educ 350 theories and principles for teaching english …€¦ · visits so they can offer...

EDUC 350

THEORIES AND PRINCIPLES FOR TEACHING

ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE

Universidad del Este, Universidad Metropolitana, Universidad del Turabo © Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez, 2008 Derechos Reservados

Escuela de Estudios Profesionales Programa Ahora

Universidad del Turabo

EDUC 350 Theories and Principles for Teaching English as a Second Language 2

Preparado con la colaboración de:

Prof. Carmelo Arbona

2008




TABLE OF CONTENTS

SYLLABUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

WORKSHOP ONE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9

WORKSHOP TWO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

WORKSHOP THREE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15

WORKSHOP FOUR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

WORKSHOP FIVE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19

APPENDIXES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21

APPENDIX A ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22

BEST PRACTICES FOR TEACHING ESL STUDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------- 22

APPENDIX B ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24

SUGGESTIONS FOR PLANNING WITH GRADE-LEVEL EXPECTATIONS--------------------------------------- 24

APPENDIX C ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25

STEPHEN KRASHEN'S THEORY OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ----------------------------------- 25

APPENDIX D ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30

SEVEN HYPOTHESES ABOUT LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING ------------------------------------- 30

APPENDIX E ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41

LEARNING VOCABULARY - AIDS TO LEARNING ----------------------------------------------------------------- 41




Syllabus

Course title: Theories and Principles for Teaching English as a Second

Language

Code: EDUC 350

Duration: 5 weeks

Pre-requisite: None

Description:

This course is a study of the theories, methodologies and techniques for teaching

English as a second language. Students will reflect upon the principles, foundations,

studies and investigations that support them, to compare their effectiveness and liability

for teaching a second language. Students will conduct active demonstrations of

techniques based on the school visits observations, to reflect on the diversity of their

personal teaching styles applied to the Puerto Rican students’ needs. Students will be

guided to compare and analyze their findings from existing investigations and school

visits so they can offer suggestions of techniques and practices recommended for

teaching English as a second language in Puerto Rico.

General Objectives:

At the end of the course, the student:

1. Summarize and compare accepted theories based techniques in language

teaching (ESL) and arrive at pedagogical practices.

2. Discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate use of techniques according

to students’ needs and second language processes.

3. Identify internal factors (psychological and age) and external factors (social,

environmental) that affect second language acquisition and how the effective use

of techniques and methods helps to overcome them.

4. Compare and contrast ESL theories and principles with the ones used in Puerto

Rico.

5. Summarize the key components of the English Program Curriculum Framework.

Texts and Bibliography




Michelle, R. & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. Arnold

Publishers.

Cook, V. (2008) Second language learning and language teaching. 4th edition.

Hodder Educational.

Nunan, D. (2000). Seven hypotheses about language teaching and learning.

TESOL Matters Vol. 10 No. 2 (June/July 2000) [See Appendix D]

Electronic Addresses:

Professional organizations

http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/index.asp

http://www.iatefl.org/

http://www.puertoricotesol.org/

http://www.nabe.org/

Resources

http://www.eslcafe.com/search/index.html

http://www.eslcafe.com/idea/index.cgi

http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Education/Language_Arts/English/English_as_a_Second_Lan

guage/Teacher_Resources/

References and supplementary material:

Avery, P. & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language

Pedagogy. 2nd edition. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Brown, H.D. (2006). Principles of language learning and teaching. 5th ed.

Prentice Hall.

Carter, Ronald, and David Nunan, ed. The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English

to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.). (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign

language (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. (TESFL).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-Language-Learning-Teaching/dp/0340958766/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214682510&sr=8-11

http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/index.asp

http://www.iatefl.org/

http://www.puertoricotesol.org/

http://www.nabe.org/

http://www.eslcafe.com/search/index.html

http://www.eslcafe.com/idea/index.cgi

http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Education/Language_Arts/English/English_as_a_Second_Language/Teacher_Resources/

http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Education/Language_Arts/English/English_as_a_Second_Language/Teacher_Resources/




Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D.M., & Goodwin, J.M. (2006). Teaching

pronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Content Standards and Grade Expectations. (2007). San Juan: Departamento de

Educación de Puerto Rico.

Dudeney, G. (2001). The internet and the language classroom: A practical guide

for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Harmer, J. (2004). The practice of English language teaching. 4th ed. Pearson

Longman.

Helgesen, M. & Brown, S. (2007). Practical English language teaching: Listening.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lindstromberg, S. (Ed.). (2004). Language activities for teenagers. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction.


McKay, H., & Tom, A. (2005). Teaching adult second language learners.


Peregoy, S.F., & Boyle, O. (2005). Reading, writing, and learning in esl. Boston:

Pearson Education.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language

teaching: A description and analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Evaluation:

Class participation

(attendance, preparation, & involvement in classroom

activities)

20%

Oral Presentations – Five group presentations on specific

methodologies:

Workshop 2 – Communicative language learning, &

30%




Audiolingual Method

Workshop 3 – Total physical response & natural

approach

Workshop 4 – Whole language

Workshop Assignments 20%

Demonstration Class

Workshop 2 – Pronunciation, Conversation

Workshop 3 – Vocabulary

Workshop 4 – Reading

Workshop 5 – Writing

30%

Total 100%

Guidelines for the course:

1. Attendance is mandatory. In case of absence, students should contact facilitator

in order to be excused and means to hand in assigned work.

2. Facilitator reserved the right to accept the excuse and the assigned work.

Facilitator will use his/her criteria in evaluating the work. Oral presentations and

special activities cannot be made up. If the student presents a valid written

excuse, an appointment may be set up for a written text on the activity the

student missed.

3. This is an accelerated program. Students should be prepared before each

workshop. An average of 10 hours per week is required for each workshop.

4. Student’s work should be original. Plagiarism is not acceptable. Credits should

be given to the source of information.

5. Changes made by the facilitator will be discussed in the first workshop. A written

description of the changes will be given to the students as well as the Program.

6. The facilitator will establish the means of contact and communication for the

course. These agreements shall be in accordance with privacy laws.

