young learners - ylt – linking, developing and ... · pdf fileyoung learners...

YOUNG LEARNERSTHE NEWSLETTER OF THE YOUNG LEARNER SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP (CATS: Children and Teenagers)

Autumn 2007 Issue 2/07 ‘Learning in the Third Millennium’

4 Yemen: Basic English Education in the Third Millennium Coralyn Bradshaw6 Studying English the Bulgarian Way Lyubov Dombeva8 Learning English in Vietnam: Children’s Views on Learning English at School Jayne Moon

12 Motivating Hong Kong Chinese Boys to Write Mary Carney15 Teaching and Learning through Music, Movement and Art M. Teresa Fleta17 Classroom Assistants Project: A Spanish Success Story Trevor Doble19 Families’ Views about Spanish / English Bilingual Programme for Very Young Learners Maria José Brioso Valcárcel22 Differences in Teaching and Learning: Observations on Language Classes in Britain and China Liu Ting26 Mission Impossible or Model for the Future? David Vale29 Looking at a Learner: Russian Teenager Varia Bokuchava30 YLSIGs Around The World: Portugal Cristina Bento and Raquel Coelho32 Book Review Jackie Holderness33 Web Watcher Jennifer Uhler

Price £4.00 ISSN 1026-6747 www.iatefl.org

• Practical ideasand resources for11– 18-year-olds

• Over 60 activitiesto support avariety ofsubjects

• Appendix ofclassroomlanguage

MMoorree ssuuppppoorrtt ffoorr tteeaacchheerrssuussiinngg EEnngglliisshh ttoo tteeaacchh

ootthheerr ssuubbjjeeccttss

For more information visit www.oup.com/elt 1

More words and more support for students

• using English to study other subjects

• preparing for international English examslike IELTS and TOEFL®

CLIL_ad.qxd 1/8/07 10:56 am Page 1

Norwich Institute for Language Education

NILE offers a range of professional development courses for teachers and trainers of English—please see the website for full details

www.nile-elt.com

New for 2007!

• Content and Creativity in Primary ELT: Using Arts and Crafts, Games and Toys for Language Learning • Creativity in ELT: Drama, Story and Song • Language and Methodology: A Refresher Course for Teachers • Management in ELT • From Teacher to Trainer: Developing Effective Trainer Skills for ELT • CELTA—Cambridge ESOL Certificate in Teaching English to Adults.

plus the continuation of the following highly successful courses:

• Advanced Language and Intercultural Awareness • Advanced Language, Materials and Methodology • British Studies: Language, Literature and Life • Communicative Language Teaching and Testing • CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning • Multimedia and the New Technology in ELT • Multiple Intelligences and NLP in the ELT Classroom • Teaching Business English • Teaching English to Young Learners/Very Young Learners • MA in Professional Development for Language Education (with Leeds Metro-

politan University) New: CLIL module

All of NILE’s Teachers’ courses are eligible for

Comenius funding

Norwich Institute for Language Education 82 Upper St Giles Street , Norwich, NR2 1LT Tel/Fax: +44(0)1603 664473/664493 Email:[email protected] www.nile-elt.com

IATEFL Young Learner Publication 2007-2

1

YOUNG LEARNERSSPECIAL INTERESTGROUPThe Young Learners Special Interest Group wasinitiated in 1985 and is now a worldwide network ofteachers of children and teenagers up to 17 years.

Aims To provide information on recent developments

in the education of young learners in the field ofEnglish as a foreign, second and additionallanguage.

To help teachers and trainers circulate ideas,research findings, news etc. and to meet thedemand for communication in the expandingworld of teaching EFL to young learners.

What do we offer?

‘CATS’: This is a bi-annual publication concernedwith teaching English to children and teenagers. Itis available online and through the post. It includes: practical ideas for teachers of young learners, articles on methodology and theory, details of future events such as conferences

and seminars, reports of recent events book reviews.

Other publications: Joint SIG publications areavailable from the IATEFL office. These are theproceedings of joint seminars and conferenceswhich have been held recently.

Conferences and seminars: The SIG organises aYoung Learner 'track' at the annual IATEFLconference and other UK and international eventswhich are often organised in conjunction with otherSIG groups. The SIG 'track' covers topics whichinclude infant, primary and secondary practice aswell as teacher training issues.

Internet discussion list: A lively forum toexchange ideas, discuss key issues and keep fully

up to date with everything that’s happening in theworld of YL English language teaching.

To find out more about the YL SIG contact:

IATEFL,Darwin College,University of KentCanterbury, Kent CT2 7NY, UKTel: 00 44 1227 824430Fax: 00 44 1227 824431Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.iatefl.orgYL SIG Website:http://www.countryschool.com/younglearners.httm

YL SIG Committee Members

SIG Co-ordinators

Wendy Arnold, Hong Kong [email protected] Joseph, Portugal [email protected]

Finance and MembershipHans Mol, Australia [email protected]

Events Co-ordinatorsGordon Lewis, USA [email protected] Kuchah, Cameroon [email protected] Linse Poland [email protected]

Website ManagementChristopher Etchells, UK [email protected]

Website Resources EditorHans Mol, Australia [email protected]

Publication EditorsKerry Powell, France. [email protected] Bland, Germany [email protected] Bentley, UK [email protected] (Publicity)

Discussion List ModeratorDennis Newson, Germany [email protected]

Business Development ManagerGordon Lewis, USA [email protected]

CATS is produced twice a year. We welcomecontributions or suggestions for future publicationson any aspects of teaching English to YoungLearners up to 17 years.


2

Letter from theCoordinators

Events! Publications! Changes!

These three items sum up what coordinating thispast year has been about.

Events

It was our first PCE as joint coordinators and it wasa success. Over 60 of you attended informativetalks and workshops by our eminent speakers.They gave us some clear and helpful insights intoliteracy, how to teach it and what aspects to focuson. We were generously sponsored by UsbourneBooks and Oxford University Press. A big thankyou to all – speaker, participants and sponsors!

In fact so successful was our Literacy PCE, that it isbeing replicated in Hong Kong and Singapore inpartnership with the British Council and LornaWhiston Study Centres. Some of the speakers aredifferent – but the basic outline for the day remainsunchanged.

We are currently busy planning a very importantevent in Bangalore, India in partnership with theBritish Council. This is a country case study eventwhich will look at how Primary English is beingimplemented in countries around the world. Checkout the website for more information.http://www.primaryeltconference.org

We are also planning our PCE in Exeter 2008which will focus on ‘differentiation’ at both primaryand secondary levels. We hope to see many ofyou at our major annual event.

Publications

We are now in the age of online publications andthere are now two that members can download –one from last year’s CLIL PCE and the other fromthis year’s Literacy PCE. As a subscriptionmembership based group, it makes financial sensefor us to publish online.

Goodbyes and Hellos

This year there have been changes to thecommittee: we are sad that

Karen Widl, Austria - Events

Kay Bentley, UK – CATS Editor

have decided to step down but wish them bothevery success in the future. They will continue toremain on the committee handing over to the newcommittee members.

Wendy Arnold:

‘I am standing down as Discussion List Moderatorbut continue as Joint Coordinator’.

We are very pleased to welcome the following newmembers:

Janice Bland , Germany -CATS Co-Editor

Dennis Newson, Germany - DiscussionList Moderator

Caroline Linse, Korea - Events

Harry Kuchah, Cameroon - Events

We look forward to meeting all our YLSIG membersin India or in Exeter or indeed online! Seeinformation on pages

Wendy Arnold, Hong Kong

Niki Joseph, Portugal

(Joint YLSIG Coordinators)


3

EditorialKay Bentley

I write this as my final editorial for CATS. Editingthis publication has been a joy and a challenge. Ajoy, as it is very exciting commissioning articles,persuading advertisers to promote their wares andworking with a committee who share a wealth ofexpertise about Primary and Secondary younglearners and their teachers. A challenge, as thedesign changed and brought with it a few ITglitches. We hope that this issue will be readable!

The theme of autumn 2007 CATS is a general one.It concerns what is happening today in Englishclasses for young learners around the world. Thelanguage learning experiences and contexts they,their teachers, their trainers, their classroomassistants and their parents are involved in at thebeginning of the third millennium.

We open with two articles from places not writtenabout in CATS before: Yemen and Bulgaria.Coralyn Bradshaw and Lyubov Dombeva paintvivid pictures of the language teaching and learningenvironments that exist in their countries. Readerswill be amazed at the developments in education inboth places.

The issue then zooms in on particular classroomissues in Vietnam and Hong Kong. Both articlesare truly fascinating. Jayne Moon explores whatpupils enjoy while learning English and MaryCarney reveals an example of using technology asa way to motivate teenage boys to write. I am surethat both these articles will make readers reflect onhow their own pupils respond to English.

Three different aspects of teaching English inSpain are then described: how multipleintelligences are developed through Music,Movement and Art (Teresa Fleta), the success of aclassroom assistant project (Trevor Doble) andparents’ opinions on their children’s new Englishprogramme (Maria José Brioso Valcárcel). Allthree articles are cutting edge as they providemuch needed research on Content and LanguageIntegrated Learning (CLIL) approaches andinitiatives. They are must reads!

A comparison of language learners in China andBritain follows. Liu Ting offers first hand

observations of learners from both countries andgives insight into how cultural differences have aneffect on teaching and learning. David Vale’sarticle on a teacher training programme as a lowcost model for the 21st century completes the articlesection.

CATS continues with our regular features: ARussian pupil, Varia Bokuchava, is featured in‘Looking at a Learner’ and Portugal is the countryfeatured in ‘YLSIGs Around the World’. CristinaBento and Raquel Coelho include photographs ofvery creative work being done there. Our review isby Jackie Holderness who writes about CarolRead’s (former CATS editor) excellent new bookon 500 Activities for the Primary Classroom byMacmillan. Discussion list information follows thenyou’ll find Jennifer Uhler’s Web Watcher news.

So, a marvellous selection of writing which will helpYLSIG members build on their knowledge of whatis happening in English classrooms today.

Please send contributions for the next two CATS to:

Kerry Powell [email protected] (Spring2008: Learner Differences/ Multiple Intelligences)

And /or to the new editor who takes over from me

Janice Bland [email protected] (Autumn 2008:Drama)

And Kerry writes:‘If you have any activities, or have done researchon aspects of the above themes, please write andshare them with our YLSIG colleagues. Articles areabout 1500 words. Please contact us for moreinformation and contributors’ guidelines.

There will also be a new column for letters andviews. These could be on YLs in general, YLs inyour particular context, feedback on past issues ofCATS or suggestions for future issues’.

I wish Kerry and Janice all the very best as editorsof CATS. I know they will continue developing thenewsletter in a dynamic way to celebrate the joysand meet the challenges of teaching pupils Englishin the 21st century.

Happy reading,

Kay Bentley [email protected]


4

Yemen: Basic EnglishEducation in theThird MillenniumCoralyn Bradshaw

The third millennium and the Yemen is not acollocation that slips easily from the tongue. Tothink of Yemen is to think of medieval windingstreets, towering stone and mud houses, blackshrouded female figures hurrying about theirbusiness, beggars huddled outside mosques andchildren trundling wheelbarrows as they sell theirwares. With a population of twenty-one million,Yemen is one of the poorest nations in the Arabregion. Over 40 % of the Yemeni population lives inpoverty, the majority concentrated in rural areas.Yemen’s adult literacy rate of 49% is indicative ofthe low average net enrolment in basic education,which at 72% is one of the lowest in the MiddleEast and North Africa regions. This figure concealsthe greatly lowered enrolment rate for girls whichsinks to 30% in rural areas where poverty andtraditional attitudes to girls’ education limit femaledevelopment.

The government’s effort for education started in1962 when the Yemen Arab Republic wasestablished. Traditionally, North Yemen had been acompletely closed society with a history of centuriesof Imamate rule, characterised by a lack roads,electricity, running water, hospitals, andcommunication system. Even radios wereunknown. Education was limited to religiousschools and the memorisation of the Koran. Not allchildren had access to these schools and few girlsattended. Meanwhile, South Yemen had had acompletely different educational history. UnderBritish occupation, education of a more westernnature was made available in Aden. After theBritish departure in 1967, the People’s DemocraticRepublic of South Yemen started a process ofeducational development which finally merged withthat of the North in 1990, when, after years of strife,unification occurred to create the Republic ofYemen. The educational system currentlycomprises eight or nine years of Basic and three orfour years of Secondary segregated tuition.

It soon became clear that this newly emergingcountry was facing several educational problemssuch as lack of budget, leadership, qualifiedteachers, overcrowding and inefficiency. Variousdevelopment partners and stakeholders such asthe World Bank, UNICEF, WFP, ILO, UNESCO, thegovernments of Germany, The United Kingdom, theNetherlands and France, became involved withYemen’s Basic Education Development Strategy.Finally, after the G8 Summit in June 2002, Yemenwas invited to participate in the Education for All:Fast Track Initiative (EFA: FTI). This led directly tothe Third Millennium Development Goals for 2015to which the Yemeni Government is currentlycommitting 21% of its general budget. An importantcomponent of the Basic Education DevelopmentStrategy is the introduction of English as a secondlanguage in Grade 4 of basic education whenchildren are aged between eight and nine yearsold. English is usually introduced in Grade 7.

The British Council is now providing support to theMinistry of Education in the form of a primaryteacher training pilot project which began in thecapital city of Sana’a in March 2006. The trainingconsists of an eight week in-service primarymethodology course based around a primaryEnglish course book which has been selected forthe pilot. A further two weeks of peer micro-teaching completes the ten week course. Thecourse participants come from a variety ofbackgrounds. Both newly qualified male and femalebasic and secondary education English teachers,together with inspectors, have attended the course,which was run in Sana’a in the north, Aden, in thesouth, and Taiz, in the centre of the country during2006/7. The methodology course started with afoundation of two weeks of theory and continuedwith six weeks of workshops and hands-onactivities aimed at simultaneously increasing theparticipants’ understanding of teaching children,increasing their creativity, and building their self-confidence. A second strand to the training is a fourweek mentoring course for the inspectors who willbe involved in supporting the newly trainedteachers.

