ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD

(Department of English Language & Applied Linguistics)

WARNING
1. PLAGIARISM OR HIRING OF GHOST WRITER(S) FOR SOLVING THE ASSIGNMENT(S)
WILL DEBAR THE STUDENT FROM AWARD OF DEGREE/CERTIFICATE, IF FOUND AT
ANY STAGE.
2. SUBMITTING ASSIGNMENTS BORROWED OR STOLEN FROM OTHER(S) AS ONES
OWN WILL BE PENALIZED AS DEFINED IN AIOU PLAGIARISM POLICY.

Course: EFL in the Classroom-II (5661)

Level: Dip TEFL Semester: Autumn, 2016
Total Marks: 100 Pass Marks: 40
ASSIGNMENT No. 1
(Units 19)

Q.1 Define and explain these terms: (20)

a) Lockstep and Group work
Lockstep:
Lockstep is where all the students are under the control of the teacher. They are all doing the
same activity at the same rhythm and pace. Lockstep is often adopted when the teacher is
making a presentation, checking exercise answers, or doing accuracy reproduction. When the
teacher asks questions, the students speak either together or one by one, in turns or
indicated by the teacher.
Group Work:
Group work is where the students work in small groups. Each group has 3, 4, or 5 students,
depending on the activity. What students do in group work is similar to pair work, only there
are more members in the group. Group work is most beneficial when the activity requires
contributions from more than two students. The teacher can join each group for a while, but
only as a participant not as a leader or inspector.

b) Open and Closed Pair

Open Pair:
An open pair is a pair of learners working together with the rest of the group observing. They
can be compared to closed pairs, where all the learners work in pairs that do not monitor
each other.
Example
The learners are working on developing telephone conversations using prompts. The teacher
asks one pair to continue working while the rest of the group watches.
In the classroom:
Open pair work can be a fast and effective way to highlight language learners might need for
an activity, and clarify that people understand what to do. It needs to be managed sensitively,
choosing confident learners to demonstrate, and dealing with errors through a "hot sheet"; a
record of errors in performance, which can be discussed later.
Closed Pair:
Working in closed pairs means that the learners are all working in pairs simultaneously and
therefore privately. Closed pairs are the opposite of open pairs, where one pair works while
the rest of the learners watch.
Example:
The learners are practicing pronunciation of stressed and unstressed syllables in pairs; the
teacher monitors the group.
In the classroom:
Closed pair work is important because it gives learners a chance to explore new language
without pressure; it is also useful for teachers because it gives them a chance to monitor the
work of all learners discretely and give accurate and personalized feedback to individuals if
they wish.

c) Transmission and Interpretation role

d) Teacher centered and Student Centered Teaching Style

1
 Teacher-centered education
In teacher-centered education, students put all of their focus on the teacher. The teacher
talks, while the students exclusively listen. During activities, students work alone, and
collaboration is discouraged.
Pros:
When education is teacher-centered, the classroom remains orderly. Students are
quiet, and the teacher retains full control of the classroom and its activities.
Because students learn on their own, they learn to be independent and make their
own decisions.
Because the teacher directs all classroom activities, they dont have to worry that
students will miss an important topic.
Cons:
When students work alone, they dont learn to collaborate with other students, and
communication skills may suffer.
Teacher-centered instruction can get boring for students. Their minds may wander,
and they may miss important facts.
Teacher-centered instruction doesnt allow students to express themselves, ask
questions and direct their own learning.
Student-centered instruction
When a classroom operates with student-centered instruction, students and instructors share
the focus. Instead of listening to the teacher exclusively, students and teachers interact
equally. Group work is encouraged, and students learn to collaborate and communicate with
one another.
Pros
Students learn important communicative and collaborative skills through group work.
Students learn to direct their own learning, ask questions and complete tasks
independently.
Students are more interested in learning activities when they can interact with one
another and participate actively.
Cons
Because students are talking, classrooms are often busy, noisy and chaotic.
Teachers must attempt to manage all students activities at once, which can be
difficult when students are working on different stages of the same project.
Because the teacher doesnt deliver instruction to all students at once, some
students may miss important facts.
Some students prefer to work alone, so group work can become problematic.
Making a decision
In recent years, more teachers have moved toward a student-centered approach. However,
some students maintain that teacher-centered education is the more effective strategy. In
most cases, it is best for teachers to use a combination of approaches to ensure that all
student needs are met.
When both approaches are used together, students can enjoy the positives of both types of
education. Instead of getting bored with teacher-centered education or losing sight of their
goals in a completely student-centered classroom, pupils can benefit from a well-balanced
educational atmosphere.

