cambridge delta module 3

Emmanuel Bathalomew

DELTA Module 3: Extended Essay

LDT: Developing teachers’ activity set-up for young

learners of primary school age.

Table of contents

Part 1: Key issues…………………………………………………………………………3

Part 2: Need analysis: Background……………………………………………10

00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 1

Findings:…………………………………………………………………………..12

Challenges teaching Young Learners:…………………………….13

Teacher beliefs about learning and teaching:………………13

Part 3: The Course:…………………………………………………………………..15

Aims and objectives:……………………………………………………16

Course Constraints:……………………………………………………..17

Course plan:………………………………………………………………….18

Course Materials:………………………………………………………….19

Part 4: Assessment:……………………………………………………………………21

Course evaluation:……………………………………………………….24

Part 5: Conclusion:…………………………………………………………………….24

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………….27

Appendices:……………………………………………………………………………….28

Developing teachers’ activity set-up skills for young learners of

primary school age

Part 1

Introduction:


For decades exponents of different language teaching methods have put

forward methods that they claim best serve language teaching. These

methodologies, ranging from the Grammar Translation Method, the Direct

Method, the Audio-Lingual Method, the Silent Way, Suggestopedia,

Community Language Learning, the Total Physical Response Method, Natural

Approach, Oral Approach, Situational Language Approach, through to the

Communicative Approach can leave language teachers in a state of

uncertainty as to which approach to choose and how to go about that

choice. While these methods purport to be different, it would however be

wrong to assume that they project entirely different roads to language

teaching. Rather, it has been observed that most of these methods have

overlapping theories and approaches to language learning and teaching.

What may superficially appear to be a new method, is often merely a

variation of an existing method presented with new nomenclature or, as

Wilga Rivers (1991, p.283) succinctly puts it, “the fresh paint of a new

terminology that camouflages their fundamental similarity.”

It has however been observed by teachers that, given the diversified nature

of the language classroom and the complexity of language learning and

learners, “no single perspective on language, no single explanation for

learning, and no unitary view of the contributions of language learners will

account for what they must grapple with on a daily basis” (Larsen-Freeman,

1990, p. 269). This widespread dissatisfaction with the notion of methods

has led many to the conclusion of what Jarvis (1991, p. 295) aptly posits as

“Language teaching might be better understood and better executed if the

concept of method were not to exist at all”. Most ELT teachers have


therefore slowly come to the realization that “no matter how much

intellectual energy is put into the invention of new methods (or of new

approaches to syllabus design, and so on), what really matters is what

happens when teachers and learners get together in the classroom...”

(Allwright and Bailey 1991). My focus in this EA is teacher preparation

before the “…get together in the classroom…”

We are now in what is often termed the “post-methods” era, and a time

when the internet offers teachers a wider range of resources and activity

banks than ever before. Rather than adhering to a potentially restrictive

method, teachers may tend to employ an eclectic approach, and hence the

key methodological factors become the principled selection and effective

execution of learning activities – my focus in this essay is to improve the

latter, that is, activity set-up among young learner teachers of primary

school age.

I have chosen developing activity set-up skills for teachers of young learners

of primary school age as my specialism for the Delta Module Three

assignment, as it is my informed judgment (from my classroom experience

and research) that teachers with good awareness and superior activity set-

up skills are better placed to handle classroom interactions. Also, they can

further ensure that their lesson aims and objectives are met, or as Allwright

and Bailey 1991 highlight, position them to be “alive to what goes on in the

classroom, alive to the problems of sorting out what matters, moment by

moment, from what does not.”

Accommodating for language in the classroom and engaging learners to

participate optimally in lessons are two of the most difficult tasks that we


as teachers face in our daily bid to teach new language. Thus classroom

language accommodation include consciously employing concise and clear

articulation with appropriate signposting at critical points in the lessons,

using visuals, grading our sentences in terms of length and speed,

modelling, activating learners’ schemata, scaffolding, and varying

instructions according to levels.

As such, there is the pertinent need for us to be exposed and be familiar

with language and activities that really work in the classroom. Language

used for the start and end of lessons, asking questions and checking

understanding, controlling energy levels, using the IWB, fun activities,

collaboration etc.

For the sake of this specialism however, activities set up has been subsumed

into four categories: Interaction patterns, teacher and learner roles,

learning styles and energy levels and classroom instructions.

