Content uploaded by Natalia Balyasnikova
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Natalia Balyasnikova on Jul 16, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Balyasnikova 75
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
An Insider View: Understanding Volunteers’ Experiences Within a Peer-to-Peer
Language Learning Program in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside
Natalia Balyasnikova
York University
Abstract
Many community-based English language learning programs rely on volunteers to lead classes.
While some of these volunteers have some teacher training, the majority are not professional
educators. The question of how non-professionals understand what constitutes facilitation of
language learning in an adult education context remains underexplored. This paper presents the
findings of a small-scale study conducted within a community-based language learning program
with four volunteer facilitators. Volunteer facilitators were interviewed on a range of topics
related to their role in the program, peer-to-peer interaction, and the impacts of volunteering in
their lives. An analysis of facilitator interviews, with reference to program’s guiding educational
principles, reveals the following positive factors related to the program: the informal nature of
the community, the flexible design of the program, peer-to-peer interaction, and support from
program staff. However, the findings also highlight that facilitators’ perspectives and practices
varied significantly due to their different lived experiences, motives for volunteering, and
linguistic background. This study highlights promising practices, which could serve to design
sustainable community-based English language learning programs for adults.
Introduction
Focusing on one program offered at the UBC Learning Exchange—the English Conversation—
this research had a goal to understand the experiences of former learners who feel empowered to
begin leading classes within language learning programs. By drawing on interviews with five
volunteers in the English Conversation—an English language program offered within the UBC
Learning Exchange to the residents of Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside—this study presents a
different and rare perspective on the nature of community-based literacy programs. I argue that if
community-based English language programs are conceptualized as communities of practice,
they might benefit from the peer-to-peer teaching practices and the involvement of both
monolingual and multilingual volunteers.
Literature Review
Adult immigrants learn the English language for a variety of reasons. Some do so for practical
reasons, such as to communicate at work (Norton, 2013), while others learn so they can access
opportunities within the community (Duff, Wong, & Early, 2000). Many do so to enhance their
family literacy practices (Chao & Mantero, 2014) or for personal reasons. Reflecting on the
purpose of English language learning in Canada, Morgan (2002) wrote that “in many ways
language learning is simultaneously a process of individual and collective identity negotiation”
(p. 157). If that is indeed an important factor to consider in language learning, then practices of
language education should embrace it through variability and flexibility in curriculum and lesson
delivery.
Balyasnikova 76
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
Many researchers suggest that community-based programs are aimed at social change
and are emancipatory in nature. For example, studies which focus on learners’ perceptions of
community-based programs suggest that learners perceive reduced feelings of marginalization
(Kim & Merriam, 2010), an increased sense of self-esteem (Bridwell, 2013), empowerment to
affect change (Rivera, 2003), and community transformation (Coady, 2013) among the main
outcomes of participation in community-based literacy programs. Research finds that literacy
programs founded on holistic principles (Crowther, Maclachan, & Tett, 2010) and those that
encourage a sense of belonging among students (O’Donnel & Tobbell, 2007) contribute to
individual persistence in educational programs.
Free, to a certain extent, from government-mandated benchmarks, community-based
programs become a fertile ground for the development of such practices. This freedom allows
many centres to provide language practice in tandem with other forms of literacy. For example,
community-based English language programs have served as a vehicle for developing health
literacy in immigrant communities (Soto Mas, Ji, Fuentes, & Tinajero, 2015), receiving basic
education classes (Rivera, 1999), raising awareness of mental health issues among language
learners (Rusch, Frazier, & Atkins, 2015), and processing trauma (Finn, 2010).
Community-based language learning programs are heterogeneous in their student body
and are often open to learners with varying levels of English language proficiency. Adult
learners benefit from pedagogical practices that encourage active negotiations of understanding
and co-construction of meaning in mixed groups (Bremer, 1996) and scaffold their learning with
support from peers. As learners move between home and language learning class, they take on
different linguistic identities (Skilton-Sylvester, 2002) and strategically utilize them in various
ways (Hardman, 1999). By allowing learners to draw upon their experiences, linguistic
background, shared cultural traditions, and expectations from the program, community-based
language learning programs may additionaly contribute to an atmosphere of shared respect
between native and non-native English speakers and create closer ties between the language
learning classroom and surrounding community.
While there are not many studies that look at learners-turned-facilitators, there is a
substantial body of research in the fields of sociology and psychology that looks at individual
motivation to volunteer. Early research suggests that a high percentage of volunteer work is
episodic in nature and does not correlate to an initial intention to volunteer (Dunn, Chambers, &
Hyde, 2015). In addition, the motivation to volunteer depends on multiple reasons: it can be
driven by the search for “a rewarding experience” (Cnaan & Goldberg-Glen, 1991, p. 281) or can
be seen as a reflection of self-perceived relationships with others (Clary et al., 1998; Willems et
al., 2012). It is worth mentioning, however, that these studies privilege volunteers with economic
and educational advantages, and that is why it is important to look at the community members
and/or former participants of learning programs, and their rationalisation for volunteering in
community-learning programs.
