedicatory prayer uttered by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland in 1976
for that school. Among other statements it mentions:
We dedicate to thee, Father in Heaven, the beauty of this site that it might be
indeed a house set upon a hill, that to which the ancients looked as a guiding light and
a beacon into the harbor of life by which the ships at sea and the footman on the sand
might see, for the learning of men, not only for the skills and trades of employment,
54
but also for the worship and prayer, and the song and the hymn that will be offered
repeatedly within these walls. . .
We bless the students who will study here; above all, Father in Heaven, we
bless the students. We bless them that they will be diligent, that they will work hard,
that they will progress and not hide their talents but find and serve and perpetuate
them in eternal glory and splendor for thy great glory which is intelligence. We bless
them to be honest, not only honest in their examinations and in their hearts so they
may take rightful positions in the community, to bring peace and prosperity to the
nation, honesty and integrity will yet be looked to in governmental and educational
and cultural circles in this island. We bless them that they will be modest, modest in
dress, modest in body and mind, clean unto thee as they come to these hallowed and
now dedicated halls to learn and serve.
We bless the teachers that they might understand the sacred, even awesome
responsibility that it is to care and teach and mold the life of a child. We bless those
teachers that their own lives will be full of faith and of prayer and of testimony, that
not a harsh or unkind or unclean thing will ever escape their lips but that they will
treat the sacred spirit of these children even as they would treat the sacred spirit of
their men and women in the kingdom of God. Bless them that they might be aware of
the great responsibility they bear and the penalty they may well pay if ever a lack of
faith or a misuse of power or an abuse of authority is registered and administered to
the children of this school.
The statement by Elder Holland contains a number of ideals for the behavior of
both students (like honesty in their exams) and teachers (like avoiding harsh words or
actions). It seems that the molding of character is proposed as a clear aim of this
school.
In addition, there are official aims for the schools, as given in the CES
guidelines, “Student and Educator Expectations,” and other administrative
documents. Most pertinent to our study are the ‘CES Principles of Practice” (ITEP
Handbook, 2006) which include items under “teach effectively” such as:
• Teach principles in harmony with the gospel of Jesus Christ
• Have appropriate knowledge in their field and profession
• Instill the value and joy of learning in their students
• Teach with love
55
• Competently teach the content
• Promote the use of English
• Provide students with formal and informal leadership opportunities
Particularly important are the values expressed under “Share”:
• Teach students with respect, integrity and compassion
• Discern and fulfill needs of those with the greatest potential while
continuing to serve all students.
• Recognize and serve students with special needs
• Raise student’s vision and capabilities
• Instill a sense of belonging with school family and joy in school activites.
The strong value basis reflected in these statements is one of the major reasons
for these schools being there in the first place. It is notable that some of these values
run counter to some local childrearing practices (the “spare the rod and spoil the
child” philosophy is often expressed) as well as some of the school practices reported
as occurring in the government schools. We had some teachers report a major
difference between the stern behaviors practiced in the public schools (where they
had taught previously) and the approach taken with children in the Church schools
(where they were now employed). One teacher noted: “In the CES schools we treat
children like our own children in a family.” A particularly good example of this that
we saw in one class of second graders is reported in Appendix C (Sister Lal’s Grade 2
class).
It would be nice to report that all interactions with teachers and children in the
schools assisted by ITEP reach these goals. Of course, these are ideals, and the actual
56
behaviors can be expected to consistently fall short of them. However, our judgment
is that these are valuable ideals and are taken seriously by the teachers and
administrators of the CES schools, as well as the ITEP missionaries. Because these
values are repeated in devotionals and are reinforced in religious education courses
(one hour per day, required of all students), over time we believe that they are
conveyed to the students as well.
An intended result of the CES schools as stated in the Expectations above is to
teach in such a way that the students engage in the learning process, and in doing so
experience the value and joy of learning. The teachers we observed were animated
and enthusiastic about their teaching and seemed to genuinely care about their
students. However, in our viewing of videotapes after the class sessions, we found
that sometimes the questioning and expectations did not move beyond the learning of
factual concepts to analyze, contrast and compare, and other higher order thinking
skills. These are aspects of education that the ITEP missionaries can help improve.
The next step in improving teaching would seem to us to be to move beyond
the basic concept type of questioning and responding. Teachers need help in
developing the skill of asking questions, which encourage deeper thinking and really
engage the students in learning. Perhaps the method of asking simple questions,
which are then answered by choral response from the class, is a way of dealing with
the limited English of the students. And the choral response is a way of keeping the
students involved. However, the videos we took reveal many students who were not
engaged in the classes. If the Church schools are not going to use the stricter methods
employed in the government schools to control the students, then the teachers need to
57
be creative and skilled in engaging the students in learning. ITEP can help build
those questioning and involvement skills in the teachers.
2. Structural: Considering how learning is organized. How is time divided
up? Is there graded progress? How well does it work?
There are a variety of ways of structuring the time involved in the ITEP courses,
and these certainly vary by country. We heard the opinion expressed that an ITEP
course can be handled as a workshop (fairly short and intense, 1-2 weeks duration) or
as longer course coinciding with the school term. In one instance an administrator
stated that a course strung out over a six-month period with short segments each week
would be exhausting. We believe that the present courses are within an acceptable
range of practice.
3. Curricular: What is the content taught in the program? What
alternatives should be considered? Is it up to date? What activities engage
students? What is graded and what is not? How much work is individual and
how much is group-centered? What is the “boundary strength” of subjects
taught?
The courses taught through ITEP mirror to a large extent the curriculum taught
in the School of Education at BYU-H. The exception comes when members of the
ITEP couple bring specific skills that are suitable to share in a course. In this case, a
formal proposal for a new course is required, and courses are approved on a case-bycase basis. There are many decisions, much discussion and compromise, that leads to
the building of the ITEP curriculum.
58
Of particular interest in these schools is the requirement that all teaching be
done in English. This requirement seemed at first to us to be a vestige of colonialism,
posing major difficulties for learners and teachers alike. However, after many
conversations with administrators and the ITEP couples, the expectation for English
speakers began to seem more realistic. In today’s globalized world, students who
want to compete for jobs successfully, particularly if responsibilities take the person
off the island for almost any reason, require competence in an international language.
At the present time, English is the language of choice. We often heard also that
“English is the language of the Restoration,” implying that the Book of Mormon and
other modern scripture first appeared in English and the functioning of the Church
today requires leaders who are capable of understanding, speaking, reading and
writing English. Whether that condition will prevail in the world, or in the Church, in
50 years is not clear, but what is clear now is that having English skills are an
important byproduct of the learning in these schools.
One couple, the Boyces, were asked to serve as “Subject Specialists, a traveling
ITEP couple going island to island, staying for 3 months in each location, building
teacher skills in integrating English into the content areas. We found their message
appealing and the content relevant to the teachers in the schools. In Tonga, where we
encountered them, they had succeeded in getting a change in the lesson plan format
for all teachers, adding a category of “what English terms or content are being taught
in today’s lesson?”
The question of how to best teach students in English will continue to be a
major one in these schools. What is most important is to keep in mind what a
59
momentous task that is. It is comparable to having a class at a US university
composed entirely of foreign students with moderate but building skill in English.
The demands on a teacher to be effective are enormous, and that same set of demands
is reflected in the teaching required of ITEP couples. Every teacher in these schools,
in ITEP classes or with the daily teaching in classes, when trying to instill English
competence as one of the school’s curricular aims, must deal with this major
challenge: how to help the students’ (or the teachers’) English ability to grow along
with their understanding of the content of their discipline.
4. Pedagogical: What are the values conveyed through the ITEP teacher?
What are the demands of these particular students, and how do teachers cope
with them? How is diversity, rather than uniformity, promoted?
The teachers must model the values they espouse, and in classes and visits we
were constantly reminded of the powerful example set by these teachers. The
promotion of diversity on one hand seems to be an American political value projected
onto the world stage, but on the other a recognition that all good teaching deals with
students as unique individuals. We saw evidence of individual attention being given
where needed, but we also saw evidence of teaching practices that emphasize the
importance of the group (a major cultural value in Samoa and Tonga in particular,
but certainly strong in Fiji and Kiribati as well). For example, teachers often used
rote memory questions, which students answered in a choral fashion, all calling out
the answers together. We saw no evidence of this practice of choral response
reflected in the ITEP courses.
60
5. Evaluative: How is learning assessed? How does measurement
operationalize school values? What are the consequences of testing?
Our visits to class seldom gave us much information about how learning was to
be assessed in the ITEP classes. The exception was in Elder Kohler’s class in Fiji,
where students helped build the questions to be used in the exams and where the
results of a previous exam were reported (See Appendix B).
We are not in a position to comment as to how the teachers prepare for tests or
are graded from them, or what other means of grading performance are used. We
might have asked more questions of the ITEP couples or of the teachers themselves
about measuring achievement in these classes.
We can state that after viewing videotapes of the classroom observations that
more attention could and should be paid to determining who was grasping the
material and who was not. This process could be considered “formative assessment”
as the teaching was going on. We feel that the ITEP couples can help model
techniques for assessing classroom learning, techniques that could strengthen the
teaching in the schools.
F. Final evaluation questions
The remaining questions came from one that emerged during the study, dealing
with the quality of ITEP administration, and three dealing with the future of the
program.
1. What is the quality of the administration of ITEP?
In terms of policy, ITEP is accountable to a governing board at Church
Headquarters made up of representatives from BYU-H, CES and BYU Provo. The
61
ITEP enterprise is administered on a day-to-day basis by a missionary couple, the
ITEP Coordinators, currently Elder Jay and Sister Jane Monson from Logan, Utah.
The Monsons have been serving slightly more than one year in their position as
Coordinators. They report directly to Dr. John Bailey, Dean of the School of
Education and Director of ITEP.
The feedback from the ITEP couples, school officials, and CES administrators
was overwhelmingly positive for the way that the Monsons have performed their
jobs. The orientation of new missionary couples is their responsibility, and the
handling of daily difficulties or concerns most often goes through them.
The relationship between the ITEP Coordinators and the BYU-H School of
Education is impressive, and it was not built overnight. The ITEP Coordinators have
an office in the Education Building, and Elder Monson has faculty status in teaching
classes. Both are very much part of “the faculty”. This past semester Elder Monson
taught a class of 38 students (a huge class for BYU-H) on Teaching Social
Studies/Multicultural Education. He also serves as a substitute teacher for other
faculty when called upon.
The School of Education hosts a luncheon for each ITEP couple, as they go into
their assignment, and when they return, giving the couple a chance to share their
feelings about their assignment and to receive comments from the faculty. It is a
small but symbolic gesture to assure the couples that they are considered as faculty by
BYU-H. (Note: Their application had to be reviewed beforehand by the Dean prior to
their being invited to work in ITEP).
62
The close working relationship between ITEP and BYU-H is evident. The way
that CES has responded to provide pay incentives to reward participation in ITEP
classes is evidence that ITEP coordinates well with CES as well. We heard the
opinion, and were persuaded ourselves, that having ITEP be responsible to both
BYU-H and CES is a healthy working relationship. The excellent record on
recruiting missionary couples with talent [our judgment] and minimizing the gap of
time between missionaries coming on assignment argues that there is a fine working
relationship with the Church missionary department. These links show up rather
seamlessly in the field, and that smooth operation is a credit to ITEP administrators.
We heard multiple compliments for the Monsons and their tireless effort
working with these couples. The wife in one couple said, “Jay and Jane couldn’t
have been better. They were the ones who helped us see what the call was [and how
it could expand to allow our individual talents to contribute]. . . They had some of the
teachers [from Tonga] who were [at BYU-H] come in to meet us, and that was a
treat.”
Possibly one of the best compliments for Elder Monson came when one ITEP
missionary was making a point about his own qualifications for the work, and he said
off-handedly: “I’d welcome a ‘resume bakeoff’ with any person in ITEP, other than
Elder Monson.” [This comment acknowledged Elder Monson’s being qualified by
his extensive experience for the job].
We frequently heard how the thoroughness of the record keeping and follow up
had made a big difference in someone’s life (to get a pay raise or to be accepted for a
63
scholarship). Often that impact could be traced back, at least in part, to Sister
Monson.
Praise for the work of the Monson couple was universal.
VI. Recommendations:
The following are our recommendations, based upon our interviews,
observations, and reflections, after viewing videotapes and poring over the extensive
notes we took. These recommendations emerged from our reflections and
conversations over the months of this study.
(1) That the ITEP missionaries explore ways to maintain the basic teaching
competency courses for new teachers and expand all teachers’
repertoires in imaginative teaching techniques.
We believe that ITEP has been successful in building the basic competency of
the teachers in the islands. An earlier recommendation in the 2000 evaluation of
ITEP, that participation in ITEP classes be rewarded with increments on the salary
scale for teachers, has been well implemented. If there were no new teachers
coming into the system, i.e. no turnover, ITEP would eventually work itself out of a
job. But there will always be people leaving and coming in to careers as teachers.
We believe that orienting teachers with the tools of basic classroom management,
methods of teaching, and the “survival skills for teachers” will remain a vital part of
the ITEP missionary role. ITEP couples can help teachers gain skills in moving
beyond rote memorizing and choral recitation to demonstrate a range of teaching
strategies. The aim must be to actively engage the imagination and energies of these
students.
64
But in addition, we believe that ITEP as a program must
(2) provide advanced training in the subject matter specialties of
teachers, since many of them are now certified but feel that they need
more content expertise.
We frequently heard the request by teachers (some of whom are shown on
the Evaluation Video DVD) for more instruction in their content area. If they taught
math, they would be asking for teaching techniques adapted specifically to teaching
math. If in science or social studies or business, they had similar requests. While it
will not be possible to have an ITEP teacher that can cover all of these requests, it
may be feasible for the ITEP couple to locate resources in the community, i.e. other
local people qualified to teach these classes. That kind of resource facilitation is part
of the ITEP missionary role. With additional technology options (Recommendation
#4 below), it may be possible for one ITEP missionary with special expertise, say in
the teaching of English skills, to either circulate among sites, as the Boyce couple is
doing now, or to use some form of conferencing technology to provide that expertise
to other sites.