e) Terra Syllabus

Q.2 What are the chief characteristics of Krashens Natural Approach to

language learning? And how far this approach is helpful for language teachers and
learners? (20)
Introduction
The influence of Stephen Krashen on language education research and practice is
undeniable. First introduced over 20 years ago, his theories are still debated today. In 1983,
he published The Natural Approach with Tracy Terrell, which combined a comprehensive
second language acquisition theory with a curriculum for language classrooms. The influence
of Natural Approach can be seen especially in current EFL textbooks and teachers resource

2
books such as The Lexical Approach (Lewis, 1993). Krashens theories on second language
acquisition have also had a huge impact on education in the state of California, starting in
1981 with his contribution to Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical
framework by the California State Department of Education (Krashen 1981). Today his
influence can be seen most prominently in the debate about bilingual education and perhaps
less explicitly in language education policy: The BCLAD/CLAD teacher assessment tests
define the pedagogical factors affecting first and second language development in exactly the
same terms used in Krashens Monitor Model (California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, 1998).
As advertised, The Natural Approach is very appealing who wouldnt want to learn a
language the natural way, and what language teacher doesnt think about what kind of input
to provide for students. However, upon closer examination of Krashens hypotheses and
Terrells methods, they fail to provide the goods for a workable system. In fact, within the
covers of The Natural Approach, the weaknesses that other authors criticize can be seen
playing themselves out into proof of the failure of Krashens model. In addition to reviewing
what other authors have written about Krashens hypotheses, I will attempt to directly
address what I consider to be some of the implications for ES/FL teaching today by drawing
on my own experience in the classroom as a teacher and a student of language. Rather than
use Krashens own label, which is to call his ideas simply second language acquisition
theory, I will adopt McLaughlins terminology (1987) and refer to them collectively as the
Monitor Model. This is distinct from the Monitor Hypothesis, which is the fourth of
Krashens five hypotheses.
The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
First is the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, which makes a distinction between
acquisition, which he defines as developing competence by using language for real
communication and learning. which he defines as knowing about or formal knowledge
of a language (p.26). This hypothesis is presented largely as common sense: Krashen only
draws on only one set of references from Roger Brown in the early 1970s. He claims that
Browns research on first language acquisition showed that parents tend to correct the
content of childrens speech rather than their grammar. He compares it with several other
authors distinction of implicit and explicit learning but simply informs the reader that
evidence will be presented later.
Gregg (1984) first notes that Krashens use of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD)
gives it a much wider scope of operation than even Chomsky himself. He intended it simply
as a construct to describe the childs initial state, which would therefore mean that it cannot
apply to adult learners. Drawing on his own experience of learning Japanese, Gregg contends
that Krashens dogmatic insistence that learning can never become acquisition is quickly
refuted by the experience of anyone who has internalized some of the grammar they have
consciously memorized. However, although it is not explicitly stated, Krashens emphasis
seems to be that classroom learning does not lead to fluent, native-like speech. Greggs
account that his memorization of a verb conjugation chart was error-free after a couple of
days(p.81) seems to go against this spirit. The reader is left to speculate whether his
proficiency in Japanese at the time was sufficient enough for him to engage in error-free
conversations with the verbs from his chart.
McLaughlin (1987) begins his critique by pointing out that Krashen never adequately
defines acquisition, learning, conscious and subconscious, and that without such
clarification, it is very difficult to independently determine whether subjects are learning or
acquiring language. This is perhaps the first area that needs to be explained in attempting
to utilize the Natural Approach. If the classroom situation is hopeless for attaining
proficiency, then it is probably best not to start. As we will see in an analysis of the specific
methods in the book, any attempt to recreate an environment suitable for acquisition is
bound to be problematic.
Krashens conscious/unconscious learning distinction appeals to students and teachers
in monolingual countries immediately. In societies where there are few bilinguals, like the
United States, many people have struggled to learn a foreign language at school, often
unsuccessfully. They see people who live in other countries as just having picked up their
second language naturally in childhood. The effort spent in studying and doing homework
seems pointless when contrasted with the apparent ease that natural acquisition presents.
This feeling is not lost on teachers: without a theoretical basis for the methods, given any
perceived slow progress of their students, they would feel that they have no choice but to be
open to any new ideas
Taking a broad interpretation of this hypothesis, the main intent seems to be to convey
how grammar study (learning) is less effective than simple exposure (acquisition). This is

