Contents

Teaching at the Mekong Institute: applying the AIM approach

Introduction

The Mekong Institute is a New Zealand-Thai aid project that trains senior and middle-level officials from countries in the Greater Mekong Subregion in managing their economic reforms. Teaching at the Mekong Institute (MI) is a challenging experience. The course participants come from diverse backgrounds, many having little previous exposure to formal economics training. Some participants are highly motivated to study economics, while others seem keener on improving their English, the medium of instruction in the training courses. Almost all the participants are intelligent and thoughtful. But as economics presenters, we consider ourselves lucky if a participant has a strong English language background. For some, English might be their fourth or fifth language, or their English training might have been limited. Motivating the participants, accommodating their diverse occupational and linguistic backgrounds, and training them to contribute to their country’s economic reforms require us to think carefully about our approach to teaching.

From the outset of the project, course presenters were advised to make the teaching as interactive as possible. Indeed members of the class are referred to as participants, rather than as students. It soon became apparent, however, that this would only be the first of several modifications in teaching method. Presenters might attempt to stimulate an interactive classroom environment, but ultimately it would be up to the participants to take up the opportunity to engage in class discussions. The question of motivating participants to engage critically had to be addressed first if the interactive classroom approach was to be sustained.

The second major area of concern was the temptation for some presenters to cram their courses with too much material. This problem relates to the limited duration of the training courses. Senior level officials undertake three-week economics courses, while their middle level counterparts tend to be assigned to a ten-week course. In the ten-week courses, for instance, each presenter (of which there might be four or five) would have approximately 30 hours to present his or her module. Some presenters appeared concerned that if they did not cover as much material as possible, the participants might be under-prepared to do their job effectively upon returning from the course. Hence modules tended to be "overfull" in terms of lecture material. But unless the lecture material was pruned, classes ran the risk of becoming rushed, participants with poorer English might fall behind, and the class environment would become far less interactive. Cutting back on lecture material left some presenters uneasy — given the complexity of economic transition, might too little knowledge lead participants to make serious mistakes in policy? We had to find a way to prepare our participants for their future responsibilities, but keep the lecture material simple and concise.

As the project progressed, a new issue emerged. In the post-course evaluations and feedback, participants indicated that they had learned a great deal from their training and had gained confidence in solving economic reform problems in their country. But many reported that they would be powerless to implement the reform measures they had learned, since policy decision-making lay in the hands of their superiors. Given that many economic problems in the countries of the Greater Mekong Sub-Region are fairly acute, it was imperative that participants be able to influence economic policy soon after returning from their training.

Our training program, then, would have to empower participants to put their new-found knowledge into practice. Empowerment had to focus on ways in which our participants could influence their superiors’ decisions. This had implications for the way that the accompanying English language program would be taught, since effective communication skills would be instrumental in ultimately persuading the participants’ superiors to adopt appropriate economic policies.

In the following sections, we focus on the AIM approach to motivating students to participate in class discussion and to making the class environment more interactive. We explain why "teaching less, but better" reduces the problems of presenters cramming too much material into their modules, yet still prepares participants for their future work. We also outline the changes made to the supporting English language program to empower participants once they have left the MI.

Teaching Objectives and Methods

Presenters at the MI are contracted to deliver high quality teaching on the economics of transition in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS). The economics is supported by appropriate inclusion of gender and environmental issues. Rather than having each participant cross a common "finish line", the aim is to shift each person along his or her continuum of knowledge relating to economic reform issues. In seeking to achieve these learning objectives, and drawing on seminal work by Kolb (1984), we have developed the AIM approach (see Lim, Strutt and Tressler, 2000). AIM emphasizes three important issues in the knowledge-seeking/approval cycle: Audience, Information and Motivation.