A study conducted with women enrolled in community-based programs found that those
programs which foster community and, in the words of one participant, “feel like a little family”
(Prins, Toso, & Schafft, 2009, p. 335), may improve the learning experience and provide support
for learners. Similar arguments come from a study by Crowther, Maclachlan, and Tett (2010)
Balyasnikova 77
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
which found that accessible, informal programs built on flexible curriculum and structured
around peer group work enabled “vulnerable adults to forge the identities to which they aspire”
(p.663), thus empowering them beyond the literacy program and affecting their communities.
Other forms of literacy also flourished in community-based organizations. Coady (2013) worked
with 40 adults involved in a community-based health literacy program, specifically focusing on
peer-to-peer interaction between program patrons. She found that the informal nature of the
program enabled learners to connect with each other, which in turn prompted them to “envision
change” (p.327) and take a more active role in their communities. Coady concluded that
interaction with peers is “powerful and transformative for adults” (p.330) and argued for
collective transformative learning that fostered community-building. Buckland’s (2010) study
with socially disadvantaged Canadians showed that it was institutional barriers that constrained
adults developing financial literacy, and a study by Tisdell et al. (2013) found that community-
based literacy programs allowed teachers to develop a deeper understanding of the sociocultural
context of learners’ lives, in which race, ethnicity, gender, and class play an important role for
ways of knowing.
Connection with peers through informal work was highlighted in a study conducted in a
senior-focused literacy program (Kim & Merriam, 2010), specifically a computer literacy class
in South Korea. Research found that seniors, especially due to their age, rely on peers to
overcome feelings of marginalization and being on the periphery. By working together, seniors
reported an increase in positive self-judgement and a growth in self-esteem. A similar study
conducted with seniors in Australia found that informal hands-on learning with peers resulted in
“particularly therapeutic” (Golding, 2011, p.117) outcomes for older men who were excluded
from formal continuing education programs. Looking at informal spaces for learning, such as
community gardens, Shan & Walter (2015) showed how these contact zones foster everyday
multiculturalism that contrasts with official rhetoric. Shan and Walter found that despite limited
English language proficiency, Chinese women were able to actively engage with their Canadian
peers in this unique learning space. Calling a community garden a “community of conviviality”
(p. 8) Shan and Walter argued that participation in informal learning expanded immigrant
women’s life space and allowed them to communicate beyond their English language
proficiency.
Research Context
To contextualize this study, I begin with a short description of the Vancouver neighbourhood in
which the research was conducted. I follow with a brief overview of the community-engagement
program, where the data were generated.
Located on the unceded traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-
Waututh First Nations, the Downtown Eastside (DTES) is one of Vancouver’s oldest
neighbourhoods. In addition to its First Nations community, the area is home to several cultural
immigrant communities of Asian, African, European, and South American heritage. The DTES
is comprised of several geographical spaces including Chinatown, Gastown, the Oppenheimer
District, Strathcona, Thornton Park, Victory Square, and the Industrial Area. It is home to about
18,477 people. In terms of linguistic diversity, the majority of DTES residents speak English as
their main language; however, Mandarin and Cantonese speakers comprise 28% of the total
Balyasnikova 78
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
DTES population. Not surprisingly given the population demographics, Chinatown has the
largest number of Chinese-speaking residents. Vancouver’s Chinatown was settled in the late
nineteenth century and quickly grew to become one of the largest self-sustaining ethnic enclaves
in North America. At the time of the research, this community was changing rapidly due to
government-funded and private residential and commercial revitalization initiatives.
The UBC Learning Exchange is a community engagement initiative that was started to
facilitate a relationship between the University of British Columbia (UBC) and the DTES
community. The work at the centre has always been grounded in the principles of asset-based
community development—an approach to community work that builds on the community’s
strengths, promising practices, gifts, and talents of its members. Rooted in this approach, the
UBC Learning Exchange strives to support diverse communities in the DTES.
The English Conversation program is one of many offerings available at the UBC
Learning Exchange. This program, which began in 2004, is open to Canadian citizens, new
immigrants, and refugees. It delivers more than 30 classes a week to nearly 400 learners per year.
More than 50% of the learners are Chinese-speaking seniors many of whom live in the DTES. A
number of learners commute from other parts of Vancouver and have diverse cultural heritages
(Balyasnikova, Gillard, Korcheva, 2018).
The program is run by volunteer facilitators, many of whom are not professionally trained
language instructors. In addition, the program expends immense effort to support learners who
attend the classes and the volunteers who facilitate them. For example, some learners are
encouraged to take up leadership positions and facilitate lower level classes and the facilitators
are offered multiple development opportunities and socializing activities.