3
something that very few researchers seem to doubt, and recent findings in the analysis of
right hemisphere trauma indicate a clear separation of the facilities for interpreting context-
independent sentences from context-dependent utterances (Paradis, 1998). However, when
called upon to clarify, Krashen takes the somewhat less defensible position that the two are
completely unrelated and that grammar study has no place in language learning (Krashen
1993a, 1993b). As several authors have shown (Gregg 1984, McLaughlin 1987, and
Lightbown & Pienemann 1993, for a direct counter-argument to Krashen 1993a) there are
countless examples of how grammar study can be of great benefit to students learning by
some sort of communicative method.
The Natural Order Hypothesis
The second hypothesis is simply that grammatical structures are learned in a predictable
order. Once again this is based on first language acquisition research done by Roger Brown,
as well as that of Jill and Peter de Villiers. These studies found striking similarities in the order
in which children acquired certain grammatical morphemes. Krashen cites a series of studies
by Dulay and Burt which show that a group of Spanish speaking and a group of Chinese
speaking children learning English as a second language also exhibited a natural order for
grammatical morphemes which did not differ between the two groups. A rather lengthy end-
note directs readers to further research in first and second language acquisition, but
somewhat undercuts the basic hypothesis by showing limitations to the concept of an order of
acquisition.
Gregg argues that Krashen has no basis for separating grammatical morphemes from,
for example, phonology. Although Krashen only briefly mentions the existence of other
parallel streams of acquisition in The Natural Approach, their very existence rules out any
order that might be used in instruction. The basic idea of a simple linear order of acquisition
is extremely unlikely, Gregg reminds us. In addition, if there are individual differences then
the hypothesis is not provable, falsifiable, and in the end, not useful.
McLaughlin points out the methodological problems with Dulay and Burts 1974 study,
and cites a study by Hakuta and Cancino (1977, cited in McLaughlin, 1987, p.32) which found
that the complexity of a morpheme depended on the learners native language. The
difference between the experience of a speaker of a Germanic language studying English with
that of an Asian language studying English is a clear indication of the relevance of this
finding.
The contradictions for planning curriculum are immediately evident. Having just discredited
grammar study in the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, Krashen suddenly proposes that
second language learners should follow the natural order of acquisition for grammatical
morphemes. The teacher is first instructed to create a natural environment for the learner
but then, in trying to create a curriculum, they are instructed to base it on grammar. As
described below in an analysis of the actual classroom methods presented in the Natural
Approach, attempting to put these conflicting theories into practice is very problematic.
When one examines this hypothesis in terms of comprehension and production, its
insufficiencies become even more apparent. Many of the studies of order of acquisition,
especially those in first language acquisition, are based on production. McLaughlin also
points out that correct usage is not monolithic even for grammatical morphemes, correct
usage in one situation does not guarantee as correct usage in another (p.33). In this sense,
the term acquisition becomes very unclear, even when not applying Krashens definition. Is
a structure acquired when there are no mistakes in comprehension? Or is it acquired when
there is a certain level of accuracy in production? First language acquisition is very closely
linked to the cognitive development of infants, but second language learners have most of
these facilities present, even as children. Further, even if some weak form of natural order
exists for any learners who are speakers of a given language, learning in a given
environment, it is not clear that the order is the same for comprehension and production. If
these two orders differ, it is not clear how they would interact.
The Monitor Hypothesis
The role of conscious learning is defined in this somewhat negative hypothesis: The only role
that such learned competence can have is an editor on what is produced. Output is
checked and repaired, after it has been produced, by the explicit knowledge the learner has
gained through grammar study. The implication is that the use of this Monitor should be
discouraged and that production should be left up to some instinct that has been formed by
acquisition. Using the Monitor, speech is halting since it only can check what has been
produced, but Monitor-free speech is much more instinctive and less contrived. However, he
later describes cases of using the Monitor efficiently (p. 32) to eliminate errors on easy
rules. This hypothesis presents very little in the way of supportive evidence: Krashen cites
several studies by Bialystok alone and with Frohlich as confirming evidence (p.31) and