The Audience (participants) expect to learn things that are relevant to their interests and concerns. Presenters must understand the needs and abilities of their audience in selecting what to teach. The emphasis is not on supplying what we know, but opening intellectual doors and teaching what our audience needs or wants to learn. We gain insights into participants’ learning needs from discussions with them at formal and informal levels, by analyzing their evaluations of the courses, and increasing our familiarity with the current and future development needs of their countries. From the experience of recent courses, it appears that participants are especially interested in material directly relevant to their work, the ways in which countries cope with the social dislocations resulting from fundamental economic reform, and suggestions on how the reform performance of their countries might be improved.

The approval that we gain from our audience also depends on our familiarity with the Information (course material) that we present. Here, credibility is vital. Our knowledge of the economic and other conditions in the GMS is crucial to how participants perceive and rate our teaching performance. This should come as no surprise. Presenters who make the effort to understand the institutions, aspirations and constraints facing the economies of the GMS are the ones who best meet the needs of their audience. Conversely, there will be resistance to instructors dishing out policy advice without regard to the peculiarities and specific circumstances faced by each country.

Participants generally come to the MI with a good idea of the problems their country faces. So one of our aims is to add value to their existing knowledge or help them see things in a different light. For example, suppose participants bring up the topic of ailing state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and employment opportunities in the private sector. Before arriving at the MI, most participants would probably already be aware of some of the problems associated with SOEs in their country. They would also recognize the importance of the private sector as a source of employment. But they probably wouldn’t have considered the links between the two.

By connecting seemingly disparate ideas, we can really add value to their learning. For instance, we might explain how large state subsidies to SOEs increase the government budget deficit and fuel inflation. Workers and officials on fixed incomes are hurt. The government is likely to respond by eventually tightening the monetary purse strings, driving interest rates up. The higher interest rates stifle private sector investment and retard employment growth in the private sector. But with fewer private sector jobs available the social costs of eventual public sector reform increase, given the difficulty of redundant SOE workers finding private sector employment. Applying knowledge of straightforward economic relationships such as these allows presenters to offer a new angle to problems in the GMS, thus contributing to meeting the needs of our participants in a more meaningful way.

By meeting the needs of our audience we enhance their Motivation to learn. Our lecture material, especially theory, must be relevant in solving an economic problem, otherwise there is little point in participants investing time to learn it. Applying theory to specific examples from the GMS reinforces the underlying message, signals the importance of what participants are learning, and raises both the credibility of the presenter and the interest levels of participants. The lecture environment must become a springboard for debate, discussion and ongoing thought. Thus, the payoff from thorough knowledge of the subject matter is potentially very high. Addressing the needs of the audience helps set in motion a virtuous circle of heightened participant motivation, rising presenter confidence, a more relaxed and enjoyable teaching/learning environment, greater participant enthusiasm, and so on.

In the Classroom: Taking AIM

Applying the AIM approach takes place in several stages. In fact, much of the success of the teaching program will be determined before the first class. There are three major stages in the program (Lim, Strutt and Tressler, 2000).

Stage 1: Before the first class

The crucial first step is to determine the class profile. For example, what do participants want from the course (in other words, their needs) and what are their existing knowledge levels and technical abilities? This sets the scene for developing lecture materials. What are their learning styles? For example, will they tell us if we’re talking too fast or if they don’t understand, or is their learning style to remain silent and try to catch up after class? This influences teaching style and how much material can be covered. What is their attitude towards presenters and the course? For example, do they consider us foreigners who have little understanding of their countries — perhaps leading to an argumentative classroom environment — or are we considered fountains of wisdom?

Presenters can elicit (partial) answers to these and other questions by meeting with the participants informally before the first class, by analyzing previous course evaluations, and by seeking feedback from the course director, English instructors, preceding presenters and the course leader. This preparation is vital, since it helps determine the approach during the first and subsequent classes.

Stage 2: The first class

The first class is the "getting to know you" scenario. It provides the chance to enthuse and motivate the audience, establish credibility, and set the scene for the upcoming teaching program. Presenters might first ask the participants to introduce themselves and express what they want from the course. This will help to establish a relaxed and informal environment within which the learning will take place. Introducing ourselves might include a "potted history" of what we do, details of our background that establish credibility, and perhaps family details to create a warm and trusting atmosphere.