The program is divided into three levels of English language proficiency. English as an
additional language (EAL) conversation groups meet once a week for ten weeks in 75-minute
sessions to discuss a range of topics that are chosen by the senior coordinator. These topics
include cultural holidays, Canadian traditions and customs, popular culture, famous people, etc.
During each session, learners use prepared worksheets with short text and follow-up questions
that guide their conversation. The role of the facilitator in the class is to encourage learners to
speak as much as they can. This is why facilitators are free to choose topics that they think could
be interesting to learners in their group.
As mentioned, classes at the English Conversation are facilitated by volunteers, many of
whom are not professionally trained language instructors; a large number of facilitators are
language learners themselves. Many of these facilitators are women, who are either retired or
currently not employed. Some of the facilitators are former learners of the program who have
advanced to the higher levels of proficiency and now facilitate lower-level classes. Given that
most facilitators do not have substantial pedagogical training, there is a requirement for them to
participate in ten workshops led by the senior coordinator. These workshops give volunteers a
basic understanding of pedagogy and the philosophy behind the English Conversation. They also
provide volunteers with a chance to discuss the goals of the EAL program and give them an
opportunity to learn about classroom management techniques.After the completion of training
workshops, facilitators are assigned a group of learners (usually 10 people) and start leading
Balyasnikova 79
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
classes. In addition to facilitating, some volunteers are encouraged to participate in other
activities that take place in the UBC Learning Exchanges.
Learners in the English Conversation are mostly senior residents of Vancouver. They are
allowed to take one class per session. However, they are free to spend time at the centre
socializing with other learners and facilitators. Some learners use this opportunity to help their
peers learn other skills; others spend time reading magazines and newspapers available on the
premises. Some learners volunteer to lead classes, e.g., guitar or crafts classes. In these cases,
EAL facilitators who attend these classes switch roles with EAL learners, and assume the role of
student. I argue that the main characteristic of the English Conversation is the multilayered and
fluid nature of facilitator/learner roles; the facilitators and the learners are engaged in a
collaborative learning practice that constructs and sustains this unique community.
Data Generation
The goal of the study was to explore volunteers’ experiences within the English language
program. In addition, it was equally as important to understand how their experiences inform
program curricula and aid in setting of new goals for the program—in other words, to establish
the reciprocal relationship between the program design and the flexible nature of the
learner/facilitator role. The research questions guiding the study were:
1. What are the participants’ perceptions of their role within the English Conversation?
2. What are the participants’ relationships with the learners, fellow facilitators, and staff of
the centre?
Given that this study was conducted within a community-based organization, I grounded
it in the understanding that the co-created nature of knowledge privileges the community
members’ participation at all stages of the research process and drew on principles of
community-based research
1
, particularly appreciative inquiry.
Appreciative inquiry, which is gaining prominence in educational research (Shuayb,
Sharp, Judkins, & Hetherington, 2009), was used as the starting point of my study to counter the
deficit-based and academic research typically brought to research undertaken in community-
based settings. The principles of appreciative inquiry place research first and foremost as a
collaborative endeavour (Cooperrider & Avital, 2004). Originating in social constructivist
approaches to organizational studies and activist interventions (Cooperrider, Barrett, &
Srivastva, 1995) this methodology seeks to ensure that research increases the organizational
capacity of the community in ways that are both meaningful and positive.
The participants of this study were current volunteer facilitators at the English
Conversation. In order to be included in the sample, they had to have attended at least one
learning activity offered by UBC Learning Exchange. In other words, they must have been
1
Among the many principles of community-based research, reciprocity plays an important role. For this reason,
studies in community-based settings are conducted not only for the sake of obtaining knowledge, but to support the
partner organizations or people. In this study, in addition to answering research questions, I also communicated
findings to the staff of the UBC Learning Exchange in order to build upon identified promising practices.
Balyasnikova 80
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
learners who decided to take on the role of a facilitator. I was helped by the EAL program
coordinators in the recruitment of EAL volunteer facilitators. We met prior to sending out the
recruitment letters and discussed which EAL facilitators would be willing to participate in the
study. Following our meeting, the coordinators approached potential participants and introduced
me as a researcher working for the English Conversation. I met with each participant
individually and explained the purpose of the research project. In the end, five facilitators agreed
to take part in the study. Two facilitators spoke English as their first language and did not speak
any other languages. They were residents of Vancouver’s Downtown East Side and prior to
taking up a facilitator role participated in other literacy activities offered by the UBC Learning
Exchange. In this study, I refer to these participants as monolingual facilitators. Three
participants who spoke EAL were all former learners at English Conversation. To my
knowledge, in addition to English, one of these participants spoke Mandarin, another spoke
Mandarin and Cantonese, and the third one spoke Farsi. I refer to these participants as
multilingual facilitators.