Carefully selected pilot schools in the three citieswill then be involved in the pilot scheme ofintroducing English at Grade 4. As conditions withinschools varies considerably, it is important at thisearly stage to select schools where the conditionsare more favourable and where the schooladministration is sympathetic to the early


5

introduction of English. Yemeni schools typicallyserve as secondary schools in the morning andbasic education schools in the afternoon. Theschool administration is thoroughly briefedregarding the conditions which should apply in theEnglish fourth grade classes. The following is a listof basic requirements for the fourth grade teachersin order for them to be able to implement themethodology and teaching techniques that theyhave acquired. Teachers should be provided with: atape recorder, basic arts and craft resources, alockable cupboard, permission and support in usingthe classroom walls for display, and exemptionfrom regular examinations and grading. Mostimportantly, there should be an upper limit of sixtychildren to a class.

In order to provide a vignette of general conditionsin Yemeni urban schools, course participants wereasked to complete a questionnaire about typicalproblems in their schools. This is what theyreported:

Classes can have a hundred children or more; theage range in a class may vary by up to five years;blackboard surfaces are poor; some schools haveno toilet facilities; contact with parents is difficult;lack of flashcards, tape recorders, course cassette,teacher’s book etc; late arrival of course books;pupils without books; high absenteeism; pupilsarriving hungry; lack of support from theadministration; too many contact hours; low salary.The latter point is significant as all male teachershave a second job to supplement their income.Lesson planning therefore is something that is notgenerally practised. Not surprisingly, most teachersreported that pupils were unmotivated andundisciplined. The conditions in rural schools werereported in some places to be as basic as lessonsunder the trees carried out by teachers who hadonly a basic education themselves.

In addition to these problems, and presumably asan indirect result, the Yemen Observer, an EnglishLanguage newspaper, reported on the 10th April2007:

“About 37 percent of children between five to 15(sic) are not going to school due to violence that isbeing practised, said Dr Afaf al-Haimi, a professorof social science at Sana’a University”

According to Dr Al-Haimi’s research, teachersregularly beat children for even minormisdemeanours. The headmistress of a girl’s

school in Sana’a, reported, “Teachers are beatingchildren for simple reasons such as talking in classor not completing homework”.

It is against this backdrop that the basic educationalreform is taking place, and it is with experience ofthese conditions that the training of the Grade FourEnglish teachers is being implemented. Thesituation begs the question: What did theparticipants make of a course based on thepremise of understanding children’s developmentalneeds, understanding how children’s brainsdevelop and learn, understanding children’s needsfor creativity, movement and involvement,understanding the concept of cognitivedevelopment and problem solving, understandingthe principles of classroom management? Therehad not been a single aspect or element of thecourse with which any of the participants had beenfamiliar. Nor had any of the participants ever donepeer micro-teaching, and for some of the femaleparticipants this was particularly challenging due tothe presence of male participants. They couldeasily have been forgiven for being overwhelmed.In order to gauge reactions, questionnaires wereused. In answer to the question: “What have youlearnt about yourself?” the following response isheart warming and is not atypical of the generalresponse. Elham from Taiz writes:

“I have learnt that the idea of progressing bit by bit,by thinking and asking questions. I learnt to be agood model for my children. I learnt to be aware ofmy children’s needs. I learnt to assess myselfgradually. I learnt to be more fair and kind withchildren. The important thing I learnt about myselfis that if I want to learn and do something, I’ll do it.”

The way ahead for Yemeni teachers is not an easyroute. Never did the words of Robert Frost ringmore true:“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?I took the one less travelled by,And that has made all the difference.”

Coralyn Bradshaw is an ELT Consultantspecialising in English at primary level. She is ateacher trainer and materials writer. She is authorof the primary English course 'Excellent'(Longman). She has extensive experience ofworking in the Arab world. She lives in Spain

[email protected]


6

Studying English theBulgarian wayLyubov Dombeva

Why English?

The Bulgarian Ministry of Education official Englishlanguage programme states that “the new situationin Europe requires students to 1) have knowledgeand skills that will allow them to developindependently, 2) apply them in a multiculturalenvironment and 3) work effectively in a teamaccording to international standards”. The ability touse English is perceived by society as a major toolfor young people to achieve success in life.

The English language environment in Bulgaria isprovided by a variety of TV and radio programmes,the Internet, PC games, books, comics andmagazines available. They foster learners’motivation to use language as a means ofinformation, communication and entertainment.

The current situation

Pupils start learning English from the second gradeof primary school. The main reason not to startfrom grade one is the difference between theCyrillic and the Latin alphabet. It is believed thatcommunicative skills and strategies as well assubject knowledge already acquired in L1 will helppupils in learning L2. For the first year, theminimum number of lessons is 64 but schools maybe able to provide an additional number aselectives, taking into consideration parents’ opinionand staff availability.

Primary level ELT staff comprises both primaryteachers with sufficient knowledge of English aswell as language teachers, depending on schoolpolicy and available staff. At this level, ELT aims toenable pupils to communicate in everyday, real-lifesituations, develop appreciation of other culturesand respect cultural differences. Teachers achievethese using teaching techniques appropriate to thepupils’ age, for example, games, songs, drawing,modelling, poems, role-play, and drama. Thelanguage of instruction is primarily in L1, although

this may differ among teachers. Pupils areencouraged to develop compensation strategiessuch as gesturing and miming to overcomecommunication problems. At this stage, teaching isfocused on supporting a positive attitude to learningEnglish. This is why teachers encourage success inusing English and instead of punishing mistakes,use them as feedback. In speaking, there is anemphasis on accuracy of pronunciation and accentbut also on fluency and pupils’ ability to function inEnglish. Teachers encourage learners to see theirsuccess and failure as the result of their own effortsand to take responsibility for their learning.

At the end of the primary school, many parentschoose to have their children’s English languageskills tested and certified by external institutions.The most popular tests include Pitman, CAT, PAT,Movers etc.

In low secondary the English language programmeaims to further develop pupils’ language skills andlearning strategies. This is achieved through tasksthat stimulate logical thinking and independentdecision making and requires implementation ofknowledge from other subjects. Activities are usedto help pupils understand language structuresintuitively. Teachers encourage pupils to useEnglish to satisfy their curiosity, personal interestsand communication needs and so demonstrate thepractical benefit of learning English. Specialattention is paid to preparing pupils for real lifesituations of intercultural communication bydiscussing English films, searching the Internet,writing emails in English etc. Pupils’ repertoire ofcompensation techniques increases to includesubstitution with synonym, antonym, paraphrasing,international words etc. Pupils’ ability of self-controland self-assessment is emphasized by theprogramme.

At the end of VII grade most students are self-motivated, independent learners. In addition to thetourist purposes, young people see languagelearning as a way to achieve new aims – mobility,study and work in international contexts andparticipation in international projects.

Admission to secondary language schools follows anational testing procedure in Bulgarian languageand literature, and mathematics. It does not dependon the level of knowledge and skills in the foreignlanguage. During their high school studies students


7

learn two foreign languages over a period of fiveyears.

The first year of intensive English languagelearning aims to develop students’ sensitivity toEnglish structure, general cognitive skills such asanalysis, synthesis, associative thinking etc. masterEnglish to an extent that will allow students to learnother subjects and acquire varied knowledgethrough English. The language learning is not agoal in itself , but a tool to gather and produceinformation; it determines students’ professionaland/or academic opportunities.

In IX and X grades the level of competences ofEnglish is in accordance with the CommonEuropean Framework. During that period, studentshave to achieve a near native speaker knowledgeand skills so that their language competences canaccommodate bilingual education in other subjects.Most often these subjects are biology, geography,history, chemistry and sometimes physics,philosophy and ICT. Bilingual subjects are taughtby non-native speakers, subject teachers withadequate language knowledge.

In XI and XII grades ELT is focused on specificliterary and culture knowledge. It presents studentswith some of the best examples of English andAmerican literature. This corresponds to theBulgarian language and literature curriculum andaims to help students develop further their criticalthinking and ethical and artistic values whileworking with original English language texts.

If English is taught as a second foreign language inthe language high school, the aim is competence tofunction fluently and efficiently in a multicultural,multilingual context. In my opinion, most students’skills correspond to B2-C1 level.

All this allows students to fulfil the languagerequirements for various international certificates bythe end of their high school education. TheBulgarian Ministry of Education has some successin the international recognition of the graduationdiploma of language schools. For over a decadeFrench, Russian, German and Spanish languageschool graduates do not have to take internationalexams to have their level of language competencyrecognized abroad. This is not the case withEnglish as students have to certify their knowledgeand skills through various tests (IELTS, TOEFL,SAT, CAE, FCE etc.) to be admitted to foreign

universities. Despite this, hard working studentsface no difficulties in achieving high scores.

The Drawbacks.

The biggest drawback for the ELT system is thelack of adequately trained English languageteachers. On the one hand, English is the mostpopular foreign language taught in Bulgaria somany teachers are needed. But on the other hand,even though good education has always been a toppriority for the nation, the profession has low socialstatus due to low pay. As a result, many goodlanguage teachers move on to other jobs.

Another major drawback is, of course, the lack ofequipment and teaching materials. This isespecially hard felt in smaller towns and ruralareas. Sometimes even in schools wheremultimedia equipment is available, it is not used forlanguage teaching purposes either due to teachers’lack of experience, or because the equipment isonly available to the ICT department. The materialsused therefore are mainly books, tapes and CDsthat go with the book, video films and magazines.Young children respond best to English songs andanimated films. Unfortunately, there aren’t a lot ofyoung learner programmes on TV, nor speciallycreated videos available to teachers. There areplenty of international course books and othermaterials on the market, but they are too expensivefor the majority of parents. Recently, internationalpublishing houses have developed books forBulgarian ELT. What teachers value most aboutthem, I think, is that they have native speakerauthors or editors.

In subject teaching through English, my own field ofwork, the main problem is that there are no officialMinistry of Education bilingual teaching criteria andstrategies to support it. So, it is not clear what theaims of bilingual teaching are and how to achievethem. This means lack of competent staff and notenough suitable CLIL materials. It is generallyaccepted though, that bilingual teaching has to testsubject not language knowledge. Textbooks aremainly literary translations form Bulgarian, textheavy and without CLIL support. Bilingual subjectsare taught the same number of lessons asmonolingual subjects. Very rarely is bilingualsubject teaching given extra lessons from thenumber of electives. As a result, many studentstend to learn by heart without understanding thesubject concepts. Pre-service bilingual teacher


8

training is rare or it doesn’t really fulfil the purposeto train specialists with skills to integrate subjectand language. In-service training is availablethrough universities’ Foreign Languagedepartments.

The Future

I believe, participation in international collaborationprojects like Comenius, Science across the World,European Youth Parliament, Solar Schools Forumetc., is the key to successful ELT for students andteachers both in primary and secondary contexts.Such initiatives make it possible for students ofdifferent nationalities and backgrounds to sharevalues, knowledge and appreciate the richness ofvariety of cultures in Europe. They also allowteachers to have access to information, exchangeuseful materials and methodology and shareexperience. I believe educating knowledgeable,open-minded and responsible young people is thekey to the sustainable and successful future notonly for Europe, but for the world.

Lyubov Dombeva is a freelance teacher andteacher trainer based in Sofia, Bulgaria. Shespecialises in teaching Biology in English. Currentlyshe teaches Biology through the medium of Englishat Roerich School in Sofia. Lyubov is a member ofthe Bulgarian English Teachers' Associationpresenting regularly at the BETA annualconference on Content and Language IntegratedLearning. She is an active member of the Forum for

Across the Curriculum Teaching from its beginning(www.factworld.info).Lyubov also contributes to CLIL courses forteachers of subjects and English at Sofia Universityand she worked at NILE during the summer of2006. ([email protected])

Teenagers enjoying an English lesson inBulgaria.

Learning English inVietnam: Children’sViews on LearningEnglish in SchoolJayne Moon

In this article, I will discuss Vietnamese children’sattitudes and motivation to learning English, drawingon some aspects of the research I conducted for theMinistry of Education in Vietnam, commissioned bythe British Council in 2005. I shall draw oninformation from some group interviews with 32

children from Grade 3 and 5 and questionnairesfrom 20 Grade 4 and 5 children (54 children in total).

Given the limited number of children, it would beunwise to read too much into the findings. However,it does highlight some interesting issues withregards to learning English in Vietnam whoseexperience of teaching English at primary level isrelatively recent.

English is an optional subject at primary level inVietnam with children in Hanoi, the capital, officiallyallowed to begin from Grade 3(8-9 years) with 2periods of 40 minutes a week, though in some othercities children start earlier. The importance ofEnglish is now widely recognized in Vietnam, bothamong educationists and members of the public,especially in urban areas.


9

Favourite Subject

Children were asked what their favourite subjectwas in order to see how English ranked in popularityin comparison with other subjects. Most childrenvaried in their preference with only 6 saying thattheir single preferred subject was English. However,another 11 children said English was one of theirfavourite subjects along with another subject likeMaths, Vietnamese, computing etc.