From my classroom teaching experience, research and observation of both

experienced and less experienced teachers, it is my impression that the four

categories listed above are the core pillars to a successful lesson. Varying

interactions patterns and teacher and learner roles, catering for different

learning styles and managing energy levels and using effective classroom

language were, from my experience and a survey conducted among

teachers, the most challenging and critical procedures during a lesson.

In my bid to cater for learner-centred lessons in my everyday teaching, I

have experimented with and conducted surveys on several lessons were

some or all of the listed categories have been either employed or totally

ignored. My findings accentuated the need for a development of these set-


ups and more so among young learner teachers of primary school age; as

they enable the teacher to manage energy levels, ensure appropriate

learner participation, and create working routines that have a positive

impact on learning. They also help to motivate learners and ensure that

different learning styles are catered for and different needs met.

While these are not ranked in any order of preference, I feel very much

inclined to start by highlighting learning styles and managing energy levels

as these, to a very large extent, determine the pace and learning

environment of the language classroom.

Keefe defines learning styles as “the composite of characteristic cognitive,

affective, and physiological factors that serve as relatively stable indicators

of how a learner perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning

environment” (Keefe, 1979). Managing energy levels on the other hand is

how a teacher helps control the mood of the class. Warmers, settlers and

stirrers are activities that do this. Warmers ‘warm’ up and prepare learners

for the lesson. Settlers ‘settle’, calm a class down while stirrers likewise

‘stir’ energize/reenergize the class.

Consolo (2000) observed that in the classroom, learners and teachers are

seen as members of the contexts in which spoken language has social and

pedagogical functions. This brings me to the importance of interaction

patterns in the teaching classroom. Rivers (1987) suggests that “through

interaction, students can increase their language store as they listen to or

read authentic linguistic material, or even output of their fellow students in

discussions, skits, joint problem solving tasks, or dialogue journals”. Varying

interaction patterns therefore extends the role of language beyond mere


communication to the establishment and maintenance of relationships in

the classroom (Cazden, 2000) which can be replicated outside the

classroom. Using the right interaction patterns is therefore not only a

fundamental factor in the success of any classroom activity but also a core

ingredient to achieving learning aims.

Crucial also, to both successful teaching and learning are giving and

checking instructions as these “ … are the main way that teachers manage

classroom learning…” Thornbury (2006) because if learners are expected to

successfully complete a task, instructions on how to execute the task should

not only be simple but logical and achievable. As Scrivener (2005) highlights

“An essentially simple activity can become impossible, not because the

students couldn’t do it, but because they didn’t understand what to do.” I

have witnessed this first hand as a teacher during my earlier teaching days

and as an observer observing experienced and less experienced teachers.

Giving simple and clear instructions and checking that learners do

understand what is to be done and what is required of them, is therefore

key to language teaching and learning, especially with young learners.

Lalonde, Lee and Gardner (1987) listed three classroom behaviours that

have been identified by teachers as significant for the good language

learner. The good language learner is therefore someone who “…actively

vocalizes corrections, speaks out regardless of making mistakes, and focuses

on getting ideas across…” From my classroom experience and observations, I

have discovered that in order to create an environment where learners

would become good learners, we as teachers, need to vary our classroom


roles. We therefore have numerous roles to fulfil both in and out of the

classroom. Anthony Mollica (1998) summarises these roles as:

Out-of Class Roles:

Researcher

Planner

Manager

Advocate

Organizer

Evaluator

Communicator

In-Class Roles:

Teacher

Motivator

Evaluator

Facilitator

Innovator

Communicator

Disciplinarian

As shown above, it can be observed that in order to be good teachers we

must spend considerable time outside the classroom to engage in activities

that will maintain and enhance our professional status in term of

competency, fluency and proficiency, Mollica (1998). Awareness of and

development of the different roles that we as teachers have to undertake in

and out of the classroom, is therefore quite significant as they not only

develop learner’s linguistic competence but also ensure active learner

involvement in the learning process.

Part 2

Need Analysis

James, Jason, Zoe, Elaine, Daniel and Tess are new teachers in a language

school in China, who have been teaching under a year, and are from the UK,

Canada, China and the USA respectively. Appendix 1. I chose them for this


assignment because in my role as Senior Teacher, I have to observe, mentor

and offer insight on their teaching methods and techniques.