4
several of his own studies on the difficulty of confirming acquisition of grammar.
Perhaps Krashens recognition of this factor was indeed a step forward language
learners and teachers everywhere know the feeling that the harder they try to make a correct
sentence, the worse it comes out. However, he seems to draw the lines around it a bit too
closely. Gregg points (p.84) out that by restricting monitor use to learned grammar and
only in production, Krashen in effect makes the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis and the
Monitor Hypothesis contradictory. Gregg also points out that the restricting learning to the
role of editing production completely ignores comprehension (p.82). Explicitly learned
grammar can obviously play a crucial role in understanding speech.
McLaughlin gives a thorough dissection of the hypothesis, showing that Krashen has
never demonstrated the operation of the Monitor in his own or any other research. Even the
further qualification that it only works on discrete-point tests on one grammar rule at a time
failed to produce evidence of operation. Only one study (Seliger, cited on p.26) was able to
find narrow conditions for its operation, and even there the conclusion was that it was not
representative of the conscious knowledge of grammar. He goes on to point out how difficult
it is to determine if one is consciously employing a rule, and that such conscious editing
actually interferes with performance. But his most convincing argument is the existence of
learners who have taught themselves a language with very little contact with native
speakers. These people are perhaps rare on the campuses of U.S. universities, but it is quite
undeniable that they exist.
The role that explicitly learned grammar and incidentally acquired exposure have in
forming sentences is far from clear. Watching intermediate students practice using recasts is
certainly convincing evidence that something like the Monitor is at work: even without outside
correction, they can eliminate the errors in a target sentence or expression of their own ideas
after several tries. However, psycholinguists have yet to determine just what goes into
sentence processing and bilingual memory. In a later paper (Krashen 1991), he tried to show
that high school students, despite applying spelling rules they knew explicitly, performed
worse than college students who did not remember such rules. He failed to address not only
the relevance of this study to the ability to communicate in a language, but also the
possibility that whether they remembered the rules or not, the college students probably did
know the rules consciously at some point, which again violates the Learning-Acquisition
Hypothesis.
The Input Hypothesis
Here Krashen explains how successful acquisition occurs: by simply understanding
input that is a little beyond the learners present level he defined that present level as i
and the ideal level of input as i +1. In the development of oral fluency, unknown words and
grammar are deduced through the use of context (both situational and discursive), rather
than through direct instruction. Krashen has several areas which he draws on for proof of the
Input Hypothesis. One is the speech that parents use when talking to children (caretaker
speech), which he says is vital in first language acquisition (p.34). He also illustrates how
good teachers tune their speech to their students level, and how when talking to each other,
second language learners adjust their speech in order to communicate. This hypothesis is
also supported by the fact that often the first second language utterances of adult learners
are very similar to those of infants in their first language. However it is the results of
methods such as Ashers Total Physical Response that provide the most convincing evidence.
This method was shown to be far superior to audiolingual, grammar-translation or other
approaches, producing what Krashen calls nearly five times the [normal] acquisition rate.
Gregg spends substantial time on this particular hypothesis, because, while it seems to
be the core of the model, it is simply an uncontroversial observation with no process
described and no proof provided. He brings up the very salient point that perhaps practice
does indeed also have something to do with second language acquisition, pointing out that
monitoring could be used as a source of correct utterances (p. 87). He also cites several
studies that shed some doubt on the connection between caretaker speech in first language
acquisition and simplified input in second language acquisition.
McLaughlin also gives careful and thorough consideration to this part of Krashens
model. He addresses each of the ten lines of evidence that Krashen presents, arguing that it
is not sufficient to simply say that certain phenomenon can be viewed from the perspective of
the Input Hypothesis. The concept of a learners level is extremely difficult to define, just as
the idea of i +1 is (p.37). Further, there are many structures such as passives and yes/no
questions that cannot be learned through context. Also, there is no evidence that a learner
has to fully comprehend an utterance for it to aid in acquisition. Some of the first words that
children and second language learners produce are formulaic expressions that are not fully
understood initially. Finally McLaughlin points out that Krashen simply ignores other internal