Reasons for Liking English

Out of 54 children, 49 responded positively whenasked if they liked English. Their reasons why theyliked English are ordered in terms of frequency infigure 1 below. The majority of reasons they giveare utilitarian, related to how English may be usefulto them in their future lives as, for example, with themost frequently cited reason e.g. enables them tocommunicate with foreigners. (See Fig 1 below)

Figure 1: Reasons why children liked English (52 respondents)

Enables them to communicate with foreigners (10) Interesting (6) Enjoys activities in English class e.g. English movies, songs, using CD-ROMs, looking at pictures (4) Can go abroad for study ( 4) It is an international subject/ language (2) It is useful and important (2) Makes me more intelligent (2) Want to be an English teacher (2) Can travel the world if I know English (2) Will make life better in the future(1) Helps in looking for a job later (1) Helps in learning other subjects(1) Helps me in learning more about English language and England (1) Helps me to pronounce more accurately (1) Helps with vocabulary development for the future (1) Can learn about other children in other countries (1) Can learn things through English (1) ‘ I feel comfortable in English’ (1) I have an English friend

Only a few of the reasons given are more affectiveor classroom –related e.g. they like the classroomactivities e.g. songs, movies etc, ‘I have an Englishfriend’, ‘I feel comfortable with English’. Thiscontrasts, to some extent, with findings from otherresearch carried out in Europe into children’sattitudes and motivation. Nikolov (1999) found thatHungarian children (aged 8-11 years old) tended togive mainly classroom and teacher-related reasonsfor liking English. In this study, it is revealing that all4 responses (see Fig 1) referring to classroomactivities came from children in one IntensiveEnglish class (children have English everyday unlikenormal classes) where the teacher was using anattractive multimedia course book with lots of aids,very different from the more standard course book

used by most other classroom teachers surveyed.

However, Nikolov also found that by Grades 3-5some pupils were beginning to give more utilitarianreasons, like those given by the Vietnamesechildren.

The reasons given by the Vietnamese childrensuggest a strong parental influence since many ofthese children will not have had first handexperience of English in society yet or felt any needfor English. The fact that so few cite interesting andenjoyable classroom activities or mention theteacher as a reason for liking English may reflect adifferent, more formal or studious approach toclassroom learning, reflected in some South EastAsian classrooms. However, it may also reflect the


10

influence of the rather adult-oriented teachingapproach employed by many Vietnamese primaryEnglish teachers (Moon 2005).

Learning Activities

Children were asked to list the kind of activities theydid in English classes and then indicate whichactivities they liked and disliked. The type ofactivities children mention are revealing (Fig 2below).Though these contain some of the moreplay-oriented activities typically associated with theprimary language classroom e.g. singing songs,they also list many more formal types of activity.Some activities were mentioned by only one or twochildren (e.g. puppet play puzzles).

When asked about the activities they liked best (seeopposite), children most frequently mentionedgames and songs which are more play-orientedactivities. In this, they are similar to their peers inother countries. However, children also frequentlymentioned more ‘serious language –orientedactivities’ like writing words or learning newlanguage.

Fig 2: Activities Children Like and Dislike

This finding suggests that children may be heavilyinfluenced by parental and teacher views aboutwhat is good for language learning which may bedifferent from what they personally enjoy or findinteresting. If children do not develop personal andintrinsic reasons for learning English, this mayimpact on their longer term enthusiasm andmotivation. The more formal type of activitiesmentioned by children are confirmed by classroomobservation (Moon 2005 , Grassick 2006) whichsuggest the prominence of an adult –oriented,accuracy focused methodology, reflecting the factthat the teachers were trained to teach adults orsecondary pupils, not children. Although more childfriendly text books and more child-oriented methodsare gradually being introduced, there will be a needto convince both parents as well as teachers of theirvalue for children’s learning.Children’s responses to activities they do not likehighlight interesting individual differences andvariation in learning preferences/styles and remindus not to stereotype children e.g. not all children likesinging.

Activities children liked

Playing games ( 20)Listening to & singing songs inEnglish (10)Listening to/ read stories (5)Learning new language and newwords (4)Speak English (4)Read new words and practice (3)Read English (3)Act in a play/concert in English (3)Group practice (2)Writing new words (2)Picnic/ study tour (2)Camping (2)Matching words 2Using puppets (1)Learn to pronounce( 1)Speak English with friends (1)Doing crosswords (1)Go to audio-visual room (1)Listen to experts speak English (1)

Activities Teachers Do inClass

Learn new words/sentences(5)Playing Games(4)Singing songs (4)Listening to storiesPlaying with puppetsPuzzlesScrambled letter gamecompetitionTeaching & learning newlanguageGroup practiceWrite new wordsRead new words ( row by row)RevisionDoing homeworkCheck homework

Activities children disliked

Learn grammar ( 3)Listen to music/singing ( 3 )Do many exercises ( 3)Having to sit and write inEnglish (2)Pronunciation practiceSometimes don’t understandListening to tapes a lot and notunderstandingBeing teased in English byfriendsEnglish lessons when we onlystay in classGroup practiceRelay racesNot every lesson uses a taperecorderReading a word many times


11

Another insight into children’s attitudes to theirexperience of learning English was gained whensmall groups of children studying privately at theBritish Council were asked to compare learningEnglish in the British Council and learning Englishat school, in terms of which was more fun. Allchildren apart from one said that the British Councilclasses were more fun for the following reasons:

Taught by Native speaker teachers Kind, friendly, interesting, funny teachers More challenging Many interesting activities

Intriguingly, one child said she preferred learning inschool because ´my teacher is very pretty. I liketeacher’s activities e.g. playing bingo, Luckynumbers. She speaks (English) very well’. Thiscomment and the other responses above highlightthe importance of the TEYL teacher in motivatingchildren and therefore the need to providespecialist TEYL training for Vietnamese stateschool teachers so that they can support children’slearning in child-appropriate ways.

When commenting on their school learning, onechild said ‘learning is a pressure at school’. Anotherchild said that she never ‘did activities at schoolonly learn and learn’, suggesting a very formalclassroom. What is revealing about some of theirresponses is that they highlight the ‘interest ‘aspectof learning at the British Council rather than the‘fun’ aspect, implying that normal school activitiesmay not provide sufficient variety and cognitivechallenge for children in Grade 4 and 5 (9-11).

Out of School English Study

Another intriguing fact that emerged from the studywas the number of children who have extra Englishlessons out of school. 46 children were asked ifthey learned English out of school. 32 of themwere attending private tuition classes, either inprivate language institutes or with private tutorswho are sometimes their English teachers. Themain reason children gave for attending theseclasses was to improve their English but one childmentioned having a chance to speak with ‘ foreignteachers’ while another said ‘ in class I haven’tunderstood yet’ and yet another ‘ at school myteacher’s pronunciation is not very accurate ’. Thenumber of children taking some kind of privatetuition for English may indicate some parentaldissatisfaction with the quality of the teaching inschools. However, it may also suggest that someparents have an eye to their children’s prospects

and are keen to ensure that they build up a goodfoundation in English for the future, given thelimited number of hours for English in school. Thephenomenon of private tuition or extra Englishclasses, (also common in other parts of South EastAsia) may partly explain why some children that Iobserved in state primary schools already seemedvery familiar with the textbook material in class andwhy the textbook material seemed insufficientlychallenging. On some occasions, I noted that somechildren in the class seemed more confident inEnglish than the teacher.

Conclusions

The insights from this small sample of Vietnamesechildren’s views are revealing. They suggest thatmost children (in the study sample) are enthusiasticabout learning English but that their attitudes toEnglish and ways of learning English are heavilyinfluenced by parental and teacher views. Theircomments suggest that some of their Englishlearning is fairly formal and perhaps not verychallenging. If they are to sustain their enthusiasmfor English into the future, they need opportunitiesto develop their own intrinsic reasons for learningEnglish and enjoying it. This can be supportedthrough providing specialist TEYL training for stateschool teachers and more children – appropriatelearning materials which are sufficiently interestingand challenging for children.

ReferencesGrassick, L 2006. Primary Innovations. SummaryReport. Vietnam. British Council , Vietnam

Moon, J. 2005. Investigating the Teaching ofEnglish at Primary Level in Vietnam: A Report.Primary English Consultancy. (Unpublished).Commissioned by the British Council. Hanoi,Vietnam

Nikolov, M. 1999 ‘Why do you learn English?Because the teacher is short.’ A study of Hungarianchildren’s foreign language. Language TeachingResearch Vol 3/1, 33-56

Jayne Moon is a freelance ELT Primary consultantand teacher educator. She has extensiveinternational experience in Asia, Europe andelsewhere. She is author of Children LearningEnglish (Macmillan) and co-editor of Research intoTeaching English to Young Learners. Her specialinterests are the development of children’s writingin the L2 and how children learn how to learn.


12

Motivating HongKong Chinese boysto write

Mary Carney

Background

My job involves observing trainee teachersteaching EYL to Primary and Secondary HongKong Chinese learners on the Cambridge ESOLCertificate in English Language Teaching to YoungLearners (CELTYL). When asked to write thisarticle, I wondered if my observations might benefitteachers or trainers of ELY working in othercontexts. And if so, could teaching or learning beencapsulated in writing? I sat back and thoughtabout it. Encapsulated? Probably not. Describe alesson where something interesting happened?Possibly!

The learners

Our recent student group on CELTYL wascomposed of fifteen 12-14 year old boys. Lessonstook place in their Chinese Medium Secondaryschool in one of Hong Kong’s low-income areas.Most were Cantonese speakers. A minority camefrom Mainland China and spoke Mandarin. All werein their first year at secondary school receiving 1hour per day in English and their level was pre-intermediate, though passive knowledge was highand difficult to evaluate. Motivation was predictablylow - most arrived bleary-eyed after their day atschool, and not in the mood to understand noviceteachers’ lack of ease with the classroom, withlanguage teaching, and with teaching an all -boygroup.

Motivating teenagers

Ideas which were light-bulb-blazing-above-head-interesting for trainees in planning often constituteda wet rag for the boys in the classroom. Someactivity types had a class life of just one lesson –running dictations, for example – before a resistant‘Done it already’ became the mantra. Attempts totap into their Canto-pop-fuelled, technology-loaded,

blockbuster cinema, and intensely exam orientedworld via reading or writing generally failed if theteacher was unable to emphasise humour,cleverness or subversion.

That said, getting to a lesson finishing line is rarely,if ever, a seamless process. For many teachertrainees, bumpy teaching via numerous clunkydetours is a necessary part of their professionaldevelopment, and appealing to adolescence isoften the detour - a world so imagined in its ritualsand rules that it almost qualifies as an alternateuniverse. This may explain why our course booktopics e.g. ‘Family’, ‘Sport’, ‘Computers’, when notmediated appropriately, spawned such granitemasked reactions in the boys.

Mediating materials

But what exactly constitutes ‘appropriate’ materialsmediation? In the case of our all-boy group, welearned one thing: lessons inclusive of activitiesinvolving moving, thinking, or competing tended toincrease motivation, work-rate and team ethic.Tasks requiring retrieval of factual information hadthe same effect. But were these elements formulasfor success in teaching boys?

Magic bullets?

They were not magic bullets when competing withother diverse, intangible influences on students’on/off task behaviour, what they said and wrote,and how they worked & interacted with each otherand the teacher. The usual suspects – theteacher’s presentation, staging, logic, task setting,pace, classroom proxemics, behaviour andtechnology management - usually influenced tasktake-up. However, other semi-intangibles, such asthe weather, the day of the week, presence orabsence of certain students, and trainees’ personalcharismas, had a major stake. Trainees who brokethe affective barrier by being able to hang out withthe boys, charm them and win their trust whilemaintaining distance, discipline and control tendedto get higher degrees of co-operative behaviourthan those whose well-intentioned efforts to keepcontrol created a stiff, starchy, oppressiveatmosphere, unwittingly treating the class as if itwere a court.


13

The lesson

One rainy afternoon the boys arrived to a lesson onthe topic of computers. Hoping, but not expecting,to appeal to their collective web-savvy, the traineeteacher asked them to label parts of a computer,which they did effortlessly. She then got thembrainstorming what they used computers for. Openclass feedback revealed game playing (war craftbeing the most popular), downloading variousthings, music listening, and online ‘chatting’. Thetrainee dwelt for a moment on chat rooms - itemerged that most of them chatted with schoolfriends, usually after school, and surprisingly, inEnglish, albeit using abbreviated text language.Unsurprisingly, none would divulge what theychatted about. The trainee then suggested chatrooms could be creepy, which the boys foundamusing. From there on the lesson threatened tospiral into a comfortable, but rambling shamblesuntil a handout with questions about computer use,which required the boys to respond individually,calmed the atmosphere.

The pre-task:The questions included the following:

Is it ok to chat to someone you don’t know onthe Internet? If so, why? If not, why not?

Is it ok to open attachments from people youdon’t know? If so, why? If not, why not?

Is it ok to upload personal information aboutyourself? If so, why? If not, why not?

Is it ok to buy something over the Internet? Ifso, why? If not, why not?

Is it ok to download music and films from theInternet? If so, why? If not, why not?

The task took the boys by surprise. Either a happyaccident or a primal longing to have a voice,caused all students to vent something very urgentand important about Internet use. The trainee foundherself surrounded by a critical adolescent masshunched in intimate communion, while the clockticked, the OHP grew hotter and a drizzle blew onthe windows. This behaviour forced observingtrainees to urgently revise their judgements of theboys’ and their abilities. Those previously labelledas silent and gloomy were now metamorphosing

into expert sources of information, opinionating withfirecracker vigour.

Things did not stop there. An OHT visual of a wellknown young Canto Pop star, and a po-faced HongKong politician ‘chatting’ online created hilarity. Asneither character could be imagined being incontact, the boys found it even more amusing whenasked what they might be chatting about.Girlfriends? Money? The economy? Corruption?Cars? The answer was computer use (which noneof them got). A second OHT, revealing the first lineof their chat beginning ‘Hello, good afternoon’allowed the boys to predict the response which wasthen revealed. The trainee continued with this hide-predict-reveal technique. Loud roars lifted the roofeach time questions or answers were revealed.What seemed to keep them on the edge of theirseats was simply comparing each opinion withthose they had predicted in the previous task.

The core task:In pairs, students were given an identity (ofsomeone famous). Each pair shared a blank sheetwith a line down the middle. The roles were asincongruous a match as that of the original example(local pop stars and Hollywood actors etc). Thistime, however, the purpose of the activity was forthe pairs to chat about a given problem, e.g. ‘Is it okto switch off my computer when it freezes?’.Problems were handed out in strips then the boyshad to work the problem out together by writingtheir ‘chat’, line by line.