Following Brown’s (1995), Soriano’s (1995), Hutchinson & Waters’ (1992),

and Witkin and Altschuld’s (1995) definition of needs analysis, I carried out

a series of need analysis surveys taking into account learners’ “necessities,”

“lacks,” “wants,” and “gaps” and gathered information that served as the

basis for the course design that will meet the needs of these teachers,

Brown (1995) Appendix 1 : Need Analysis results.

Using the Present-Situation Analysis model, I used the following needs

analysis tools:

First, I administered questionnaires (suggested by Jordan, 1997) to teachers

asking about their personal details, the number of minutes spent planning,

the most important procedures in a lesson, the most challenging procedures

and their reasons for teaching young learners in order to gain a general

understanding of what methods and approaches they use and what

procedures they were struggling with (Robinson, 1991). I then observed a

series of lessons taught by them paying particular attention to the areas

highlighted as challenging.

Next, questionnaires were again administered only this time, on their beliefs

about teaching and learning and on their knowledge and skills as teachers

(Richard & Lockhart, 2000) to determine what their expectations were (as

teachers and of the learners) before and after a lesson. Appendix 2

Finally, teachers completed questionnaires on their perceived strengths and

weaknesses in activity set-up, perceived areas of activity set-up that cause


the most difficulty and other areas the teachers have self-identified as

problematic, (Richard, 2000) so as to be able to plan my course. Appendix 3

Findings

General information

As detailed in Appendix 1: General information of teachers; James, late

20s, is British and has been teaching young learners for less than six months.

Jason, also late 20s, is from Canada and has been teaching YL for less than a

year. Zoe and Elaine, early and mid 20s, are Chinese and have been

teaching YL for less than a year. Daniel and Tess, late and mid 20s, have

been also been teaching YL for less than a year.

James enjoys teaching YL as he finds it challenging and different from

previous line of work. Jason has always wanted to be part of children’s

educational growth and teaching YL provides that opportunity. Zoe can

easily relate to YL; teaching them is therefore more staying in touch with

the child in her. For Elaine and Tess, teaching YL is more rewarding, full of

surprises and tangible than AL and Daniel thinks that teaching YL is

humbling.

Challenges teaching Young Learners

The questionnaires reveal that almost all the teachers struggle with giving

and checking instructions, varying interaction patterns and teacher roles,


managing energy levels and catering for multi-levels as challenging

procedures during a lesson. They therefore think that a course designed to

help with the development of activity set-up in the primary classroom

should be centred on the listed procedures. Appendix 3: Strengths and

weaknesses.

Teacher beliefs about learning and teaching

James believes that every learner is capable of learning giving the right

environment and that teachers should be knowledgeable, humanistic yet

professional.

For Jason, learning is at its best when learners are inquisitive and have the

environment that caters for that inquisitiveness and our role as teachers is

to guide learners in their inquiry of knowledge.

Zoe thinks that Learning is about exposure and support and that helping

learners notice that gap is our primary role as teachers.

Tess holds the views that learning is all about motivation, input and

instruction and as teachers, our primary role is to create an environment

conducive enough for learning and teaching to take place.

Daniel believes that language learning is mostly about need, motivation,

support and environment and that our primary role as teachers is setting a

purpose for learning.

For Elaine, learning in any form, consists of the acquisition of knowledge

and how we go about acquiring that knowledge is what learning is all about.

Our role then is to create an environment that caters for high learner

involvement. Appendix 2


Self- Diagnosis – Teacher perceived strengths in activity set-up

James thinks he has good classroom energy and motivation which account

for overall rapport with learners but struggles to successfully manage energy

levels, which affects activity outcomes.

For Jason, support for both strong and weaker learners which ensures that

multi-levels are catered for is his strongest suit in the classroom. He

however struggles with warmer, settler and stirrer balance which makes

lessons one-dimensional.

Zoe states that good scaffolding and monitoring which ensure that learners

are supported and engaged are her strengths but struggles significantly with

stirrer and settler balance and varying interaction patterns.

Tess highlights that her good classroom energy and dynamics which helps

with rapport and learner participation are her strengths and that managing

energy levels and varying interaction patterns are her weakest.

Daniel and Elaine think that classroom management skills and keeping

learners motivated are their strengths but struggle with varying interaction

patterns and giving and checking instructions. Appendix 3

Part 3

The Course


The course was an intensive one-week, 56 hours course, taught by me and

my Director of Studies in China in a private language school during 2013.