7. The facilitator will establish means and process for contact.

8. The use of cell phones is prohibited during workshops.

9. Children and other family members are not allowed to the classrooms.




10. Students who need Vocational Rehabilitation must contact the professor at the

beginning of the course to plan reasonable placement and necessary equipment

according to the recommendations of the Development ViceChancellor. Those

students with special needs who require some special assistance must notify

your facilitator. The student with special needs must consult with the facilitator in

case your evaluation requires differentiation due to your particular case.

11. All students must comply with the academic and administrative norms of the

institution which are available at the Student Affairs Vice Chancellor’s office,

including the Student manual.




Workshop One Specific Objectives

At the end of the workshop, the student:

1. Will summarize and compare accepted theories based techniques in

language teaching (ESL) and arrive at pedagogical practices.

2. Understand how pedagogical practices were influenced by theories regarding

human learning and language acquisition.

3. Analyze the Content Standards and Grade Expectations of the Department of

Education of Puerto Rico.

URL’s

Language Teaching Methodology

http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/rodgers.html

Teaching Strategies

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lessard-Clouston-Strategy.html

Communicative methodology

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Ryan-Communicative.html

Content-Based Curriculum

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Brown-CBEC.html

Communicative Language Teaching

http://www.professorjackrichards.com/pdfs/communicative-language-teaching-

today-v2.pdf

Communicative Language Teaching

http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/comlangteach/index.htm

Differentiated Instruction


Natural Approach

http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/NatApprTheory-Eng/sld001.htm

Overview of methods

http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/ALMMethods.htm

Assignments to do before Workshop One

http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/rodgers.html

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lessard-Clouston-Strategy.html

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Ryan-Communicative.html

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Brown-CBEC.html

http://www.professorjackrichards.com/pdfs/communicative-language-teaching-today-v2.pdf

http://www.professorjackrichards.com/pdfs/communicative-language-teaching-today-v2.pdf



http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/NatApprTheory-Eng/sld001.htm

http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/ALMMethods.htm




Instructions:

1. Read the article in Appendix D “Seven Hypotheses about Language Teaching

and Learning” and answer the questions to turn in.

a. Have you had similar feelings and experiences as those described by the

author in his stories about Alice, Grace, Luis, and Ing.

b. The author says, “…learners are active participants in their own learning

processes.” To what extent do you think this statement is true?

c. List at least five teaching strategies mentioned in the article.

d. Describe the Experiential Approach to language development.

e. What are the seven hypotheses? To what extent do you personally

identify with each of them in your own language learning or language

teaching?

2. Research the different language acquisition theories using the recommended

texts or websites. Take notes for classroom discussion and for future workshops.

3. Read the introduction to the Content Standards and Grade level expectations of

the Department of Education. Write a one-page summary and critique to turn in.

Activities

1. Facilitator will introduce him/herself.

2. Conduct an icebreaker activity for students to get to know each other.

3. Discuss the objectives, course evaluation, explain and clarify doubts regarding

the course module and its use.

4. Discussion on how I learned English and what I still need to learn. Students will

share in small groups their experience. Each group will briefly report on the most

common factors.

5. Overview of principle theories of language acquisition.

6. Students will form five different study groups. Each group will study an ESL

teaching methodology and present an explanation and analysis of it to the class

including the Theory of Language, theory of learning, and design (techniques and

activities). The topics are as follows:

a. Audio lingual method




b. Total Physical Response (TPR)

c. Communicative Approach

d. Whole Language Approach

e. Natural Approach

7. Students will also select the demonstration class topics they will give according

to the class schedule.

a. Workshop II

i. Conversational English

1. dialogues

2. information gaps

ii. Pronunciation

1. vowel sounds

2. consonant sounds

3. reductions

4. collocations

b. Workshop III

i. Vocabulary

ii. Spelling

iii. Word parts: prefix, suffix, roots, etc.

c. Workshop IV

i. Reading

ii. Reading Activities

d. Workshop V

i. Writing Sentences

ii. Writing questions

iii. Writing paragraphs

e. Grammar

i. Verb tenses

ii. Adjective word order




8. Facilitator will share about the historical background on the teaching of English

in Puerto Rico:

a. Rational for the teaching of English in Puerto Rico

b. Educational policies established for the teaching of English in Puerto Rico

c. Historical background on the methodologies established for the teaching

of English in Puerto Rico

d. Antecedents about the teaching of English in Puerto Rico

e. Current Standards and expectations

9. Discussion of Second language acquisition theories

10. Facilitator will overview next week’s topics and assignments.

Assessment

1. Writing assignments will be evaluated with rubric.




Workshop Two Specific Objectives


1. Learn teaching techniques for pronunciation.

2. Learn teaching techniques for conversational English

3. Analyze the Audio Lingual Method for teaching English.

4. Analyze the Communicative Language learning method for teaching English.

URL’s

Teaching Pronunciation (see sections on Pronunciation, Conversation, Public

speaking, and listening)

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/

Conversation classes

http://esl.about.com/lr/English_conversation_skills/5175/2/

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Nunn-Tasks.html

Pronunciation exercises

http://www.manythings.org/pp/

Sounds of English

http://www.soundsofenglish.org/about.htm

Teaching Listening

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Saricoban-Listening.html

Assignments to do before Workshop Two

Instructions:

1. Go to the site http://www.soundsofenglish.org/about.htm and go to the section on

handouts. Select a handout to read and write a one-page summary to hand in.

Prepare also to share and discuss the selected topic.

2. Research the recommended texts or websites on teaching pronunciation and

conversational English. Take notes for classroom discussion and for future

workshops.

3. Review the phonology of English and Spanish.

Activities


http://esl.about.com/lr/English_conversation_skills/5175/2/

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Nunn-Tasks.html

http://www.manythings.org/pp/


http://iteslj.org/Articles/Saricoban-Listening.html





1. Assigned study group will give the report on the Communicative Language

Learning and on the Audio-lingual method of language teaching.