The proverbial pin could not be heard dropped.Early finishers kept going without prompting, askingfor more paper, writing furiously, reading theirpartner’s response, and replying like lightening.Some pairs wrote up to three pages of ‘chat’. Thetrainee monitored unobtrusively, correcting errorsoccasionally.

The dialogues and language patterns whichemerged were diverse. Wild, syntactically off-targetbut meaningful discourse contrasted with simpler,highly structured but equally purposefulconversations peppered with unrecognisabletechnological abbreviations and acronyms. Nonewere linguistically perfect, but perfection was notthe aim. Problems had been solved and writtenfluency had emerged, deeming it to be a humdingerof a lesson, about as thrilling as it could get in thisclass of previously bored, unproductive teenagers.They had found their feet, for half an hour at least.


14

The post-task:

All ‘chats’ were finally exhibited on the wall andeach was scanned by students via a focusing taskwhich required them to find information, e.g. find achat about removing a virus – was the problemsolved? If so, how? If not, why not?; find a chatabout an unusual attachment – was the problemsolved? If so, how? If not, why not? Open-classfeedback followed and, finally, errors werecorrected on the board.

RevelationsOverall, the simulation of online chatting in thislesson exposed a number of elements previouslyunknown to us. Hidden techno-knowledge (aboutwhich we adult observers were largely ignorant!),passive language, and also momentary releasefrom the immense stress of the boys’ daily lives, i.e.their high-pressure exam system, their long schoolhours, and the loneliness of recently arrivedmainland Chinese boys in their efforts to integrate.They had solved problems, laughed, joked andbonded. Banal frustrations which - think back toyours – are huge worries for many 12-14 year olds,and which the trainees never got to fullyunderstand, had disappeared for one lesson, atleast.

Boys & information literacyFor a teacher trainer there can be no greaterexcitement than classroom events which give somecredence to theory - in this case the view that boys’clandestine interest in digital, media andinformation literacy in their L1 is accessible whenyou adjust prescriptive ELT material toaccommodate it. Although the students did not usetechnology in the lesson, they role-played doing so.It is thought that when boys read and write suchforms (relating to information literacy), they do notconsider themselves to be reading or writingperhaps because such materials do not fit into theirmainstream English syllabus. In 2007 these formsare appearing increasingly through a combinationof written, visual and musical material,incorporating chat, web pages, blogs, and videosites like YouTube and other non-school-sanctioned material. These are heavily accessedby boys outside school. Straddling the line dividingELT literacy and information literacy can be agamble when working with teenagers locked intointensive exam systems, such as ours in HongKong. But on this day, and with this group it worked

as a means of encouraging fluency in writing. Onanother day, perhaps it may not.

In post-lesson feedback, trainees reflected on theseissues and also on what research tells us aboutteaching boys i.e. that boys' literacy has come tothe fore as an issue in mainstream education as itis found that a significant percentage of boysacross cultures do not like to read or write.Research also tells us that material which ishumorous, reflects their self-image, contains factualinformation, and which has less focus on emotionthan action, is boy-friendly. Their response to role-play, in particular, can increase when topics aresubverted, characters and their relationshipsexplored and resolutions to problem situationssought.

ConclusionThere are many strands to teaching ‘stories’ suchas this one, not all easy to disentangle. It seemedthat pitching the material appropriately and pacing itinto short sections maintained the boys’ interest.However, something else became apparent totrainees in the post lesson refection. Perhaps toogreat a focus on a relatively small number ofremote global issues had previously prevented thestudents from participating. Perhaps the boys’knowledge had been too often marginalized at theexpense of information we felt compelled totransmit via prescriptive ELT texts. Talking less,and letting the boys talk more prior to writing, wasalso something trainees agreed they hadoverlooked.

The formula, if there was one, might simply havebeen this: let boys tell you what they know abouttechnology, and get them reading and talking aboutit before they write about it.

Mary Carney has an MA in TEYL from Universityof York and is a full-time teacher trainer at theBritish Council, Hong Kong, where she directsCELTYL and YL Extension to CELTA trainingcourses. She also works as an external assessor ofthese courses for University of Cambridge and iscurrently completing a Diploma in ELTManagement with International House, London.


15

Teaching andLearning Englishthrough Music,Movement and ArtM. Teresa Fleta

Introduction

Following the Theory of Multiple Intelligences(Gardner, 1983), we are thought to possess at leasteight avenues for learning: Linguistic, Mathematic,Spatial, Musical, Kinaesthetic, Interpersonal,Intrapersonal and Naturalistic. Gardner and othersthat have studied these intelligences suggest thatthere are many ways of learning and knowing andthat learners may have abilities in one or anotherarea and learn better when knowledge is presentedto them through a particular intelligence.(Armstrong, 2001; Campbell and Campbell &Dickinson, 1996).

The teaching techniques presented in this paperwere developed within this pedagogic framework,to teach and to learn English as a foreign language(L2), bearing in mind that learners have differentstyles of learning. Child learners and universitystudents worked on story making and storytellingfrom the different strengths they all possess, puttingthe theory of MI into practice.

Child Learners’ Pedagogic Experience

The twenty one children taking part in thepedagogical experience were from the BritishCouncil School of Madrid (BCS). The BCS is abilingual school (English/Spanish) that takeschildren from 3 to 18 years of age and 98% of thestudents are native speakers of Spanish. Theexperience, designed and carried out by ElisabethForster (BCS teacher) and myself, was divided upinto six phases and lasted for six months duringone academic year. Children (7/8 years old) were intheir fourth year at school from Mrs Forster’s class.

Phase One: Listening to Music and Drawing

Music was used as initial stimulus for two reasons:for the celebration of Halloween and for the use of

the gym class to work on music and movement.Children were asked to close their eyes, listen to:“Peer Gynt Suite” from In the Hall of the MountainKing by Grieg, and imagine a character on thecarpet in class.

During the art class, child learners drew a picture ofthe character, gave their character a name anddescribed it. Then, the draft was transferred to alarger format. Characters and vocabulary wererelated to Halloween: ghosts, witches, monsters, aheadless man, or a giant flying mouse.

The purpose of these activities was: to expandpupils’ vocabulary in English, tap children’simagination, and work on Musical, Spatial andLinguistic Intelligences.

Phase Two: Moving to the Music

Children listened to “Peer Gynt Suite” in the gymand moved as they thought their character wouldmove, using different types of movement: high, low,and medium; fast and slow; backwards, forwards orsideways; jumping, skipping, running… This activitywas carried out in groups and the entire classparticipated in a discussion at the end.

The purpose of this activity was to review quality ofmovement skills, reinforce vocabulary in Englishand develop facets of Kinaesthetic and MusicalIntelligences.

Phase Three: Settings, Adjectives and Verbs

Children decided on a setting and a title for a story,and made a list of adjectives and verbs and someof the lexical items chosen were: castles, caves,forests or mountains, brown, green, white, purple,big, huge, fly, run, fight, eat or scare. As childrenpick up language better (meaning of words,vocabulary, structures, and intonation patterns),they participate in the activities that require theiruse.

The purpose of this activity was to work on the areaof Linguistic Intelligence.

Phase Four: Story Sequencing Format

Children integrated all the information on settings,adjectives and verbs into a story sequencing formatin six spaces: the first was for the beginning of thestory, the three following for the middle of the story;and two final spaces for the resolution of theproblem or conflict. This activity provided children


16

with a systematic and structured means of workingand gave them the chance to be original and to usetheir imagination.

In pairs, children interacted with a peer, toldhim/her their story using the story sequencingformat as a guideline or as a script. The listeningmember of the pair asked questions and indicatedwhether the story was clear enough. With thisactivity, children were generating languagespontaneously (English L2). It required thestoryteller to reflect on his/her own work and todefend it, and what is more important, to thinkabout his/her own thinking.

The purpose of this phase was to give children theopportunity to work on their Interpersonal,Intrapersonal and Linguistic Intelligences.

Phase Five: Story Making

Children transferred their story sequencing formatinto a book , based on the fairy tale structure (sixpages book, a front and a back page). Childrentransferred the pictures, described the action takingplace in the written form, designed and decorated acover page, and wrote a blurb for the back of thebook.

The purpose for this was to work on Linguistic andSpatial Intelligences.

Phase Six: Storytelling

Children read their stories to different audiences,working on the skills that storytelling entails: loudand clear voice, pausing for dramatic effect,showing the illustrations to the audience. Childrenshared their stories with teachers and children inother classes, a wall display was put up in classwith all the examples of children’s stories and also,a power point presentation was made with a fewexamples of the stories to be shown to parents,teachers and other children.

University Students’ Experiment

The idea of getting future teachers working on thecreation of stories came up during the preparationof three workshop sessions on: story time, storymaking and storytelling. Students (18) were in theirfirst, second and third year of a degree in Education(Madrid Complutense University).

Time was allotted for each task. First, studentslistened to “Peer Gynt Suite” individually, drew a

sketch of the character, gave it a name, and asetting. Then, students brainstormed associationsin groups, they talked about characters anddecided on those to write the story about. They alsoworked on the story sequencing format and thoughtof a title. Later, students worked on the text andillustrations for the book, the cover page and theblurb. Finally, they read the stories in class.

Conclusions

Activities presented here support the use of Englishin class. Both kinds of learners were listening,speaking, reading and writing in English and, whatis more important, they were, unconsciously,thinking in English. Learners created characters,places and situations for their stories and by doingso, they were making connections and, as Wright(2006) points out, making connections is whatcreativity is about. Learners’ imagination andcreativity were at work and learners lived theirstories from the vantage points of the Visual,Kinaesthetic, Spatial, Interpersonal, Intrapersonaland Linguistic Intelligences.

Pedagogical Implications

Learning though music, movement and art isbeneficial because it involves learners holisticallyand gives them input and output opportunities, andit is through interaction and practice that the abilityto speak improves.

Story making and storytelling are excellent vehiclesand invaluable tools for the presentation oflanguage: to teach and learn in the secondlanguage, in the mother tongue, and/or in a thirdlanguage.

As learners have a combination of differentintelligences and as the learning environmentinfluences the way those intelligences develop,teachers will help students to become competent ineach of those intelligences if they present a widerange of activities in class.

The twenty seven stories created by the learners(children and future teachers) reflect the wayEnglish was internalized through activities designedto put their multiple intelligences into play.Linguistically, learners moved from a one-wordlevel to a sentence level, for finally telling theirstories in English. Learners benefited from theSpatial, Kinaesthetic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal


17

and Musical perspectives in a great number ofways: making their own stories and living them.

Some observations

Some children gave their characters their ownnames or their friend’s names and charactersinteracted in the stories. By giving their characterstheir own names shows that children werepersonally involved in the story and identifiedthemselves with the characters.

To transfer the draft into a larger format and theninto the book, proved to be a good exercise forchildren who have problems with dimensions (sizeand space). Children chose different places in theclass to draw, even the floor.

In general, the boys’ stories were repetitive, with alot of action and involving imitation; the girls’ storieswere about likes, dislikes and love. Most universitystudents’ wrote stories to be told to children.

In the university students’ experiment, futureteachers found the experience very encouraging,especially because it was a new experience forthem. They worked on skills through creativity,imagination, writing, specific motor functions, groupworking abilities, reached their objective and sawthe results of their work immediately.

ReferencesArmstrong, T. (2001): Multiple intelligences in theclassroom, 2nd. edition. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Campbell, B., Campbell, L. And Dickinson (1996):Teaching and learning through multipleintelligences. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &Bacon.

Gardner, H. (1983): Frames of mind: the theory ofmultiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Hirsh, R.A. (2004): Early Childhood Curriculum:Incorporating Multiple Intelligences.Developmentally Appropriate Practice and Play.Person Education, Inc.

Wright, A. (2006): Being Creative: things I finduseful. CATS: The IATEFL Young LearnersPublication.

Teresa Fleta holds a PhD in Theoretical Linguisticsand Language Acquisition. She is a teacher and ateacher trainer. Her research relates to childlanguage acquisition and she has carried outresearching activities at the British Council Schoolof Madrid.

Classroom AssistantsProject – A SpanishSuccess StoryTrevor Doble

The teaching and learning of foreign languages hasalways been important in the Canary Islands, dueto its reliance on the tourist industry. So, theConsejeria de Educacion in the Canaries (TheDepartment of Education for the autonomousregion of the Canary islands) introduced theteaching of English as a compulsory subject instate Primary schools, for 6 year olds in 2001, 5year olds in 2003, and 4 year olds in 2006. Thisinitiative, however, brought with it some problems,principally the fact that many English teachers hadinsufficient linguistic competence to give classes atthese lower levels or did not feel confident in manyfundamental areas of spoken English, especially“Classroom Language”. Thus in October 2001, the“Classroom Assistants Project” was initiated,whereby native speakers of English were placed inclass alongside the English teacher, working as an“assistant”, with the following general objectives –

To bring the English language closer to pupils,who should use it in a meaningful way

To increase pupils’ linguistic competence To increase teachers’ linguistic competence To use innovative methodology through team

teaching using a teacher and an assistant To bring another culture into the classroom,

through a classroom assistant To reflect on general teaching of English

practice in Primary schools.

Twenty-five assistants were selected for the pilotproject, covering 39 schools, out of a total of 675Primary schools located around the Canary Islands.The coordinator for the project was and is, AnaJudith Gutierrez Negrin, from the Canarian Ministryof Education, while my role, as well as training, wasto act as a link between the Ministry and theassistants themselves, through meetings andschool visits, telephone calls and email contact.

The original idea was to use students from Britishuniversities who had to complete a year abroad as


18

part of their studies, but this approach was soonfound to be insufficient. The students wanted topractise Spanish, and were sometimesunaccustomed to being in front of so many smallchildren! This was when another approach wasconsidered, namely to use a resource that wasalready in place in the Canary Islands: thethousands of native English speakers that alreadyresided here. I was then asked to find suitablepeople, and provide rudimentary training, as it wasdecided that it would be better to put the assistantsand teachers together as soon as possible andthen tailor the training around their needs. Therewas some opposition to this from the teachers whofelt the assistants needed extensive training beforeentering the classroom, but our answer was that itwas not possible to train people for something thathad never been done before. First, we had to seehow it worked, then later we could provide trainingif necessary. The cornerstone was and is simplicityitself: the assistant at no time would speak Spanishin school, not to the children, nor the teachers, noteven to the caretaker! This, in our view, wouldcreate an authentic communicative situation wherepupils would soon realise that to say anything tothis “English” person, they would have to producesome English.