5
factors such as motivation and the importance of producing language for interaction.
This hypothesis is perhaps the most appealing part of Krashens model for the language
learner as well as the teacher. He makes use of the gap between comprehension and
production that everyone feels, enticing us with the hope of instant benefits if we just get the
input tuned to the right level. One of Krashens cleverest catch-alls is that other methods of
teaching appear to work at times because they inadvertently provide this input. But the
disappointment is that he never gives any convincing idea as to how it works. In the
classroom a teacher can see when the students dont understand and can simplify his or her
speech to the point where they do. Krashen would have the teacher think that this was all
that is necessary, and it is just a matter of time before the students are able to express
themselves freely. However, Ellis (1992) points out that even as of his 1985 work (Krashen
1985), he still had not provided a single study that demonstrated the Input Hypothesis. Over
extended periods of time students do learn to understand more and even how to speak, but it
often seems to take much longer than Krashen implies, indicating that there are perhaps
many more factors involved. More importantly, even given this beginning of i, and the goal of
i + 1, indefinable as they are, the reader is given no indication of how to proceed. As shown
above the Natural Order Hypothesis holds no answers, especially as to how comprehension
progresses. In an indication of a direction that should be explored, Elliss exploratory study
(ibid.) showed that it is the effort involved in attempting to understand input rather than
simple comprehension that fuels acquisition.
The Affective Filter Hypothesis
This concept receives the briefest treatment in The Natural Approach. Krashen simply
states that attitudinal variables relate directly to language acquisition but not language
learning. He cites several studies that examine the link between motivation and self-image,
arguing that an integrative motivation (the learner want to be like the native speakers of
a language) is necessary. He postulates an affective filter that acts before the Language
Acquisition Device and restricts the desire to seek input if the learner does not have such
motivation. Krashen also says that at puberty, this filter increases dramatically in strength.
Gregg notes several problems with this hypothesis as well. Among others, Krashen
seems to indicate that perhaps the affective filter is associated with the emotional upheaval
and hypersensitivity of puberty, but Gregg notes that this would indicate that the filter would
slowly disappear in adulthood, which Krashen does not allow for (p.92). He also remarks on
several operational details, such as the fact that simply not being unmotivated would be the
same as being highly motivated in this hypothesis neither is the negative state of being
unmotivated. Also, he questions how this filter would selectively choose certain parts of a
language to reject (p.94).
McLaughlin argues much along the same lines as Gregg and points out that adolescents
often acquire languages faster than younger, monitor-free children (p.29). He concludes that
while affective variables certainly play a critical role in acquisition, there is no need to
theorize a filter like Krashens.
Again, the teacher in the classroom is enticed by this hypothesis because of the obvious
effects of self-confidence and motivation. However, Krashen seems to imply that teaching
children, who dont have this filter, is somehow easier, since given sufficient exposure, most
children reach native-like levels of competence in second languages (p.47). This obviously
completely ignores the demanding situations that face language minority children in the U.S.
every day. A simplification into a one page hypothesis gives teachers the idea that these
problems are easily solved and fluency is just a matter of following this path. As Gregg and
McLaughlin point out, however, trying to put these ideas into practice, one quickly runs into
problems.
Curriculum Design
The educational implications of Krashens theories become more apparent in the
remainder of the book, where he and Terrell lay out the specific methods that make use of the
Monitor Model. These ideas are based on Terrells earlier work (Terrell, 1977) but have been
expanded into a full curriculum. The authors qualify this collection somewhat by saying that
teachers can use all or part of the Natural Approach, depending on how it fits into their
classroom.
This freedom, combined with the thoroughness of their curriculum, make the Natural
Approach very attractive. In fact, the guidelines they set out at the beginning
communication is the primary goal, comprehension preceding production, production simply
emerge, acquisition activities are central, and the affective filter should be lowered (p. 58-60)
are without question, excellent guidelines for any language classroom. The compilation of
topics and situations (p.67-70) which make up their curriculum are a good, broad overview of
many of the things that students who study by grammar translation or audiolingual methods