2. Facilitator will lead the class on a review and activities on the English sound

system including,

a. Vowels

b. Consonants

c. Digraphs

d. Stress-time

e. Reductions

3. Assigned students will give a demonstration class on pronunciation or

conversational English.

4. Facilitator will review the assignments for the next workshop.

Assessment

1. Demonstration class will be evaluated with rubric.

2. Class report will be evaluated with rubric.




Workshop Three Specific Objectives


1. Understand the methodologies of teaching English of Total Physical Response

and the Natural Approach.

2. Learn techniques in the teaching of vocabulary.

3. Practice vocabulary learning.

URL’s

Teaching Vocabulary

http://www.auburn.edu/~nunnath/engl6240/tvocabul.html

Methods of teaching Vocabulary to students with disabilities

http://www.wm.edu/education/599/06projects/bowman.pdf

National Reading Panel Report (see chapter 4)

http://www.reading.org/downloads/resources/nrp_summary.pdf

Vocabulary Exercises

http://www.eslcafe.com/idea/index.cgi?Vocabulary

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/ (scroll down to vocabulary)

Assignments to do before Workshop Three

Instructions:

1. Read textbook or websites on topics for today’s workshop and write a one-page

summary of one of the theories to be discussed during this workshop (TPR or

Natural Approach) to turn in. Document the resources consulted using APA

format.

2. Visit the sites on Vocabulary Exercises. Select at least five exercises to do

personally and write a one-page critique of the exercises evaluating their

effectiveness.

Activities

1. Students will get together in small groups to make a list of all the things a student

needs to learn about vocabulary. Students will share their lists to make a composite

list of vocabulary needs.

http://www.auburn.edu/~nunnath/engl6240/tvocabul.html

http://www.wm.edu/education/599/06projects/bowman.pdf

http://www.reading.org/downloads/resources/nrp_summary.pdf

http://www.eslcafe.com/idea/index.cgi?Vocabulary





2. Students will share their experiences learning vocabulary and offer suggestions for

better ways to learn.

3. Students will perform sample vocabulary exercises. See Appendix E. Students will

share their critiques on exercises done from websites.

4. Students will give oral reports on the Total Physical Response (TPR) and the Natural

Approach.

5. Assigned students will give a demonstration class regarding vocabulary.

6. Facilitator will review the assignments for the next workshop.

Assessment

1. Demonstration class will be evaluated with rubric.

2. Class report will be evaluated with rubric.




Workshop Four Specific Objectives


1. Learn techniques for teaching reading.

2. Understand the whole language approach.

3. Practice different reading strategies.

URL’s

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/ (scroll down to section on reading)

http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/compre.htm#websites (Reading comprehension)

http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/compre.htm

http://ww7.tiki.ne.jp/~call4all/PDFfiles/j04-combining.pdf

http://www.readingmatrix.com/directory/pages/

http://www.edresearch.info/reading_home.asp

http://www.reading.org/publications/journals/rrq/index.html

http://www.isu.edu/~kingkath/readstrt.html

http://www.reading.org/

http://www.nrrf.org/features.htm#hist

Assignments to do before Workshop Four

Instructions:

1. Read recommended textbooks and websites on the topics for today’s workshop.

Go to the website http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/compre.htm#websites . Select a

site and one reading comprehension exercise to bring to class.

2. Read the following article and its various sections on Teaching Reading

http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/reading/reindex.htm Then write a one-page critique

of the article including five ideas for the teaching of reading you found significant.

This is to be discussed in class and then turned in.

Activities

1. Corresponding group will present the topic on Whole Language.

2. Student demonstration class on reading.

3. Class will divide into small groups. Each group will discuss, define, and report on

a reading teaching technique.


http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/compre.htm#websites

http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/compre.htm

http://ww7.tiki.ne.jp/~call4all/PDFfiles/j04-combining.pdf

http://www.readingmatrix.com/directory/pages/

http://www.edresearch.info/reading_home.asp

http://www.reading.org/publications/journals/rrq/index.html

http://www.isu.edu/~kingkath/readstrt.html

http://www.reading.org/

http://www.nrrf.org/features.htm#hist

http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/compre.htm#websites

http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/reading/reindex.htm




a. Pre-reading

b. Predicting

c. Paraphrasing

d. Skimming

e. Scanning

f. Sequencing

g. Inferences

4. Comprehension

a. Students will share the reading comprehension website and exercise they

brought to class.

b. In the small group, students will perform one or more reading

comprehension exercises.

Assessment

1. Demonstration class, class report, assignments, and participation will be

assessed with rubric.




Workshop Five Specific Objectives


1. Learn theories and techniques in the teaching of writing.

2. Understand the writing process

3. Practice writing techniques and assessment

URL’s

Thirty ideas for teaching Writing

http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/922

NCTE Beliefs about the Teaching of Writing

http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/write/118876.htm

Internet TESL Journal (scroll down to section on Writing)


Teaching Writing

http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource_topic/teaching_writing

Purdue University Online Writing Lab

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/

Writer’s Web

http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb.html

The Citation Machine

http://citationmachine.net/index.php

Thirty Ideas for teaching writing – National Writing Project


Teaching Ideas and Activities - Scholastic

http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/teachwriting/

Writing activities ideas - ESL Café

http://www.eslcafe.com/idea/index.cgi?Writing

Teaching Activities

http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/activities/index.cfm

Writing Materials and Ideas


http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/write/118876.htm


http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource_topic/teaching_writing

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/

http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb.html

http://citationmachine.net/index.php


http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/teachwriting/

http://www.eslcafe.com/idea/index.cgi?Writing

http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/activities/index.cfm




http://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/faculty/toc.shtml

Assessing Student writing

http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/manual/tutors/ESLerror.html

Assignments to do before Workshop Five

Instructions:

1. Read recommended text books and website on the topics for this workshop. Be

prepared to participate in discussions and group activities.

2. Different textbooks and websites describe the writing process in three, four, five,

and even six steps. Do some research and reading on the topic of the writing

process and write a one-page summary of the writing process that you prefer and

why. Turn this in.