We had out first meeting at the end of theChristmas term, where the teachers expressedtheir general amazement that the children hadstarted to produce, at a very basic level, somespoken English! From then on, training could beginin earnest, and the assistants were givenworkshops on how to use songs, chants, games,storytelling techniques etc., while never losing sightof the fact that they were there to assist theteacher, not teach the class, and that thisassistance normally took place for listening andspeaking activities. Thus, if a teacher wanted toread a story to the children, the assistant would doit, songs would be sung by the assistant, andgeneral routines at the beginning and end of theclass would be led by the assistant too.

Assistants work 16 contact hours per week, plusone hour of coordination with the teacher(s). Somework in two schools.

The following year the project expanded to cover110 schools, with 103 assistants, and each yearthere has been a gradual increase, moneypermitting, in the number of assistants and schoolsin the project. This academic year we have reached

a total of 165 assistants working in over 200primary schools.

The project is constantly monitored to measureeffectiveness through questionnaires, observation,termly meetings, videoing and testing of thechildren. It became apparent that as well as thepupils’ spoken English improving, there was amarked improvement in the teachers’ English useand general confidence in the classroom. We alsofound the following areas were where theassistants proved most effective:

Extra motivation through having a nativespeaker

Authentic English presented in the classroom Aspects of British/Irish/American culture

introduced in the classroom Improvement in storytelling and singing Classroom Language Improvement in Teacher’s English Take Chances/Experiment in class Extra Pair of Hands!

In 2003 a DVD was produced for training purposesillustrating the above points through recordings ofteachers and assistants in action. This has provedextremely useful for teachers and assistantscoming into the project.What qualities/qualifications do we look for in aclassroom assistant? While we do like the assistantto have a TEFL certificate, and teaching experiencewith children is also appreciated, it has not alwaysbeen possible to find assistants with thesequalifications, and some of our most successfulassistants have no relevant qualifications at all, justa terrific empathy with the children, flexibility and anability to learn from their teachers. Indeed, somehighly qualified assistants have proved to be lessthan effective, maybe because of reluctance to“assist” rather than “teach”.

The project has been a huge success within theislands, and is unique in Spain. Around 400 otherPrimary schools in the region have applied for anassistant! It successfully employs a resource –English native speakers – who abound in certainareas of Spain - and in other parts of the world.

This success was recognised at a European levelin February this year when the project was awardedthe “Sello Europeo” (European Seal) from theEuropean Commission for Innovation in the


19

Teaching and Learning of Languages at aceremony in Madrid.

The project is now an established part of languagelearning at Primary level in the Canary Islands, withmany assistants becoming part of the fabric of theschool they work in. Other projects, especially theBilingual CLIL initiative that has started in theCanary Islands, use assistants as a resource tohelp teachers who are now beginning to teachother subjects through English. Other autonomousregions in Spain have expressed interest in theproject, and a similar one is being established inAndalucía, where again, there are enough nativespeakers to make such a project feasible.

Finally, I am always very happy visiting schools,talking to children who find it natural tocommunicate in a foreign language and who seethat English is not just an academic subject, butsomething they can use to communicate effectively.

Trevor Doble is a teacher and teacher trainer, aswell as Coordinator of the Classroom AssistantsProject in the Canary Islands. He also works forMacmillan Heinemann in Spain.

[email protected]

Family Opinions:Bilingual Spanish-English Programmefor Very YoungLearnersMaria José Briosa Valcárcel

In this article we present the results of aquestionnaire given to families of very younglearners at the State Infant and Primary School“Claudio Moyano” in Madrid, Spain. The familieswere asked to evaluate the Bilingual Spanish-English Programme that was recently enacted by

the Community of Madrid. The purpose of thisproject was to use the opinions of the families as areference to improve our educational practice andthe pupil’s learning. We also intend to share ourproject with other English teachers in the EuropeanUnion. We would like to encourage them to designand develop similar projects in their Infant andPrimary Education Programmes.

The importance of language learning

The introduction and implementation of bilingualteaching programmes is currently a highly debatedissue among Education professionals in theEuropean Union. This is principally due to the factthat language learning is a crucial element for theintegration of pupils in the EU1. As a result, “thegeneral trend in Europe has been towards anincrease in the number of years during whichteaching of at least one foreign language iscompulsory, and a lowering of the age at which thisprovision begins” (Eurydice, 2005:27).

In Spain, the Organic Act for Educative Quality2

mandates that education authorities must foster thelearning of English as a second language in Infantand Primary Education3. For this reason, theCommunity of Madrid initiated a Bilingual Spanish-English Programme during 2004-05. All State Infantand Primary schools were given the opportunity toparticipate. Initially, this Bilingual Programme wasset up for 110 schools. Today, there are 122schools involved in the Programme4.

The main objective for Primary Education is toteach English using a new methodologicalapproach called “Content and Language IntegratedLearning”5 (CLIL). This method allows for part of theclass hours to be taught in English. In theCommunity of Madrid, we teach at least one-third ofthe timetable in English. Spanish Language andMathematics are the only subjects not included inthe programme. Thereby, as the EuropeanCommission (2007:22) points out, “pupils learncurricular contents while at the same time exerciseand improve their language skills”.

In Infant Education, the number of class hourstaught in English depends on the number ofteachers at the school who specialize in thelanguage. If there are insufficient English teachers,the Bilingual Programme will only apply to PrimaryEducation. The CLIL methodological approach isalso used in Infant Education.


20

The bilingual experience in our school

Due to the importance of language learning in theEU, our school decided to apply for participation inthe Bilingual Programme during the 2005-06 schoolyear. Fortunately, we were able to initiate theProgramme in both Infant Education and the firstyear of Primary Education just one year later.

Implementation of the Bilingual Programme

All Spanish State schools include both Infant andPrimary class levels. In our school, there are nineclasses and sixteen teachers with differentspecialities. Five teachers specialize in teachingforeign languages. In relation to the size of ourschool, there are a large number of Englishteachers. This situation is important for our schoolbecause it allows us to implement the BilingualProgramme in Infant Education as well.

Ten hours of English are currently taught per weekduring the first year of Primary Education. Thesehours are distributed as: 3h 30´ Knowledge of theNatural, Social and Cultural environment, 1h 30´ ArtEducation, and 5h of English grammar. In InfantEducation6, pupils receive varying hours of bilingualteaching depending on their age. Three year oldchildren receive three hours of English per week;four year old children receive four hours and fiveyear old children receive five hours.

The objective of the Bilingual Programme is togradually familiarize children with English for use ineveryday situations. To reach this objective,English teachers follow several pedagogicrecommendations of the Community of Madrid.These include: speaking only English to the pupils,teaching the curriculum in English, creating abilingual environment in the school, and organisingfrequent coordination meetings.

Open Day for families

In our school we consider family opinion to be acritical factor in the success of the BilingualProgramme. For this reason, the Infant Englishteachers organised an Open Day during the thirdterm of the 2006-07 school year. Before planningthe day, our idea was presented to the school’sprincipal, teaching staff and the BilingualProgramme Coordinator. Once they agreed withthe proposal, we informed the families of our ideaat a general meeting. After the parents expressed

their willingness to participate, we sent t a letter thatprovided more detailed information about the Day.

The Open Day was designed to offer families thechance to observe an English class at every agegroup of Infant Education. During the Open Day,families were asked to complete a voluntaryquestionnaire.in order to collect informationregarding family opinions about the BilingualProgramme. To show our appreciation for theirinvolvement, each family was given a CD of Englishsongs that included a photo of their child’s Englishclass. We felt that this gift would serve to fosterfamily involvement in their child’s languagelearning.

Questionnaire for the families

Out of 54 families, 33 participated and completedthe questionnaire. A few families who were not ableto participate in the Open Day also completed thequestionnaire. We were able to analyse a total of49 questionnaires. Because a high number offamilies participated, the analysis of the answershas been useful to collect quality information. Thefollowing are the results that we discovered:

The factors that parents consider most importantfor their child’s English learning process are: 1)support of the educational authorities 2) enrolmentin a Bilingual school 3) maintaining a bilingualenvironment in the school 4) professional trainingfor teachers 5) involvement of the teachers 6) extraEnglish activities, and 7) interest of children inlearning.

Among the strategies used by theCommunity of Madrid to support theBilingual Programme, parents believe that themost important are: hiring assistant Englishteachers, organizing training programmes forteachers, and encouraging school participationin international education projects.

Parents consider the main advantages oflearning English at a very young age to be:1) their child’s English learning process is morenatural 2) it will facilitate the acquisition ofadditional foreign languages, and 3) theirEnglish abilities will eventually reach a higherlevel. Just a few parents believe that therecould be disadvantages. These parents worry,for example, about a possible negative effect onthe self-esteem of children with weak languageabilities.


21

The expectations that parents have for theirchild’s English level at the end of PrimaryEducation are: 1) that children are able to useEnglish for communication in every day lifesituations; 2) that English become familiar tothem, and 3) that they are will ing to continuelearning this foreign language. Just a fewparents expect that their children becomebilingual.

All Parents noticed improvements in theEnglish learning process of their children.The improvements include: noticeableenjoyment of singing English songs, increase invocabulary, and a rise in interest to expresshimself/herself in English.

Parents contribute to their child’s Englishlearning in different ways, such as: 1) askingquestions about his/her English classes; 2)reinforcing his/her achievements; 3) helpinghim/her to practise new vocabulary; 4)emphasizing the importance of speaking asecond language, and 5) providing him/herbooks, games and songs in English.

Parents are looking for additional ways to helpimprove their children’s English level. Theywould like advice from teachers as well asfurther information about the BilingualProgramme.

Most parents feel that our school currently hasa bilingual environment. However, themajority also believe that it is necessary forthe school to increase the number ofactivities related to English (book lending,theatre performances, etc.).

All families feel it necessary to continue withthe Bilingual Programme.

This qualitative information provides evidence thatthe Bilingual Programme in our school has beensuccessful. The children are making considerableimprovements in their English learning and theparents are very pleased with their progress.

Improvement proposalsAfter analyzing the responses in the questionnairesand our teaching practices, we plan to make thefollowing improvement proposals: To participate in international education

projects. To have English teachers participate in training

courses concerning different aspects ofbilingual teaching such as: 1) methodologicalCLIL approach 2) evaluation strategies 3)collaboration with families, etc.

To organize workshops with teachers fromother bilingual schools in our neighborhood inorder to exchange ideas in bilingual teaching.

To organize a meeting at the beginning of eachschool year with the families in order to offerinformation about the design, organization, anddevelopment of the Bilingual Programme.

To advise parents monthly about Englishactivities being held in Madrid for children.

To give families a list of songs, rhymes andgames every 15 days that their children can useto practise English.

To increase the number of activities related toEnglish. For example: 1) organize monthlyworkshops where parents help children createEnglish displays to decorate the school 2) haveEnglish storybooks computer games and DVDsavailable for children to borrow, 3) performEnglish plays to celebrate each major holiday

In order to implement these proposals, we arecounting on the cooperation of educationalauthorities, management teams, teachers andfamilies. Only if these groups work together can theBilingual Programme be a success.

ConclusionUndoubtedly, the fact that all families believe theBilingual Programme should continue next yearmotivates us to work as a team and make a dailyeffort to improve our teaching methods. Likewise, itis rewarding to find that families are willing tocollaborate in their child’s English learning processbecause they are noticing significant improvement.

As a final note, we sincerely hope the results of ourproject can make a positive contribution to thecurrent debate regarding the proper introductionand implementation of bilingual teachingprogrammes in the European Union.

Notes1 English is currently the most taught L2 in theEuropean Union (Eurydice 2005).2The Organic Act was abolished by the Organic Actfor Education. This document also draws specialattention to language learning in Infant and PrimaryEducation.3 Infant Education constitutes the first level of theSpanish education system. It includes children from0 to 6 years and is set up in two, three-year cycles.Although it is a non-compulsory level, it possessesan unmistakably educational nature. PrimaryEducation is the first compulsory stage of the


22

system. It includes children from 6 to 12 years andis set up in three, two-year cycles. These first levelsare closely tied together (Cide, 2002).4 Order 5766/2006, 6th of October, from theEducation Department, for the selection of Stateschools of Infant and Primary Education where theCommunity of Madrid will implement BilingualSpanish-English Programmes during the 2007-085 In most EU countries, CLIL provision is offered atprimary, lower and upper secondary levels ofeducation. Several countries, including Spain, alsoorganise activities in a second language beginningwith Infant Education (Eurydice, 2006).6 The Infant Education curriculum is organisedaround three areas: Personal Identity andIndependence, Physical and Social Environment,and Communication and Representation. Theseareas are considered from a global andinterdependent focus (Cide, 2002).

References:Cide (2002). Spanish Education System. Madrid: Cide.Comisión Europea (2007). Crece el interés por elaprendizaje integrado de contenidos y lenguas. Escuela,3.734 (134), 22.Eurydice (2006a). National summary sheets oneducation systems in Europe and ongoing reforms.Brussels: European Comission.Eurydice (2006b). Content and language integratedlearning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels: EuropeanComission.Eurydice (2005). Key Data on Teaching Languages atSchool in Europe. Brussels: European Comission.

Legislative documents:Ley Orgánica 10/2002, de 23 de diciembre, de Calidadde la Educación (BOE 24-12-2002).Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de marzo, de Educación(BOE 4-5-2006).Orden 5766/2006, de 6 de octubre, de la Consejería deEducación, para la selección de colegios públicos deEducación Infantil y Primaria de esta Comunidad en losque se llevará a cabo la implantación de la enseñanzabilingüe español-inglés en el curso 2007/2008 (BOE 18-10-2006).