To generate the data for the study, I drew on the principles of narrative interviewing
(Wengraf, 2001) during time spent with the volunteers. This approach to data collection allowed
the participants to reflect on their experiences in their preferred style of interaction. Following
Wengraf (2001), I based my interviews on the following principles of narrative interviewing:
1. Conceptual openness. The interview started with a single question (e.g., “Tell me about
your experience at English Conversation”), which aimed to elicit a narrative from the
participant as they chose to tell it. Once they had finished answering the first question, I
followed up with a second question, in which I asked for clarification of some of the
topics that came up in the first account.
2. Communication and active listening. I designed conversational protocols to act as flexible
guides and topic starters in order to encourage the narratives. Rather than asking for
opinions or using questions that asked why, the protocols helped me probe for
information that pertained to memorable events in the participant’s life
3. Free development of the narrative. When deciding on the way to conduct interviews with
the research participants, I was faced with the dilemma of whether to control their
narratives for the benefit of my research or to let the narratives unfold as the participants
saw fit. Rather than following a question and answer protocol, I decided to frame my
interviews as narrative occasions to encourage the participant to tell their story. This
allowed the narrator to move back and forth within the narration, which at times created
confusion and misunderstanding, changed what had previously been said, even produced
contradictions. At the same time, this method allows the narrator to speak in their own
unique way.
All interviews were transcribed verbatim for the following analysis. I offered to give
transcripts to the participants for member checking purposes. However, only one participant
expressed his interest in reviewing his interview and subsequently made 20 changes in the
transcript. It is important to note that none of these changes affected the general account of the
events in his interview.
Balyasnikova 81
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
Data Analysis and Findings
The nature of this research necessitated a qualitative approach to data analysis. I analyzed the
interviews following qualitative manual coding techniques (Saldaña, 2013). There are three main
groups of findings, which are aligned with the research questions. The first group answers the
question regarding participants’ perceptions of their role within the English Conversation. The
second group gives the volunteers’ view of the program, its goals, and the structure and role that
the staff plays in supporting their teaching efforts. The third group highlights the changes in
participants’ lives as connected to their volunteering as facilitators of language learning.
Volunteers’ Perceptions of their Roles and Position within the Community
Participants’ views of their roles within the community seemed to be informed by their language
status. In the interviews, the two monolingual facilitators distanced themselves from a teacher
role, stressing the informal nature of their involvement with the program. For example, E.F.
2
, one
of facilitators, who was starting his third semester teaching a higher level conversational class,
described his work the following way:
E.F.: Well my role is a facilitator, not a teacher, not an instructor, not a professor. Um, a
facilitator in my experience is basically kind of like my own words is “chairing a
meeting,” so just being sure that we stay in time with each topic so we can complete the
lesson, which is referring to the material that we cover within the hour or an hour and a
half.
However, E.F. mentioned that he learned such understanding of his status in the program
during the facilitator training workshops, where the program coordinator emphasised the non-
hierarchical nature of the facilitator-learner relationship and encouraged the volunteers to engage
in self-reflection about how they would sustain it in their classes. In his own words:
E.F.: My experience is really to follow the guidelines that set out to be a facilitator, not a
teacher, and when someone calls me teacher, which happened a couple of times this
morning, I say “No, my name is not teacher, I am a (…).” So that’s my experience of
what my role is, as I define is to go by guidelines that are set out in our training. So pretty
much, to be accessible, to be approachable um to be inquisitive…
Another monolingual facilitator, A.B., shared a similar interpretation of his role, as one of
a facilitator who helps and guides conversations in the class.
A.B.: You are supposed to be a facilitator and the word facilitate means to make easier.
So yeah, you are kinda a facilitator. You are supposed to get people involved and talking.
It’s conversational English.
A.B. was one of the oldest volunteers at the English Conversation, and he was one of the
first facilitators who underwent the facilitator training offered by the program. He described it as
a positive and helpful experience; however, due in part to a longer volunteering experience, A.B.
2
This and all further initials are pseudonyms, chosen to protect the identity of the research participants.
Balyasnikova 82
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
actively criticized the emphasis of the “non-teacher” approach to facilitation introduced at these
workshops. Reflecting on the time spent in the workshops, A.B. described them as prescriptive
and non-engaging:
A.B.: We did learning styles, and we did reading, and vocabulary, we did things about
conflict resolution, learned difference between a teacher and a facilitator… we spent
about three hours on that! That was the most boring. I said to the teacher, if I ever hear
about the teacher and the facilitator, I will never come back! I thought it was a bit too
excessive.