Activities

1. Demonstration class on Writing.

2. Discussion on writing theory.

3. Facilitator will lead students in some of the following writing activities.

a. Collaborative writing (students will work together on a writing task)

b. Descriptive writing (students will describe an object)

c. Free writing (students will do a free write for 5 minutes);.

d. Dialectical Journal (appendix: a short reading for the exercise)

e. Assessing student Writing (two student samples in appendix for

corrections)

Assessment

1. Demonstration class, class report, assignments, and participation will be

assessed with rubric.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/faculty/toc.shtml

http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/manual/tutors/ESLerror.html




Appendixes




Appendix A Best practices for teaching esl students1

Scaffolding

The teacher provides meaningful support and guidance needed for the student’s

learning growth toward each learning objective. Also, the teacher uses questioning

techniques to elicit experiences that relate to his/her native culture. The teacher

rephrases with words the student understands and uses pictures to adapt the

questioning techniques.

Shelter

The teacher introduces new content by using visual aids, music, and other aids. The

student will be observed to note which topics come easily and which ones will require

more support.

Total Physical Response

As much as possible, the teacher links language learning to enable the student to make

a physical response. This technique ties in to various learning styles and is fun for the

student.

Reciprocal Teaching

To help the student complete a task, the teacher presents an interactive lesson,

assesses the student’s response for comprehension, and then restructures the lesson

to correct the student’s initial response. This strategy is beneficial since it demonstrates

how to learn. The student’s self-esteem is enhanced by control over the learning

situation.

Critical Thinking Questions

The teacher encourages the student to ask and answer questions that start with the

words “why” and “how.”

Direct Instruction

The teacher uses explicit teaching of a skill through explanation and demonstration.

1 from Content Standards and Grade Level Expectations, Department of Education 2007




Hands-on Experiences

The student is given opportunities to complete activities that he/she can demonstrate

and describe orally.

Teaching Techniques

The teacher needs to simplify instructions, connect the instruction to the native culture,

and use graphic organizers to allow access of information. Some examples are

controlled language, labeling, vocabulary word banks, flash cards, and discussions.

Oral Cloze

The teacher uses oral cloze, as during shared reading, to keep the students active and

accountable. As the teacher reads to the students modeling fluent reading, he/she omits

chosen words. Student’s choral in with the word omitted.

Think-Pair-Share

The teacher gives students a question, allows them time to think and prepare response,

and then provides time for peers to share responses and discuss each other’s ideas

and thoughts.




Appendix B Suggestions for planning with grade-level expectations

Instructional Opportunities

Formative Assessments

Attitudes and Values

• Read Alouds • Role Playing • Discussions • Field Trips • Phonics and Phonemic Awareness Activities • Fluency Development- Reader’s Theater, Echo Reading, Oral Cloze, Choral Reading • Teacher Modeling, Think Alouds, Direct Instruction • Vocabulary Exploration • Listening to Fluent Speakers • Answers questions, follows and completes commands and directions • Shared, Guided, Paired, Independent Reading • Videos • Guest Readers and Speakers • Performances, Poetry Readings • Literary Panels and Debates • Research, use of latest technology, and visits to library • Author and student models • Peer Edits • The Writing Process • Comprehension Activites

• Checklists • Rubrics • Projects • Unit Tests • Quizzes • Speeches • Reports and Research papers • Small-Group Discussion Responses • Word Per Minute Fluency Assessments • Oral Reading Fluency Assessments • Writing Process Tasks • Scavenger Hunts • Graphic Organizers • Short and Extended Written Responses • Cooperative Learning Tasks • Inquiry-Based Research Projects

• Powerpoint Presentations

• Peer and Self Assessments

• Portfolios, Reading Logs, and Writing Logs

• Anecdotal Records

• Observations

• Journals, Diaries and Reflections

• Illustrations

• Willingness to risk using English to communicate • Understanding that reading is a means of increasing knowledge and acquiring experience • Satisfaction and pride in preparing neat, well-developed written work • Willingness to appreciate suggestions and feedback from teachers and classmates • Desire to share and learn with others • Relates cultural diversity to self • Uses reading to relate to self and world • Awareness of the joy that literature connects us to other cultures as well as our own




Appendix C Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition

Ricardo Schütz Last revision: July 2, 2007

"Language acquisition does not require extensive

use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not

require tedious drill." Stephen Krashen

"Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the

target language - natural communication - in which

speakers is concerned not with the form of their

utterances but with the messages they are

conveying and understanding." Stephen Krashen

"The best methods are therefore those that supply

'comprehensible input' in low anxiety situations,

containing messages that students really want to

hear. These methods do not force early production

in the second language, but allow students to

produce when they are 'ready', recognizing that

improvement comes from supplying

communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting

production." Stephen Krashen

"In the real world, conversations with sympathetic native speakers who are willing to

help the acquirer understand are very helpful." Stephen Krashen

Introduction

Stephen Krashen (University of Southern California) is an expert in the field of

linguistics, specializing in theories of language acquisition and development. Much of

his recent research has involved the study of non-English and bilingual language

acquisition. During the past 20 years, he has published well over 100 books and articles

and has been invited to deliver over 300 lectures at universities throughout the United

States and Canada.

http://www.sk.com.br/sk-inst.html#inst




This is a brief description of Krashen's widely known and well accepted theory of

second language acquisition, which has had a large impact in all areas of second

language research and teaching since the 1980s.

Description of Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition

Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses:

the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis,

the Monitor hypothesis,

the Natural Order hypothesis,

the Input hypothesis,

the Affective Filter hypothesis.

The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in

Krashen's theory and the most widely known among linguists and language

practitioners.

According to Krashen there are two independent systems of second language

performance: 'the acquired system' and 'the learned system'. The 'acquired system' or

'acquisition' is the product of a subconscious process very similar to the process

children undergo when they acquire their first language. It requires meaningful

interaction in the target language - natural communication - in which speakers are

concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but in the communicative act.

The 'learned system' or 'learning' is the product of formal instruction and it comprises a

conscious process which results in conscious knowledge 'about' the language, for

example knowledge of grammar rules. According to Krashen 'learning' is less important

than 'acquisition'. (Acquisition/Learning).

The Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning and

defines the influence of the latter on the former. The monitoring function is the practical

result of the learned grammar. According to Krashen, the acquisition system is the

utterance initiator, while the learning system performs the role of the 'monitor' or the

'editor'. The 'monitor' acts in a planning, editing and correcting function when three

specific conditions are met: that is, the second language learner has sufficient time at

http://www.sk.com.br/sk-laxll.html




his/her disposal, he/she focuses on form or thinks about correctness, and he/she knows

the rule.

It appears that the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in second language

performance. According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is - or should be - minor,

being used only to correct deviations from 'normal' speech and to give speech a more

'polished' appearance.

Krashen also suggests that there is individual variation among language learners with

regard to 'monitor' use. He distinguishes those learners that use the 'monitor' all the

time (over-users); those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use their

conscious knowledge (under-users); and those learners that use the 'monitor'

appropriately (optimal users). An evaluation of the person's psychological profile can

help to determine to what group they belong. Usually extroverts are under-users, while

introverts and perfectionists are over-users. Lack of self-confidence is frequently related

to the over-use of the 'monitor'.

The Natural Order hypothesis is based on research findings (Dulay & Burt, 1974;

Fathman, 1975; Makino, 1980 cited in Krashen, 1987) which suggested that the

acquisition of grammatical structures follows a 'natural order' which is predictable. For a

given language, some grammatical structures tend to be acquired early while others

late. This order seemed to be independent of the learners' age, L1 background,

conditions of exposure, and although the agreement between individual acquirers was

not always 100% in the studies, there were statistically significant similarities that

reinforced the existence of a Natural Order of language acquisition. Krashen however

points out that the implication of the natural order hypothesis is not that a language

program syllabus should be based on the order found in the studies. In fact, he rejects

grammatical sequencing when the goal is language acquisition.

The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to explain how the learner acquires a second

language. In other words, this hypothesis is Krashen's explanation of how second

language acquisition takes place. So, the Input hypothesis is only concerned with

'acquisition', not 'learning'. According to this hypothesis, the learner improves and

progresses along the 'natural order' when he/she receives second language 'input' that




is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a

learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to

'Comprehensible Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1'. Since not all of the learners can be at

the same level of linguistic competence at the same time, Krashen suggests that natural

communicative input is the key to designing a syllabus, ensuring in this way that each

learner will receive some 'i + 1' input that is appropriate for his/her current stage of

linguistic competence.

Finally, the fifth hypothesis, the Affective Filter hypothesis, embodies Krashen's view

that a number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second

language acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self-confidence and anxiety.

Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image,

and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second language

acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to

'raise' the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input

from being used for acquisition. In other words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes

language acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is necessary, but not sufficient

on its own, for acquisition to take place.

The Role of Grammar in Krashen's View

According to Krashen, the study of the structure of the language can have general

educational advantages and values that high schools and colleges may want to include

in their language programs. It should be clear, however, that examining irregularity,

formulating rules and teaching complex facts about the target language is not language

teaching, but rather is "language appreciation" or linguistics.

The only instance in which the teaching of grammar can result in language acquisition

(and proficiency) is when the students are interested in the subject and the target

language is used as a medium of instruction. Very often, when this occurs, both

teachers and students are convinced that the study of formal grammar is essential for

second language acquisition, and the teacher is skillful enough to present explanations

in the target language so that the students understand. In other words, the teacher talk

meets the requirements for comprehensible input and perhaps with the students'




participation the classroom becomes an environment suitable for acquisition. Also, the

filter is low in regard to the language of explanation, as the students' conscious efforts

are usually on the subject matter, on what is being talked about, and not the medium.

This is a subtle point. In effect, both teachers and students are deceiving themselves.

They believe that it is the subject matter itself, the study of grammar, that is responsible

for the students' progress, but in reality their progress is coming from the medium and

not the message. Any subject matter that held their interest would do just as well.

REFERENCES

Crystal, David The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge

University Press, 1997.

Krashen, Stephen D. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.

Prentice-Hall International, 1987.

Krashen, Stephen D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language

Learning. Prentice-Hall International, 1988.

Schütz, Ricardo. "Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition."

English Made in Brazil <http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html>. Online. July 2nd, 2007.

http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html




Appendix D Seven Hypotheses about Language Teaching and Learning

TESOL Matters Vol. 10 No. 2 (June/July 2000)

by David Nunan

Note: This is an abridged version of a plenary address given at the 34th Annual TESOL

Convention in Vancouver, March 2000.

In this presentation I want to explore the question, What can the pedagogical lives of

our learners tell us about language learning, and what are the implications of what they

tell us for language teaching? To do so, I will tell seven stories: from Alice, Grace, Luis,

Ing, Josephine, Sandy, and Siu Fun.

The database for the presentation consists of my own experiences of talking to learners

over many years and an ongoing longitudinal study at the University of Hong Kong with

colleagues Lillian Wong and Phil Benson. Through this research, we have explored the

question of what learners' accounts of their own histories as language learners reveal

about processes of language acquisition and development, and how these accounts

can help us do our own work more effectively.

Alice and Grace

The stories of the first two learners are from the early 1970s, when audiolingualism still

had the field by the pedagogical jugular. I had been teaching for only a couple of years,

and some of my younger teaching colleagues and I were attempting to escape the

dominant audiolingual methodology of the day by getting learners involved in the

process of using language. In order to bring our students along with us, we were careful

to explain the rationale for what we were doing and to find out what our students

thought of these new ideas.

However, for many weeks, I found it impossible to get much out of Alice and Grace --

quiet, painfully shy identical twins who went everywhere together. One day, one of the

twins was absent. After class I went up to the other twin and said to her, "So, how are

you enjoying the English class?" Looking terrified, she leapt from her seat and headed

for the door. "Where are you going?" I asked. "To ask my sister," she replied.




Later in the course, Grace did develop the confidence to respond to my questions. One

day, we had done a role play that I thought had gone well, and I asked Grace about it.