The participants will want to know whether we can put ourselves in their shoes and help them work out their problems. Understanding their problems is the key to our success. For example, we might initiate a relationship with the participants by highlighting an issue of importance to them. The next step is to offer them a different way of looking at their problem, preferably backing it up with evidence. Lastly, we can provide ideas for solving the problem or make recommendations for change. Given that being outsiders handicaps, we need to demonstrate that we can apply our expertise strategically to meet their needs.

The first class establishes our expectations about making the learning experience as interactive as possible. Motivating participants to engage in discussion and critical debate is crucial for effective learning. When first joining the course, we usually ask participants which learning style they prefer. They invariably tell us that an interactive approach is superior to the "top-down" method where information flows only one way — from the teacher to the student. But debate and challenging of ideas typically does not emerge spontaneously from students from the GMS. In the initial lectures, at least, most participants appear shy to discuss or critically appraise points made in class.

The reluctance to criticize points can undermine the messages offered in class. In a recent example, we highlighted how competitive markets (markets with large numbers of buyers and sellers) promote efficiency. That is, when buyers and sellers come together voluntarily to exchange money for goods, all parties become better off (otherwise they wouldn’t have exchanged). A few days later outside class, a participant dismissed our teachings as impractical. He gave an illustration of soft drink distribution in Cambodia. The trans-border trade between Thailand and Cambodia for a particular drink is dominated by the single distributor (a monopoly), who gouges Cambodian prices by preventing cheaper alternatives from being imported. By restricting sales, the seller gains at the buyer’s expense. The participant had made a valid point about soft drinks in Cambodia, but had missed the point that we had initially been talking about competitive markets, which are quite different from monopolies. Ideally, participants should feel able to raise their doubts or queries in class. To encourage this maybe we should be asking participants for examples where they think our theories do not seem to work, or probing for more feedback in more informal settings such as tea breaks.

To overcome an initial reluctance to participate in class discussions, it is helpful to start building confidence by asking participants simple closed-ended questions. But ultimately the motivation to learn must come from within. Here, presenters must show participants "what is in it for them" (for example, by delivering startling but relevant statistics, outlining the problems to be solved or relating relevant, anecdotal stories). Whenever possible, we help participants to develop a feel for the problem or show them what they will be learning. Short video clips give visual reinforcement of the upcoming lessons and their importance. A brief field trip in the early stages of a course helps people experience the situation to be discussed.

Stage 3: Maintaining enthusiasm and motivation to learn

Once we’re providing material that meets and continually responds to audience needs and interests in a credible manner, student motivation should follow automatically. Involving the participants is vital. Asking participants to solve problems using the techniques they’ve just learnt can reinforce the lecture material. We can involve them in economic reform, even if it’s only in the classroom for now.

We use a range of learning methods, including group work, debates, Internet searches and interactive lectures. During lectures we have found it very useful to give participants short breaks every 20-30 minutes to work with their neighbor or small groups. This may be to answer a short question, explain a key point from the lecture material, or provide an example from their own experience. This enhances learning in a number of ways. Participants have a break from focusing on the presenter. They have the opportunity to learn by listening to one another’s explanations. They gain experience in presenting ideas clearly and concisely to others. And lastly, they appear to gain confidence from trying out their examples or queries with their peers. This helps even the quieter or less proficient English speakers to feel confident to contribute in the large class environment.

It is important to maintain captivating, clear lecture notes and delivery. We make notes available before lectures in time for the participants to preview, and continually check that they meet audience needs. In delivering the material, we should constantly check for clear visuals and logical structure. Constant summary is extremely useful – we need to continually reinforce and check if they understand the key issues.

Sometimes participants may simply dislike what we’re saying, seriously dampening their motivation to learn. Presenters need to be acutely aware of body language to pick up immediately that something is going wrong. Here the interactive approach to teaching pays off. The interactive approach emphasizes movement, eye contact, and monitoring of audience reaction. Recognizing that someone has tuned out from our presentation is important in re-adjusting the delivery of our message.