Despite his negative reaction to the offered training, A.B. still accepted facilitator as the
most appropriate label to describe his engagement with language learners mainly due to the fact
that he did not view the English Conversation as a “real English” language learning program. He
equated the process of teaching to explicit grammar instruction that is delivered by professionals
with degrees in English or in teaching, which he did not possess. At the same time, while A.B.
admittedly had no passion for the subject of English language teaching methodology, he still saw
the value of his work. For him it centred on serving as a source of knowledge for the students
who attended the language class. He described the interaction in the class the following way:
A.B.: Maybe they ask about some vocabulary, you know. What do you call it: a teacher,
an instructor, it doesn’t really matter. But you have these workshops about teacher-
facilitator, oh God! Never want it again! /…/ I have quite a bit of courses, but I don’t
have a teaching degree, so I stick with this. /…/ Yeah English was my worst subject, so
I am coming from a—I still—but this is not really English. It’s not like studying
Shakespeare. /…/ For people who want to—90% of people don’t want grammar either,
but there is always somebody, maybe have a bit of grammar for six weeks or
something. Just teacher, grammar, you know. It might help students and facilitators.
As monolingual facilitators, who have taken other classes at the UBC Learning
Exchange, both A.B and E.F. saw their volunteering as a valuable experience for them and for
the learners. They distanced themselves from the teacher role, stressing that their role was to
guide the classes and act as resources for learning the language. However, they seemed to lack
understanding what constitutes language learning or what challenges that learners might face and
their motivation to learn English.
Multilingual facilitators offered perspectives different from those of monolingual ones.
Most commonly they referred to their work as “teaching.” For example, one of the facilitators for
the lower level classes, K.L., put it the following way:
K.L: I know that it is difficult for the older people to, senior people, to learn another
language. It is very hard to pick up. So I have to teach them slowly and try to explain
them in Chinese, to offer these explanations.
Being a senior himself, K.L. seemed to have certain empathy towards the learners and
adapted his facilitation style to their needs. Other multilingual facilitators drew on their own
experiences as language learners in the program to model the way they interact with the learners
Balyasnikova 83
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
in their classes. are more proactive in encouraging learners to speak English outside the
classroom, by giving them “homework.” For example, in two separate interviews, facilitators
R.A. and C.D. shared similar approaches:
R.A.: I try to help my learners learn useful sentences, real life experiences, like going to a
doctor or ordering at the restaurant. Even though, I can be not confident, I try to be
helpful. I try to push them to speak English, to get involved… not to be afraid. They
shouldn’t be shy.
C.D.: I tell them to practice and all that, they won’t do it. For various reasons, not that
they are right or wrong. So you gotta understand it… so repeat and repeat and repeat.
Like, how do you expect them to use the word dialogue… I can make them read it. But if
now, they are not going to say it, never. And you got to put on them a little bit of
pressure, you know.
In addition, these facilitators point out the value of English for learners’ successful
integration into Canadian society. In the words of K.L.:
K.L.: I think you try to show the people you’re teaching to become to adapt to Canadian
way of life, something like that.
Other multilingual volunteers shared similar sentiments, which were supplemented by an
altruistic attitude towards their work and empathy towards the learners:
K.L.: I wish they could learn some English, when they go out shopping, they could talk.
They could use these common words. That could help them a little bit. I can at least help
them with something.
Some facilitators expressed that the value of their work lies in enjoying the exchange of
knowledge with learners, as in case of E.F. and A.B., who enjoyed learning in their classes from
about other traditions, ways of being and knowing:
E.F.: My experience is um I have been probably receiving more benefit, probably than
probably students. I am volunteering I am like a student. So I have developed quite a bit.
For multilingual volunteers, this sense of accomplishment and helping others was
supplemented by their own increased confidence in speaking English. R.A. specifically talked
about her experience as a language learner supporting other learners.
R.A.: [I feel greater] confidence, in general. Happiness, I am happier in the Learning
Exchange. Learners treat me well. I feel that I am useful. I feel good.
Monolingual volunteers also acknowledged that volunteering at the English
Conversation affected the way they think about the language. E.F. mentioned that he started
speaking slower in his interactions with language learners, and A.B. spoke about an increase in
his meta-language awareness in terms of grammar and language structure. Experience in
Balyasnikova 84
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
working with senior language learners encouraged both of these volunteers to be more patient
and understanding.
In sum, shared experiences shaped the way three multilingual facilitators interacted with
the learners. There seemed to be a certain feeling of empathy as all three facilitators shared that
they tried being helpful and patient with the learners. They also shared that they tried holding
them to high standards, yet not embarrassing them for the misuse of a word or phrase.