She shook her head. "No like role play." What about your sister? "She no like role play."

I went home that day in a state of depression for two reasons: My attempt to incorporate

a more communicative approach into my classroom was meeting with only marginal

success, and my attempts at teaching grammar did not seem to be particularly

successful either. We had spent a lot of class time practicing negation in the context of

likes and dislikes: He likes .... I don't like .... She likes .... You don't like .... He doesn't

like .... My students were great at manipulating the forms in class, but then in

communication they used forms they had certainly never learned from me: No like this

or No like that. Mismatches and asymmetries between teaching and learning were all

around me, yet I'd never really paid this phenomenon any attention, nor had I been

taught about it when I was training to be a teacher. I was taught that if learners made

errors, then I must be doing something wrong. And that was the lesson I got from the

stories of Alice and Grace -- I wasn't doing it right.

Luis

Luis was one of the most gifted and charming students I have ever had -- a joy to have

in class and always ready to help weaker learners. Although concerned to get it right, he

wasn't afraid to make mistakes.

One day, we were practicing identifying possessions (Is this your pencil? Is that her

bag?). The lesson went well, and I was feeling pleased with myself as I left the

classroom. On this particular day, I was driving my brother's rather fancy car instead of

riding the beaten-up bicycle that was my usual mode of transportation. As I drove

through the school gates, I saw Luis and stopped to give him a ride. Most surprised to

see me driving a fancy car, he got in and said, "Teacher car?" Again, I ended up in a

state of depression, as my instruction appeared to be making the learners worse, not

better.

-Ing




My fourth story comes from a somewhat different creature from the first three. In fact, -

ing is not a learner but a grammatical morpheme. For this story I am indebted to a

former colleague in Australia, Malcolm Johnston, who spent many years getting -ing

and her relatives to tell him their stories.

Johnston (1987) collected and analyzed a large corpus of naturalistic language from L2

learners at different stages of proficiency. Learning, in Johnston's terms, is an active,

constructive process as opposed to just an attempt to copy teacher, textbook, or tape.

Johnston discovered that learners' understanding of target language items evolves

through complex, overlapping, and recursive stages that do not mirror native language

usage. He also showed that learners and the processes through which they acquire

languages are far more complex than most language teaching methods and

approaches assume.

Johnston found that the only consistent thing about the use of -ing is that it is attached

to words that appear to be verbs. He argues that the unambiguous marking of action

words is an important step in enabling learners to get past the initial stage of using

single words and formulaic utterances. But why should the learners choose -ing and not

some other verbal marker? Johnston suggests that -ing is the most easily identified of

the various morphological markers available in English because it is a syllable and is

phonetically simple.

So we have learners who are taught the use of -ing as a marker of progressivity or

continuity but who use it as an indicator of action. At first, they do not discriminate

between the different kinds of utterances in which the -ing marking is applied. As time

goes on, however, they begin to restrict the use of -ing to certain contexts. Surprisingly,

Johnston found that the past tense context was the predominant one for -ing.

At the next stage of development, Johnston's learners used -ing to mark the verb in

subordinate clauses and with verbal complements. At this point, Johnston (1987) says,

you might ask, "How can you call this crazy pattern development?" He goes on to say,

"Crazy as this new behaviour might seem, there may be a simple explanation.... the use

of '-ing' in past contexts and subordinate clauses is really an extension of the original

use of '-ing' as a verb marker, and is a way of making utterances understandable by




providing learners with reference points for the development of more complex

structures."

Lessons to Be Learned

The stories of Alice, Grace, Luis, and -ing dramatize the asymmetrical relationship

between teaching and learning. They also illustrate the idea that language development

is not linear but organic. Learners do not learn one thing perfectly one at a time; they

learn numerous things imperfectly all at once, and their understanding and usage

evolve through complex, interrelated sets of stages (Nunan, 1999). The stories begin to

provide possible answers to Allwright's (1984) question: "Why don't learners learn what

teachers teach?" This asymmetry has numerous practical implications:

1. Teachers should not panic when learners don't "get it." As Robert Frost said, the

trick to education is to get students to hang around long enough till they catch on.

2. Learners do behave systematically; the seemingly crazy patterns that appear at

certain stages in the learning process have their own developmental logic.

3. Learners notice things that native speakers can afford to ignore.

4. The internal processes through which learners acquire an L2, as evidenced by

the language they produce at various stages, is consistent with experiential,

constructivist models of learning.

The first four stories have focused on aspects of language content. The ones that follow

have more to do with learning processes.

Josephine

In contrast with most of our students, Josephine, one of my students at the University of

Hong Kong, loved English despite many years of traditional instruction in high school.

The samples of language I collected from her over one semester showed dramatic

progress, and I was interested in finding out how she did it. One day, the following

conversation ensued:

"Hi Josephine. How are things?"

"Fine."

"I wanted to have a chat with you about your English."

"Uh-huh." "It's coming along fantastically well, don't you think?"




"Yes."

"You must be very pleased with yourself."

"I am."

"Yes, I must be doing something right." I said, in a rather self-congratulatory way.

At this point she stopped, half-turned, and looked at me quizzically. "Oh, it isn't you,"

she said.

"It isn't?"

"No, I don't think so. I think it's my Canadian roommate."

In collecting the language learning histories of Hong Kong students, Wong, Benson, and

I found a great deal of evidence to support the notion that learners are active

participants in their own learning processes (see also Benson and Lor, 1999). Although

there was a cultural overlay to what goes on in the classroom, a range of other factors,

particularly the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of individual learners, conditioned what

was considered as legitimate activity. We also found many mismatches between the

beliefs and attitudes of the learners and the practices of their teachers -- even practices

that were important for successful language development, such as the extent to which

use of the target language in class was encouraged or even permitted. In some English

classes, English itself was rarely used. In others, students reported being fined if they

used their L1. Both practices had (predictably) negative consequences.

Sandy

Sandy was a smart first-year student, and, unlike Alice and Grace, she was not shy.