Online References

www.mec.es/cidewww.eurydice.orgwww.educa.madrid.org

María José Brioso Valcárcel is a Spanish teacherin Infant Education currently working at C.E.I.P.Claudio Moyano, Madrid

Differences inTeaching andLearning:

Observations onLanguage Classes inBritain and China

Liu Ting

Differences in culture, language systems, examsystems and teaching conditions lead to differentways of teaching native languages as well assecond languages. Consequently, they havesubstantial effects on the learning styles of studentsand this is what teachers need to take into accountwhen they are teaching students from differentbackgrounds. As a teacher from China whooriginally taught English in Sichuan Province wherelanguage is still taught chiefly in traditional ways, Ihave spent my gap year teaching English studentsChinese in a secondary school and have beenobserving native speakers English lessons for 2terms. Therefore, my experiences enable me tocompare differences in teaching and learning stylesbetween language classes in Britain and China.

Student-centred/ Teacher-Directed Learning

In Britain I observed student centredlearning, where 'students take part in setting goalsand objectives', where 'there is concern forstudent's feelings' and where 'the teacher issometimes seen as an adviser' (Richards 1996).Students are guided to discover possible answersby themselves through a variety of resources, suchas internet, books, and other students. Althoughreforming is on its way in China, in traditionalteacher-centred classes, most Chinese studentsare still used to the one fixed correct answerpresented by authorities, usually from textbooks orteachers.


23

Respect for authority has such deep roots inChinese culture that Chinese teachers usually actas authorities in class. They are expected to knoweverything and to transmit knowledge 100%correctly. Teachers tend to either tell or lead theirstudents to the one fixed correct answer requiredby the exams, then analyze why and how to reachit. In Britain, however, course work allows for morethan one answer and individual ideas are possible.Teachers act more as guides, who are reluctant totell students answers directly but lead students toexplore unknown fields and achieve individualresponses by themselves.

An example of the differences in learning is shownby the approach to understanding poetry. Chineseteachers will offer definitions, examples and anexplanation of a poem. What students do is copyand memorize them without questioning. Britishstudents are offered time in class to refer to booksby themselves and read out different answers inclass. Teachers might read out theirs as well, butthere are no fixed correct answers and studentsdon’t have to copy or memorize them. Instead, theyreceive different information and form their ownopinions.

Another example of the differences between thesystems is how the personality of characters innovels is analysed, British teachers tend not to tellstudents answers, but encourage students to showtheir individual opinions and offer evidence tosupport their views. They never make judgments onthe correctness of the students’ opinions thoughthey share their own opinions with the students too.Their role is to guide the students how to show andsupport their opinions effectively. Although multipleanswers are acceptable in Britain, after somediscussion, Chinese teachers usually have to showtheir ‘authoritative’ answers for students to copysince ‘regulation of the way of thinking’ will helpstudents gain high marks in exams which requirefixed answers.

The Role of Input and Output

In British classes, language is not only a tool to getinformation but a tool to share ideas and expressoneself. Therefore language output, learningthrough speaking and writing, plays an importantrole as a way of learning, which is usuallyintegrated with language input, learning throughlistening and reading. Whereas language inputoccupies most of the time in Chinese classes, since

input is highlighted in China as the way to absorbvaluable experience from ancestors as well as fromthe west. On the other hand, output is usuallyconsidered an individual issue after class. It is alsomore likely to be narrative as sharing emotions andanalyzing causes rather than showing differentopinions with evidence, might arouse trouble sinceChinese culture has long been accustomed to oneauthority, one answer and one opinion. What ismore, it is widely accepted that students arebelieved to acquire their output abilitiesautomatically after enough input, as the oldChinese saying goes: ‘He who reads widely, ownsa gifted pen’.

Consequently, it is easy to understand why outputis less valued in Chinese classes. Firstly, most ofthe output required is repetition of facts or rulespreviously mentioned by the teachers, students aretherefore rather nervous and afraid of beinglaughed at if they make mistakes, which the othersfeel is a waste of time. Secondly, students havemore interest in the authoritative answers ratherthan individual opinions in exam-oriented classes.Thirdly, there is not enough time for output fromeveryone in large Chinese classes of over 50students. However, top students might be givenmore chances to produce language. Mostly,Chinese students enjoy the safety of input fromauthorities, from whom they can obtain knowledgeefficiently, while British students prefer the pleasureof output---where their own opinions andknowledge are shared and appreciated, so theylearn from each other besides the teacher.

It is then not surprising that Chinese children at theage of 7 can recite and appreciate 50 traditionalChinese poems though they might not write onepoem all through their lives, while British children ofthe same age are required to create their ownpoems though they might not be able to recite evenone poem.

Task-based/ Form-based classes

In task-based classes, task is defined as an activitywhere the target language is used by the learner fora communicative purpose (goal) in order to achievean outcome. Language development is thenprompted by language use (Willis & Willis, 2001).British teachers perform more like languagepractice facilitators (Hill, 2000) who try to design avariety of games, activities and tasks to motivatethe students and help them develop their language


24

skills through the fulfilment of task. In contrast,since task-based approaches are hard toimplement because of exam demands, traditional,form-based classes are still the trend in China.Language is analysed into an inventory of formswhich can then be presented to the learner andpractised as a series of discrete items. Chineseteachers act as language providers and expertswho concentrate on how to demonstrate knowledgelogically and clearly for students by making full useof cognitive strategies, such as repetition,resourcing, translation, grouping, note taking,deduction, recombination, imagery, key word, andcontextualization. Tasks, games and activities, donot usually function as the chief way of learning butas a way of consolidation.

British students therefore learn through the processof finishing tasks, playing games and participatingin activities where their interpersonal skills, such ascommunication, co-operation, sharing information,and showing ideas, are developed as well. Theirsense of achievement comes mainly from whatoutcomes they can achieve throughcommunication/co-operation with others, whereasChinese students learn chiefly through cognitivethinking skills such as memorizing, analyzing andreasoning. Besides, they are more conscious ofwhat knowledge they can obtain quickly andeffectively through individual thinking.

Take teaching counting numbers as an example.Chinese teachers tend to spend more timeexplaining the complicated pronunciation systemfirst and then try to make memorizing easier bytelling the students some pronunciation tips inEnglish. After that, students might be asked toimitate the pronunciation of the teacher severaltimes, copy the numbers several times and dosome fill-in-the-blank or translation exercises. Lastof all, one or two games are designed to help themremember the numbers accurately. Britishteachers simplify the explanation and offer studentsmore time for several games to make sure everystudent has the chance to practise countingnumbers. Instead of telling them reciting tips, Britishteachers might ask students for their own ideas forreciting at the end of the lesson.

Inductive /Deductive class

Most Chinese teachers tend to use a deductiveapproach when teaching. Learners are taught rulesand a grammar-translation method is followed. This

focuses on the accuracy of language due to thecomplication of Chinese and the requirement ofexams. British teachers, however, often use aninductive method which is more communicative andemphasises fluency.

To teach complicated vocabulary, for example,Chinese teachers explain rules, analyzeconnections with similar words at the beginning ofthe class and afterwards present related examples.The students memorize not only one individualword, but groups of related words too, then someexercises or games are designed to help themremember and improve the accuracy of using suchvocabulary. British teachers usually presentexamples first, then let students practise usingvocabulary in activities without knowing the rules ofusage in advance. Mistakes are corrected andrelated rules (not systematically) are explained ordiscovered by the students during the process.

A large bank of vocabulary, accompanied withabstract rules (possibly in native language) istherefore stored logically by Chinese students whothen produce the language precisely and accordingto the rules. In contrast, British students are guidedto process target vocabulary by relating words toothers through a variety of means.

Practice and Theory

To conclude, different teaching styles partlycontribute to different learning styles in differentcultures. Generally speaking, Chinese studentstend to be more field-independent while Britishstudents tend to be more field-dependent. (Witkin,1962). That is, Chinese students tend to be moreautonomous in relation to the development ofcognitive restructuring skills. They are moreintrinsically motivated and enjoy individualizedlearning. They tend to be introvert, analytic, andreflective. Conversely, British students tend to bemore autonomous in relation to the development ofhigh interpersonal skills. They tend to beextrinsically motivated and enjoy cooperativelearning. They tend to be extrovert, communicative,and challenging, willing to raise questions andshare opinions.

This summary can be related to Kolb’s four learningstyles (Kolb,1984), as many British students tend tobe Accommodators (Concrete experiencer/Activeexperimenter), who learn by doing and feeling.They prefer to take a practical, experientialapproach. They are attracted to new challenges


25

and experiences, and to carrying out plans. Theydo not like routine and will take creative risks to seewhat happens. They tend to solve problemsintuitively on a trial-and-error basis. They oftenprefer to work in teams to complete tasks; they relymainly on others for information then carry out theirown analysis.

In contrast, many Chinese students tend to beAssimilators (Abstract conceptualizer/ Reflectiveobserver), who learn by watching, listening andthinking. They prefer a concise, logical approach.They prefer logical analysis of ideas, systematicplanning and acting on an intellectualunderstanding of a situation. They tend to be moreconcerned about abstract concepts and ideasrather than people. They focus more on the logicalsoundness and preciseness of the ideas ratherthan their practical values. They prefer reading,lectures, exploring analytical models and havingtime to think things through. Chinese students areknowledgeable, analytic and reflective. They areobedient, conform to rules and work hard as well.

These observations of differences should help usreconsider our teaching-----how can we learn fromdifferent systems and train knowledgeable andchallenging, proactive and thinking students?

Through observing language learners in bothBritain and China, some leading theories are muchclearer, as I have seen them put into practice.

References:

1 . Hill, J. ‘Revising Priorities: from grammatical failure tocollocational success.’ Teaching collocation—FurtherDevelopments in the Lexical Approach. Lewis, M. Ed.Thomson Heinle, 2000.

2. Kolb, D. A. (1976). in 'David A. Kolb on experientiallearning', Smith, M. K. the encyclopedia of informaleducation, 2001. <http://www.infed.org/b-explrn.htm>.

3. Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential learning: Experienceas the source of learning and development. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,

4. Richards, J. (1996) Dictionary of Language Teachingand Applied Linguistics. UK: Longman

5. Willis, D. & Wills, J. ‘Task-based Language Learning.’The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakersof Other Languages. Carter, R. & Nunan, D. Ed. CUP,2001.

6. Witkin, H.A. (1962). in ‘Cognitive Styles and DistanceEducation’, Yuliang Liu: Online journal of Distancelearning administration. 10.2. (2007)<http://www.westga.edu/~distance/liu23.html>.

Liu Ting is an English teacher in Shuguang SeniorMiddle School of Zigong City in Sichuan Province,China. She worked as a Chinese gap teacher inLangley school in Norwich, UK from 2006 to 2007.She is now studying in China for both her bachelorand master’s degrees. Taking part in the nationalbasic foreign language teaching research programin China from 2001 to 2002----‘Research onApplication of Modern Information Techniques inForeign Language (English) Teaching’.

Post-graduate degrees

MA in English Language Teaching (ELT)MA in English Language Teaching (ESP)MA in English Language Teaching (Young Learners)MA in English Language Teaching & MultimediaMA in English Language Studies & MethodsMA in British Cultural Studies & ELT

Research degrees of PhD and EdD

Modular 10, 20 or 30 week long Intensive Course inAcademic or Business English

Further details: The Secretary, CELTE, University ofWarwick, Coventry CV4 7ALTelephone: 024 7652 3200 Fax: 024 7652 4318

Email: [email protected]: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/celte

Centre forEnglishLanguageTeacherEducation


26

Mission Impossible orModel for the Future?David Vale

In September 2007, the Republic of Balkaniaintroduced English into its State Primary Schools atGrade 1(6-7 year olds). The Ministry rejected theefforts of Foreign Publishers to sell generic CourseBooks, and as a result, I was offered the followingmission brief:

‘Provide a 5-day seminar for a team of 15secondary school teachers of English, and a 2-dayfollow-up for preparation and finalisation ofteaching/learning materials to enable the team to:

a) transfer their teaching skills to those appropriateto the teaching of EFL to 6-7 year children

b) train teachers (nationwide) of 6-8 year oldchildren in the teaching of EFL to this age range

c) draft and finalise materials for teaching Englishto Grade 1 children nationwide for 2007-2008.

Planning for the Seminar

Against the background of a draft NationalCurriculum for English (which specified the themeareas and learning objectives), and given the timelimitations, I decided:

a) to use stories as centres of learning – fortraining and for materials production. For me,children’s stories are the richest relevant sourceof content, language, classroom management,training skills, etc., The demonstration anddiscussion of their use for 6-7 year oldsprovides excellent, simple models for materialsdevelopment;

b) to tailor the story content – and subsequentactivities - specifically to the six theme areasspecified by the Ministry in their CurriculumDocument (family, classroom, toys, colours,pets, festivities)

c) to provide the team, within these theme areas,with a wide range of hands-on opportunities totake part in craft, maths, science, music, etc.,activities (for 6-7 year olds) – as ‘child/ teacher/trainer’ in a variety of micro-teaching contexts;

d) to timetable the training days, and weekaccording to requirements, as they arose withineach training day.

This was complex because: teachers needed to transfer their knowledge

and skills from Secondary to have theconfidence and expertise to work at 6-7 year oldlevel;

additionally, they needed knowledge andexperience in training new teachers in their(newly acquired) expertise and knowledge;

they needed to produce a complete set oflearning materials for Grade 1 – from scratch.These materials would form not only thecomplete materials for ‘teaching’ all Grade 1children English, but would also provide the‘content’ for the training of new teachers.

Regarding the creation of learning materials,Balkania had, in my opinion, correctly ruled againstthe use of generic textbooks. Thus, I thought it wasof paramount importance that the team beempowered to create these materials from theirown skills and resources – for the education ofchildren within their own country.