6
do not get. The list of suggested rules (p.74) is notable in its departure from previous
methods with its insistence on target language input but its allowance for partial, non-
grammatical or even L1 responses.
Outside of these areas, application of the suggestions run into some difficulty. Three
general communicative goals of being able to express personal identification, experiences
and opinions (p.73) are presented, but there is no theoretical background. The Natural
Approach contains ample guidance and resources for the beginner levels, with methods for
introducing basic vocabulary and situations in a way that keeps students involved. It also has
very viable techniques for more advanced and self-confident classes who will be stimulated
by the imaginative situational practice (starting on p.101). However, teachers of the broad
middle range of students who have gotten a grip on basic vocabulary but are still struggling
with sentence and question production are left with conflicting advice.
Once beyond one-word answers to questions, the Natural Approach ventures out onto
thin ice by suggesting elicited productions. These take the form of open-ended sentences,
open dialogs and even prefabricated patterns (p.84). These formats necessarily involve
explicit use of grammar, which violates every hypothesis of the Monitor Model. The authors
write this off as training for optimal Monitor use (p.71, 142), despite Krashens promotion of
Monitor-free production. Even if a teacher were to set off in this direction and begin to
introduce a structure of the day (p. 72), once again there is no theoretical basis for what to
choose. Perhaps the most glaring omission is the lack of any reference to the Natural Order
Hypothesis, which as noted previously, contained no realistically usable information for
designing curriculum.
Judging from the emphasis on exposure in the Natural Approach and the pattern of
Krashens later publications, which focused on the Input Hypothesis, the solution to
curriculum problems seems to be massive listening. However, as noted before, other than i +
1, there is no theoretical basis for overall curriculum design regarding comprehension. Once
again, the teacher is forced to rely on a somewhat dubious order of acquisition, which is
based on production anyway. Further, the link from exposure to production targets is tenuous
at best. Consider the dialog presented on p.87:
. . . to the question What is the man doing in this picture? the students may reply run. The
instructor expands the answer. Yes, thats right, hes running.
The exchange is meant to illustrate how allowing for errors, while at the same time providing
corrected input can help students in acquisition. To the student, however, the information
in the instructors response is completely contained in the word Yes. Krashen makes no
comment on how, even if it is comprehended, the extra information of Hes running enters
the students production. If simple exposure is the answer, then thats right is more likely
to be acquired given its proximity to the carrier of meaning Yes.
This issue is the subject of extensive psycholinguistic research in sentence processing
and bilingual lexical memory, and conclusive answers have not yet been found. The length of
the path from 1) understanding the above question to 2) giving a one-word answer, to 3)
being able to give a full sentence answer, and then 4) being able to ask a similar question is
quite unclear. Especially if the teacher is to rely on input alone, it is very conceivable that the
students could be working their way through the intermediate steps for quite some time.
Teachers would perhaps be better served by a less dogmatic approach that informed them of
not only single steps, but what exactly has been found in current research. This of course
includes hypotheses and findings that have not been conclusively proven yet, but a more
balanced approach than the present one would allow teachers to use their valuable
experience in the classroom to make informed judgments about curriculum. In attempting to
teach a subject whose process is not clearly known, it seems obvious that a well-rounded
awareness of the theoretical issues involved is necessary. For this reason concurrent teacher
education in language education is essential to insure the needs of all students are met.
Conclusions
Krashen seemed to be on the right track with each of his hypotheses. Anyone who has
learned a language, and especially those who have seen the grammar-translation method in
action seems to have a gut level feeling that the road to proficiency runs somewhere outside
of textbooks and classrooms. Indeed, in the literature, every reviewer makes a special effort
to acknowledge the incredible contribution that Krashen had made to language education.
Kramsch (1995) points out that the input metaphor may be a relic of the prestige of the
physical sciences and electrical engineering, but that Krashens acquisition-learning
dichotomy cuts at the heart of academic legitimation. She advocates a more productive
discourse between applied linguists and foreign language teachers to explore and question
the historical and social forces that have created the present context.
Krashens conclusion to his presentation at the 1991 Georgetown University Round Table