When asked to compare and contrast her experiences of learning English at high school

and at the university, she said, "When I was in secondary school, I seldom asked

questions. The reason was that the teacher always tried to explain the stuffs as detailed

as possible, leaving no queries among students.... This method is well-known as the

spoon-feeding education system in which we are fed with piles of notes and textbooks.

On the other hand, students (especially some dumb one like me) only care about

getting results good enough to enter a university.... Eventually less and less students

care about acquiring knowledge, which should be the aim of education. But in

universities ... Lecturers only give a brief talk on the topics, leave a huge area for




students to explore by themselves. This means that spoon-feed system no longer

exists. Students cannot rely on the knowledge acquired in lectures."

When asked to spell out the actual strategies used by her high school teacher, she said,

"I learn English in school by, just by doing some exercises on the class or homework.

And when we prepare for the exam, we just do all the past paper and that's all.... some

teacher will take primary [elementary] school approach. She will let you read a text and

then tell you to underline some difficult words and then you have to jot them in a book

and we did not like this way because we are not babies, we have a textbook and then

she will tell us to do the exercise inside that."

When asked, "Do you like that way?" Sandy replied, "No [laughing], because we don't

know what we are doing.... Drills everyday, no fun at all."

It is clear from the narratives of learners that in order to create appropriate learning

environments for them, teachers need to know where they're coming from. During one

12-week period, Sandy and a group of her fellow students took part in a program

designed to help them reflect on their own learning, develop their knowledge of and

ability to apply learning strategies, assess their own progress, and apply their language

skills beyond the classroom. The learners kept reflective journals of their language

learning experiences. Over the 12 weeks, there was a gradual shift from a linguistic

focus to a more communicative and applied focus. Students began to see language less

as an object to be studied than as a tool to be used. Student comments began to take

on more of a process rather than a product orientation as they began to reflect on how

they learned as much as on what they learned.

Siu Fun

In telling her story, Siu Fun exhibited all of the attributes of the active, lifelong learner.

When she was in school, she loved English, but she quickly came to realize that

learning English in school was not enough. So she found opportunities to practice her

English out of class. Opportunities to practice listening, reading, and, to a certain extent,

writing were relatively easy to come by, but speaking was a much greater challenge.




Siu Fun used to hang around the tourist traps after school and waylay unsuspecting

tourists with questions to which she already knew the answers. She also created a

conversation exchange. For 40-50 minutes each week, she and several of her friends

each arranged to meet with a native speaker of English who wanted to practice

Cantonese. They would spend 10 minutes conversing in English, switch to Cantonese

for the next 10 minutes, go back to English, and so on until their allotment of time was

used up.

An Experiential Approach to Language Development

The learners I have described all differed markedly in their attitudes and beliefs about

what it is to be a language learner and user. I realize that, in many ways, most of them

may be atypical. But at this stage in our work we are not looking for averages, norms, or

generalizability, and we are not interested in populations and sample. In fact, we are

happy to celebrate through our work the particular, the atypical, the unique. I invite

those who argue that this is storytelling, not research, to debate the issue with Donald

Freeman or with Shirley Brice Heath. In critiquing the dominant paradigm, Heath (1983)

argued,

Often the approaches to research in education have been quantitative, global,

sociodemographic, and dependent on large-scale comparisons of many different

schools.... Pieces of data about social groups... are correlated with the output of

students expressed as test scores, subsequent income, and continued schooling. The

effects of formal instruction have been evaluated by correlating these input factors with

educational output.... The irony of such research is that it ignores the social and cultural

contexts which created the input factors for individuals and groups. Detailed

descriptions of what actually happens to children as they learn to use language and

form their values about its structures and functions tell us what children do to become

and remain acceptable members of their own communities. (pp. 7, 8)

Each of the seven learners I have introduced brought into my classroom a unique

history, and each reacted differently to the challenges of learning another language.

When the formal classroom proved inadequate to Josephine's needs, she went beyond

the classroom to get the data and experiences she needed to improve her speaking.




Sandy rejected the methods used by her teacher because they did not reflect the ways

that she felt she learned best. Siu Fun also had a proactive strategy for fulfilling her

learning needs -- beyond the classroom.

In making sense of our learners' stories, we came to realize that their current attitudes

toward, beliefs about, and approaches to language learning represented particular

moments in their lives as language learners and that these were contextualized within

interpretations of particular experiences of learning particular languages in particular

social and educational contexts. Without knowing the context, it was difficult to ascribe

deeper significance to the stories.

As teacher educators, our challenge is to convince teachers that we can learn a great

deal from listening to our learners. We have to listen to what they do not say as well as

to what they do say and to the language they use as well as to the language they do not

use. We have to notice they ways in which they transform the language data and

learning experiences that we provide for them.

My learners and their stories provide strong anecdotal support for an experiential view

of learning. As I ran and reran these stories through the filter of my own background as

a learner and a teacher, it seemed to me that out of these stories I could propose a

number of hypotheses. Within the context of the experiential view of learning that I have

just outlined, learning will be enhanced

1. if the curriculum acknowledges that learners will reinterpret and transform input

from the teacher, the textbook, and the tape

2. if the curriculum acknowledges that the relationship between teaching and

learning is asymmetrical -- in short, that learners do not learn what teachers

teach in a linear, additive fashion

3. if learners are given opportunities to contribute their own ideas, experiences, and

feelings to the learning process

4. if there is a focus on learning processes as well as on the language content

5. if the curriculum acknowledges that there are different routes to success and

teachers recognize that it is their responsibility to help learners find their own

best ways




6. if learners are given opportunities to negotiate aspects of their learning

7. if the curriculum reflects the fact that language acquisition is complex, organic,

and inherently unstable

"One Size Fits All" Won't Do

As we create learning experiences and opportunities for our learners, we need to keep

in mind the fact that the "one-size-fits-all" philosophy just won't do. As Stevick (1989)

has reminded us, we should beware of building a system of teaching around one type of

learner. Based on his own collection of stories from language, learners, Stevick asks:

What would happen if a Gwen on the basis of outstanding personal accomplishments in

language learning, or a Derek because of some brilliant intellectual formulation, or an