For materials production purposes, I thereforedecided to divide the team into five groups of three.Each group chose one of the 5 (out of 6) mainthemes stipulated by the Ministry and would, withmy support, complete the first draft of this material,which needed to provide up to 40 learning hours,by lunchtime on Friday. I considered that by Friday,teachers would have the expertise, confidence andmotivation to create, as a team, the final Festivitiestheme – on the Friday afternoon.

I also considered that skills transfers (e.g. fromSecondary teacher > teacher of 6 year olds, plusteacher > trainer of teachers) could be achievedwithin the materials development process.

What happened?

Given the need to ‘convert’ Secondary teachers toteachers of 6 year olds and trainers of teachers of 6year olds’, I chose to provide new input at thebeginning of each day – when team was fresh –and the room temperature at its lowest. (Outsidetemperatures soared to record highs of 46 degrees;there was no air conditioning.)

Day 1: This was the most complex day for a varietyof reasons. Three stand out:


27

the concept of ‘stories as centres of learning’ for6-7 year olds was new and contradicted theclassroom practice of ‘you teach it (mainlylanguage items) – the children learn what youteach – you test it’. In this regard, I used aversion of the 3 Bears family (related to theMinistry theme of ‘family’) as the story example.The notion of introducing children to the presentperfect continuous (someone has been eatingmy porridge) – caused consternation. (I wonderif my mother realised this difficulty when tellingme this story at the age of 3!!!);

not only was a ‘story based’ approach new, butalso child-specific techniques to support thisapproach were foreign to the team (as teachersof early teens);

none of the team had thought themselvescapable of writing materials for children thatwould be used across Balkania.

Against the above – a great deal, in fact, wasachieved during the day. For example, the teamwas actively involved in the discussion, planningand execution of: classroom management for storytelling; sharing a story with children to ensure active

participation; games, rhymes and songs as starters/further

practice activities; ‘FAR’ (focused – action – response) activities

as content + language support

There was also much fruitful discussion and micro-group practice regarding the training/learningimplications of storytelling and follow up activities.As a result, all five writing groups successfullyproduced an original story – or original copy of atraditional story – as the basis for their teachingmaterial production of the week.

Day 2. I attempted to address the issues raised byDay 1 through the creative use of two of my ownoriginal copies of stories (2 birds in a tree, the redbird and the lion), relating both to the Ministrytheme of ‘colours’. We re-visited areas of doubtraised on the previous day and the team movedforward into their real roles as teachers of 6-7 yearolds, trainers of teachers, and materials writers.

The stories - and making of educational toys, aswell as, for example, the creation of puppettheatres (taken from my work in India) - provedhighly successful. The main didactic areas covered

(via group discussion, content planning, micro-teaching) were: how and why to share stories with young

children in English; differences between ‘teaching a story’ &

‘children sharing storytelling’; how to link the content of stories to the Ministry

Curriculum Themes; how to develop content/language curriculum

from the story-lines of a story; how to develop ‘core activities’ as the centres of

learning in a lesson. the creative uses of recycled materials e.g.

boxes, in a children’s class;As a result, the five ‘materials-writing groups’developed an innovative format for their Unitplanning – and, with support, made considerableprogress in planning/mapping of completeteaching/learning Units.

Day 3. Responding to exceptionally positivefeedback from Day 2, I focused on the main areasof perceived (by the team) weakness – forexample: how to give young children access to the

language in a story/core activity; which games and songs to use in class amd

how to use them; how to provide continuity in a one-lesson-per-

week situation; how to manage 25-30, 6 year olds in a class; how to be sure our materials are good enough

for the nation; how to finish writing the materials by Friday.

In the above regard, I shared my own versions of‘The Giant Potato’ and ‘The Lion Hunt’ – relatingthem to the Ministry themes of ‘classroom’ and‘pets’. Using real potatoes (and virtual lions), theteam created lesson sequences that were practical,effective, and matched their nation’s classroom(and parents’) resources.

In addition to areas of didactic and traininginterests, the outcomes of the day were innovativesets of potato realia, puppet theatres and othernewly-invented learning aids, as well as theremarkable transition of the team of secondaryteachers into a group of fun-loving, creative andconfident teachers of 6-7 year olds.

Day 3 also extended the time available formaterials preparation. For maximum effect, we set


28

up a small ‘editing team’ who ensured continuity offormat and content. This was additional to ‘magicmingling moments’ – periods when teachers sharedtheir work to maximise creativity and peer support.

Day 4 built on the super positive feedback fromDay 3. Using re-invented ‘mini-beast’ rhymes,songs and stories to parallel the Ministry themes of‘pets and toys’, the team focused on notions of‘whole lesson’ and ‘whole unit’ content, includingkey areas of Vocabulary, Home Link and CreativeEvaluation.

Through micro-group/peer discussion and teachingin the morning, the outcomes continued to raiseconfidence and competence across the group –without exception. This had a considerable virtuouscycle effect on the writing during the afternoon.During this period, we agreed to finalise the firstdraft of each of the 5 Units by Friday lunch, andproduce Unit 6 – Festivities – by Friday evening!

Day 5 provided feedback such as ‘loved everything’on Day 4 (except the heat). Starting the day with a‘round’ singing of ‘row, row, row your boat…’, weused a previously unknown festive pirate story toopen up the Ministry theme of festivities. The teamenacted creative explorations of the story aspeer/micro teaching activities. What a difference aweek makes! Presentations were applauded,awards were awarded (providing an effectiveopportunity for ‘introductions, naming and thank-yous’) and self-esteem among the whole groupreached newer and even higher levels.

As a result, not only were the first drafts of eachUnit completed by all groups by lunch, but eachgroup went on after lunch to write and complete alesson each for Theme 6. Moreover, 50% of theteam stayed on (Monday/Tuesday) to successfullytransform the first drafts of the materials into apublished format that is now being used as corelearning materials for Grade 1 classes nationwideacross Balkania.

Mission Accomplished?

There were 4 key challenges, to train 15‘secondary’ teachers as teachers of 6-7 year olds;to provide training in such a manner that thistraining could be ‘cascaded’ to a large number ofnew teachers by the team; to provide the trainingcontent as a practical model and resource formaterials production by the team; to provide wideranging (authorial, editorial, didactic, etc) support to

the team in such ways that they produce a ‘Version1’ set of teaching/learning materials – for trainingand classroom purposes – for their own nation.

In terms of results, the team took on board ‘twobirds’ – and flew high; they listened to ‘the tale ofthe lion’ – and became queens of the languagejungle; they sailed with the pirate – and discoveredunimagined treasure from within themselves. Suchachievement was made possible in Balkania by theinterest and tireless support of The British Councilas well as the lead roles taken by Ministry advisorsand the talent, hard work and belief of the teachersin themselves.

I believe that the work done by the team in 7 daysprovides a rich and valuable model for YLEFL,especially for the State sector, where costs, politicsand relevance of learning are critical. In this regard,to empower teachers to produce materials for thelanguage education of their own nation is a trulypriceless objective to aim for and achieve.

David Vale is the author of Teaching ChildrenEnglish (CUP), The Cambridge Picture Dictionary,Storyworld (Macmillan/Heinemann), The LanguageTree and The Grammar Tree (Macmillan). He is ateacher trainer and teacher of EFL at YL/VYL leveland has presented at conferences worldwide. Hehas also taught at universities, NILE and Pilgrims.At present, He is working in India, the Middle Eastand Europe on the development of low-to-no costlanguage learning programmes for children, as wellas parallel professional development programmesfor teachers.

[email protected]

and

www.connect2english.com – please contact me ifyou are interested in forming part of a dedicatedwebsite to offer schoools, teachers and parentssupport they need to help children love to learnEnglish at low- to –no –cost.


29

Looking at a Learner

How English is Studied inRussia

Varia Bokuchava

The education systems in Russia and Britain aredifferent. Every Russian child goes to schoolbetween the ages of 6 and 8. There are ten oreleven year groups and all pupils finish schoolwhen they are between 15 and 17 years old.Classes have usually about 27 pupils in them andthey are becoming smaller because of decliningbirth rates. However, our class is quite small asthere are only 22 pupils and when we go to Englishlessons, the class is divided in two. Most pupilshave three or four lessons of 40 minutes everyweek. Homework is given out after every lessonand we have dictation and tests after every unit ofstudy. At the end of the year we have an importantgrammar and listening test.

Our classrooms are organised so that we sit inpairs. We have pair, group and individual tasks.When we are asked questions we put our hands upto answer. Our teachers sometimes use Russian toexplain difficult grammar rules and we speak someRussian if we don’t understand what the teacher ispresenting. In the classroom we have very goodbilingual dictionaries and we often use them inlessons and at break time if we want to studyEnglish. We have computer labs but we don’t usethem for English.

We study English using course books with workbooks and cds which help us to read, improve ourpronunciation and to summarise texts. We watchfilms about British culture, capital cities and otherEnglish speaking countries and sometimes we readshort texts about English History. There are alsosome English books in our library.

When we start a new unit in class, we first speak ingroups about the topic, giving our opinions about it.These might be answers to questions. In the bookswe look at the overviews of the content so we knowwhat we are going to learn. For example, it could

future tenses, something we should know aboutarticles, vocabulary connected to the topic. Veryoften we learn dialogues by heart, we read textsabout the topic and do summaries of them. Afterthat we have homework which could be writing ouropinions using the reading texts as models.

Some pupils have English pen friends who they findon the Internet. For example, I have a pen friend inAmerica and I try to email her twice a week. A fewlucky students can study English abroad and a fewhave private lessons after school as it is cool tostudy English and especially to go to England.

Varia Bokuchava is a seventeen year old pupilfrom Kazan. She attends the Third Gymnasiumthere. She has been studying English for 8 yearsand hopes to study Economics and Languages inRussia. She would like to use her English in herfuture work and in her free time.


30

YLSIGs Around theWorld

A Young Learner SIG in Portugal

Cristina Bento and Raquel Coelho

Background

APPInep is the YL SIG of the Portuguese EnglishTeachers’ Association, APPI. It was founded in2000, and provides support for pre- school andprimary school English teachers, working withchildren under 10 years old.

In the school year of 2005/2006 the PortugueseMinistry of Education introduced extracurricularEnglish into the first cycle of primary education,focussing on children in grades 3 and 4 (8 and 9year olds). These classes are not obligatory, butmost students stay at school for them, as they alsohave extracurricular PE lessons, drama and music.

Since October 2006, the Portuguese Ministry ofEducation has also encouraged schools to provideextracurricular English for grades 1 & 2 (6 and 7year olds). So, APPInep has been very busy as theteaching of English to primary children is growing!

How do we support Portuguese Englishteachers?

The APPInep Bulletin, with practical ideas forteachers working in Portuguese primary andpre-schools, has been published in every issueof the biannual APPI Journal since October2000 (www.appi.pt), as well as appearing as aspecial edition in September 2005.

APPI co-organised two internationalconferences in Portugal on the theme ofteaching English to primary and pre-schoolchildren. The first in 2001, with the IATEFL YLSIG. The second in 2005 with the BritishCouncil, Lisbon.

In-service credited training courses have beenpromoted throughout Portugal, supported byEuropean funded programmes. Non-accreditedcourses have also been run for teachers who

want to learn about teaching young children. APPI collaborated with the Portuguese Ministry

of Education in writing the guidelines for Englishin primary education ‘OrientaçõesProgramáticas Programa de Generalização doInglês no 1º Ciclo do Ensino Básico’. There areseparate guidelines for grades 1 & 2 andgrades 3 & 4.

APPI and APPInep are collaborating in thepublication of a Portuguese version of aEuropean Language Portfolio for primaryeducation.

More recently, a special day for APPInep wasincluded at the APPI annual conference inSpring, with a plenary speaker and a whole dayof presentations focussing on working withprimary and pre-school children.

In April 2006, APPInep set up a virtualdiscussion group for Portuguese EnglishTeachers working in primary schools. Thisdiscussion list features organised discussions,as well as impromptu ones, and provides aforum for teachers to meet and support eachother. The group has over 160 members todate. Group home page:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/primary-english-teachers

APPInep Website http://appinep.appi.pt/

One of our recent objectives was to set up anAPPInep website for Portuguese primary Englishteachers. This was achieved in April 2007, whichmakes us very proud. English teachers can find awide range of resources and useful links on thesite, and we keep it regularly updated. We have asmall committee made up of a coordinator, bulletineditor, membership officer and a web manager.


31

PORTUGAL Pupils’ work


32

Book ReviewJackie Holderness

500 Activities for the PrimaryClassroom: Carol Read (2007, Macmillan)

This book will be warmly welcomed by EFL writersand teachers. Carol Read combines many years’experience with sound theoretical understandingand that rare ability to inform, support and inspireteachers through her writing. Within each chapter,she brings her expertise and experience as ateacher trainer to the main areas in primary EFL.Recognising that teachers are busy people, sheprovides concise summaries of the most importantissues, without falling into the dangers of over-simplification or being patronising. Detailedreferences at the end of chapters enable teachersto study each area of EYL more deeply. The Indexhas several subsections and has separate listswhich teachers will find very useful: Languagestructures; Topics; Learning skills.

Overall, Carol Read summarises recent educationaltheory in an accessible and practical way. Theintroductory chapter provides a comprehensiveoverview of Primary EFL. Embedded in the section,”Working with children”, I particularly liked thefollowing two themes: Creating optimal conditionsfor children’s learning and Managing childrenpositively. These goals lie at the heart of successfulYL pedagogy. “The C wheel” is introduced with atleast 8 factors for optimal learning, all beginningwith the letter C. e.g.Creativity....Connections....Coherence...etc Theeight C’s are reinforced by the 7 R’s, initiatives thatteachers may establish in order to manage theirclass(es) positively from the start. These R’sinclude Relationships, Routines, Rewards...