During each day, tuition (in-person or video), observations, activities and

presentations were timetabled for 8 hours. These ran from 9:00am to 17:00

with 15, 30 and 90-minute breaks for tea and lunch.

Aims and Objectives

Course aims, as Richard (2001) states; broadly define the purpose of the

course as such, this course aimed to:

Develop young learner of primary school age teachers’ activity

set-up skills through tuition, observations and practice.

Course objectives, as suggested by Richard (2001) describes in smaller units

of learning, what the aims seek to achieve and also provide a basis for the

organization of teaching activities. This course aimed to help: Appendix 4

Course Plan

Raise teachers’ awareness of their roles in and outside the

classroom.

Raise teachers’ awareness of the differences between young and

adult learners.

Raise teachers’ awareness of the stages of a lesson and what goes

into a lesson plan.

Develop and practise teachers’ instruction giving and checking

skills.


Raise teachers’ awareness of and provide opportunities to

experiment with different interaction patterns and teacher roles.

Raise teachers’ awareness of different learning and styles and

what roles these play in learning.

Course Constraints

The course took place during the second week induction of the teachers in

our private language school in China. Given that teachers were from

different backgrounds (countries) and teaching experience, their

motivation, teaching beliefs, strengths and weaknesses varied considerably

in many areas. These constraints were addressed by differentiation where

appropriate (video, in-person etc). Resources, such as books and videos,

interactive whiteboard and space were readily provided by the school as the

course was incorporated into the induction training of new and less

experienced teacher. I however initially had issues with the assessment

phase of the course, as the school wanted to use the results as part of the

appraisal for the teachers’ probation. This was later duly resolved and the

course was delivered as planned.

Course plan

The course as designed (Appendix 5) is a 56-hour course spread over a week

(Monday to Sunday) and convened from 09:00 to 17:00 with 15, 30 and 90-

minute breaks for tea and lunch. Appendix 5: Course Plan


This was a learner-centred approach course designed with the teachers’

situation in mind; (Hutchinson & Waters, 1992) taking into account teachers’

needs, necessities, lacks, wants, and gaps, Brown’s (1995), Soriano’s (1995),

and Witkin and Altschuld’s (1995). The course comprised input (loop; in-

person or video), observations, research and practice.

I particularly chose Loop Input as the primary method of delivering the

course as it does not only provide opportunities for teachers to experience

the processes and contents of learning by doing but also caters for explicit

input with reinforcements ( post-tasks reflection) to help teachers absorb

and digest input for subsequent replication. Appendix 6

Input was therefore either in-person (me or my Director of Studies) or video

lessons of other experienced teachers highlighting or teaching a particular

activity set-up skill.

The morning sessions were mainly for input and reflections while the

afternoon sessions were aimed at practice and overall feedback. At the end

of each day’s session, teachers were set written homework in order to be

prepared for subsequent sessions.

The input sessions raised awareness and highlighted the importance of a

particular skill set (e.g. Lesson Planning) and the necessary steps/stages

involve to make the set skill a successful in the classroom.

The presentation stages of the sessions gave teachers opportunities to

replicate the input and skills that they had earlier engaged with making the


learning process experiential (Alexander et al., 2008:87). These were

followed by feedback sessions to clarify any issues teachers had and to

reinforce the set-up skill(s) of the day.

Course Materials

Given the broad nature of resources available on activity development skills,

I decided to narrow down material selection to those that were of

immediate relevance to the needs of the course.

The following resources were therefore used: As evidence in Appendix 6

Approaches & Methods in Language Teaching (J. Richards & T.

Rogers, 1986)

How to Teach English (J. Harmer, 1998)

Learning Teaching (J. Scrivener, 1994, 2005)

The Practice of English Language Teaching 4th Ed (J. Harmer,

2007)

Teaching Languages to Young Learners (L. Cameron, 2001)

Teaching English in the Primary Classroom (S. Halliwell, 1992)

Teaching English To Children (W. A. Scott & L. H. Ytreberg, 2005)

What English Teachers Need to Know (D.E. Murray & M.A. Christison,

Vol II 2011)

Classroom Dynamics (J. Hadfield, 1992)

Classroom DIY, A Practical (M. Leimanis-Wyatt, 2010)

The Classroom Survival Manual (R. L Partin, 2009)

The Ultimate Teaching Manual (Gererd Dixie ,2011)

A course in Language Teaching ( Penny Ur, 2009)


Planning Lessons and Courses (T. Woodward, 2009)

100 Ideas for Lesson Planning (Anthony Haynes, 2010)

Classroom Instructions That works ( J.D. Hill & K.M. Lynn, 2006)

Classroom Interaction and Social Learning (K. Kumpulainen & D.