Volunteers’ Views of the Program, Its Structure, and the Role of the Staff
The analysis of the five interviews suggested that overall all the volunteers had a positive view of
the English Conversation as a whole. All the facilitators described the program as both structured
in course material and accommodating in regard to their time and preferred days they could
commit to volunteering. To illustrate, this is how K.L. compared English Conversation to another
program where he used to volunteer:
K.L.: This is more organized. I used to pick whatever I can get. It was only for one
hour. And here… they prepare the lessons, so I don’t have the headache. I think this is
better. And also there are so many intelligent people here, I can ask for help. This
benefits me and helps me. There is more support.
The fact that the English Conversation had pre-planned curricula was addressed by all
three multilingual participants, while the monolingual ones spoke positively about the flexibility
of the schedules and different options to volunteer within the program:
E.F.: I will try to be short and sweet. I don’t… the Learning Exchange has been really
accommodating with my schedule, what really works for me right now.
All facilitators addressed the support that they received from other volunteers a as well as
from the program staff. Moreover, three participants mentioned that that it was the individual
encouragement of the English Conversation staff that helped them to take on a more active role
in the community. When I asked them about what made them consider becoming facilitators,
they answered:
K.L.: To participate? I guess in my case, because I was encouraged by that Korean lady
and [staff member].
E.F.: Um, yeah, I suppose I guess [program coordinator] helped me by giving me all the
information, because I thought it was grammar and well I don’t know, I said I am not a
teacher, she said well that’s it’s conversation [rather than formal grammar teaching].
C.D.: …later I got involved. There was also a workshop with [the staff], they are very
nice. Because a lot of people, I like the people here.
At the same time, the interviews suggest that there was lack of interaction among
facilitators themselves beyond the pre-volunteering training. According to the participants, there
Balyasnikova 85
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
were several reason for this. Some facilitators related the lack of interaction among facilitators
with their busy lifestyles and time constraints. For example, A.B. facilitated classes early in the
morning and had to leave to work right after the class was over. R.A. lived far from the UBC
Learning Exchange and had to take care of her young child. She was unable to participate in any
activities beyond the classes that she facilitated. However, the facilitators highlighted that despite
the lack in everyday facilitator interaction, they sensed a community spirit within the walls of the
program. They mentioned feeling accepted and welcomed, as in the case of E.F.:
E.F.: Community spirit, yeah yeah, there is a community spirit. Yeah, I was totally
accepted by pretty much everyone, a very welcoming and acceptable, for me that is a
community spirit.
On the other hand, two facilitators described the community as one in which “everyone
does their own thing.” It seems that after the end of mandatory facilitator training none of the
participants were able to find opportunities to interact with their peers, despite the fact that some
of them spend considerable time at the UBC Learning Exchange, participating in other
educational programs. As A.B. jokingly put it:
A.B.: And there are no meetings, there are no forms, no facilitator conferences, we
should have a big facilitator conference in Las Vegas. That’s an idea: a big international
facilitator conference. Here is your plane ticket! There are a lot of facilitators here, but
they don’t have a conference.
Analysis of volunteer interviews shows that volunteers’ main motivation stems from their
perceived need to give back. It can be giving back to the society at large, as in case of C.D.:
C.D.: I am so far away, you know, so I want to be useful to the society and I am grateful
for what I have from the Canadian government. OK? I appreciate it, so I want to
contribute in a small way.
In the case of E.F., volunteering is a way to repay the university for his funded education
in lieu of making a donation:
E.F.: I benefited big time from the free university, this course, and I would have loved
to donate some money, I would have loved to do that, /…/ So I thought, ok here is an
opportunity to give back… maybe some of my time.
Overall, the experiences of facilitators at the UBC Learning Exchange are seen as
enjoyable and do benefit individuals who feel the need to support the learners and to learn with
and from them. Both monolingual and multilingual volunteers seek to help others; volunteers
who were themselves language learners seek to “give back” to the community, monolingual
facilitators rethink the ways they thought about language due to their facilitating experience.
However, despite the community feel and individual benefits of the program, participants still
view their volunteering as an individual activity within the UBC Learning Exchange.
Balyasnikova 86
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
Conclusion and Implications
The three main findings of this study were as follows. First, my analysis suggests that while
monolingual volunteers were very approachable and equality-oriented, multilingual volunteers
had more understanding of what it takes to learn a language (e.g., pushing learners to do
homework). Second, all participants expressed positive feelings towards the English
Conversation and the support they received from the staff. At the same time participants did not
take up identities of professional educators or language experts, thus maintaining the peer-to-
peer nature of their engagement with the learners, and although they were engaged in the
collaborative and supportive processes of a community of practice, they did not explicitly
describe themselves as sharing a craft or profession. Finally, while the program staff strives to
create a community of practice among the facilitators, there is still more to be done though
encouraging regular professional interaction and cooperation towards achieving shared goals. A
community of practice is an informal organization, comprised of people, who “deepen their
knowledge and expertise in [one] area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger, McDermott,
Snyder, 2002, p.4). Characterized by mutual engagement, joint enterprise and a shared repertoire,
a community of practice shapes the identities of its participants though their participation in
shared activities. Wenger and Snyder (2000) wrote that while communities of practice are not
located in one specific context and are “as diverse as the situations that give rise to them” (p.