(3) ITEP couples should coordinate their efforts with the school
principal to make sure that they are working toward common purposes.
It is imperative that the ITEP couple work under the guidance and
supervision of the school principal. It has been noted elsewhere in this report that
the ITEP missionary may have had experience serving as a school principal or other
administrator and can sometimes serve as a valued counselor. But it is also apparent
that unless the person is careful in this role, they can begin trying to control the
65
school and to somehow adapt it to an American or other school model. In such
cases, the ITEP couple would be “out of line.”
The healthy and preferred mode of operating is for the ITEP couple to take
direction from the school principal, who is rightfully the “school’s instructional
leader.” In the case of inservice training for teachers, the ITEP couple becomes one
other resource that the principal can draw upon to build skills in school faculty
members. They are like “professors in residence” who can offer courses, do class
observations, and make recommendations for policy as needed.
It would help the principals if the ITEP couple would let the principals know
what content they are teaching in their classes…not just the class names, but what
principles and content they are teaching. Then the principal and the ITEP couple
may all support the faculty as they seek to grow in their teaching.
(4) Given the huge challenge to both students and faculty of teaching
exclusively in English, ITEP programs should seek to build English language
competency into different content areas, at the same time retaining competence
in the student’s native language.
The challenge of teaching both English skills and content material is a major
one. It is hard to overstate the importance of having an understanding of English
vocabulary and usage for both teachers and students in these schools. Viewing the
video record afterward, it is clear that in many instances there is an assumption on
teachers’ parts that students understand the meaning of a particular word or at least
comprehend the concept. Closer examination of student response reveals that in
many cases they do not. The model of “Content Based Second Language
66
Instruction” is the approach taken for these students to learn academic English, and it
is a powerful approach. There is evidence, however, that specific attention to
helping students understand vocabulary prior to exposure in a classroom lesson may
be required for comprehension. The retaining of the students’ native language for
conversational purposes is generally a natural process if the language continues to be
spoken at home and on the street; however, building and maintaining literacy in the
native language (e.g. Tongan or Samoan) will not happen if totally neglected in
school. Because so much of the effectiveness of these schools depends upon
language competency and usage, further efforts must be made to help teachers deal
effectively with language concerns.
(5) Make use of support from technology: Connect these sites with the
Internet or use the LDS Church satellite system to allow multiple
courses to be offered in a distance education mode.
There has been a significant change in the use of technology in the schools in
the Pacific, as the computer laboratory in Tonga at the Liahona High School has
become operational. Run by Sister Tina Moleni, an employee of BYU-H, this
computer lab is providing Internet access for the high school students and teachers.
The value of this lab is universally acknowledged, with people from other islands
asking when they will be provided with one. Recent news (June 2006) has indicated
that this connectivity of the various island schools will be accomplished in at least
one school on each island. The promise of having Internet accessibility on each
island is a major step forward and will be seen as a major breakthrough by the
people we interviewed.
67
It seems apparent to us that being able to share the expertise of ITEP couples
on the various island groups with other ITEP couples or ITEP teachers in other
locations would be a major improvement. The school administrators now routinely
complete conferences each month via telephone connection with Dr. Bruce Yerman
in Salt Lake City. We wonder why this same technology (or the LDS Church
Satellite System, which currently seems to only provide Conference messages or
CES Firesides for college age students) could not be used for networked teaching
within the Pacific schools assisted by ITEP. If videoconferencing becomes a part of
the soon-to-be-established Internet connection to each island, this kind of resource
sharing will be a logical next step.
The possibilities for enriched operations of the ITEP program, if all schools
were Internet connected, are many. One could be an easier connection between
islands, allowing one person with skill in a particular area – e.g. the special
education approach to reach each child’s learning – to share those skills through
classes, workshops, or conferences with teachers on other islands. If courses can be
accessed over the Internet, the resources of BYU Provo’s Independent Study become
available, with the potential for offering advanced degrees, from these sources, as
well as many from BYU-H, but from many others as well. Merely the access to
information, searching the Web for resources in teaching or for student projects
could have major impact, as it has recently done in Tonga.
(6) ITEP teachers should make a point of visiting the classes of the
teachers they work with.
68
These visits should occur both during the course that they are teaching to see
if the ideas are being implemented effectively, but also afterward, to gauge the longterm effects of these ideas. Thus far, the typical ITEP couple has visited teacher’s
classes during the fieldwork class. But we are recommending that classroom visits
should be a continuing element of the ITEP program. Since the ITEP couples are in
country for 18 or 23 months, that time period would seem to provide ample time for
classroom observation. But for most of the ITEP missionaries, based upon our
interviews, that kind of direct observation and critique has apparently not been a
high priority.
It is worth considering what factors inhibit the evaluation of teacher behavior
in the classroom and what functions might be curtailed to provide time for this
activity.
Some of these ITEP missionaries may not have come from a job where
observing of the teaching of others was part of their work. In higher education, one
of the most pervasive but unspoken taboos in most academic departments (though
possibly not in teacher education) is that of attending and observing other people’s
classes. The excuse most commonly given is that “I have far too much to do,” but in
fact there is always a feeling that “critical eyes are not welcome.” Unless mandated
by the tenure and promotion process, attending another person’s class at the
university level is extremely rare for most faculty members. For many school
administrators, the observing of teaching mixes two functions: providing feedback
on how to improve teaching and providing a rating of effectiveness for promotion
and salary increments. One reason that the ITEP missionary can be more effective
69
in the role of observer for formative evaluation than can school administrators, is
because this source of role confusion should not exist. The ITEP missionary is not
involved in the promotion and salary decisions.
The question of where time to observe classes from an already busy schedule
could be obtained is a tougher one. The answer may be that ITEP missionaries may
be able to coordinate better with school administrators to provide closer monitoring
and feedback as a team in visiting the various classrooms. Or, alternatively, there
may be responsibilities currently requiring time of the ITEP couple that can be
delegated to others. In any case, we believe that more time by ITEP couples devoted
to classroom observation would strengthen the impact of the program.
VII. Conclusion
The International Teacher Education Program (ITEP) is an ingenious
approach to building teacher skills in the Pacific Islands of Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, and
Kiribati. The use of missionary couples, mainly retired educators, to work with
teachers, teach classes and direct scholarships is both cost/effective from the Church
point of view and highly effective. After 12 years of operation, the program is
working well in the four island groups and has promise for expansion to additional
islands within these groups. We were privileged to be able to witness its operation
first hand and we feel grateful for the ideas shared with us by many people touched
in some way by the influence of the program.
70
VIII. Sources examined in conducting the evaluation
Armstrong, Jennifer (2002). Shattered: Stories of Children and War. New York:
Alfred Knopf.
Ashton-Warner, Sylvia (1963). Teacher. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Barnes, Phil (2004). Concise History of the Hawaiian Islands. Hilo, Hawaii:
Petroglyph Press.
Cannon, Hugh J. (2005, orig. 1923). David O. McKay Around the World: An
Apostolic Mission. Provo, Utah: Spring Creek Book Co.
Cole, Geert (et. al.). South Pacific: Your essential planning guide. Melbourne,
Australia: Lonely Planet.
Eisner, Elliot W. (1991). The Enlightened Eye. New York: Macmillan.
Fetterman, David (1997). Ethnography step by step. Thousand Oaks, California,
Sage.
Glasser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1985). The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Harris, R. Carl (Ed.) (2005). Building the Kingdom in Samoa, 1888-2005. Heber
City, Utah: Harris Video Cases, Inc.
Huxford, Gary (2006). Thinking globally: Yesterday’s People. Dialogue: A
journal of Mormon Thought. 39:1 (Spring), pp. 82-93.
International Teacher Education Program (2006). (Orienting binder of materials).
Laie, Hawaii: School of Education.
“Islands of love, people of faith,” in Saints around the World: Four LDS films on
DVD. (2005). Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University (55 min. color).
Iuta, Taomati, et. al. Politics in Kiribati (1980). Tarawa: Kiribati Extension Centre
and Institute of Pacific Studies: University of the South Pacific.
Mead, Margaret (1969, orig. 1930). The Social Organization of Manu’a. Honolulu,
Hawaii: Bishop Museum Press.
Lee, Helen Morton (2003). Tongans overseas: Between two shores. Honolulu,
Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
71
Peshkin, Alan (1986). God’s Choice: The total world of a fundamentalist Christian
school. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Premdas, Ralph R. (1995). Ethnic Conflict and development: The case of Fiji.
Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing.
Polynesian Cultural Center. Videos on PCC Presentations on the cultures of Samoa
and Tonga.
Rotberg, Iris C. (2004). Balancing Change and tradition in global education reform.
Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Education.
“Senior Service,” Church News, May 17, 2006, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret
Morning News, pp. 8-10.
Teaero, Teweiariki (2000). On Eitei’s Wings. Suva, Fiji: Pacific Wriiting Forum.
Underwood, Grant (2005). Pioneers in the Pacific: Memory, history, and cultural
identity among the Latter-day Saints. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center,
Brigham Young University.
72
Appendix A
Case Study: An ITEP couple
The Eberhards in Kiribati
Case Study: The Eberhards
The intent of this case study is to help understand what the life of an ITEP missionary
couple would be like. We selected the Eberhards in Kiribati to highlight, because while
they have a unique set of challenges in living on a fairly remote island, they also have the
benefit of a tight-knit community, with close connection to the school and country
director, and a supportive family back in the USA.
As a background to understanding in their situation, it helps to know about their setting.
The island they live on, Tarawa, is the location of the national capitol of the nation of
Kiribati. Formerly known as the Gilbert Islands, Kiribati received its independence in
1978 [1979] and has its own government and relations with the world. The island is an
atoll, and it is one of many in the country. We were told that the highest point on the
island is 12 feet, and there is an ongoing concern that if global warming causes the seas to
rise, much of Kiribati would be inundated [The concern about a tsunami, which often
occurs to outsiders, is unfounded, because these large waves require a sloping beach to
build up the wave height, a condition missing from these atolls. Similarly, being right at
the equator, these islands do not experience hurricanes or cyclones, since these storms
originate at the equator and travel outward building up strength to threaten islands like
Tonga and Hawaii that are nearer the temperate zones]. Getting to and from Kiribati is a
challenge, as the regularly scheduled flights through Air Nauru, the national airline, have
been temporarily suspended, due to the airline recently going bankrupt. Before, there
were weekly flights that were regularly scheduled. Flights in from Fiji and Brisbane,
Australia are now irregular and apparently occur only when a chartered flight comes in
(and they are fairly expensive, at about $850 US per person round trip from Fiji). The
country’s economy is based mainly on fishing and on the sale of fishing rights, as Kiribati
has the world’s largest amount of ocean claimed as territorial waters. The country has
telephone service, with rather slow Internet access. Much of the food and consumer
products are shipped in. Fresh fruit and vegetables are becoming more available as a
result of a gardening project sponsored by the Taiwanese government, but still much of
the diet for most people is fish and coconuts.
For outsiders, like these missionaries, even basic things like safe drinking water are not
easily obtained. The Eberhards use a three stage filter recommended by the Church,
while other families simply bring the water to a boil and let it cool. The water filter, if
replaced at the intervals suggested on the directions, is an expensive apparatus, costing
about $1500 US yearly to maintain properly. The Eberhards supplied water for us during
our stay and provided water for another couple as well.
One of the joys of being in Kiribati is the association with the local people. These people
are genuine in their dealings with others and extremely generous toward others. They
may not have much in terms of material goods, but what they have they will share. We
were struck with the beautiful smiles of the people we met. A visiting missionary dentist
told us that thanks to candy and soft drinks from Australia and New Zealand, there are
more dental problems now than at an earlier time; however, he also said that the level of
dental care evident by the students at the high school had increased in a major way. On
an earlier visit he had determined that people were using a common toothbrush in the
dormitories (so a shipment of toothbrushes and dental floss was arranged and delivered).
Indicative of the strength of the local culture is the finding that, unlike many of the
islands that worry about “returnability”, students who study abroad invariably want very
much to return to their home island.
Meeting these people and experiencing their island was one of the unexpected highlights
of our trip.
Qualifications and initial impressions:
When I look at my notes about the Eberhards, Charles and Diana [just like the former
royal couple, Bro. Eberhard pointed out], and think what we knew before arriving, I have
to smile. The facts gleaned from files are so paltry by comparison to interacting with the
actual people. Beforehand we knew a few details: Bro. Eberhard had been a school
superintendent in Arizona prior to his retirement. He is now 66 years old. His wife’s
application had even fewer facts listed. The Bishop had only written: “Sister Eberhard is
the mother of ten children. She can do anything.” I knew that he had taught as a
facilitator for the Covey Leadership Group, having taught a course on “Seven Habits of
Highly Effective People.” We knew that Sis. Eberhard had lived in multiple countries
while growing up: Columbia (6 years), Peru (1 year), Brazil (7 years) and that she had
been an aerobics trainer and substitute teacher in the public schools. And we knew that
they had served in a variety of Church callings: He as Bishop, Scoutmaster, High
Councillor, Young Men’s President. She had served as an early morning seminary
teacher for 9 years, Young Women’s President, counselor in Relief Society and Primary
Presidencies. Both have served as the Gospel Doctrine teacher for their ward, and both
speak Spanish (Sis. Eberhard speaks Portuguese as well). From their resume documents,
they come across as capable and experienced. The Bishop recommending them had
noted: “Humble, high ability.”
That statement proved to be accurate, but, of course, an understatement. This couple is
so capable! In many ways they epitomize the kind of couple that works well as ITEP
volunteers.
They met us at the airport, as we cleared customs and looked bewildered coming for the
first time into Tarawa, the major population center for this island country. We had
viewed the atoll from the air: 45 miles of a narrow white sand strip, dotted with coconut
palm trees, lagoon on one side and open sea on the other, shaped in a long “L” shape.