7
 on Languages and Linguistics (Krashen, 1991) is especially telling about what he is trying to
achieve: It is possible that no pain, no gain does not apply to language acquisition (p.
423). Certainly this may be true for some learners and in all likelihood it is true for more
communicative methods when compared to older methods. But the majority of us have had
to struggle to be able to understand and speak a language, no matter how much exposure to
comprehensible input we have had. And the particular circumstances of language minority
students in the U.S. and many other countries certainly indicate that those children have
formidable barriers to overcome just to understand the first things their teacher is saying. To
propagate such an easy way philosophy in the policy of state educational boards, EFL
textbooks and general teacher guides is to demean the effort that less able students have to
make every day. To institutionally impart such a concept to new teachers whose responsibility
it is to understand these adults and children is a disservice to all parties involved. Despite
the pressing need of policy to provide a workable teacher training system, it is imperative
that, at the very least, there is no misinformation. Second language learning is a very
complex process, with many make or break factors involved and there is simply no
comprehensive theory to guide teachers and students at the moment.
This does not mean, however, that teachers should be sent to their classrooms with no
direction, or worse yet, back to a grammar-based or audiolingual approach. The issue of
exactly what and how to tell teachers to teach is one of the most complex and sensitive
issues that policy has to implement. It is only through basic research into a wide variety of
areas such as the role of exposure in comprehension and production that we can begin to
develop the policies to create the best practices for the classroom.