141), they have specific characteristics that distinguish them from formal groups or informal
networks. The purpose of a community of practice is to develop individual potential by
encouraging knowledge exchange among members who “select themselves” (p. 142). Most
importantly, a community of practice is maintained by the commitment of the individuals and
their interest in sustaining their group.
Indeed, there were some indicators that the creation of a community of practice could be
possible. The facilitators were engaged in a joint enterprise of facilitating English language
conversational groups, and, due to a pre-established curriculum, shared a repertoire, both
pedagogical and conceptual. They participated in shared activities, such as facilitator training
workshops, and some felt the necessity to continue doing so. As facilitators moved from the
novice status to a more experienced one, they tended to challenge established norms (as it was in
the case of A.B.), while still relying on those who are located in the centre of the community—
the staff and work-and-learn students—for support in some cases. More importantly,
multilingual facilitators maintained their roles as learners, albeit more experienced ones, in their
interaction with novice learners. I would argue that the program could encourage further
facilitator collaboration. At the time of my study, the volunteers dictated their schedules and
while there were offerings of professional development, team teaching opportunities, and social
events, I could not find any collaboration which took place between the facilitators.
Further, this study revealed that for former and current patrons of literacy programs, a
change towards a facilitator role can result in a more open and compassionate demeanor towards
their community and language learners who constitute it. Some participants in this study
experienced qualitative changes in the way they speak English; others felt effects of volunteering
in their everyday interactions outside the UBC Learning Exchange. The growth of self-esteem,
self-confidence and the inspiration to help that participants of this study reported as outcomes of
their volunteer work are consistent with the work of Bridwell (2013) and Rivera (2003). At the
Balyasnikova 87
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
same time, this study adds to existing research due to its focus on learners-turned-volunteers, not
exclusively learners. My analysis suggests that the facilitators within the program had a sense
that they are part of a community, which is perhaps the greatest strength of English
Conversation.
The broad purpose of this study was to understand how volunteers at the English
Conversation see their role in the program, given its purported community nature and flexible
design. Further, this study addressed the largely underexplored learning contexts that serve adults
from marginalized backgrounds. The findings suggest that while facilitators at the English
Conversation had diverse motives for volunteering, as former patrons of free literacy programs,
they shared the experience of learning: trying to learn a new language at a mature age (in case of
multilingual facilitators) and trying to gain access to education (in case of monolingual
facilitators). Moreover, the feeling of being needed and being in demand sustained their
involvement with the program. In addition, the variation in participants’ responses highlights the
differences in how monolingual and multilingual facilitators experience language learning and
teaching, especially in programs that aim to support vulnerable populations of language learners.
The monolingual facilitators’ insistence that learners were their equals and the multilingual
facilitators’ concern that learners may need to be pushed to use English outside of the
conversation group highlight how different lived experiences of language learning and use in
Canadian context might impact teaching style in the classroom.
The findings of this study may be useful for program administrators and evaluators who
seek to get a better understanding of how volunteering influences facilitators who work at similar
programs. These findings attest to the power of community in language learning contexts where
the facilitators grow and develop alongside the learners.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
This research project was funded by the Provost's Office of the University of British Columbia.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Spring Gillard, Kathleen Leahy, and Dr. Angela Towle of the UBC
Learning Exchange for their support during the research and writing process. I would also like to
acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for taking time to read the earlier version of this article
and giving their feedback.
Balyasnikova 88
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
References
Balyasnikova, N., Gillard, S., & Korcheva, G. (2018). Circles within circles: Storying
pedagogical practice, literacy research and community engagement. In R. McGray & V.
Woloshyn (Eds.) Proceedings from Canadian Association for the Study of Adult
Education, (pp. 14–21), Regina, SK, Canada. Canadian Association for the Study of
Adult Education.
Bremer, K. (1996). Achieving understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters. London,
England: Longman
Bridwell, S. D. (2013). A constructive-developmental perspective on the transformative learning
of adults marginalized by race, class, and gender. Adult Education Quarterly, 63(2), 127–
146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713612447854
Buckland, J. (2010). Are low-income Canadians financially literate? Placing financial literacy in
the context of personal and structural constraints. Adult Education Quarterly, 60(4), 357-
376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713609358449
Chao, X., & Mantero, M. (2014). Church-based ESL adult programs: Social mediators for
empowering family literacy ecology of communities. Journal of Literacy Research,
46(1), 90–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x14524588
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P.
