




































 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.   

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314


 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) 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314


 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 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314


 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 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314


 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 research1, 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.  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314


 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.  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314


 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.  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314


 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 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314


 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 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314


 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 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314


 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.  

  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314


 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 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314


 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.  

  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314


 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 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713612447854
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713609358449
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x14524588 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1516
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391273003
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713612471419 
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1475-9152(04)01017-8
https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2010.524010
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.1.9
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  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.232338
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713610380437
https://doi.org/10.1191/136216899666190728
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713610363019
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0102_03
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713607302686
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713609331705
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587675
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol30/iss2/3/
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-014-0549-1
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713614549231
https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/aen01/aen01.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713614549231
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. 

 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/314
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713613477186
https://hbr.org/2000/01/communities-of-practice-the-organizational-frontier
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712442554
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