We had been told that conditions were “a bit primitive,” in comparison to Hawaii or the
other islands we had visited. That observation proved true: the island is one long strip
with one road, with houses and people on either side. Occasionally, our vehicle passed a
Church meeting house or a large communal dwelling called a “Maneaba,” something like
the Samoan “fale,” but for group meetings rather than as an individual family dwelling.
The major problems of the island, like adequate trash disposal, sewage treatment, and
public health have been exacerbated by the huge increases in population, from a reported
1,750 people in 1947 to some 45,000 in 2002, a forty-fold increase. Folkways that
worked 50 years ago, like cleaning fish or people eliminating in the lagoon, are
problematic in the current age. Getting clean water is a major challenge, for the locals
and for visitors alike.
Some history: A previous couple that encountered troubles
To understand the challenge that the Eberhards faced upon arrival, it is necessary to
understand the difficulties brought on by the previous ITEP couple.
There were some conflicts with the ITEP role, reported primarily for the husband. These
conflicts included: (1) interests pushing him beyond the role of teaching improvement;
and (2) suggestions that went beyond the ITEP domain. For example, one administrator
reported: “He suggested we needed to build a floating temple that could float from island
to island. We told him that such an idea would have to come from the prophet and was
not something that we could even entertain.” (3) He taught 2 classes of teachers and at
the end gave every person an “F” for failure. After two such occurrences with his
classes, no teachers would sign up for any more of them; and (4) the husband had
reportedly gotten up in church meetings and made critical comments about the way
things were organized or operating in the local Church setting.
We heard mixed opinions about the contribution of this couple. During our focus group
in Kiribati, one of the teachers made a point of stating that he had received some expert
advice from this previous ITEP couple and that the husband had been very helpful to him
in resolving a problem with teaching. We also heard that the wife was in high demand as
a teacher.
The important thing to note was that this couple was seen by administrators as ineffective
in their ITEP role, and the program had nearly stopped as they finished out their term.
Enter the Eberhards:
Bro. Eberhard, having worked in education for many years, and Sister Eberhard with her
extensive work in the classroom, must have known that their success in the new ITEP
calling would depend in large measure on their ability to provide a worthwhile initial
experience to the teachers. [Certainly, the new direction of the ITEP program was being
carefully watched by the local teachers and administrators]. The Eberhards arrived in
Kiribati just about Thanksgiving time in November. In our interview, he related:
Prior to my coming to work in Kiribati, I was a Covey facilitator for 7 Habits of
highly successful people for inservice for our Arizona teachers. Once in Kiribati,
I proposed a class called “Personal Principles of Highly Effective Teachers.” I
wrote up a course description and sent it to John Bailey [to offer for BYUH
credit, and subsequently received approval]. I taught the course as a workshop
during the interim before classes began. I did the class to get an idea to see how
much these teachers could handle and see what their English skills were. We
tried to adapt to the culture, not use jargon. Some of the older teachers were in
the interim class. It was three hours a day for 12 days. The younger teachers
were busy getting ready for their classes. But now we have a mix of the ages of
teachers. Tuesday and Thursday works best [for ITEP classes].
This beginning workshop was a crucial test for Bro. Eberhard, and he knew it. If this first
course had failed, enlisting participants for future ITEP courses could have been a
struggle. The evidence was that the course was well received and that the community
good will was captured.
The Eberhards felt that coming at Thanksgiving time was a good idea. They expressed
the feeling that “this time could be shortened a bit, maybe by 2-3 weeks, as they were
there a full two months before the beginning of the first term. However, being there early
gave them time to learn the “lay of the land,” to get familiar with the project records, and
to run the workshop, thereby assessing their students, prior to the beginning of the school
term in early February.
This initial time also gave Elder Eberhard a chance to get involved with the humanitarian
project, installing large water tanks. Since they were arriving at the end of the school
year [before the beginning of the next one], Elder Monson asked them if they could assist
with the Humanitarian Project, if they had the time; recognizing that their first priority
was the ITEP Program. The water tanks are to be placed in locations where rainwater
can be collected and used for communal drinking water. The funding ($75 K. US) comes
through the LDS Church Humanitarian Fund. It uses local contractors to install the tanks,
and installation involves the community, to put in rain gutters and to set in place a
concrete base. Each durable plastic tank costs $2,000 US, holds 1,250 gallons, and is
stamped with a message identifying the tank as a donation of the LDS Church. As was
evident on our arrival, having clean water to drink is a major challenge when the
underground water is so close to the sea and can be brackish or polluted. Bro. Eberhard’s
role is to chair the Humanitarian Project Committee in the Kiribati Stake, to help in
coordinating the decisions and approving all expenditures, and to help make decisions
about where the tanks should be installed, and finally to supervise the installation to make
sure that it is done correctly.
Sis. Eberhard leads an aerobic dance group, and that started during the Christmas
holidays, running Monday, Wednesday, and Friday after school. She began with each
person taking personal measurements and, after following the program for a couple of
weeks, taking the measurements once again. “These people were astounded that their
measurements had changed, making them more trim. And it worked for every one of
them.” That aerobics dance group has been an interesting contribution from Sis.
Eberhard, reportedly involving virtually all of the female leaders at the high school. It is
an example of how having a strong personal interest can work into a contribution to the
ITEP program.
The current program:
The Eberhards are involved with teaching one class each on Tuesday and Thursday of
each week. Bro. Eberhard was teaching a Foundations of Education class, and Sis.
Eberhard a class on “reading in the content areas.” We were the second set of visitors
they had hosted in two weeks, the Monsons having visited them the week before, and so
their lives had been a bit disrupted by outside events. The role of an ITEP missionary
involves many of the duties of the other full-time missionaries, but with some additions
and subtractions of efforts. [No one ever mentioned a lack of things to do].
During the weekend we were there, Sis. Eberhard helped the young women in her ward,
teaching them a song and dance routine (to the song, “Oh Johnny Oh”) for the Stake
Relief Society program on Saturday. On Saturday it was the mission zone conference,
with both morning and afternoon sessions under the direction of the Mission President.
We also attended these sessions and found them quite applicable to the ITEP work, partly
because the current Mission President had been a former CES administrator and was
committed to helping each of his missionaries become “master teachers.” The use of role
playing in the afternoon portion of the conference would have been a fine demonstration
in any setting. At the end of the conference, Bro. Eberhard turned to me and said: “That
gives me a good idea. Just as the missionaries can draw on the church members to host a
discussion with nonmembers, I could draw upon the former ITEP teachers (the veterans)
to help make the point with new teachers. I’m going to do that.”
I asked what a typical day for the Eberhards would be like. Here is the shortened version
of Bro. Eberhard’s reply: “
To start out the day, I go walking early, shower, read scriptures, eat breakfast, and
then we do companion study. We look at our schedule for the day. In the morning
we make lesson plans and preparations. We will often have meetings with the
principal or school committee. We then have lunch, and that is usually a sandwich
that we bring, mostly because we can’t take time for a long lunch. After lunch we
go shopping sometimes. We both teach classes in the afternoon two days a week.
We sometimes get home before dinner, but not always, because there is a lot to do.
Brother E. irons his own clothes, just because there is a lot going on, and that is how they
have divided the work. Sis. Eberhard makes bread and does all the cooking. Doing the
dishes often becomes his task. On Sunday, they are both in key positions in the English
speaking ward with students from Liahona[MORONI] High School: Diane is in Young
Women Presidency; Chuck is a quorum leader in the combined Elders and High Priests.
We attended the Sunday meeting, and Bro. Eberhard taught a lesson about priesthood
responsibilities, the kind of lesson that members need to hear annually as a reminder of
basic information needed in their callings. Hearing this material in English from a native
speaker seemed to be valuable for these young people, as they try to build their English
language competence.
Getting started in ITEP:
We asked them: “How did you hear about ITEP?” This was Bro. Eberhard’s response:
We had been thinking about going on a mission, and so we had been looking
through church bulletins. I called about one of the possible assignments, and
they asked us to send them a resume. It got forwarded to the Monsons. They got
back to us, saying “We could really use a couple in Kiribati.” We said we could
be available the first of November. So we submitted our papers…Elder Monson
said to say that we have been accepted as adjunct faculty. I retired [as school
superintendent] in 2003. We thought we’d go to South America [since they both
speak Spanish]. But when we heard about this assignment, we thought we’d
love the South Pacific.
“What are you giving up to be here?” we asked. Their reply: Our grandkids and
our brand new home. And with 10 children, all grown now but with families of
their own, you miss out on lots of family events. But when would you [be able
to be gone and] not have those things happening?
We were rather astounded to hear that their family saved for a mission fund for
them secretly and gave them $6,000 to go on their mission when they left. They
were astounded as well, having had no hint that the next generation was up to
this.
How was your orientation? “ Before we even came on our mission, the Monsons
put us in touch with the couples here so we could e-mail the Hawkers [another
couple there in Kiribati, with husband serving as the counselor to the Mission
President and wife serving as school nurse], and some couples when we were in
the Missionary Training Center (MTC). They organized a dinner for us so we
could meet them and talk to them about Kiribati. We really enjoyed the MTC.
The other CES missionaries stayed in Salt Lake City [for the rest of their
training], but our training went on the Hawaii. While in Hawaii, we spent a lot
of time at the Polynesian Cultural Center (PCC). We visited many classes to see
how the students were handling their subjects, especially those who need lots of
help with English. We met with some students from Kiribati and had lunch with
them. The ITEP manual helped us. I have referred to it a number of times since
we got here.”
Housing and sense of community
One obvious element of the setting in Kiribati was the location of the housing. It is all
provided by the Church and is located on the same compound as the high school and
student dormitories. The deputy school principal and her familyl live on the grounds of
the school as well. The ITEP couples, as well as other missionary couples, pay a monthly
fee to the church to cover their rent and utilities.
At the time of our visit, the available housing was full (we felt lucky to be housed there,
rather than in a hotel, as two CES people were doing). The homes are built right up to a
sea wall with a fence at the top that drops down to the open ocean. When the tide is high,
the waves pound against the sea wall. When it is low, there is a fifty-yard stretch of rock
beach to where the waves break.
It was clear from the beginning of our stay that the LDS couples work together to get
things done. Shopping is usually a group event, with several people going in the churchowned Toyota van to the market or “into town in Betio.” More than once, after attending
a church function (like the baseball game of the Taiwanese team versus the LDS
missionaries -- missionaries won), we stopped to eat at a nearby Chinese restaurant.
Each time it occurred as a group. Much of the conversation served to orient the
newcomer (like us) or to give information on people or events. People were free to
express their opinions, but I would not call it “gossip,” since the sharing would be mainly
positive and avoided the mention of personalities.
It was clear that much activity was done communally. The group of expatriates included
the Counselor in the Mission Presidency and his wife, the Mission Nurse. Also, there
was a medical doctor and his wife assigned there as a missionary couple on a
Humanitarian Mission, providing eye examinations and doing cataract surgery for those
church members and members of the local community. Also, there was a dentist, his
wife, and a dental technician from Tonga who came as volunteers, working exclusively
the students and staff of the school. These people, each with a specific assignment and
responsibilities, worked together to handle tasks as needed. For example, to have enough
food for all the missionaries at their zone conference, all the ovens [in each separate
house] were set to cook chicken or other food. People passed the keys to their house
around freely for that kind of communal activity. We had the feeling that this kind of
sharing (of food, recipes, opportunities to entertain guests) occurred frequently. The
people seemed to get along very well and to embody the Gospel ideals of positive regard
for others, sharing, and general helpfulness.
For Mormons, this kind of community connectedness would be a must for expatriates to
feel at home in a distant land. [I have personally experienced this kind of community in
many lands, and I know that it is an important feature of life abroad for members of the
Mormon faith].
Health Concerns:
The Eberhards are basically in good health. Sis. Eberhard’s conducting the aerobic
fitness program would be an indication of how she maintains that health. Her husband’s
description of the daily routine included going walking early. Maintaining good health
on an ITEP assignment is all-important; if health is lacking for either member of the
couple, the assignment will likely be ended or shortened substantially. One other ITEP
couple, just completing their assignment, noted: “only couples with excellent health can
do the ITEP work. “ One couple they had known with health problems tried it, and it
didn’t work out. This couple had to go home.
Having both a mission nurse assigned permanently and a medical doctor there on
temporary assignment at Moroni High School would certainly be comforting. However,
the kind and quality of medical care that many older Americans count on would be
simply unavailable on the local economy in Kiribati.
Impact of the ITEP experience on their own relationship:
When living with a person twenty-four hours per day and working side-by-side, there is a
tendency to either stay very close as a couple, or to push back to maintain some
emotional distance in at least some areas of life. During our visits to the 5 island groups
we visited, we had a chance to witness the day-to-day interaction of these couples first
hand. All do an admirable job of living Christ-like lives in their dealings with others and
in their dealings with each other. We were particularly impressed with the Eberhards,
particularly because it seemed that the experience of working as an ITEP couple was
bringing them closer together as a true partnership in the work. [It is pretty much a given
that these will be people married for 40 years or more. One couple we know in Hawaii
celebrated their 50th anniversary while on a mission]
Elder Eberhard mentioned that prior to their leaving on this mission, he and Diane were
spending two days per week working in the Temple there in Mesa, Arizona. He noted
that there are a variety of kinds of missions now available to older couples, to include
being a temple worker, working at a family history center or visitors center, etc. He saw
that each of them would provide an opportunity to learn much.
Here I quote from notes taken while waiting for our plane flight out of the country.
I had a chance to visit a bit longer at the airport with Elder Eberhard about the
relationship that he and his wife have. (Irene and I had commented the night
before that we felt that they were one of the strongest couples in terms of being
united in their efforts and in touch with each other). He noted my compliment
and was quite candid in his sharing of perspective.
He mentioned his wife’s having felt some insecurities in stepping into the ITEP
role, having not completed the bachelor’s degree [in her college days] [partly as a
result of having raised their 10 children]. He shared his feelings that this
experience in ITEP had been good for her, in having her demonstrate her
considerable skills.
