Warm things up; starting with an effective English warm-up activity

Begin with a fun, simple warm-up activity or game to relax your students, establish a group dynamic and get everyone ready to speak English. (Discourage the use of other languages from the very beginning of your lesson.). Use your warm-up as an opportunity to get students mixing with one another, and keep it short and sweet. Five minutes is enough for a one hour class. 10 minutes is OK for 90 minutes or more. Don’t worry a great deal about correcting your students as they warm up.

EFL Lesson planning; presentation, practice & production

Your EFL class should include the “three Ps”: presentation, practice and production. They should usually be covered in this order.

Presentation is the introduction of new vocabulary and structures. This is the first part of your class. You should chorus new vocabulary as many times as necessary and iron out any pronunciation problems. Remember that some of the material may not be new to all of your students. Try to elicit the meaning of words first and then “teach” them only if necessary. If a keen student can tell the class the meaning of a given word, then have them do so. When checking that your class understands, don’t assume that simply asking them “Do you understand?” will be enough. Think of some questions to ask students, to have them demonstrate their understanding. Concept-checking questions can be difficult to adlib, so include them in your plan. Closed questions can be OK if necessary. Based on our previous example, “I earn $10 dollars a day. Can I afford a new car?” will probably be sufficient.

Next, students will need to practice what they have been taught. Practice should begin in a fairly controlled way; pair-practicing dialogues (from textbooks or the whiteboard), substituting certain words for others is a classic technique. Fill-in-the-blanks-exercises, or activities in which students assemble sentences from cut-out strips of paper, are good ways to set-up controlled practice activities. Games which require the repetition of key structures are useful too. Once students have had some time to practice some correctly formed structures or vocabulary, you can start to broaden out the activities. Freer practice allows students some opportunities for personalization. Have them use their own information or their imaginations, while making use of the cues still provided for them. During the practice phase, you should correct whenever necessary.

The production phase is when students no longer have the structures and vocabulary in front of them. Broaden the topic and have them chat freely. Encourage conversations to wander off topic. Have students speak in pairs or small groups and ensure that students mingle beyond their usual friendship circles. Monitor discussions and be prepared to teach new vocabulary to help students express themselves. If you want to correct students at this point, you can either do so on the spot, or periodically bring the class back together as one, and use the whiteboard to correct in front of everyone.

That’s a Wrap; Ending your EFL class with an effective wrap-up.

Keep an eye on your timing so that you have around three to five minutes to wrap up your lesson. Wrap-ups stop classes from ending abruptly. They also provide a chance to praise your students and do some final comprehension checks at the end. Do a quick, easy “test”, designed to set your students up for success, so that they end the lesson feeling good about their efforts and the class as a whole. Check for questions at the end and say goodbye.

So that’s the first part of your crash course in how to teach an English class. A practical course with observed classes is by the far the best option. Since it’s not always possible, then reading some practical textbooks and articles like this should stand you in good stead.

Вопрос

Inductive and Deductive.

First a quick definition: Inductive is known as a 'bottom up' approach. In other words, students discovering grammar rules while working through exercises. For example: A reading comprehension which includes a number of sentences describing what a person has done up to that period in time. After doing the reading comprehension, the teacher could begin to ask questions such as: How long has he done this or that? Has he ever been to Paris? etc. and then follow with When did he go to Paris? To help the students inductively understand the difference between the simple past and the present perfect, these questions could be followed with which questions spoke about a definite time in the past? Which questions asked about the person's general experience? Deductive is known as a 'top down' approach. This is the standard teaching approach that has a teacher explaining rules to the students. For example: The present perfect is made up of the auxiliary verb 'have' plus the past participle. It is used to express an action which has begun in the past and continues into the present moment... etc. I personally feel that a teacher needs in the first place to facilitate learning. That is why I prefer to provide students with inductive learning exercises. However, there are certainly moments when the teacher needs to explain grammar concepts to the class. Generally, I recommend the following class structure when teaching grammar skills:

· Begin with an exercise, game, listening, etc. that introduces the grammar concept.