(1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: a functional
approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(6), 1516.–1530.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1516
Cnaan, R. A., & Goldberg-Glenn, R. S. (1991). Measuring motivation to volunteer in human
services. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(3), 269–284.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391273003
Coady, M. (2013). Adult health learning and transformation: A case study of a Canadian
community-based program. Adult Education Quarterly, 63(4), 321–337.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713612471419
Cooperrider, D. and Avital, M. (2004). Introduction: Advances in appreciative inquiry-
constructive discourse and human organization, In Cooperrider, D. and Avital,
M. (Ed.) Constructive Discourse and Human Organization (Advances in Appreciative
Inquiry, Vol. 1), pp. XI–XXXIV. Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1475-9152(04)01017-8
Cooperrider, D. L., Barrett, F., & Srivastva, S. (1995). Social construction and appreciative
inquiry: A journey in organizational theory. In D. Hosking, H. P. Dachler, K. Gergen
(Eds.) Management and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism, pp. 157–
200. Farnham, England: Ashgate Publishing.
Crowther, J., Maclachlan, K., & Tett, L. (2010). Adult literacy, learning identities and pedagogic
practice. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 29(6), 651–664.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2010.524010
Duff, P., Wong, P., & Early, M. (2000). Learning language for work and life: The linguistic
socialization of immigrant Canadians seeking careers in healthcare. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 57(1), 9–57. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.1.9
Dunn, J., Chambers, S. K., & Hyde, M. K. (2015). Systematic review of motives for episodic
volunteering. Voluntas, 27(1), 425–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9548-4
Balyasnikova 89
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
Finn, H. B. (2010). Overcoming barriers: Adult refugee trauma survivors in a learning
community. TESOL Quarterly, 44(3), 586–596. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.232338
Golding, B. G. (2011). Social, local, and situated: Recent findings about the effectiveness of
older men’s informal learning in community contexts. Adult Education Quarterly, 61(2),
103–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713610380437
Hardman, J. C. (1999). A community of learners: Cambodians in an adult EAL classroom.
Language Teaching Research, 3(2), 145–
166. https://doi.org/10.1191/136216899666190728
Kim, Y. S., & Merriam, S. B. (2010). Situated learning and identity development in a Korean
older adults’ computer classroom. Adult Education Quarterly, 60(5), 438–
455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713610363019
Morgan, B. (2002) Critical practice in community-based ESL programs: A Canadian perspective.
Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 1(2), 141–162.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0102_03
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Bristol, England:
Multilingual Matters.
O’Donnell, V. L., & Tobbell, J. (2007). The transition of adult students to higher education:
Legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice? Adult Education
Quarterly, 57(4), 312–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713607302686
Prins, E., Toso, B. W., & Schafft, K. A. (2009). It feels like a little family to me: Social
interaction and support among women in adult education and family literacy. Adult
Education Quarterly, 59(4), 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713609331705
Rivera, K. M. (1999). Popular research and social transformation: A community-based approach
to critical pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 485–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587675
Rivera, L. (2003). Changing women: An ethnographic study of homeless mothers and popular
education. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 30(2), 31–51. Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol30/iss2/3/
Rusch, D., Frazier, S. L., & Atkins, M. (2015). Building capacity within community-based
organizations: New directions for mental health promotion for Latino immigrant families
in urban poverty. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health
Services Research, 42(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-014-0549-1
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Shan, H., & Walter, P. (2015). Growing everyday multiculturalism: Practice-based learning of
chinese immigrants through community gardens in Canada. Adult Education Quarterly,
65(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713614549231
Shuayb, M., Sharp, C., Judkins, M., & Hetherington, M. (2009). Using appreciative inquiry in
educational research: Possibilities and limitations. National Foundation for Educational
Research. Retrieved from https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/aen01/aen01.pdf
Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2002). Should I stay or should I go? Investigating Cambodian women’s
participation and investment in adult EAL programs. Adult Education Quarterly, 53(1),
9–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713614549231
Soto Mas, F., Ji, M., Fuentes, B. O., & Tinajero, J. (2015). The Health Literacy and ESL study: a
community-based intervention for Spanish-speaking adults. Journal of Health
Communication, 20(4), 369–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.965368
Balyasnikova 90
BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 75–90
Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
Tisdell, E. J., Taylor, E. W., & Forté, K. S. (2013). Community-based financial literacy
education in a cultural context: A study of teacher beliefs and pedagogical practice. Adult
Education Quarterly, 63(4), 338–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713613477186
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier.
Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139–146. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2000/01/communities-of-practice-the-organizational-frontier
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and semi-
structured methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Willems, J., Huybrechts, G., Jegers, M., Vantilborgh, T., Bidee, J., & Pepermans, R. (2012).
Volunteer decisions (not) to leave: Reasons to quit versus functional motives to stay.
Human Relations, 65(7), 883–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712442554
The BC TEAL Journal is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright rests with the authors.