The 10 activity- based chapters begin with a shortmethodological introduction which looks at specificareas in greater detail. The layout is clear and thereis a useful section at the end of each chapter,called Reflection Time, where readers areencouraged to improve their practice by askingreflective questions. These questions are designedto enhance the quality of the children’s learning. Itis Carol Read’s experience as a teacher trainerwhich elevates this book above the many “Ideas

Banks” that exist in Primary Education. Whileoutlining 500 activities which children will enjoy,Read makes clear the learning Aims and languageobjectives and offers practical comments andsuggestions to ensure activities will work in class.

There are many chapters and activities which willbe familiar to EYL teachers but there are also someinnovative ones, which means that this book willappeal to teachers of varying levels of experience.There are questionnaires, chants, charts, playscripts, visuals and games which teachers cancopy or adapt, such as The Question Board Game.

One chapter is devoted to Content-based learning,which is based upon and related to Topic-basedlearning or CLIL (Content and Language IntegratedLearning). This chapter offers a useful“Investigative learning cycle” to encourage pupils tobecome more reflective as learners. There areseveral content-based ideas in this chapter, whichcould be adapted to suit other curriculum subjects.

There is a chapter on ICT and multimedia but, forobvious reasons, perhaps, there are only a fewwebsites listed in the Further Reading. However,there are some interesting research-basedactivities and some imaginative ways to use photosand DVDs. In the final chapter, on ‘Learning toLearn’, there are several activities designed toenhance pupils’ self-esteem, a key factor inlearning success. The well-established Look, SayCover, Write, Check approach is recommended forlearning spelling, with an example of a “script”which teachers could use to model how to “thinkaloud” when learning to spell a new word. Byencouraging pupils to become aware of their ownleaning styles and strategies, (e.g. p.314) teacherscan develop metacognitive startegies which willtransfer to all areas of the curriculum. Othermetacognitive activities include memory sticks, goalsetting, clines for vocabulary and a learning diary.

A few areas or issues, e.g. Assessment andParental involvement, so important in the primaryphase, might have been addressed more fully, butHomework and Self Assessment are included and Iam sure that there will be many future editions, toensure that the book develops future issues.

The simplicity of this book’s layout and design, theaccessibility of its written style are likely to makethis a standard and valued EYL textbook. Its manypractical activity ideas are underpinned by Read’s


33

sound understanding of how children learn and howimportant their teachers are, so it will appeal toteachers of all levels of experience. It is evident thatRead appreciates the importance of teacherdevelopment in the enhancement of learning. It issignificant that she starts the book with this quotefrom Rudyard Kipling, which is one I also hold dear:

“No printed word, nor spoken plea,Can teach young minds what they should be.Not all the books on all the shelves,but what the teachers are themselves...”

Jackie Holderness is a former senior Lecturer atOxford Brookes University. She is also an EYLmaterials writer.

Carol Read is a former editor of CATS. She hasalso written books in the ‘Bugs’ course book seriesfor Macmillan.

Web Watcher!Jennifer Uhler Recommends:

Filamentality: This is an online fill in the blankwebhunt and samplers www.kn.att.com/wired/fil

Hot Potatoes: An easy to use game and wordhuntmaker: www.hotpot.uvic.ca

Audacity: Voice recording software;www.audacity.sourceforge.net

Picasso: A web album www.picasso.google.com

Odeo: An online player and recorder:www.studio.odeo.com

PbWiki: multi-source editing website:www.pbwiki.com

Jennifer Uhler is an English Language Fellow atthe University of Tartu, Estonia. She recommendedthese web sites during her presentation at theYLSIG PCE in Aberdeen this year.


34

Young LearnersSpecial InterestGroup e-discussiongroup 2006-7Wendy Arnold (Hong Kong)

Moderator

What an action packed year! And yes, I sound likea recording. Enormous thanks to all our regularcontributors and I hope that our 'lurkers' or‘peripheral participants’ to be PC, will be tempted tocome forward next year. Summaries of all ourdiscussions are available on our website. Log on tohttp://www.iatefl-ylsig.org and go to web resources,discussion summaries. Or check out the followingURL address for archived messageshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/younglearners/

We now have over 500 e-discussion members andof these 22% are subscription members – soobviously we need to do a lot more work to find outwhat you would like from us to convince more e-discussion subscribers! And onto why you shouldcontinue to be part of our e-discussion group, orbetter, become a subscription member in order tobenefit from the increasing list of goodies we aredeveloping. I've added where the discussionfielders were based so you can see how small ourworld has become. The archived discussionsummaries also identify the country (wherepossible) of our members. We are a truly multi-cultural group!

Goodies available for members on our resourcessite include discussion summaries of fielder-leddiscussions (see below) CHECK IT OUT!http://www.iatefl-ylsig.org (resources)

FIELDED DISCUSSIONS 2006-7(summaries in resources link)

20 – 27th October, 2006 ‘What price literacy?’fielded by Alan Maley.Alan has lived and worked in PR China, India andSingapore, as well as in Thailand. He has over 30

books to his credit, as well as many articles. He isseries editor for the Oxford Resource Book forTeachers, and author of “He Knows Too Much” inthe Cambridge English Reader. Alan is Director inIntensive Reading Foundation (ERF). His particularinterests are in creative materials design, andteachers' professional and personal development.

19 – 26th January, 2006 ‘Stories in LanguageTeaching’ fielded by Andrew Wright.Andrew is an author, illustrator, teacher trainer andstoryteller. As an author he has published:Creating Stories With Children, Oxford UniversityPress; Five Minute Activities, Cambridge UniversityPress; 1000+ Pictures for Teachers to Copy,Longman Pearson. As a teacher trainer he hasworked with teachers in thirty countries and as astory teller he has worked with approximately50,000 students in the last fifteen years.

Whose English? Use of mother tongue (ad hocdiscussion) January 2007Refer to yahoo messages 7198-7218

Discipline in the classroom/bad behaviour (adhoc discussion) Jan-February, 2007Refer to yahoo messages 7212-7367

9 – 16th February, 2007 Children’s L2 writingdevelopment: a neglected skill? fielded byJaynee Moon.Jaynee is a freelance ELT Primary consultant andteacher educator. She has extensive internationalexperience in Asia, Europe and elsewhere as ateacher educator. She is very interested inchildren's second language writing developmentand primary teachers’ professional development.She is the author of Children Learning English(Macmillan) and one of the editors of TeachingEnglish to Children and Research into TeachingEnglish to Young Learners (University of Pecs).

7 – 14th December, 2007 ‘Resources used withYL’ fielded by Simon Smith.Simon is a freelance teacher trainer and materialswriter who works mostly with teachers of childrenaged 6-11. He is a supervisor and teacher on theUniversity of York’s distance MA in TEYL, anassociate trainer at NILE in Norwich, and a trainerfor Sue Leather Associates. He has lived andworked in Africa, Asia and East and CentralEurope. His interests include trainer training, theuse of video in teacher training, and low techresources for children and teachers.


35

NEW DISCUSSION MODERATOR

I have the greatest pleasure in handing over thebaton to Dennis Newson, who you will know if youare a member of the YL SIG e-discussion group.Dennis has been a very active discussion memberand I have every confidence that he will take ourdiscussion group to a higher plane!

AD HOC DISCUSSIONS INITIATED BY E-MEMBERS in 2006-7 What we can learn from mainstream systems Testing Values/beliefs Dialogue journals Large classes, low tech, low proficiency Does accent matter? Primary teaching in Finland, England, Greece Second Life (IT) Transition between primary and secondary What makes reading more challenging?It’s impossible to write up all these excitingdiscussions but some summaries are available inthe resources site. For others, follow the thread inthe discussion yahoo site.

And don't forget if you have any 'burning questions'of your own, please DO SHARE. Often the mostexciting impromptu discussions are started by ourmembers’ questions!

Here's to a fabulous year of YLsig discussions!Hope to catch up with some of you at the IATEFLConference in Exeter. Please do come and find meand the rest of the YLSIG committee!

Wendy

YLsig joint co-ordinator (Hong Kong en route to LasVegas!)http://www.iatefl-ylsig.org (resources)http://groups.yahoo.com/group/younglearners/join(discussions)http://del.icio.us/ylearn (useful links)http://www.elearningdesigners.nl/iatefl/ (classroomresearch)

AND A HUGE ‘THANK YOU’ TO WENDY FORALL SHE HAS DONE TO MAKE THE E-DISCUSSION GROUP THE SUCCESS IT ISTODAY.

Asian Events 2007

24th November, 2007 – Singapore(joint YL SIG, Lorna Whiston Study Centres and theBritish Council at Tanglin Club)

Literacy in the Language Classroom: the role ofthe YL professional in developing reading andwriting skills in young learners

Details: Helen Marjan, Joint Managing Director andDirector of StudiesLorna Whiston Study Centres, 101 Thomson Road#03-18 United SquareSingapore 307591 …

[email protected]: 6253 7688 Fax: 6355 0978

26th November, 2007 - Hong Kong(joint YL SIG and British Council atThe British Council Admiralty, Central)

Literacy in the Language Classroom: the role ofthe YL professional in developing reading andwriting skills in young learner

Details: Beverley Craggs at the British Council,Hong Kong

[email protected]


36

IATEFL Young Learners special interest group (YL SIG)

FUTURE DISCUSSION FIELDERS 2007 - 2008

Caroline Linse is an Associate Professor of TESOL at Sookmyung Women'sUniversity in Seoul, Korea where she teaches graduate level courses in the YLTESOL programme and in the general TESOL MA programme. She has worked inESL programs in various parts of the US including rural Alaska and in EFL programs in Belarus, Latvia andAmerican Samoa. She has published a wide variety of ELT materials both for the EAL and EFL markets.She received her doctorate from Harvard Graduate School of Education. She is also author of themethodology textbook, Practical English Language: Young Learners, published by McGraw Hill, part ofDavid Nunan's series- Practical English

Susan Holden has worked as a teacher, teacher trainer, publisher and materials writer over the last 30years. After training at the Central School of Speech and Drama to teach drama and being involved witheducational theatre, she ‘relocated’ to Italy for some years. Since then, her main materials publishing andwriting experiences, in a range of roles, have been in and for Central Europe and Latin America. Latestmaterials include the factual Portfolio series and the Topics series for Macmillan. Her current interestsinclude CLIL, and exploring ways of engaging the learner and teacher within an educational context.

28th September – 5 th October, 2007

Topic no: 1

Relationship between schools and YL families

9th – 16 th November, 2007

Topic no 2

Evaluating, supplementing and devising materialsfor teaching and learning

For details on how to join our discussions visit:

http://www.iatefl-ylsig.org (resources)

or

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/younglearners/join

You will need to join the yahoo group to be on thedistribution list.

DON’T FORGET! 2007-8

7- 14th December: Simon Smith –Resources used with YL

January: Janet Enever – YL Policy

February: Jean Stillwell Peccei – tbc

Date tbc Peter Medgyes – Native vsnon native teachers

42nd INTERNATIONAL IATEFL CONFERENCE

AND EXHIBITION

EXETER, 7TH—11TH APRIL 2008

IATEFL’s conference in Exeter next year promises to be every bit

as exciting as previous conferences. We plan to provide you with

a Devon flavour and a very memorable experience.

1400 delegates, 300 presentations, 40 exhibitors

Plenary Speakers Zoltán Dörnyei (University of Nottingham, England) Alastair Pennycook (University of Technology Sydney, Australia) Radmila Popovic (University of Belgrade, Serbia) Rosa Jinyoung Shim (Open Cyber University, Korea)

Dates to note 17 September 2007 - deadline for speaker proposals and scholarship applications

7 January 2008 - deadline for all speakers to pay their registration fee

21 January 2008 - deadline for other delegates to benefit from the earlybird registration fee

7 April 2008 - Pre-Conference Events

8-11 April 2008 - Conference and Exhibition

www.iatefl.org

MA in Teaching English toYoung Learners (by Distance)

The English as a Foreign Language Unit of the Department of Educational Studies,University of York, is the only unit in the UK to run this highly specialised MA in TEYL.The programme starts in July of each year in York and in November of each year inSingapore. New cohorts are also due to start in Vancouver in 2007

The MA in TEYL is a 2-year programme comprising 8 multimedia self-study modules,plus participation in an annual 2-week face to face Preparatory Course. Additionally, from2007, there will also be an online Preparatory Course.

Assessment is by eight modules assignments, some of which require the carrying out ofsmall-scale classroom-based research projects. Emphasis is on the linking of theory andpractice, making extensive use of material from authentic classes. Throughout theprogramme students can choose to focus on the following age groups for theirassignments : 6-11 years, 11-16 years, or 6-16 years.

The eight modules of the programme are designed for students to gain a fullunderstanding of:

how foreign languages are acquired by young learners

how to create the most suitable classroom environment for young learner acquisitionof languages

how to approach curriculum and syllabus design

how to design and create materials for the young learner classroom

how to manage professional development in the field of TEYL

how to design, carry out and interpret results of small-scale Action Research

“This MA has been extremely valuable for me,especially because of its practical nature. Allthe modules have directly influenced my day-

to-day working practice. I think that theprogramme structure, documentation and

supervision have been excellent”

MA in TEYL Graduate

“This course has enabled me to extend myprofessional development in an unexpectedlyenjoyable mode. Whilst not denying that thecourse was very rigorous and challenging,because so much of it involves practical

application and reflection, it melds theory andpractice in a usable and coherent way”

MA in TEYL Graduate

For further information contact:

MA Programme Administrator, EFL Unit,University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK

Telephone: +44 (0)1904 432483 Fax: +44 (0)1904 432481e-mail: [email protected]

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/ltc/efl/courses/ma/mateyl.htm

Macmillan Books for TeachersTeaching solutions for real classrooms

500 Activities for the primary classroom

Carol Read

Macmillan Books for Teachers

New for 2007

www.macmillanenglish.com/methodology

Pete Sharma & Barney Barrett

Macmillan Books for Teachers

Blended LearningUsing technology in and beyond

the language classroom

New for 2007

young learners - ylt – linking, developing and ... · pdf fileyoung learners...

Documents