· Ask students questions that will help them identify the grammar concept to be discussed.

· Follow with another exercise that more specifically focuses on the grammar concept, but takes an inductive approach. This could be a reading exercise with questions and responses in the structure that is being taught.

· Check responses, ask students to explain the grammar concept that has been introduced.

· At this point introduce teaching explanations as a way of clearing up misunderstandings.

· Provide an exercise which focuses on the correct construction of the grammar point. This could be an exercise such as a fill the gap, cloze or tense conjugation activity.

· Ask students to once again explain the concept.

As you can see, the teacher is facilitating students to do their own learning rather than using the 'top down' approach of dictating rules to the class.

The above-mentioned criteria for creditable PG rules are particularly relevant to deductive (rule-driven, top-down) teaching, which leads from an explicit presentation of metalinguistic information, the provision of a set of abstractions, isolated language rules at autonomous levels of description subsequently accompanied by model sentences, to their application to concrete L₂ representations and practice tasks only after the clarification has been studied and digested (Komorowska 1993:120). This technique simply means providing learners with the ready grammar rule, describing en détail how the new structure is formed, what its components are, and in what type of context it can be used. All the information is given in the form of a mini-lecture, during which the teacher usually employs grammatical terminology. After the explanation, the learners are provided with examples illustrating the new structure, which they analyse, and are subsequently asked to apply the rule to new sentences. They are typically expected to memorise the rule (and relevant ‘exceptions’). This form of teaching offers a clear clarification of new language items, which makes the learning task easier and less intimidating and is time-effective, leaving more time for practising the new structures. Among other advantages,

It gets straight to the point, and therefore can be time-saving.
It respects the intelligence and maturity of many – especially adult – students and acknowledges the role of cognitive processes in language acquisition. …
It confirms many students’ expectations about classroom learning.
(Thornbury 1999:30)

This type of teaching is prevalent in the majority of traditional educational institutions.^[1]

The teacher may, however, also go for inductive (Socratic, rule-discovery, bottom-up) teaching, rejecting the idea of giving the learners a ready-made rule. Rather than explicitly telling them off the bat what the rule is, s/he may supply them with carefully selected intelligible linguistic data in context, usually in the form of a text illustrating the use of the particular grammatical structure. The learners’ mission in this guided discovery technique with properly devised questions is to try, on the basis of the model, to arrive at some generalisation that accounts for the underlying regularities in the data and to formulate their own explanation of the rules governing the material presented. The elicited students’ rules will then, if necessary, be amended and corrected by the teacher, and the language structure practised.^[2] Following Stern (1992:150), we can represent the deductive and inductive sequences schematically in the following way:^[3]

deductive approach: General rule → Specific examples → Practice

inductive approach: Specific examples → Practice → General rule

Figure 1: The deductive and inductive approaches (modified after Stern 1992:150)

The inductive approach, instead of basing on a teacher-fronted transmission-style classroom, is student-centred and allows learners to become deeply involved in the language they are studying and offers potential for reflection. In the process of experiential learning (learning-and-doing) they feel more important, are less passive, and do not get bored so easily during the lesson. Therefore, the inductive technique can render great service to teachers who have problems with keeping their students disciplined, concentrated and occupied, as it partly obviates these problems. Knowing that they can work out the rules from examples by themselves greatly increases learners’ motivation, makes them attentive, more actively involved in—and confident and enthusiastic about—the learning process rather than simply passive recipients, and at the same time contributes to its effectiveness. Learning a language in the proposed framework affords opportunities for cognitive development, a sense of success, achievement, and progress, which all learners need in order to preserve motivation. The inductive method has the obvious advantage that what the learners discover themselves, they are more likely to remember; a principle expressed in the words of Blaise Pascal (1623-62): “People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they themselves have discovered than by those which have come into the minds of others.” Brudnik et al. (2000) note that students generally remember approximately 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what they see, 50% of what they hear and see, 70% of what they say, and 90% of what they do by themselves – just as the best way to learn to cook well is not merely to observe an expert chef in a culinary show, but to prepare meals following his/her instructions. This premise was succinctly reflected in the wise words of Benjamin Franklin (1706-90):

Tell me and I forget,
Teach me and I remember,
Involve me and I learn.

which are a development of the saying attributed to Confucius (551-479? BC), quoted as the motto to this section. Moreover, the inductive technique also enables learners to interact in the TL whilst learning about it.