He noted that she is outgoing, and that her personality is a good balance for him,
because he is more reserved. “I sometimes ask myself ‘Do I really like people?’
And the answer is “Yes, I really do enjoy them. But I gain in my appreciation for
people from Diane. She helps me understand their worth and how important each
and every one of us is to God. I want to take these feelings home with me (after
we’ve finished with ITEP).”
One of the most impressive things about Elder Eberhard is his sincere willingness to learn
from other people. He was fascinated with Irene’s work with Movement Education, and
he is considering the Family Fund idea that we discussed on the Living Essentials DVD.
He and Diane were curious to discuss the island of Mauritius with us, where we had been
living 3 months before our coming to Hawaii. This openness to new ideas, for both
members of the couple was most admirable.
Attitudes toward the work:
About the sacrifice of coming:
One of our observations about these couples is that they seldom feel that their work on
the mission is a sacrifice. I asked Bro. Eberhard why he thought that many of these
couples had large families. [As mentioned above he Eberhards are the parents of 10
children, for example. Similarly, the Hales, living as our neighbors to the other side with
him working as an opthomologist with eye problems, have a family with 10 children].
He said that these families might see the mission as not being a sacrifice, but (said
jokingly) as a chance to get away. He told of a friend of his in the Mesa area, a man who
had served with his wife as a missionary couple to Peru, who commented on how
difficult their lives had become since returning to the States. Speaking of their family
members, he said, “They expect us to be at every family function, like baptisms,
confirmations, baby blessings and the like. This is more difficult than when we were in
Peru.” The man and his wife had recently been called to serve as the temple president
and matron in another country, and Elder Eberhard felt that they were happier doing that.
Bro. Eberhard’s reflections on teaching:
Bro. Eberhard’s experience in teaching, both in his career and in a gospel context, is
extensive. Here are a few reflections:
Most teachers teach like they were taught. Sometimes our efforts in the
classroom make a change in what people do and sometimes they do not. Slipping
back into old ways happens in the U.S. too. I have seen some really good lesson
plans, shown to me after I asked to see them. I haven’t been around to a lot of the
classrooms yet. But from walking around and from what I can see, I think there is
a lot of student involvement. The teachers I have [as students in ITEP classes] are
very perceptive and catch on quickly. For example, I hear people talking about
“what are your objectives and how am I going to be able to tell if they have
learned it, [using] the assessments?” I like those comments, but I don’t know how
long it will last.
[Speaking of teaching these teachers in Kiribati], I see the light go on in their
eyes. They catch on. They are very knowledgeable about the gospel. They are
very thankful to be here. They have a vision of themselves of helping their
children grow in the gospel and learn. They are very receptive to change, and are
growing in their awareness of learning principles.
The mission for the Eberhards is just getting under way, with at least another year to go
before completion. Their perspective on this assignment will likely change over time.
They are part of a small group of expatriates working in the church-based community at
the Moroni High School, and they seem to be well connected with other missionary
couples, with school administrators, with the teachers who attend their classes, and with
the Monsons back in Hawaii. The richness and complexity of their lives in this
seemingly remote outpost is rather remarkable. They seem well suited to make a success
of the assignment and appear strongly committed to making it all work. We believe that
they will continue to make a valuable contribution in that setting, God willing!
Appendix B
Teaching Observation of ITEP Class
Elder Kohler in Fiji
Bro. Kohler: ITEP class in Suva, Fiji 14 March 2006
Preliminaries:
This class is held regularly at the LDS High School in Suva, Fiji (Church College of Fiji).
We (Irene and Nick Eastmond) are visitors from Hawaii, and this is our second day spent
with the Kohler’s. Bro. Kohler told me beforehand that this is the Educational
Foundations class, ED 212, and that the class is on about the 7th week.
The group meets in the conference room next to the principal’s office in the
Administration building. Prior to the class starting, Bro. Kohler has set up the room well,
with a laptop and overhead projector, plus some writing, shown vertically on the
whiteboard: Test #2: Out of 153 : 151 - 99%, 156 - 95%, 134 - 88%, 105 - 69%. [It
becomes apparent later that he is providing written feedback on the scores obtained on a
previous exam, giving class members an idea of the range and the scores obtained].
In some ways this is an ideal classroom for teaching a small group: a seminar table
paneled with a tropical wood that looks like cherry, a whiteboard up front, a Fijian flag,
and the bulletin board with the explanation of ITEP. Besides having a speakerphone on
hand, there is a TV monitor and a cabinet with AV items, possibly.
Elder Kohler is dressed in short-sleeved white shirt and solid black tie with white
polkadots. The room is air-conditioned, a real relief for some of us not accustomed to
tropical heat. [The Admin building has air conditioning; all the classrooms in the other
buildings have ceiling fans].
Bro. Kohler just let Irene know that he would be introducing two student presenters
today. One is Jaynas, the Director of Administrative Services, and Shobhit, who works
outside CES. We have given each person a copy of the Release Form for video, and they
have been joking about being a movie star. ‘Even a bad example has value,’says Jaynas.
‘You have to know the bitter before you can experience the sweet,’ he jokes, quoting
from the Book of Mormon. We have a good time getting drinks from the water cooler.
Bro. Kohler lets us know that having water there is a luxury that is seldom available,
since the water vanishes quickly when it is available. Water is a necessary item, but one
with limited availability, at least in terms of filtered and cooled, it seems. This morning,
enroute to work, Bro. Kohler pointed out one village that was completely out of water
and that a supply truck had come to allow people to fill up their buckets.
I just met one of the students, Subhashni, a graduate of BYU Hawaii, who also lived in
Canada. Two other women just arrived. A missionary, Sis. Mills, came in with her
daughter to say goodbye, as she is finishing her CES mission (teaching piano & music),
to leave for the USA.
There are 6 students, seated around the conference table, 5 women and one man. It feels
conversational, like a good seminar for discussion.
We talk a bit longer, as people arrive for class. Bro. Kohler tells of one aspect of this
course, American Education, and comments: “We try to liken that to Fiji.”
Technology in Education is another class discussed.
Another class that deals with ‘Your first classroom.’ Irene comments: That’s a little late,
your first classroom. It seems that this topic is more for teacher trainees than those
actually teaching now.
Class Begins:
Bro. Kohler starts by calling on a class member to give the opening prayer. Then he
begins: I think this is our class for today. Bro. X has pinkeye and will not be with us
today. There are a few items to mention, before Jaynas begins. The philosophy of
education paper will be due on March 28th (in 2 weeks). You should put together a
statement of your philosophy of education and what that is about, in a paper of about four
pages. Also, last week we had test #2 over part 2 of the book, and only 4 people have
been able to take the test so far, and I think that it is the four ladies. [He comments on the
test scores]: It look like one of you is doing rather well (points to the 99 score, and some
are a little lower. . .I would pass the test back to you if everyone had taken the test. [It
sounds like getting people in to take the test is a bit of a challenge, something that has
happened in prior tests. His policy is that they must take the test by the end of the week.
He notes that they are trying to overcome this problem, I assume by making the test
available, and expecting the class members to come in to take it].
Brother Kohler then introduces us, the visitors, to the class members: me as a professor of
instructional technology and Irene as the video person. He notes that we make good use
of our sabbatical opportunities and have traveled widely on this occasion. He certainly
makes us feel at home. We make a few comments on our travel. He then comments on
the amazing way that the Church is able to get people involved with little in monetary
investment, but with considerable organizational benefit. [And of course, we would
include the ITEP missionary couples in that same category of volunteer work]. It works
to everyone’s advantage, it seems.
Sis. Kohler has made some frozen dessert, served in a paper cup with a plastic spoon, and
we are all looking at them. Two of the students decide it is time to try it out.
Bro. Kohler continues: I thought about changing the topic for this class session. The
chapter in the book is about the History of American Education.’But then I thought,
maybe this is a good topic, as we discuss how we make these principles work for Fiji. So
I decided we should go ahead with it.
Bro. Kohler explains his intent: Let me tell you about how we have done the class, at
least since I have been involved with it. At the least, I want each person in class to know
what the textbook says about the topic. At first people did not want to discuss much
about the topic. Everyone wanted to be taught, rather than helping to teach. But in this
Church everybody gets a chance to help teach. So I have asked our students to help
present parts of what we are studying. This term, we have each person give a
presentation on a part of the material, and they submit some questions to me beforehand,
and these could become part of the test. We distribute those questions [as a handout] at
the beginning of the class, and they become study questions. The student then can work
on those during the week. Those questions could or might not become the test questions
used later on. We have the person present, and we hope that they will discuss any topic
that they have a question about. Then this term, we have someone teach something of a
research nature [meaning that it is a topic not covered in the book, where the person must
obtain the information from outside sources, like the Internet]. Those persons submit 5
questions as well. We have 4 quizzes on this material, plus the information and questions
that each student presents. Those quiz scores, plus the philosophy of education paper
score, are the basis for the class grade.
Bro. Kohler concludes: Any comments or questions before we get into the topic? We
know the procedure, says Jaynas.
Then Jaynas begins, having arranged for the laptop to project his slides. Jaynas is a
Fijian of Indian descent, quite cheerful and lively by nature, it seems. I take this moment
to have some of the dessert made by Sis. Kohler. It is good.
So this is part 3 of Foundations, by Jaynas Prasad [this presentation is the one drawn
from the textbook. Jaynas has prepared a PowerPoint presentation, and he refers to
points from it as he proceeds]. Before we could teach students about education, we need
to know where it started. In this chapter we learn about education in America. [Jaynas is
ready to get the group involved. So he leads with this line of questions].
How much do we follow America? Not just fashion wise. Do we really follow America?
What are some of the things we do?
What about our hymbook, where does it come from? The United States.
Our church hymnbook comes from America.
Our scriptures come from there.
Bro. Kohler inserts some wit: Well, we drive on the wrong side of the road. [Laughter].
Because it is a powerful nation, we tend to follow a lot from America. Fashion, words,
cliches, movies: a lot of these things influence us.
We try to make friends with the Americans. And what reason? Maybe money [laughter],
but Elder Kohler that’s not my reason for making your friendship [smiling]. But you are
welcome to give me some! [More smiles].
The first part of the chapter tells of an American teacher, John Soloman Otto, who taught
in the USA in the 1950’s. [Jaynas shows a transparency with the statement: CLASS
ACT: John Solomon Otto. (then on the left side) 1952-53 (Effective teacher ñ Mrs. T)
•Seven hours: lectured, recited, dictated, directed, questioned, & criticized. •Tongue
lashing or public spanking. (and on the right side) Students: •Most finished high school
•Most finished college •Several earned post-graduate degree.
I’m not sure how many of you experienced something similar (to the teacher behavior on
the left of the screen), but this was what Mrs. T did. But this was how the students
reacted (and he explains the results listed on the right half of the screen). She was
considered very effective.
I ask: Was this at the elementary or secondary level. Jaynas responds: Elementary. I
probe a bit further: “They lectured at the elementary level?” And he responds: “Well,
this is what the text says. He was a little boy then.” Jaynas continues, and he reads out
the next slide: “My personal commitment to create a classroom without fear.” That
teachers [Mrs. T] managed to instill fear in the students.
How do we create a classroom without fear?
What did we experience with our teachers here in Fiji? Did we feel fear for all of them?
Or just some of them?
But we were not in the 1950’s. We were when? Class members respond: the eighties.
So what he experienced in the 1950’s (in America) we were experiencing in the 1980’s
(in Fiji).
I was always fearful of my teacher, Jaynas relates. That is why I did my homework. I
did not want to go to the table and have the teacher snap at me. So.
Why did we experience [this trend] that late, do you think? In Fiji?
We are still developing, trying to follow the Americans, one student adds. But we were
not at their standard yet.
Jaynas concludes: It had not reached us yet [The new trend]. But it influences us. Any
other thoughts?
[Following the practices of] the teachers we had, that is how we teach.
So our teachers, who did they learn from? Do you think that they went to America to
learn from them? No.
Jaynas continues: I want you to be thinking about us in Fiji, instead of learning about the
US education and what they did always. So I want you to reflect on these things (the
element of fear commonly found in education - referring to the previous slide).
Elder Kohler inserts a question: Jaynas, do you think that she (Mrs. T) taught these
people the way that she was taught? That’s where she learned to teach, . . . how she was
taught?
Jaynas replies: She was told: That is how they can be effective (as a teacher) if they can
make the students do their work. . . Well, moving on.
Puritan : I read this word in the book. I had no clue what it meant. Then I asked my
wife. She looked in the dictionary, and this is what she found. “A member of a group of
English Protestants in the 16th and 17th century who sought to simplify religion.”
And so we have, Christopher Lam’s colonial classroom (p. 285). He rejected the rod
approach. He developed a system where he used the children to provide rewards and
punishments for each other. (They would call out: Lazy pupil or Diligent). He used the
class to give the rewards. He didn’t have to buy candy. School was meant to save souls
back in those days. Education provided a path to heaven. Reading, writing, and moral
development revolved around the Bible.
Elder Kohler injects: We were usually taught and thought in our schools that the early
settlers came to America to obtain religious freedom. But that’s not why they came.
They came to establish their own of church and to make it supreme.
Jaynas supports that: We see that in the Joseph Smith movie, don’t we? When Joseph
Smith was going through that question, we see members of the other churches say: Come
to my church, come to my church.
Trying to enlist converts, Elder Kohler notes.
[They weren’t particularly concerned about providing religious freedom for others].
If school was meant to save souls, what do you think it was supposed to produce?
(Ministers). That did not leave much reason for girls to go to school, a class member
points out.
Jaynas: It seems that the education given to girls was minimal. They believed that they
did not need to spend much time on the girls.
They used the Bible a lot. How important is religion in US classes now?
Elder Kohler replies: In many cases they [in the US] can’t deal with religion in the
classroom.