Ann through force of personality... suddenly came into a position to set a new trend in

language teaching methodology... Would Bert have learners repeating and

paraphrasing with little or no translation or explanation? Would Carla insist that people

go out and associate with friendly native speakers who knew how to limit their language

for foreigners?... Surely any such methods would be partially successful, but each

would also contain the seeds of defeat for some students.... One after another,

successive innovators have cast and recast "the learner" in their own image. Even an

individual teacher may act as if all students really should be like himself at his best, or

perhaps like his most illustrious alumni. So I will remember Diller's warning about the

temptation to take one experience or one small set of principles and push that

experience or that set of principles too "long and far." Whenever someone offers me a

new technique or asks me to embrace yet another approach, I will ask myself, "How

would this fit _______?" And into the blank I will substitute first Ann, then Bert, then

Carla and Derek and Ed and Frieda and Gwen. (pp. 150, 151)

I'm sure some are tempted to question -- if not dismiss entirely -- my seven hypotheses

because they have emerged from the pedagogical lives of learners. "Mere storytelling!" I

hear some say. Denny (1978) said the following about storytelling and educational

research:

Storytelling is an attempt to employ ancient conceptualizations... focused on directly

observable referents... This much I propose for general agreement: without good




documentation, good storytelling, we'll never get good educational theory, which we

desperately need.... I claim storytelling can contribute to our understanding of problems

in education and teachers can help. Folks are forever calling for and proposing nifty

solutions to problems never understood. Storytelling is unlikely to help in the creation or

evaluation of educational remedies, but can facilitate problem definition. Problem

definition compared to problem solving is an underdeveloped field in education. (p. 3)

From a professional lifetime of encouraging learners to tell their stories, I can validate

what Denny has to say. The stories that my learners have shared with me over the

years have helped me identify, define, and refine the problems and challenges of

facilitating language acquisition in instructional contexts. They have also helped me

shape responses to those challenges in ways that were not dreamed of in the books on

which I cut my professional teeth. Finally, they have provided me with a basis, if not for

framing a pedagogical theory, then for suggesting a number of hypotheses that can be

contested against the realities of classroom life.

It is not simply important to hear our learners' stories; it is essential. There has not been

a single learner story that hasn't made me think twice about what I do in the classroom.

Perhaps the final word should go to the playwright Oscar Wilde, who observed,

"Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that

nothing that is worth knowing can be taught."

References

Allwright, D. (1984). Why don't learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction

hypothesis. In D. M. Singleton and D. Little (Eds.), Language learning in formal

and informal contexts (pp. 3-18). Dublin, Ireland: Irish Association for Applied

Linguistics.

Benson, P., and Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of language and language learning.

System, 27, 459-472.

Denny, T. (1978). Storytelling and educational understanding (Occasional Paper No.

12). Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, College of Education.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




Johnston, M. (1987). Understanding learner language. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying

second language acquisition. Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English

Language Teaching and Research.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle and

Heinle.

Stevick, E. (1989). Success with foreign languages. London: Prentice Hall. David

Nunan is serving as past president of TESOL.

© Copyright 1996-2007

http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp?CID=9&DID=2391




Appendix E

Learning vocabulary - aids to learning

Learning associated words together

Learn words with associated meanings together.

1. Complete this bubble network for the word CAT. Add as many other bubbles

as you like.

2. If possible, compare networks with your classmates. Add any of their ideas that

you like to your own network.

Learn words with a grammatical association together.

3. Here are some groups of words, each of which has a grammatical connection.

Can you see what the connection is? What other words could you add to these

groups?

a. child tooth foot

b. cut split put

c. information furniture luggage

Learn words based on the same root together.

4. Can you add any words or expressions to these two groups?

a. price priceless overpriced

b. handy single-handed give me a hand




Using pictures and diagrams

Here are some ways that pictures can help you remember vocabulary.

1. Can you draw any pictures that would help you remember the following

vocabulary?

a. a circle

b. to look a gift horse in the mouth

c. screwdriver

2. Word trees can be useful. Look at the word tree for vacation. Now complete a

tree for school.




3. Word forks are a good way of learning adjectives and verbs. Look at the

complete word forks below. Finish the others.

original shoot magnificent kick

brilliant edit breathtaking hit

unusual idea a moview superb view bounce a ball

great star in

excellent review

4. A table can also help clarify collocations (words that are associated). Look at the

following example of a table:

a car

a motorcycle

a truck

a horse

a plane

to fly

+

to drive

+

+

to ride

+

+

Now complete the following sentences.

a. Her mother _____________ a truck for fifteen years, but now she's retired.

b. Have you ever _____________ a plane?

c. ____________ a motorcycle can be very dangerous.

Note: You will do more practice with these and other ways of writing down

vocabulary in Unit 3.




Exercises

3.1 1. Here is a list of words a Spanish learner of English made in her

vocabulary notebook. How could she improve them and organize them

better?

a. clock – reloj

b. tell the time - declr \a bora

c. office – despacho

d. beneath – under

e. drowsy - The room wa& hot and I got drowsy.

f. wrlstwatch - reloj de pul&era

g. What time le It?

h. next to -junto a/al lado de

i. hands - the minute hand (minutero)

j. wide awake (completely awake)

3.2

2. Here is a word map, a variation on the bubble network. What word do you

think should go in the middle of the diagram?

3.3

3. One learner tested himself regularly with his notebook, covering up the

word and guessing it from his translation or from his other notes. Here is

his system:

If his translation and notes were clear, but he couldn't guess the

word, he made a small red mark in the margin. Three red marks

meant "needs extra effort."




If his translation and notes couldn't help him guess the word, then

he made a blue mark. This meant "need more information about

this word."

What is your testing system? If you don't have a system, try to invent one,

or ask other people what they do. Try out your system and decide if it

works.

3.4

4. Making tables for word classes is a good idea, since you can fill in the

blanks over time. What would you put in the remaining spaces in the

table?

Noun

Verb

Adjective

Person

production

produce

producer

industry

industrial

export

educ 350 theories and principles for teaching english …€¦ · visits so they can offer...

Documents