Learners can improve their learning when they are aware of what they are doing, how they are doing it, and what possibilities are available to them. Once students’ attention is drawn to expressing meaning in a particular way and they are sensitised to the possibilities, they will be able to acquire the necessary grammar of the language in an easier manner. Discovery techniques can make grammar lessons enjoyable. Moreover, owing to the application of such an approach, the learners are encouraged to analyse the language and discover rules for themselves even outside of the classroom. Due to the work with language data students become more attentive to the TL in general. Inductive learning develops the capacity to discern patterns and regularities in naturally occurring input, hence being good preparation for independent study. It is a Socratic method making learners exploit their cognitive abilities, which will help them notice the structure. It makes the student a more successful language learner “who is constantly looking for patterns in the language. He attends to the form in a particular way constantly analyzing, categorizing and synthesizing. He is constantly trying to find schemes for classifying information” (Woods 1995:77). A language course should prepare students to become effective and independent language learners. “Working things out for themselves prepares students for greater self-reliance and is therefore conductive to learner autonomy” and further self-directed learning (Thornbury 1999:54). Thus, a successful FL grammar should not be a metalinguistic artefact, but a puzzle. The inductive approach is particularly attuned for learners who like pattern-recognition and problem-solving challenge. Discovery learning raises language awareness in the learners and contributes to their better understanding of grammar.

Yet, like any other, the inductive method should be employed wisely and sparingly, restricted only to rules that can be perceived and defined quickly; otherwise a lot of valuable class time can be wasted on futile and frustrating guessing (Ur 1996:83). When a difficult grammar area is to be presented or when the teacher is short of time, the inductive approach is more suitable. It is direct, gets straight to the point, and can therefore be very time-saving and efficient. “Many rules – especially rules of form – can be more simply and quickly explained than elicited from examples. This will allow more time for practice and application” (Thornbury 1999:30). “The time taken to work out a rule may be at the expense of time spent in putting the rule to some sort of productive practice … many language areas such as aspect and modality resist easy rule formulation” (ibid.:54f.). Thus, in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion that can creep in during the elicitation of certain grammar rules from examples, it is often undoubtedly better to go for deductive teaching. The inductive method may leave the student at a loss and cause frustration when the learner is not sure whether s/he has taken the right path of thought, if s/he is correct in his/her findings and conclusions about the new structures s/he is discovering. “Students may hypothesise a wrong rule, or their version of the rule may be either too broad or too narrow in its application” (ibid.:54). It may be difficult to discover form-function relationships without explicit cues; learners feel more secure knowing that their hypotheses about grammar will be carefully monitored during a controlled practice stage. Moreover, experience suggests that some balance must be maintained so as not to discourage students from learning and to avoid monotony in the classroom. Although Lewis recommends a shift from the teacher’s explanation to the student’s exploration where learners “write their own grammar rules” (1993:149), which is believed to lead to acquisition rather than learning of grammar (ibid.:150f.), this carries the danger that incorrectly formed rules will fossilise. While the inductive method is believed to be successful in arriving at rules governing ‘fuzzy’ areas of grammar, the deductive method benefits the presentation of ‘rules of thumb’ which identify some grammar prototype (Leech 1994:28), and it may produce more durable gains in knowledge. Furthermore, “[t]he time and energy spent in working out rules may mislead students into believing that rules are the objective of language learning, rather than a means” (Thornbury 1999:54). The inductive approach also places heavy demands on teachers planning a lesson. “They need to select and organise the data carefully so as to guide learners to an accurate formulation or the rule,” whilst also ensuring intelligibility of the data (ibid.:55).