Jaynas adds: When we were missionaries in the U.S., we could do volunteer work in the
schools, but we couldn’t wear our badges. We helped them learn to do the reading
process. [I had spotted Jaynas as a likely returned missionary from an assignment to the
United States. His accent in English was very American, and his knowledge of idioms
extensive, the kind of thing that living around Americans might have produced. I found
that he had also studied at BYU Hawaii. It helps him here to be able to draw on this
experience, to relate an experience that illustrates the church-state separation in the
USA].
How about in our schools?
All schools in Fiji have a religion class. All have some religion backing them. Jaynas
probes: Is there any school that is not supported by public money, other than ones like
ours supported by churches? There is one private school from Australia that does not
have a religious base, but it is the only one.
Elder Kohler adds: Isn’t it interesting how we have changed from emphasizing religion,
religion, religion? Now we find that in the early days America had schools to teach
religion to avoid Satan and now you can’t even talk about or advocate religion in the
public schools?
[I offer the opinion that any schooling will reflect certain values. You always have
values and those become apparent in the educational decisions that you make]. [I have
offered suggestions twice, now, and must now hold my tongue, to keep from overdoing
my comments as an outsider].
Jaynas adds: I think it is a good thing that teachers here have to be temple worthy. That
way we can be sure that we share certain basic values and that we can teach to our
students. That way the students can grow within those values.
He continues: In an earlier age, parents expected the schools to teach certain values.
Irene interjects: Isn’t that the reason for some of the home schools that are now
established? (Jaynas nods in agreement).
Dame schools, where a woman would establish a school in her own home, were often
followed. Also, the apprentice system was practiced. Boys at 7 were sent to work with a
master and to work for five or more years. What about in Fiji? Did we do that?
One student adds:
Do you remember the stories from India, about how they used to do that (assign a young
man as an apprentice to work with a master)? They had a master, and boys would go and
live with the master in order to learn a craft?
Another student adds:
When the missionaries came to offer education in Fiji, many parents refused to send their
children to school (for fear of conversion and wanting their labor on farms). Elder
Kohler notes that the parents did not want to lose the income from children’s labor. “But
after that, they saw the benefits of sending their children to school,” the student
concluded.
And I break my resolution and insert some information once again:
Nick: I have to be careful that I don’t need to say too much, but it is not generally known
that in a lot of Utah history, there were Protestant groups that sent out teachers who
taught the Mormon kids. And the Mormons said, That’s great. We can use all the
schooling we can get.” They lost a few. There were children who converted over [to
Protestant churches], but not very many. And after a while the Protestants decided,
“That’s not a good way to spend our money.” [Laughter from the class]. It’s really
funny. In Utah history, for at least 70 years, there were Protestant schools, to convert the
Mormons back.
Jaynas continues: So you have these groups teaching children. In 1647 the government
in Massachusetts determined that each community would be required to supply its own
school.
He then explains that Negro slaves and American Indians were excluded from schooling,
and girls received only a mediocre education. So we see, he asks, who is moving up? A
class member responds; The rich and the boys. Jaynas agrees.
In the eighteenth century, math, science and modern foreign languages were added. Also
in the 1700’s, Thomas Jefferson wanted to go beyond only white males and the rich.
Benjamin Franklin wanted non-sectarian academies.
Bro. Kohler expands on this: Academies were patterned on Ben Franklin’s original
model. When you needed technical skills in the society, why should you be teaching
Greek and Latin? There were a lot of academies at this time. I don’t know how these
academies were different from other education.
[It is significant that Elder Kohler is willing to admit information that he does not know
or is not sure of. That is valuable modeling for these teachers, who may never have had a
teacher admit not knowing something publicly].
Jaynas continues explaining: Next we have the common school movement. What did
“common school” mean? It was schooling for the common people. Its champion was:
Horace Mann was the father of the public school in 1837. He worked many years to
make free public education a reality. He also worked for the abolition of slavery and
promoting women’s educational and economic rights. So he worked on a lot of issues
[and made progress resolving them] that the US is [currently] enjoying, and we are
influenced by the US, and we have that in our country.
Bro. Kohler: Just to get from educating just the wealthy to educating all people and to
get from the gender situation involved, we’re going to train the girls as well as the boys,
and [take on] the whole slavery issue: those are a lot of issues to be concerned with.
Bro. Kohler: Let me ask another question. Do most schools have a free government
education available for the children? What do you think it is like throughout the world?
Eastmond (again). I’m hearing a lot about universal primary education. It is one of the
things that people are saying is a basic right, you know. I don’t know that it is happening
all countries. The problem is that if you educate the people to the elementary level, you
still be educating them for unemployment. Lots of time, more is needed to get them
going.
Bro. Kohler : But as far as tax supported, I think that America is about the only one to
have a tax supported school system. Because I think that the book points out that a lot of
people thought that that was crazy, you know. And things have changed from a farming
rural society where they could do a property tax and use that to support schools. When
all people live in the big cities, what do you tax? What’s their property, and should that
go for public schools?
Jaynas continues: And I think that that’s probably the reason why we have a church
school here in Fiji, because the government isn’t supporting it, and the Church is trying to
help the members. Would you agree with that? (Bro. Kohler agrees). Would you agree
with that, Karen (a fellow student)? [laughs] That the reason we have Church schools
here is Fiji is that the government isn’t doing much for free education.
For the last two years, the government has been putting some money in, and that is why
the school fees are going down. But here at the high school it is $59.
In the Methodist School, all students have to pay $10 per year ñ but they have to buy
their own texts. But that isn’t much.
[Jaynas jokes then]. And [by coming here] you get more qualified teachers from BYU
Hawaii.
Introduces an issue: In the early days in the US, President Roosevelt said that women
entering teaching were committing “race suicide,” because they would not be staying
home to raise large families.
I bring up another issue: It used to be that education could count on having the brightest
women students, but that condition is not the case, because there are many more options
available for capable women in American society.
Bro. Kohler explains that school teaching was considered a family-friendly occupation
for a woman. Many more occupations have now opened up.
Jaynas tells how having too few men in education would not help young boys become
“real men,” since they would seldom see male role models.
Jaynas then returns to the initial topic, dealing with students without making them fearful.
He contrasts the approach taken today in the government schools with what he sees as the
philosophy of education in the Church schools.
[In the government schools] When the teacher teaches, you don’t speak. I think that there
were a few teachers who would let you speak in class (the young ones). They are more
open to students expressing themselves.
What is the commitment today for Mrs. T’s type of teaching? The author describes the
long-term emotional effect this kind of teaching had on himself: “Whenever I walk into a
classroom, I still feel the old fear.”
How deeply was he affected if, 50 years later, he still feels that fear? Was that emotional
abuse? In our own classes we don’t know how that kid is taking that, if some action hits
an emotional sore point or what emotional impact our class will have on the child.
Jaynas asks: How free are you to teach political items in the school? What do you know
about what your party stands for?
We used to have a current affairs section in our classes. In the book, there is one
paragraph about. I have to go on.
Jaynas asks students to take part in a final exercise for reviewing the philosophies of the
various educational leaders. Based upon the short paragraph given for each, each class
member is asked to represent the viewpoints of two philosophers of education. Each
person has 3 minutes to represent each viewpoint.
His instructions ask each of us to be frank: ìI appreciate your sharing your real feelings.’
We get to take the positions of two philosophers each.
Bro. Kohler takes the part of Comenius and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I take B.F. Skinner
and Sylvia Ashton-Warner, resolving to learn more about the latter. Others take positions
of Jerome Bruner, Paolo Friere, John Dewey, and many others.
Jaynas gives more directions: You begin by stating: ìI am X (person). My contribution
to education was: (and then continue). He gives us about 5 minutes to prepare from the
written information. [Unfortunately, I use the time to type out notes of what has
occurred, so I am not totally prepared when it comes to my turn. I do fairly well on
Skinner, because I know something about him, but am rather sketchy about Sylvia
Ashton-Warner since I know very little].
We go around the table, taking turns, hearing the position of two philosophers of
education by each class member. The presentations are animated but seldom corrected.
It feels like an exercise to get all involved and to get them to declare their own position,
but talking through the mouthpiece of a famous philosopher. Some conclusions emerge:
•I think that we are a lot more influenced more by American education than by Britain.
•How about the teachers from the University of the South Pacific (USP)? How are they
influenced?
•Many Fijians go to Australia and New Zealand. We have the same curriculum in Fiji.
[Here in the CES schools] we are adapting the American approach: the children are to
have an opinion. There is more freedom of speech.
•I have to use examples in economics. It is easier for me to use examples from the U.S. I
pass these along to my students. The students want to learn about the U.S.
•We hope that corporal punishment is not happening in our schools. Boarding schools, I
can say, definitely have corporal punishment.
As a concluding activity, Jaynas tries some brainstorming, writing the results on the
white board.
Let’s be the government officials. What can we do to improve our schools? He then
writes these elements down:
Revise the curriculum. It is now at least 20 years behind the times.
What about the textbooks?
If you want to have our country progress, we have to invest in our children’s education.
My accounting book is from 1991, and it doesn’t talk about flash drives and storing to the
hard drive [i.e. the computer information in our textbooks is outdated].
We need to find another way of evaluating our students’ progress, to get away from the
exams.
The Fijian Teachers Association wants to have a national commission to oversee the
examinations given in schools. As a test constructor, I might want to help my school’s
students pass. So I may bring the answers back to my school. How do we solve the
problem of leaked test questions? Consider having an ìindependent auditorî? Would that
help?
What about ìfree educationî?
What about our own school bus? In the US, the parents work within the rules.
A previous Premier wanted to provide free transportation. Uncle, Uncle can you give me
20 cents to pay for my sister who is sick? Beggars were making 40-50$ per week.
People give them money, and it is easy [to make a living].
Jaynas leaves class members with a challenge: I thank each of us for helping to build a
good educational system. Are we just talkers? Or will we do something real?
The second half of class: Shava’s turn.
Consistent with Bro. Kohler’s approach to involving members of the class as presenters,
he has one other person, a woman, assigned to provide parallel material to the textbook
review presentation. In this case, the parallel study is of American educational
philosopher, John Dewey, and the movement of Progressivism.
She provides a short presentation about John Dewey.
What does democracy mean?
•Democracy has to be born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife, she
says, quoting Dewey.
•Students are more relaxed, compared with the settings I am used to (the Indian school).
ìSchools should focus upon judgment rather than knowledge.’
•Dewey was a founder of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).
•There were many people with negative ideas about him. Now I understand why, Shava
states.
•To what extent were you able to pursue your own interests in your education?
[Considering their own experience in pursuing educational goals, the class members
share their feelings]: I have done something I have loved. But sometimes it works for
people.
•I was never good in math, but I was good in science. I tried to focus more on my good
subjects. What I liked about BYU was that I could channel my interest in biology. With
this philosophy you help students to work up their best performance.
Criticisms of Dewey:
It is interesting that Shava feels an obligation to share negative views about the person
she researched. That sentiment may reflect the variety of viewpoints she encountered
while researching Dewey.
•He was viewed by some as an atheist, though his background is thoroughly Protestant.
His approach favors science, and to some, that position is godless and secular.
•He has been viewed by some as an Un-American force that destroyed the nations’s
schools.
After the initial criticism of progressive education, there was a second wave of criticism
from observers like Hyman Rickover [a former admiral in the US Navy, a well-known
critic of the schools in the 1960’s] and Art Bestor. Elder Kohler explained that
America’s pride was hurt in 1958 when the Soviets launched the first satellite, the
Sputnik, and Congress passed major bills to fund additional programs in the schools. Part
of the criticism turned toward Progressive Education, or at least the version in vogue at
the time. Both lawmakers and regular Americans were frustrated, and they lashed out at
the education championed by John Dewey.
[Once again, as an observer I was drawn in to comment. I have taught a 3 week seminar
for doctoral students, focusing upon the ideas of John Dewey as applied to Instructional
Technology. Dewey is one of my heroes, and I state that to class members. Elder Kohler
encourages me to speak up, noting that ìmaybe we picked the right topic for your visit.î].
Some conclusions:
This class, conducted in this way by Elder Kohler, draws upon the presentation skills of
the members of the class. He explains afterward his view is that these people are all
teachers and that they should be able to give presentations to strengthen the class.
Having students present can provide variety, if the ITEP missionary can monitor quality
and expect effort on the part of the class members. Here are some conclusions I drew:
•The class is engaging. All members of the class respond at different times in the
2 Ω hour period. One involvement exercise is built into Jaynas’ presentation, when each
person gets to stand and represent the viewpoint of two educational philosophers.
Another comes in the brainstorming of ideas and writing them on the board.
•During the presentations, class members ask good questions. They move beyond
the basic information as provided by the textbook, to probe in more depth. The value of
good questions is emphasized by: (1) asking the presenters to provide written questions
on a handout beforehand, and (2) using these questions to form the major portion of the
class test over this material.
•The class is challenging. The interaction we witnessed would be welcome at
either undergraduate or graduate level study at any U.S. university I know about. The
fact that it took me 10 pages of notes to give an account on one-half of the class content
says that considerable complexity was encountered.
•English competency in this group is high. Jaynas clearly had an advanced
vocabulary and was able to use idioms like a native speaker, but the other students in
class seemed to excel in their use of English as well.
• The class applies class principles to the context of Fiji. It helped to have this
question of applicability discussed openly, and then it was clear that both student
presenters, as well as Elder Kohler, made sure that they pulled the discussion back to the
realities of Fiji in the 21st Century.
• It was clear from the level of humor and familiarity of students with each other
and Bro. Kohler that this is not the first time for these class members to interact. The
friendly climate visible in this class requires weeks or months to build. It seemed to be
an engaging and non-threatening environment to an outsider.
• I believe it is fair to say that the class models quite well the principles being
taught. Certainly there was a long list of educational philosophers given, and it would
not be possible for any one person to meet all the conditions of all positions. However, it
seemed that Elder Kohler was quite clear about elements of his own educational
philosophy, and the basic structure of the class does not violate those elements.
Elder Kohler was quite skilled in engaging different people at different times in the class.