The next step is to find out why the person doesn’t accept our message. Listen to what the participants have to say. This may be a criticism of our ideas or sometimes even a direct criticism of us (for example: "You are a foreigner – you don’t understand our situation"). We need to control our defensiveness and never criticize them. Criticizing one participant may imply a criticism of them all, turning the presentation into an "us versus them" confrontation. We will then need to spend the rest of the module repairing the damage.

We all have different styles of coping with difficult situations and building a strong and trusting relationship with course participants. But it is always important to be sensitive to their viewpoints. Some participants come from backgrounds totally different to ours. We can listen thoughtfully and openly to their views, letting them know that we empathize with them ("Yes, I understand how you feel…"). Our job is to help them to solve their problems ("You’ve brought up an important point. I’ve been thinking about that too — let’s see what we can do about it"). We can help them to come up with their own solutions, gently prodding them in the right direction. If that fails, sometimes we must just accept disagreement ("I agree with you that the problem is difficult. Thanks for bringing it up for class discussion"). When we are not defensive and have built an open and trusting space to work in, such discussions will be constructive rather than destructive.

Sometimes disagreement can be resolved by explaining points in an alternative way. On the question of the timing of economic reform, say, most participants tend to echo their government’s policy on reforming slowly. In some cases gradualism may be appropriate, but not always. Our view tends to be that some reforms need to be implemented simultaneously rather than being sequenced step-by-step. For example, giving state enterprises more decision-making autonomy must immediately be accompanied by reforms that render the enterprises accountable for their profits or losses. If the enterprises aren’t held accountable for their decisions, greater autonomy may simply lead to budget blowouts and inefficiencies as the state picks up the tab for enterprise losses.

Many participants have initially been reluctant to accept that rapid reform may be necessary, so we’ve had to try alternative ways of explanation. One that was particularly successful was to illustrate the debate with pictures. Here we contrasted building a brick wall and an archway. We explained that some governments in the GMS believe that reforms can be introduced step-by-step, selecting from a menu of reform measures. In this view, economic reform is like making a brick wall. The government could insert a certain brick (like enterprise autonomy), but decide to put in another brick (accountability) later. Overall the wall would still manage to stand. But in our view, at least, some important reforms are more like building an archway. Neglect to put in just one crucial brick, and the whole archway collapses. By using visual analogies we offered participants a different way to think about their reforms and motivated them to re-examine their previously held views.

Action learning and empowerment

The AIM approach seeks to meet the learning needs of the audience by providing relevant lecture material and motivating students to study and participate in an interactive classroom setting. But the payoff from the MI training course ideally has two further dimensions. Participants should be able to apply the simple principles they’ve learned in class to cope with new or unfamiliar economic issues and make sensible policy recommendations. That is, participants will have the ability to apply their knowledge to areas beyond those to which they have been exposed in class. Second, participants should be better placed to implement their recommendations or at least influence the decision-making of their superiors in government.

Arming participants with enough knowledge to deal with future economic problems lies at the heart of the debate concerning the appropriate quantity of course material to present. It’s tempting to equate more lecture notes with greater knowledge, but in an ESOL environment this simply isn’t so. Excessive amounts of course material create rushed lectures, leave insufficient time for periodic review and feedback, and undermine the interactive approach. Most presenters at the MI have been studying economics or related disciplines for 20 or more years, and still we have to admit to serious limitations in our ability to solve complex economic problems. So how can cramming a course of only three or ten weeks with even more economics come even close to preparing our participants for the problems they’re likely to face in the future? Instead of lots of lecture notes, we need to offer participants a different approach to problem solving, namely action learning. Action learning helps participants to work out answers for themselves. Once presenters see that the participants have the skills to solve complex problems using the action learning approach, they become much more receptive to the idea of cutting back their lecture material and devoting more time to interactive teaching.