Thus, one factor which should impact the choice between an inductive and deductive method is the kind of item being taught: some grammar areas seem to lend themselves to a deductive treatment, others to an inductive one. Another factor is the learner himself/herself: a C-R task may not suit all learners. Some prefer receiving a clearly laid-down authoritarian rule to discovering the intricacies of the FL by themselves. It is especially true for beginners, who lack sufficient TL knowledge to interact in the language whilst talking about it, and young learners, who may not be interested in the conscious study of the language and whose cognitive abilities are relatively undeveloped. Leech (1994:18) points out that inductive learning, especially in the less advanced stages of language development, is implicit, while the deductive method is more fitted to explicit learning of grammar. The deductive approach confirms many students’ expectations pertaining to classroom learning (cf. Section 2.2.14). There is a place for explaining, not constantly ordering pupils to find out for themselves. “An inductive approach frustrates students who, by dint of their personal learning style or their past learning experience (or both), would prefer simply to be told the rule” (Thornbury 1999:55). It is also conceivable that reliance on learner acquisition undercuts the position of the teacher, or even the syllabus per se. It is suggested that the inductive approach may cater and be more effective for holistic learners, who learn best by exposure to language in meaningful contexts, but not analytic ones, who form and test hypotheses and extract rules from examples. The deductive approach is “particularly appropriate for adult learners whose learning style and expectations predispose them to a more analytical and reflective approach to language learning” (ibid.:38). Moreover, the deductive approach seems to bring results tout de suite as the learners can see their progress when they become able to use new structures. In addition, Leech draws a distinction between receptive and productive skills, believing that “[r]eceptive skills (listening, reading) are more directly under the control of inductive learning,” while “[p]roductive skills (speaking, writing) are more likely to be aided by deductive learning” (1994:22). Therefore, when using language productively in speaking or writing, we need explicit presentation of grammar rules. One more point may be added, namely that the deductive approach allows the teacher to deal with immediate grammar issues on the go, rather than having to anticipate and prepare for them in advance (Thornbury 1999:30).

For these reasons C-R activities should not replace traditional grammar teaching, but rather be employed in conjunction with grammar-oriented language training. To recapitulate, both deductive and inductive presentation can be useful depending on the cognitive style of the learner and the structure to be presented. Additionally, learners’ preferences must be taken into consideration. Rather than being wedded to one approach, the most profitable strategy may be an eclectic one combine both methods. Woods (1995:72) suggests that the teacher should seek out tasks which combine communicative features of interaction (to cater for holistic learners) with the opportunity to analyse what is going on within the language (for analytic learners). Students do best in classes wherein the teacher varies the approach in order to accommodate all learning styles.

To be able to employ the awareness/consciousness-raising approach implies that the teacher’s knowledge of the TL be explicit (even if initially acquired subconsciously). Intuitive implicit

Why? Why? Why? Being clear and realistic about the objectives of your EFL class

There is a very rough rule of thumb that suggests that adult language students will need to use a word between seven and 25 times in order to internalize it. Be careful about introducing too many words and structures in your lessons. During the course of a one hour lesson, somewhere between five and ten should be OK. Others may come up during the course of your class. New sentence structures, or other grammar points, should probably be limited to one or two.

Write your objectives on the whiteboard at the beginning of your lesson. Between two and four should be manageable. Tick them off once your students have accomplished each objective.

The Golden Rule is that you should start from your objectives and use your textbook to reach them. Don’t just plough through your textbook with no thought to your purpose.