I have observed many classes, over the past 20 years of my work as a project evaluator,
but I cannot remember another one where I have been as engaged in the discussion as I
was in this one. My contribution felt welcome, a feeling that is hard to simulate in other
class settings: either the comments from the audience beyond the professor are welcomed
or they are not. Brother Kohler is to be complimented on his ability to help all
participants feel welcome in sharing their views.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Appendix C
Interview with an IWES Scholarship recipient from
Samoa:
Sister Aofia Ah Chee
Laie, Hawaii – 1 May 2006
Interview with Aofia Ah Chee – May 1, 2006
Background
This was an interesting interview to arrange. Sis. Aofia had arrived in Laie prior to our
trip for ITEP. We interviewed her and her friend, Sis. Tuli Tofa, prior to our leaving on
our trip. At that time, the two of them were newly arrived and just getting oriented to life
in Laie. This time, they are much more established and have settled into life here. We
joked about just interviewing one of them, since it could have been more comfortable to
hear from both of them. However, Aofia finally agreed to come by herself. Irene ran the
video camera and I (Nick) typed at the laptop computer. We both asked her questions.
Aofia is from the big island of Samoa, Savai’i. Her mother is a teacher at Viola. Aofia
was teaching at Vaiola as well. [We met her mother while on Savaii, when we were
driving with the Brady’s and stopped to turn the car around at a car repair shop along the
highway, right by her mother’s house. We visited with her mother for 3-5 minutes at that
time]. Aofia began at Vaiola in 2004-05, working in the library. In 2005, she moved to
the classroom, grade 3 of primary (2nd grade in the USA). There she worked with 7-8
year olds. Last year she had 26 students in her class. [The biggest class, the grade 5
students (oldest students) was 36. On the other hand, in the class for year 1 students,
there were 20, reflecting a practice of making the classes smallest to start with, and then
getting progressively larger as the students advance in years]. For Aofia, this assignment
meant lots of teaching about reading.
The Interview
We use both Samoan and English. The majority of our work is in English. If we teach
other subjects (other than Samoan), we use English. We encourage students to speak
English [in formal and informal situations]. We are supposed to be the example when we
use our English in staff meetings and faculty conversations. Around the campus, we all
speak English. If they hear us speaking Samoan, that is a problem. I try to do my best to
speak English when I am at school.
Aofia can read in Samoan. She noted: We have stories on CD’s that the children can
listen to as they read along. There are many other learning items like books that are in
either English or Samoan.
We have a booklet with a CD. We teach them how to remember the phonics [building
decoding skills]. We have new students, and I have to start them with phonics again. We
do grouping, sometimes having them work independently and sometimes with the group.
Some of the students are from overseas, and they hardly speak any Samoan. In many
cases they have lived a good portion of their lives outside of Samoa. One of has a
Samoan mom and an Australian Dad; another has a Fijian mom and Samoan Dad.
[Parents want their children to learn the language and culture of Samoa, and being back
on the island during their growing up years makes this re-accullturation possible.
Sometimes children are sent back to live with their grandparents for that very purpose].
I like to teach English. I learn more from it. Even though I felt tired to go back to the
beginning with the new students, we have a lot of work to do. I always go to the library,
to see English movies. Because we speak English all the time, we can check out books
for them. I can collect the books according to the level of the students: simple book for
the weak ones.
Irene asks: “What are you preparing students for?” Aofia responds: “I’m preparing for
them to get more knowledge of how to speak or read. I want them to go away from me
with something that will help them grow. They can explore the world through English.”
1. What was the set of events that got you into teaching?
I attended the government schools, and I didn’t learn much English. When I went to the
high school in Pesega, I built my English skills. Grade 1 & 2 students in the Church
schools can read better than some students at Grade 6 in the government schools.
I finished high school at Pesega in 1998. Then I went to the University of Samoa, at
Tomatau in Upolu,[this university is on a different island than Savaii, where Aofia was
born and had lived up until that time]. I was there for 3 years. I got a diploma in
education in 2001. Then I went to teach at the government school. Got my teaching
certificate from the government of Samoa. I started working at the Vaiola library [which
serves both primary and secondary students] in 2004, and then 2005 in the classroom,
then here in Hawaii [in 2006]. I will try my best to teach my students well when I return.
I teach them how to use the library, how to read books (Gr. 1-6). In Standard 5 they do
research in the library. I show them videos also. So I can know the difference between
[the learning capacity of students in] the different. The best school in Savaii are the
Church schools.
2. When did you first learn about ITEP?
That was where I got more knowledge, in the ITEP classes. I used to get more teaching
methods from ITEP than from the Samoan Teaching college I had attended. After class I
could go use it [as Irene pointed out, this was a big theme in the first interview with
Aofia, back in early February].
3. Can you describe the selection process that got you into this IWES
scholarship?
I don’t know exactly how it worked. Because I wanted to come to Hawaii before I got
married, I talked to Elder Brady about scholarship opportunities. I don’t know if it was
because I always came to ITEP or what, but they wanted me to come here to improve. I
think I didn’t have enough knowledge about teaching.
Irene asks: Are you planning on taking more classes in Education here? Aofia answers:
Yes.
4. What was your reaction to coming to Hawaii?
Right now I am taking EIL classes. I think that that is the course I can learn the most
about English. I have learned a lot. English grammar, writing, and speaking are all
stressed. I try my best to speak English even with my Samoan friends. I always go to my
teachers and ask them to correct me if I got things wrong. I’ll take more advanced
classes during spring and summer terms.
5. What have been your biggest adjustments?
I was so lonely when I got here. I just stayed in my room.
That’s not going to happen to my new roommate, Sis. Sung from Korea. I took her
around to see the offices on Saturday. She came this morning to the testing center.
When I first got here, my first roommate did not do anything to orient me. I try to do a
good orientation for my new roommate. I wanted to do her a poster with Welcome,
Sung. I hugged and kissed her when I met her. But I was in a rush, to be ready for
spending the evening in Honolulu. “My uncle is coming to get me in 10 minutes,” I said,
“So our first meeting was short.”
That is just me. I wanted to show her how to welcome someone new, even though my
roommate did not do that for me. When I lined up both of our beds next to the window,
she thought what I had thought when my roommate did the same thing. I don’t want to
have the feeling that I’m too distant. I wanted her to have the same fresh air as I did.
She is getting more comfortable now. I love her and have taken her to visit the temple.
I am happy because I have somebody to share with. It was so lonely before, because my
roommate was often visiting other friends. She was kind of shy with me. (She is from
Washington State in the USA). I asked her questions, lots of them, working to get her to
talk to me. During April she left to go back to the Mainland. I thanked her for
everything she had done. She left me a note, and I gave her some money for laundry.
She did not have IWES. At Walmart, I gave her $20 to buy whatever she wanted. When
I get back, I’ll give it back. And I said, “No, it’s for you. “
Then she came to me when she was in need [of money] for laundry. My library card was
worth just $3, but I gave it to her. Those friends used the full card, and then she was
getting ready to leave.
But then I gave her $20 as she was leaving. I gave her a Samoan lava-lava and a t-shirt.
She changed [into those clothes] immediately. When she left, she told me: “Thank you
for everything you do for me. I know that you love me.”
Her roommate had had done one year’s work before she returned to the Mainland.
[Note: A detail about Aofia’s roommate that did not come out in the first interview, but
was mentioned in a follow-up one 5/24/06, was that this roommate had a Samoan father
and an American (Palange or white) mother. The parents had eventually divorced, and
when the roommate returned to the Mainland, she would stay with her mother and
stepfather. Thus, for Aofia, there was an expectation that the roommate would want to
learn about Samoan culture and would want to learn the Samoan language, but the young
woman apparently did not show any such interest. Knowing that detail put a different
light on Aofia’s actions toward this roommate].
I’m thinking of [what it is like] coming to school, and it is so hard. I want to do things I
would want others to do to me.
Right now, I don’t want to move.
She says that she is not lonely.
6. What have been the biggest surprises?
It’s good to have a new roommate. It is like getting a new companion [on a mission].
Because she is a returned missionary, we always want to go to the temple each week. We
set a time to go to the temple together.
I never served a mission, but I often did things with the sister missionaries back in
Samoa.
I’ve learned some Korean, and she has asked me to teach some Samoan. I met a lot of
Koreans on Sunday. She did not want to go to her friends. [This seemed like a good sign
to Aofia, since her own reaction upon arriving in Hawaii had been just the opposite: she
wanted to spend all the time she could with her Samoan friends, particularly Tuli Tofa).
7. Do you find American culture different from the Samoan one, and in what
ways?
The difference: Samoan is different. On my first night I saw people (especially the guys)
coming over to our hale [living area like a dormitory]. And most of the girls are hanging
around with the guys [until fairly late at night].
I talked with Elder Monson. “What time are we supposed to go to bed?” I asked. He told
me that the people in the dorm are supposed to go to bed before midnight. We hardly see
Samoans holding hands. It is a different culture here [where couples often hold hands]. I
understand.
I don’t date. The Asians in our EIL classes are the people we meet most, but that is just
during class. The Samoans have the club. We went as a group to Honolulu. We usually
sit together in the “Caf.” [The campus Cafeteria]. We have fun with them [our Samoan
friends, men and women students]. They went last Friday to the movie, but we did not
go. (They went to Walmart, but we didn’t go).
The reason is that they had final exams. They [the exams] were so hard!
8. Any other reactions?
I always thank Heavenly Father to let me come. That was always one of my goals. I’m
telling him I will do my best. There are lots of ways to get English from native speakers,
but this is a great way to come here.
We speak Samoan all the time at home (in Savaii). [Here at BYUH] I say to my
roommate “Try to speak English to me, and we’ll get to practice.”
Her roommate from Korea says that her own English is so poor compared to many others
are able to produce. I tell her, “There is no comparing to me, but if the teachers hear me.
I’m here to learn.
My old roommate never spoke Samoan. She would hardly speak to me. I sometimes
went to her and asked, “What’s this [in] translation?” But she never did the same with
my Samoan. She showed no interest in learning Samoan, and she did not want to get
involved in my learning of English. [Aofia expressed some surprise at the roommate’s
lack of interest in learning about the Samoan part of her cultural heritage, but that was
what she had experienced. In the follow-up interview, I shared information about the
similarity of this roommate to our adopted Korean daughter, who, from teenage years
onward, had shown no interest in learning about Korea, much to our surprise. It may
have something to do with establishing identity and feeling secure about ones origins, I
explained].
Irene’ s comment: Back in the Islands, the English of the BYUH grads is good,
because they have had the immersion experience.
Aofia responds: I’ll be here for 2 ½ or 3 years, since they will count the courses taken
beforehand. They considered the ITEP courses we’d had in Samoa. My major will be
Elementary Education.
Afterward, as we were walking outside the office, Aofia told me of a problem she had
encountered with registration. She went in to register, and they informed her and Tuli
that: “You have $380 in school fees to pay before you can take classes next semester.”
They were shocked. They responded, “But I thought that we had a scholarship.” And
then the person at the registrar’s office explained to them that the IWES scholarship
provides them with funding to get to Hawaii and to get started working, but that the
earnings from their work pays for their school fees. They asked if they could have an
additional week to pull the money together, and the person said yes. (I am aware that
there are mechanisms where students can receive funds ahead, before starting the next
term, if they will pay it back). But apparently they did not understand how they needed
to be saving money during the current term.
[I wondered if her generosity with her roommate had pushed her (Aofia) unknowingly
into debt. Possibly giving the money to the roommate, and other similar actions, had left
her without the savings to pay back the registration money].
I asked Aofia how helpful it was to have had another Samoan student here at the same
time. [Her name is Tuli Tofa, and she is also studying under an IWES scholarship].
Aofia said that it was very helpful, and that this was the person she had been visiting
when she first got to BYUH, when she would leave her room to go visit her friend. She
explained to me that they are both located in the same “Hale” (Hawaiian for House), one
on one side of the hall of rooms and the other on the opposite side. Having another
Samoan on hand has been a great help to her, she said.
(Irene thinking back about the interview) To me, an important point was that she thought
that English was an important skill if you plan to work in the broader world. Aofia’s
assertive style in learning English and becoming more fluent in it daily is commendable,
as she encourages her friends and roommates to stay in English in their conversations.
To me (Nick), I was impressed with the generosity that Aofia showed toward her
previous roommate, an American from the Mainland [that we learned had Samoan
father], and how hard Aofia was working to make things work out right for her new
Korean roommate. But related to that, I was concerned that the debt for last term’s
school fees might cause some difficulty in both Aofia and Tuli’s lives next term. It is
difficult to know how much they were told and how much of that message was
understood when they first arrived and started receiving a paycheck from the Polynesian
Cultural Center. It struck me that this kind of misunderstanding, part cultural and part
linguistic, could bring about some difficult situations for these students, especially as they
are getting started in the new land. I am sure that BYU Hawaii has some way of
advancing money, or in withholding money, and apparently these kinds of mechanisms
will be needed in their case. We will see how it all works out.
Afterward
I shared the write-up of our interview with Aofia by e-mail, and when I saw her between
classes at school a few days later, she mentioned that there were some things that needed
to be corrected. But it seemed that getting together to do that was difficult. One day she
stopped in, but I was leaving just then to meet an appointment, so we had to delay it.
And then more time elapsed. But finally, after Irene had seen Aofia on campus and
urging her to stop by, we encountered her after a university devotional [assembly], and
made an appointment. We were wondering if she would come, but at the appointed time,
she came in.
One of her reactions to the report was surprise, that there had been enough material in our
conversation to make up 6 single-spaced pages of write-up.
Another point of conversation was to clarify the background of her roommate, in a way
that made sense of the questioning for cultural information. It suddenly made more sense
that Aofia would expect the roommate to ask her questions about the language and
culture of Samoa.
I asked Aofia how she had been able to cover the shortfall of funds. She said that she had
simply asked her uncle, who lives in Laie, to help her. He had given her $300 out of
pocket, not as a loan, but as a gift to help her. “He wanted to pay for the full $380, but
his Mother was visiting and he had those costs to cover.” Aofia paid the remaining $80
with funds that she had, and the problem with the registration block was solved. [I did
not ask her how Tuli, the other Samoan under this scholarship, had handled her debt]. It
is significant that she was able to tap into family resources to solve this problem.