Wray, 2002)

A Guide to Effective Instructions (D.C. Orlich et al, Teachong

Strategies, 2010)

Teaching and Learning Languages (Anthony Mollica, 1998)

Learning to Teach English (Peter Watkins, 2005)

Effective Language Learning (Graham Susan, 1997).

Designing Task for the Communicative Classroom ( Nunan David,

2001)

I am of the impression that choosing from a range of course materials made

it a lot easier to meet the needs, aims and objectives of the course, as most

of the materials directly addressed activity set-up skills with practical

examples. Appendix 6 Daily Course Plan

Part 4

Assessment and Course Evaluation

In this section, I will discuss assessment in general and highlight how

teachers were assessed. Authentic assessment, incidental or intended is an

important aspect or learning and teaching (Brown, 2003). It should contain

tasks and contexts that are interesting, authentic, real life, and is done at

different times and using a variety of methods which reveal the learning and

development of the learner; the higher the degree of authenticity


therefore, the more positive the effect and motivation for learning (Gulikers

et al, 2004, p.68).

Taking into consideration Gulikers et al’s five dimensions of authentic

assessment and as can be seen from the course overview and daily plan

(Appendix 6), formative, summative and criterion-referenced assessments

were carried out in order to measure the degree to which knowledge of

activity set-up skills was grounded in profound understanding and how that

knowledge was demonstrated in an authentic manner. Also, to ensure that

assessment at different stages of the course was reliable, valid, interactive

and practical ( Hyland, 2006), assessment tasks only assessed the skills that

were taught( activity set-up skills) with emphasis on improving both learning

and delivery of the course and feedback ( peer, tutor-led) was consistent

with the assessment.

As this was a skills focused course, formative assessment was however used

on a daily basis to help in the delivery, learning and teaching/realigning of

the course. Teachers were, for example, quizzed after each input session

(peer or tutor-led) with a whole class feedback session which helped

demonstrate teachers’ understanding of the concepts and skills.

When it came to the practical demonstration of the skills taught,

assessment was mostly based on teachers’ performance of the individual

presentations at the end of each day’s session and these sought to help

teachers replicate the types of tasks they would have to carry out in their

future teaching making the assessment of immediate importance and more


meaningful (Bachman & Palmer, 1996). For example, teachers were asked to

draft a lesson plan at the start of the course highlighting the necessary

classroom procedures. As the course progressed, they were required to

make relevant changes to those lesson plans as they deem fit and share with

their other participants why those changes were needed. This helps

highlight and reinforce their understanding and knowledge of the necessary

procedures and why these are integral to making a lesson successful.

The final demo lessons were summative in nature, testing all the activity

set-up skills developed throughout the course. These exhibited the overall

success of the course while the feedback sessions catered for ways that

course delivery could be improved. The final exam was a multiple choice

exam used to test and reinforce teachers’ understanding of the course

which was peer-marked marking the process a worthwhile and meaningful

one.

The effects of the assessments overall, had a positive and beneficial

(Hughes, 1989:2) backwash as teachers’ activity set-up skills were directly

tested. Also, teachers’ overall performance on the course did not play any

role in teaching appraisals.

Course evaluation

Hutchinson and Waters (1987) suggested that in order to evaluate the

usefulness of the course and to determine to what extent the course met

learners’, in this case teachers’ needs, evaluation should be carried out

during and at the end of the course. Course evaluation was therefore done


on a daily basis at the end of each day’s session during feedback and at the

end of the course when teachers were asked to evaluate the course making

suggestions were necessary. It was also agreed that teachers would continue

giving feedback on the usefulness, validity and practicality of the course as

they put said skills to use in their daily teachings.