Вопрос

Mistakes and Errors In order to analyze learner language in an appropriate perspective, it is cru­cial to make a distinction between mistakes and errors, technically two very different phenomena. A mistake refers to a performance error that is either a random guess or a "slip," in that it is a failure to utilize a known system correctly. All people make mistakes, in both native and second lan­guage situations. Native speakers are normally capable of recognizing and correcting such "lapses" or mistakes, which are not the result of a defi­ciency in competence but the result of some sort of temporary breakdown or imperfection in the process of producing speech. These hesitations, slips of the tongue, random ungrammaticalities, and other performance lapses in native-speaker production also occur in second language speech. Mistakes, when attention is called to them, can be self-corrected.

Mistakes must be carefully distinguished from errors of a second lan­guage learner, idiosyncrasies in the language of the learner that are direct manifestations of a system within which a learner is operating at the time. An error, a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, reflects the competence of the learner. Learners of English who ask, "Does John can sing?" are in all likelihood reflecting a competence level in which all verbs require a pre-posed do auxiliary for question formation. As such, it is an error, most likely not a mistake, and an error that reveals a portion of the learner's competence in the target language.

Can you tell the difference between an error and a mistake? Not always. An error cannot be self-corrected, according to James (1998: 83), while mistakes can be self-corrected if the deviation is pointed out to the speaker. But the learner's capacity for self-correction is objectively observable only if the learner actually self-corrects; therefore, if no such self-correction occurs, we are still left with no means to identify error vs. mis­take. So, can we turn to frequency of a deviant form as a criterion? Sometimes. If, on one or two occasions, an English learner says "John cans sing," but on other occasions says "John can sing," it is difficult to determine whether "cans" is a mistake or an error. If, however, further examination of the learner's speech consistently reveals such utterances as "John wills go; "John mays come," and so forth, with very few instances of correct third-person singular usage of modal auxiliaries, you might safely conclude that "cans," "mays," and other such forms are errors indicating that the learner has not distinguished modals from other verbs. But it is possible, because of the few correct instances of production of this form, that the learner is on the verge of making the necessary differentiation between the two types of verbs. You can thus appreciate the subjectivity of determining the difference between a mistake and an error in learner speech. That under­taking always bears with it the chance of a faulty assumption on the part of a teacher or researcher.

The fact that learners do make errors, and that these errors can be observed, analyzed, and classified to reveal something of the system oper­ating within the learner, led to a surge of study of learners' errors, called error analysis. Error analysis became distinguished from contrastive analysis by its examination of errors attributable to all possible sources, not just those resulting from negative transfer of the native language. Error analysis easily superseded contrastive analysis, as we discovered that only some of the errors a learner makes are attributable to the mother tongue, that learners do not actually make all the errors that contrastive analysis predicted they should, and that learners from disparate language back­grounds tend to make similar errors in learning one target language. Errors—overt manifestations of learners' systems—arise from several possible general sources: interlingual errors of interference from the native lan­guage, intralingual errors within the target language, the sociolinguistic context of communication, psycholinguistic or cognitive strategies, and no doubt countless affective variables.

As we have already seen, interlingual transfer is a significant source of errorfor all learners. The beginning stages of learning a second language are especially vulnerable to interlingual transfer from the native language, or interference. In these early stages, before the system of the second language is familiar, the native language is the only previous linguistic system upon which the learner can draw. We have all heard English learners say "sheep" for "ship," or "the book of Jack" instead of "Jack's book"; French learners may say "Je sais Jean" for "Je connais Jean," and so forth. All these errors art attributable to negative interlingual transfer. While it is not always clear that an error is the result of transfer from the native language, many such errors are detectable in learner speech. Fluent knowledge or even famil­iarity with a learner's native language of course aids the teacher in detecting and analyzing such errors.

The learning of a third language (and subsequent languages) pro vides an interesting context for research. Depending upon a number of fac­tors, including the linguistic and cultural relatedness of the languages and the context of learning, there are varying degrees of interlingual interfer­ence from both the first and second language to the third language, espe­cially if the second and third languages are closely related or the learner is attempting a third language shortly after beginning a second language.

Вопрос