[As we were concluding our discussion about finances, a female student worker in the
CITO office from Mongolia, Togi, spoke up with some clarification about the money
problems. According to her account, the university payroll office had taken out double
deductions for housing expenses during the summer semester, just because most of the
students had increased their hours worked from 19 to 40 per week. When students went
in and complained, the correction was made, but not before a couple of weeks had
passed, and some students had gone without food, having no money to spend. From the
emotion in her voice, it was clear that this issue had been a bone of contention between
the students and the finance office. Apparently, this problem had only happened to the
residents of certain residence halls, or at least the policy change of paying the money to
the student was only in effect for certain hales. Of course, there would be another side to
this story, as there always is with such events, but it helped me understand why this
change of policy might have occurred, at the students’ instigation, and how a newcomer
might not have been informed of the change.] The fact that another student overheard
our conversation says something about the place we did the interviewing. For the first
interview, we were in a private office (Anne Mendenhall’s), but on the follow-up, we
were sitting in the general office area of CITO. Obviously, conversations are overheard
in the larger area and certainly less private.
Appendix D
Interview with an ILDS Scholarship recipient from
Samoa:
Bro. Tuasivi Elisara
Laie, Hawaii – 10 May 2006
Interview with Tuasivi Elisara – 10 May 10, 2006
When I mentioned to Elder Monson that I felt I needed to interview one recipient of the
ILDS scholarship, he immediately mentioned Bro. Tuasivi Elisara. Tuasivi came to BYU
Hawaii to complete his undergraduate degree. Tall and striking in appearance, gives an
immediate first impression of having leadership potential. Both he and his wife had
participated in our focus group in early February. He met me at my workplace, and we
conducted the interview in Elder Merrill’s office, as Elder Merrill was home recovering
from stomach flu.
Tuasivi asked me if I had visited Vaiola during the visits we made in February and
March; I responded that Vaiola was the first place that we visited on our trip, the Apia
area still remaining flooded at the time. He smiled and proceeded to tell me about his
background.
Background
His parents were London Missionary Society (LMS) ministers. Both have now passed
away. He continued:
I was born on Savai’I (the Big Island of Samoa). My parents lived in the village where
they were selected (by the villagers) to serve. I’m the youngest of the family of 11
children. Most of my life was in Apia. After college level, I went to the Secondary
Teachers College, and then taught in the government school, teaching geography and
social science for 10 years (Apia for 3 years, then Savai’I until 2002).
I met my wife in 1993, and we got married in the LMS church. (He was age 26 at the
time). In 1994 I was baptized into the Church. She was the one who converted all the
ones in her family before. [I commented that she must be pretty persuasive. He smiled
in agreement]. She is also a teacher, year 13 and year 12. (They had worked together as
colleagues at the same school). In 2002, we both went as teachers to Vaiola. He taught
geography there, for older students (yrs 12 & 13, Form 5&6) and social studies for year 9
& 10 (Forms 3&4) plus year 11 (Form 5).
1. What was the set of events that got you into teaching?
It was my goal, to go into teaching. I wanted to learn more, and being a teacher allowed
that. As I was teaching, I intended to take some courses and learn more. I took some
courses in the University of the South Pacific (USP) in Apia.
2. When did you first learn about ITEP?
When I was in Vaiola for the first time, I learned about the classes. I met Elder and Sister
Custer, who were ITEP missionaries then. [He mentioned that they had had to leave
early from their mission due to a lapse in his health]. We attended their classes in the
morning before school (7-8) every day of the school term. I learned a lot from the ITEP
courses.
The government school had us doing Teaching Methods, and it was mainly theory. But
the ITEP courses were both theory and practice. My wife and I were glad to learn the
new material. We had a lot to learn from them.
The missionary couples gave us a binder with “100 and more methods of teaching.” And
the advantage of the ITEP courses was that I could get the feedback from the missionary
couple straight away. That was from the Bradys [the ITEP couple there currently], and
the feedback helped me to improve what I was doing.
[I asked him if he would want to stay on at the school because, even though it is
beautiful, it is also somewhat isolated. He responded:] I like Vaiola, for its safety and
peace.
Another advantage of ITEP courses is the unity. We had classes in the morning, say
working in groups, and then we could implement those in the teaching of that day.
3. Can you describe the selection process that got you into this ILDS
scholarship?
When we arrived at Vaiola, I talked to the Dotsons (the next couple) about coming to
BYU Hawaii. We had a lot of credits – from the Secondary Teachers College (99
credits) and more than 10 from the ITEP courses we had taken since our arrival. Because
I had more than 100 courses, I could apply. But [having applied and with the prospect of
coming to BYUH] that did not stop us from taking the ITEP courses. By then the
Bradys had come, and we still attended the classes.
There are at least two couples that came before them to BYU Hawaii (Bro. Lamosteli and
current principal).
When we first came to Vaoila, there was not much interest among the teachers in
attending ITEP courses. But when they saw that we attended and that it led to our taking
the scholarship, the interest went up.
We had set a goal to attend university at BYUH when we first went to Vaoila.
Only Tuasivi applied for the ILDS scholarship, but after he got it, they said that we would
have to pay for her tuition. (His tuition is covered, but hers is not). We both work and
save that money for her tuition. We paid more than $2,000 for her tuition for the winter,
and $600 or more for her during the spring.
Sometimes we feel very tired, but we do it. Sometimes we just have to get up and go to
school and to work, because we really wanted to have this opportunity. We are so
blessed to be able to come here.
4. What was your reaction to coming to Hawaii?
We arrived the last week of December of last year. We stayed at my brother’s place at
town [in Honolulu] for a week, before we moved in here in Laie. We live in TVA. We
have 4 kids (girl 11, boy 9, boy 4 in June, and baby, a little girl, who is 2). Two older
kids were attending Laie Elementary School, and the two young ones were staying home.
My sister in law is also here. She comes and looks after the kids when we go to class,
and then we return and she can go to classes as well. She lives in the Hale (single student
dorm). [This person has got to be either Aofia or Tuli, because we have seen them
tending these kids from time to time].
It was a little difficult in the beginning: going to class, getting back to stay with the kids
and so on. But now we’ve adjusted, and it feels better.
We had 4 classes each in the winter. His GPA was 3.0 and hers was 2.9. [I note that that
is a good start for them both].
Some of the differences: It was difficult because of the food, the language, and because
the interaction with people (very few people that we are familiar with). When we needed
help, the possibilities were small in getting it.
People here are friendly. It’s because of the principles of the Church. They keep the
Honor Code. For us there was not a problem. I feel the need to dress formally [with long
pants, which he was wearing at the interview] while here at school, but not all feel that
compelled to do it.
The Monsons are good people, and the other missionary couples are good as well.
5. What have been your biggest adjustments?
My kids are really happy to live here. We like it here. The weather is much the same as
in Samoa, but a bit cooler. Because of the Internet (for office contact) and telephone (to
talk with our family), we stay in contact with our family.
6. What have been the biggest surprises?
The teachers [here at BYU Hawaii] are really good teachers. They way they teach [is
impressive], their grading is fair, and the amount of work they give us is about right.
[This past term he has taken some general education courses – like math, biology – and
some education courses].
We are here for only one year. We have a plan to graduate in December and then to go
back to Samoa to help our people.
7. Do you find American culture different from the Samoan one, and in what
ways?
[There is a lot in common inside the Church culture]. We were celebrating our baby’s 2nd
birthday. Lots of people from Samoa, living here, brought her presents. In Samoa, they
didn’t do that; only the family would celebrate that.
When I meet with other people, they are constantly saying “How are you doing?” They
engage in small talk: Where are you from? How long have you been here? What classes
are you taking? In Samoa, when you meet people, they might just wave their hand
(demonstrates waving above head), and that means that they are OK.
At school, where my kids attend, my kids were awarded with “Super Citizens”, or student
of the months. (Both were recognized this way last month). In Samoa, they would do it
once each year, where here it is given once per month. Parents were informed when it
was announced, and we were invited to attend. But we were not able to go, due to our
schedules. But afterward I went to talk to the teacher, and we had a good student sharing
session.
The award involves calling out the names of the kids, and parents going up and putting
on lais and hugging their kids. That is different than would be done in Samoa, at the end
of the year. Parents can go and see that meeting. Some parents might hug their children.
If they are happy with the outcome for their kids that year, they might hug them; if not,
they may not.
8. Any other reactions? Final comments. Tuasivi
His kids are enjoying being here. They like the school, because they have morning tea
[break] and then something for lunch. In Samoa, sometimes the parents give them
enough money [to buy food], but sometimes they don’t.
His wife likes the schools and the environment. But she dislikes the food. She hates
eating just rice and meat. She really likes taro, but it is very expensive here. She likes
the staple foods from Samoa (taro and taro leaves, bananas). We enjoy getting the fruits
and vegetables locally. We only eat fruits when we have money. We only eat fruits on
payday and during that week. Fish is expensive here. We drink milk. There is a
program for children called WIC [the U.S. federal government program: Women, Infants,
and Children that subsidizes basic nutritional foods], that my wife and children qualify
for, and there is no problem with milk and cereals and juice for the kids.
Sometimes there is free food here at the school (some companies come and offer it – like
powdered mashed potatoes, etc.) My wife likes cooking, and she always bakes things for
us, but that all depends upon money (and getting a cake mix at the store).
We haven’t been to the beach since we’ve been here. Or even the PCC, we’ve not been
there. We have been too busy with school assignments – studying for the quizzes and the
exams – to be able to go. Even on Saturday, we have a lot of work to do for classes.
Maybe at the end, we’ll go to the PCC and the beach. We have to prioritize our
education. We’ll do those things during the summer.
The Monsons say that we are first couples to come here under the ILDS scholarship.
(There are also two Tongans and a Fijian guy. There is another lady from Samoa, from
Pesega, Sis. Lesa. All are funded under this ILDS program, and that scholarship is
funded by a private donor).
The job that Tuasivi does is as a general repairperson for the TVA [the Temple View
Apartments, where married students and their families live]: We are [frequently] fixing
leaking pipes, burned out light bulbs, replacing broken windows and doors. Sometimes
we do painting. It is very interesting. I like the job. I learn a lot about how to repair
things here, so that when I get back in Samoa, I can fix things: burned out bulbs, broken
pipes, and all. My supervisor is from Samoa and he is a good guy. He always reminds us
of our safety. If you came in slippers (sandals), he would remind you, and he always
notices things like whether you are wearing safety glasses or not. It has been my first
time to learn to fix plugs. I wanted to be an electrician, but my boss told me: “It can be
very dangerous.” But it’s not [dangerous] if you wear the safety equipment, like the
goggles.
My wife’s job: She is a custodian, vacuuming the rooms and taking out trash, cleaning
the windows of the McKay Building, to include the entry room and all the classrooms on
this side. She likes her job. She really likes her boss, too. He’s a Samoan.
Financially: For now we have our long-term plan for our kids. We’ve asked our kids if
they want to come back to BYU Hawaii [for university studies], and they say yes. When
we return to Samoa, I am planning to move to Apia for their education. There are no
tertiary schools in Savai’i. So we are looking for land and a house. We will be saving
for the future of our kids. We can save money while we are here. [I joke: You can eat
fruit when you are back in Samoa, and he agrees]. We need to save money for my wife’s
school and to take some money to Samoa.
We have a plan to get more education. [Our plan includes] going beyond where we are
now, looking for higher qualification. [We talk about graduate programs, Utah State
University – where I work -- included, for masters degree work].
Afterward:
I am impressed with the ambition of this couple, how they have definite goals in mind,
and how they work to reach those goals. Being in Hawaii gives them the opportunity to
obtain education (both of them), but it also allows them to save money. I would not have
thought of the WIC program as a possibility for their family, but from some earlier work
I remember that the WIC is very inclusive and they would surely qualify. The idea of
their family sacrificing eating fruit during their stay on this tropical island is ironic, but it
is part of the package of the high prices in Hawaii. With the parents’ strong motivation to
move ahead educationally and financially, this element of diet is one of the ways to
sacrifice.
It seemed to me that Tuasivi’s English was more fluent in this interview than I remember
from our first meeting in February. His growing English proficiency is a good sign, since
that will be the language of instruction back at the Church schools in Samoa.
There were many more questions that I could have asked him: How did your family feel
when you joined our Church? What kinds of persecution have you faced since then?
How do you relate to the Samoan student association? [We had visited a fireside by Bro.
Carl Harris, a former mission president there, and we saw first hand that this association
is one of the most active and involved on campus]. I could see that there could be a
potential conflict between further education and returning to work in Samoa, and it might
have been useful to explore that notion further.
I think that the childcare arrangement involving the single Samoans [I did not know that
were related] is rather ingenious. Often with couples coming to study at U.S. institutions,
the childcare arrangement is the limiting factor for a wife’s education. They have
apparently solved that problem, and she is taking classes and learning.
And as I have heard from my other interviews, Tuasivi and his family feel blessed to be
doing what they are.
Appendix E
Teacher Observation of a Form 2 Class
Sister Mary Lal in Fiji
Suva, Fiji – 14 March 2006
Appendix F
Data Collection Instruments
Name: _____________________________
Date: ___________ Place: _____________
Interview schedule for ITEP administrators:
Introduction: This interview is part of a 5-month evaluation effort of ITEP (the
International Teacher Education Program). We (Nick & Irene Eastmond) are
interviewing people and holding focus groups on the islands where ITEP operates. This
interview will be written up as notes, and will likely include some quotations of what you
say. Because the number of ITEP administrators on this island is small, and because we
want to be able to report findings about each particular island group, it will not be
feasible for this interview to be kept totally confidential, in a way that your responses
could not be identified. However, we will work to report our findings in a way that is fair
to you and to the program. You should know that you may withdraw from the study as
we go along, or withdraw your information later should you choose to do so, by notifying
us orally and in writing of that decision, up until the time of our publishing our report.