Part 5

Conclusion

As highlighted and discussed in the Part 1 of this essay, the need for

teachers, especially among young learners teachers of primary school age,

to be aware of and develop their activity set-up skills, is integral to their

teaching and development as good teachers. In order to successfully address

teachers’ needs as indicated in the Need Analysis section, I gathered and

analysed data i.e. through surveys and observations. These were used to

determine what areas needed attention the most and how these would be

addressed in a way that teachers would develop these skills without loosing

motivation. After analysing teachers’ beliefs about learning and teaching

and their perceived strengths and weaknesses in activity setup, I designed a

teacher training course that catered for these needs and delivered it with

the help of my Director of Studies.

Teachers were more aware and alive to activity set-up in and outside of the

classroom after the course and I believe this was primarily because of the

course. Although the course did not cater for other classroom challenges

like learner motivation and classroom management, teachers were however


made to understand good activity set-up skills will aid in addressing these

challenges.

From the post-course interview conducted, the course also gave teachers

more insight into teaching methodologies and approaches and further

helped distinguished the pronounced and subtle differences between young

and adult learners. It further helped highlight the roles and expectations

from them and their learners which placed them in a better position to

cater for learners’ needs and expectations.

The striking limitation of the course was its intensive nature, as teachers

had too much to take in and replicate in a short period of time. I do

however believe that this and any other remaining issues will be addressed

in subsequent individual observations and feedback sessions.

In conclusion therefore, given that this is my first ever designed and

delivered teacher training course, I recognise that there are a number of

limitations but the course did address and develop teachers’ activity set-up

skills needs.


Bibliography

Allwright, R.L. & K.M. Bailey (1991). Focus on the language classroom: an

introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Anthony Haynes(2010). 100 Ideas for Lesson Planning: Continuum

Anthony Mollica, (1998). Teaching and Learning Languages: Soliel Publishing

Inc.

Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum : A systematic

approach to program development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge, U.K. ;

New York:Cambridge University Press.

Cazden, C.B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and

learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

D.C. Orlich et al, (2010). Teaching Strategies: A Guide to Effective

Instructions Wadsworth

D.E. Murray & M.A. Christison ( 2011). What English Teachers Need to Know

Vol II: Routledge

Gererd Dixie, (2011). The Ultimate Teaching Manual: Continuum

Graham Susan, ( 1997). Effective Language Learning: Multimedia Matters

Ltd.


Gulikers, J.T.M., Bastiaens, T.J., Kirschner, P.A (2004). The Five-

Dimensional Framework for Authentic Assessment: Open University Press

Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1992). English for Specific Purposes: ""

" A learning-centred approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

J.D. Hill & K.M. Lynn (2006). Classroom Instructions That works: ASCD

J. Hadfield( 1992). Classroom Dynamics: Oxford

J. Harmer (1998). How to Teach English: Longman

J. Harmer(2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching 4th Ed: Longman

Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes : A guide and resource

book for teachers.Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University

Press.

J. Richards & T. Rogers (1986). Approaches & Methods in Language

Teaching: CUP

J. Scrivener(1994, 2005). Learning Teaching: Heinemann

K. Kumpulainen & D. Wray (2002). Classroom Interaction and Social

Learning: Taylor & Francis

L. Cameron(2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners: Cambridge

Lalonde, R. N., Lee, P. A., & Gardner, R. C. (1987). The common view of

the good language learner: An investigation of teachers' beliefs. The

Canadian Modern Language Review.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1990). On the need for a theory of language teaching.

In J. E. Alatis (Ed.)

M. Leimanis-Wyatt (2010). Classroom DIY, A Practical: Routledge


Nunan David( 2001). Designing Task for the Communicative Classroom:

Cambridge University Press

Penny Ur (2009). A course in Language Teaching: Cambridge

Peter Watkins (2005). Learning to Teach English: Delta Publishing

R. L Partin (2009). The Classroom Survival Manual: Wiley

Richards, J.C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

S. Halliwell (1992). Teaching English in the Primary Classroom: Longman

Soriano, F. I., & University of Michigan. School of Social Work. (1995).

Conducting needs assessments : A multidisciplinary approach. Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications.

T. Woodward(2009). Planning Lessons and Courses: Cambridge

W. A. Scott & L. H. Ytreberg (2005). Teaching English To Children: Longman

Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs

assessments : A practical guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.


cambridge delta module 3

Documents

language teachers

language classroom

situational language

community language learning

elt teachers

direct method

audiolingual method

existing method