Action learning involves coping with situations that participants have not experienced or seen in class before. The lecture material acts as a springboard for ongoing learning. Once they have left the MI, participants must be able to "ask the right questions", locate people to help answer the questions, and analyze the available information to come up with the best solution. Our contribution to this process involves devoting class time to practicing these techniques. A participant (or group of participants) takes a newspaper article involving a controversial economic issue, say, and summarizes its contents to the class. He or she then sets groups of students questions that probe the issue in more analytical depth (in other words, the participant practices "asking the right questions"). Once each group of participants has reported the group answer back to the class, both the original participant and the rest of the class are in a better position to combine the information to come up with an answer to the problem. The role of the presenter is to elicit information, guide the thought processes logically and analytically and help the class come up with appropriate answers.

What happens if participants have the tools and skills necessary to make a contribution to their country, but lack the authority to implement reform measures? Valuable human resources remain under-utilized, compromising the objectives of the project. To cope with this problem the English language program that accompanies our economics has been modified to include training in presentation skills. Power need not come only from having direct authority, but can also come from an ability to persuade others. Persuasion rests on three major pillars: knowledge, communication skills (the delivery of the knowledge), and addressing the interests of one’s superiors. The knowledge comes from the AIM approach and action learning. Finding the interests of one’s superiors may require investigation on the part of the participants themselves. But presentation skills can be developed at the MI.

All participants who come to the MI for either the three-week or ten-week courses undertake eighteen hours of English instruction in the first week of the course. Participants on the ten-week course receive a further eight hours of English instruction per week during the nine weeks of the course. A major part of both the week-one orientation and the ongoing English is helping the learners to develop confidence and expertise in presenting factual material, opinions and arguments in both formal presentations and informal discussions. Confidence, a key factor in making a good presentation, comes with well-organized content, practice and experience. In the final session at the end of the first week, everyone gives a one-minute formal presentation to the whole group. For many, this is their first time to give a presentation in English. Everyone is required to use a microphone and they are encouraged to use audio-visual materials.

In the English lqanguage session leading up to the presentations, groups of four or five work together to come up with a plan for the development of a small undeveloped fictional island. Each member of the group may take on a role (for example, the Minister of Commerce) and each group presents its plan to the audience. The English teachers prepare the participants for their presentations in two sessions prior to the formal presentations. This preparation helps them to gain the skills and, more importantly, the confidence they need to talk to an international audience in English. Participants put their skills into practice during the economics course when they give "Morning Report" presentations and their personal case studies.

On the ten-week courses, the English teachers work with the whole group and individuals to continue to improve their presentation skills so that they are able to talk on a range of topics related to the economics course, their country and their job. Participants are also taught the language of discussion, negotiation and argument which enables them to exchange ideas and views both during lectures and in their free time. The result is that when participants leave the MI at the end of a ten-week course they know how to express their ideas in English in a variety of situations.

Conclusion

Achieving excellence in teaching is a challenging job and one that we can always continually improve in. Presenting to a diverse group of participants, who frequently struggle with English, poses additional challenges. Many of the standard principles of good teaching will help presenters to perform well at the MI. We have developed a style of teaching known as the AIM method. It focuses on meeting the needs of our Audience, making sure we have the necessary level of skills and Information to contribute, and ensuring participants have the initial and continuing Motivation to learn. We endeavor to use these principles in all or our teaching, but have found some extensions and modifications are needed for the method to work really well at the MI.

In this paper we outlined the AIM method of presenting and provided concrete examples of using this approach while presenting at the MI. As presenters, we may have different strengths, but we can all continue to learn and improve. We hope that the ideas developed in this paper make a contribution to the process of improving the quality of courses we are able to offer.

Note

The authors are extremely grateful to Neil Fleming, Terry Clayton and Khun Panpilai for their comments, insights and support.

 

Kolb, D. A. (1984), Experiential Learning, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Lim, S., A. Strutt and J. Tressler (2000, forthcoming), "Teaching Large Classes: Using the AIM approach in Business Economics", in D. Spiller (ed.), Narratives from Tertiary Teaching: Giving students a voice. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.