We will maintain keep the records safe and accurate, maintaining paper copies of data in
locked file cabinets and electronic copies in our possession. We appreciate your
participation in this project. We expect that the interview will take about 15 minutes.
1. Could you describe the steps in your coming to this administrative position?
Probes:
a. How long have you worked at this school?
b. How long have you worked in your present position?
c. What changes have you seen in the school since your arrival?
2. How did you first become involved with ITEP?
a. Have you ever attended ITEP classes?
b. How many of your teachers are involved?
3. Could you describe how ITEP works here?
a. How dependent is the program on the personalities of the ITEP couple?
b. Have you seen changes in the program since it began?
4. From your vantage points, which parts of the program work well and which do
not?
a. How well attended are the classes?
b. How often do you see ITEP people observing classes? Does this
involvement make any difference?
c. Do you think that the ITEP people practice what they preach?
5. Some faculty members probably do not take part in ITEP.
a. What are their reasons for not taking part?
b. How are they affected personally?
c. How is the school climate affected by nonparticipation?
6. What steps could be taken to make ITEP more effective?
(Base probes on ideas expressed beforehand)
7. Do you have other concerns that you want to express at this time?
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Before leaving the island, I will
attempt to provide you with a short exit debriefing of general impressions. It probably
will not last more than 10 minutes.
Name: _____________________________
Date: ___________ Place: _____________
Interview schedule for ITEP couples:
Introduction: This interview is part of a 5-month evaluation effort of ITEP ( the
International Teacher Education Program). We (Nick & Irene Eastmond) are
interviewing people and holding focus groups on the islands where ITEP has a presence.
This interview will be written up as field notes, and will likely include some quotations of
what you say. Because there is only one ITEP couple on this island and because we want
to be able to report findings about each particular island group, it will not be feasible for
this interview to be kept confidential. However, we will work to report our findings in a
way that is fair to you and to the program. You should know that you may withdraw
from the study as we go along, or withdraw your data should you choose to do so, by
notifying us orally and in writing of that decision, up until the time of our publishing our
report. We will maintain data control in keeping the records safe and accurate,
maintaining paper copies of data in locked file cabinets. We appreciate your participation
in this project. We expect that the interview will take about 30 minutes for each of you
and will be conducted separately.
1. How did you hear about ITEP and get involved?
Probes:
a. How long have you been involved?
b. What attracted you to volunteer?
c. What were you giving up to participate?
2. How did you feel about your orientation? Did it prepare you for this way of life?
a. Prior experience – compare with vita information
b. Orientation in the USA, Missionary Training Center, etc.
c. Orientation on Hawaii
d. How does it connect with what you do now?
3. Could you describe one of your classes for ITEP teachers?
a. When do you hold it?
b. How do you obtain the material you will be teaching?
c. How is the session conducted (how long, how much activity)?
d. How do you deal with questions?
4. How do you get the teachers involved?
a. How do you find the teachers?
b. What is their motivation to be there?
c. How does CES reward those who attend
5. How do you follow up on the lessons?
a. How frequently do you visit classes of teachers?
b. Do teachers know that you are coming, and if so, how?
c. What kinds of applications do you observe of the lessons taught?
6. What do you see as the major strengths of ITEP?
(Probe areas discussed previously)
7
What do you see as its main weaknesses or challenges to overcome?
(Probe areas discussed previously)
8. What recommendations for improvement to ITEP would you suggest?
(Use the responses above to 6 & 7 above)
Group: _____________________________
Date: ___________ Place: _____________
Procedures for conducting focus groups:
Introduction: (Spoken orally) Welcome. This focus group is part of a 5-month
evaluation effort of ITEP (the International Teacher Education Program). We (Nick &
Irene Eastmond) are interviewing people and holding focus groups on the islands where
ITEP has a presence. This focus group will be written up as field notes, and will likely
include some quotations of what you say. As much is possible, your contribution to the
focus group will be kept anonymous, in that you will not be quoted directly. However,
this is a small island community, and complete anonymity would probably be impossible.
You should know that you may withdraw from the study as we go along, or withdraw
your data should you choose to do so, by notifying us orally and in writing of that
decision, up until the time of our publishing our report. We will maintain data control in
keeping the records safe and accurate, maintaining paper copies of data in our personal
control or in locked file cabinets and electronic copies within the laptop computer and
thumb drives that we keep under personal control. We will audiorecord the session, with
the purpose of getting an accurate record. When the focus group summary has been
typed up and verified by listening to the tape, the audiotape copy will be erased.
We have a short questionnaire for you to respond to. Please answer as candidly and
carefully as possible. This should take no more than 10 minutes. (Distribute
questionnaires and collect them after they are filled out).
We appreciate your participation in this project. We expect that the focus group will take
about 45 minutes.
1. The intention of this focus group is to provide us with feedback on the workings
of the ITEP program. Could we go around the circle and hear how each of you
became involved with ITEP? We would appreciate knowing where you are now,
in terms of ITEP certification and involvement.
2. Now that we have heard from all of you, I would like to begin a discussion about
ITEP, its impact in your life and what recommendations you have for improving
it. We will discuss this topic until about _______, when I will draw the meeting
to a close, giving you one final time to provide input.
3. Let me summarize what I have heard. Based upon what you said, I would say that
the important themes were: (list 2-3 most important themes that have emerged).
4. Now, having given a summary, I would like to go around the circle one more time
to ask you if there is any item that you would want to comment on that you were
not able to up until now.
Thank you for your participation and for the important ideas expressed. The results of
our study should be available by early June of this year and will be distributed through
the ITEP couples. We hope that this reporting will include both a written and a video
portion.
Date: ___________ Place: _____________
Control Number: __________________
ITEP Participant Questionnaire:
Please give us some basic information about yourself.
Gender:
____Male
____Female
Total years of Teaching: _____ 0-1 years
CES teaching: _____ 0-1 years
_____ 2-4 years
_____ 2-4 years
_____ 5-19 years
_____ 5-19 years
_____ 20 or more
_____ 20 or more
Qualification when hired:
(mark as many as apply)
_____ I had CES certification (ITEP)
_____ I had a 1-year diploma
_____ I had a 2-year diploma
_____ I had something else (specify) ______________
_____ I did not have certification
Qualification I have now:
_____I have CES certification (ITEP)
_____I have a 1-year diploma
_____I have a 2-year diploma
_____I have something else (specify) ______________
_____I do not have certification
How many credits have you completed from someplace other than ITEP since you
began teaching? (put a number)
_____ Credits
ITEP credits completed:
_____ 20+
_____ 10-19
_____ 1-9
_____ None (yet)
Please write some things about ITEP that you believe are working well.
Please write some things about ITEP that you believe are not working so well.
Please turn over the page.
Do you have any suggestions about how to make ITEP better?
Please choose one blank below that describes how you feel about ITEP.
ITEP is:
________
Extremely
Effective
________
Basically
Effective
________
Moderately
Effective
________
Basically
Ineffective
________
Extremely
Ineffective
Thank you for your responses. Now, be prepared to discuss your ideas.
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY – HAWAII
Model Release
(Please Print)
I__________________________, give permission to BYU Hawaii School of Education
to videotape my image. I understand that any and all video and audio footage taken
become the property of BYU Hawaii School of Education, and I agree that the footage
may be published in evaluation reports, educational text books, supplemental products
including Internet Websites, CD-ROMs and other electronic materials, and related
informational materials. I understand there will be no compensation.
________________________________________________
Signature of model
________________________________________________
Street Address
________________________________________________
City
State
Country
Postal Code
________________________________________________
Phone Number (if available)
Date
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY – HAWAII
Model Release
(Please Print)
I__________________________, give permission to BYU Hawaii School of Education
to
(parent/guardian)
videotape and/or audiotape________________________________.
(Child/Minor)
I understand that any and all video and audio footage taken become the property of BYU
Hawaii School of Education, and I agree that the footage may be published in evaluation
reports, educational text books, supplemental products including Internet Websites, CDROMs and other electronic materials, and related informational materials. I understand
there will be no compensation.
________________________________________________
Child/Minor’s Name (individual being videotaped)
________________________________________________
Child/Minor’s Signature
________________________________________________
Signature of parent/legal guardian
________________________________________________
Street Address
________________________________________________
City
State
Country
Postal Code
________________________________________________
Phone Number (if available)
Date
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY – HAWAII
Model Release
(Please Print)
I__________________________, give permission to BYU Hawaii
School of Education to videotape ____________________________________.
(Child/Minor)
I understand that any and all footage taken become the property of BYU Hawaii School
of Education, and I agree that the footage may be published in evaluation reports,
educational text books, supplemental products including Internet Websites, CD-ROMs
and other electronic materials, and related advertising materials. I understand there will
be no compensation.
________________________________________________
Model Name (individual being videotaped)
________________________________________________
Signature
________________________________________________
Signature of parent/legal guardian (if minor)
________________________________________________
Street Address
________________________________________________
City
Country
Postal Code
________________________________________________
Phone Number (if available)
Date
Appendix G:
Participant Comments from Focus Group
Initial Questionnaire
(Note: These comments were typed so as to retain the
spelling and grammar of the original responses)
Appendix H
Biographical Interview of
Nick & Irene Eastmond
May 24, 2006
Biographical Interview: Nick & Irene Eastmond
The background of the evaluation couple, Nick and Irene Eastmond, may not be
apparent without some kind of explanation. It parallels the “bracketing interview”
sometimes conducted in phenomenology, although these responses were written at the
end of the research process, rather than at the beginning, as a bracketing interview would
normally prescribe. It is done in question and answer format to keep the answers direct.
1. What is your current situation that allowed you to conduct this evaluation?
We are currently on sabbatical leave from Utah State University. We spent 1 month
visiting universities in Europe and attending a conference in South Africa, then 3 months
in Mauritius in the Indian Ocean, prior to coming to Hawaii. We have been in Hawaii
since the Jubilee Celebration in October 2006. The evaluation of ITEP has emerged as
our major project during our 8-month stay at BYU Hawaii. There have been other
projects going on as well: with the help of two capable teaching assistants, Nick taught an
online class for USU, Introduction to Research for the Classroom Teacher, to 60 distance
education students in Utah. He is also working to complete a short book with Dr. Jim
Altschuld at Ohio State University on First Steps for Conducting a Needs Assessment,
one six volumes of a Needs Assessment Handbook to be issued by Sage publications by
the end of 2006. Irene has worked in three areas since coming to BYU Hawaii, two as a
volunteer and one as paid employment: (1) as a volunteer tutor in the Reading Writing
Center, (2) as an English language tutor in the Language Lab; and (3) as an observer of
student teachers for the School of Education.
2. How is your situation as a couple similar to the ITEP couples you studied
and how is it different?
We are near the end of Nick’s career at Utah State University, and, while not retired, in
the age range of the ITEP missionaries we studied (Nick, age 60, and Irene, age 61). We
have raised a family of 5 children, the youngest being 20 years old now and the eldest 33.
We feel blessed with good heath, a prime requirement for ITEP couples. We are both
life-long, committed members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have
served in a variety of Church positions, and will likely serve as couple missionaries at
some time in the future. The ITEP couples are mainly financed from two sources: their
own retirement savings for the major part and the Church Missionary Department for
their travel funds, to and from the islands. Our financing has been from two sources:
sabbatical pay from USU and housing and travel subsidy from BYU Hawaii to make the
visit to ITEP sites.
3. What are career highlights for Nick that might relate to this study?
The main elements in Nick’s career that relate to this study are:
• Completing a BA degree in Economics from the University of Utah in 1967.
• Training in the Teachers Corps in West Virginia and a Masters in Elementary
Education from Ohio University in 1969.
• Obtaining a doctorate in Educational Psychology from the University of Utah in
1976.
• Working as a project evaluator on numerous studies (at least 40), from 1971 to
the present.
• Teaching 4 different graduate courses on research, mainly qualitative, over
three decades.
• Working as Project Ethnographer for the Community-Family Partnership for 6
years (1/3 time) until 1995. Then more recently serving as the qualitative researcher for
the NSF-funded ADVANCE Grant at USU to 2005.
• Studying French extensively and teaching in French during a sabbatical year in
Paris, France and Quebec City, Canada in 1983-84. Teaching an undergraduate class in
French at USU for a decade on Information Technology in the French-Speaking World
and working as a Visiting Professor at the Department of Foreign Languages at the US
Air Force Academy in 1989.
• Completing a one-year sabbatical in the Republic of South Africa in 1996 and
then teaching an Honors course about it for 4 years, entitled “Race and Communication
in the U.S. and the New South Africa.”
4. What are career highlights for Irene that relate?
This is a summary of the major elements in Irene’s career that relate to this project:
• Completing undergraduate education in Speech Communication, with an emphasis
in English.
• Completing a Masters in Education degree in Elementary Education from Ohio
University in the Teacher Corps (same program as Nick) in 1969.
• Teaching one year, while Nick did active military duty, in California and Georgia.
• Working as a teacher of vocal music, receiving training in vocal pedagogy at USU.
• Working as a consultant in Educational Kinesthetics, developing her own system,
“Movement Education,” which she used for assisting clients in the USA and South
Africa.
• Studying French over a period of 20+ years, living in France, Quebec and Mauritius,
where French is spoken
• Raising a family of 5 children, and supporting Nick’s career.
• Developing an interest in digital photography that has been recently extended to the
shooting and editing of video.
5. What joint ventures in education and research have you completed together?
This is an interesting question and a good one to end on. We both completed the two
years of internship in the Teacher Corps, teaching in separate schools but learning from
the experiences of each other in the early days of our marriage. Also, in 1971, we
worked together as consultants for Worldwide Education and Research Institute to
conduct a month-long needs assessment study on the island of Guam, which was then a
U.S. territory. This study of ITEP is our first venture in research together since then,
nearly 30 years ago. We enjoy working together (and mostly get along). In this study,
Nick has been the evaluation specialist and Irene the video ethnographer.