Q.3 What is meant by the term classroom management? And how one type of
classroom management supports and complements another? Justify it with suitable
examples. (20)
Classroom management is a term teachers use to describe the process of ensuring that
classroom lessons run smoothly despite disruptive behavior by students. The term also
implies the prevention of disruptive behavior. It is a difficult aspect of teaching for many
teachers. Problems in this area causes some to leave teaching. In 1981 the US National
Educational Association reported that 36% of teachers said they would probably not go into
teaching if they had to decide again. A major reason was negative student attitudes and
discipline.[1] Classroom management is crucial in classrooms because it supports the proper
execution of curriculum development, developing best teaching practices, and putting them
into action. Classroom management can be explained as the actions and directions that
teachers use to create a successful learning environment; indeed, having a positive impact on
students achieving given learning requirements and goals (Soheili, Alizadeh, Murphy,
Bajestani, Ferguson and Dreikurs). In an effort to ensure all students receive the best
education it would seem beneficial for educator programs to spend more time and effort in
ensuring educators and instructors are well versed in classroom management. Teachers do
not focus on learning classroom management, because higher education programs do not put
an emphasis on the teacher attaining classroom management; indeed, the focus is on
creating a conducive learning atmosphere for the student (Eisenman, Edwards, and
Cushman ). These tools enable teachers to have the resources available to properly and
successfully educate upcoming generations, and ensure future successes as a nation.
According to Moskowitz & Hayman (1976), once a teacher loses control of their classroom, it
becomes increasingly more difficult for them to regain that control. [2] Also, research from
Berliner (1988) and Brophy & Good (1986) shows that the time a teacher must take to correct
misbehavior caused by poor classroom management skills results in a lower rate of academic
engagement in the classroom.[3] From the students perspective, effective classroom
management involves clear communication of behavioral and academic expectations as well
as a cooperative learning environment.[4] Douglas Brooks (1985) reports seminal research on
the first day of school activity selection and sequence of novice middle school teachers
compared with experienced, successful classroom managers. Brooks reports that effective
classroom managers organized their activities on the first day of school consistent with the
emerging needs of the students. These middle school student needs were the following:
1. Am I welcome?
2. What are we going to do today?
3. Am I in the right room?
4. Is the teacher interested in me?
5. What are the rules for this classroom?

8
6. What are the goals, instructional methods and assessment systems for the class?
7. Is the teacher interested in how I learn best?
8. What interests does the teacher have that I can relate to?
9. What are we expected to do for tomorrow?
10. Will the teacher answer a question I have after class?
In response to these emerging and sequential student needs effective middle school teachers
organize the first day activities in the following sequence:
1. Personally greet students
2. Advance organizer for the session at the bell
3. Roll and seating
4. Student information cards
5. Introduce 5 core rules (entry, listening, raising hands, leaving other's stuff alone and
finally exiting the class)
6. Describe class goals, instructional methods and grading system
7. Assess preferred learning styles
8. self-disclosure
9. Preview of next session
10. Access after class.
Middle school teachers that meet these 10 student needs with specific activities tend to
communicate competence and effectively communicate behavioral and academic
expectations.[5]
Classroom management is closely linked to issues of motivation, discipline and respect.
Methodologies remain a matter of passionate debate amongst teachers; approaches vary
depending on the beliefs a teacher holds regarding educational psychology. A large part of
traditional classroom management involves behavior modification, although many teachers
see using behavioral approaches alone as overly simplistic. Many teachers establish rules and
procedures at the beginning of the school year. According to Gootman (2008), rules give
students concrete direction to ensure that our expectation becomes a reality. [6]
They also try to be consistent in enforcing these rules and procedures. Many would also argue
for positive consequences when rules are followed, and negative consequences when rules
are broken. There are newer perspectives on classroom management that attempt to
be holistic. One example is affirmation teaching, which attempts to guide students toward
success by helping them see how their effort pays off in the classroom. It relies upon creating
an environment where students are successful as a result of their own efforts.[7] By creating
this type of environment, students are much more likely to want to do well. Ideally, this
transforms a classroom into a community of well-behaved and self-directed learners.
Techniques:
Corporal punishment:
Until recently, corporal punishment was widely used as a means of controlling disruptive
behavior but it is now illegal in most schools. It is still advocated in some contexts by religious
leaders such as James Dobson, but his views "diverge sharply from those recommended by
contemporary mainstream experts" and are not based on empirical testing, but rather are a
reflection of his faith-based beliefs. [8]
According to studies taboo physical punishments like spanking or procedures used in Asia in
the classroom such as standing do not make students or children more aggressive.
Consistency seems to play a greater role on whether outcomes could be negative. [9]
Rote discipline:
Also known as "lines", rote discipline is a negative sanction used for behavior management. It
involves assigning a disorderly student sentences or the classroom rules to write repeatedly.
Among the many types of classroom management approaches, it is very commonly used.
Preventive techniques:
Preventive approaches to classroom management involve creating a positive classroom
community with mutual respect between teacher and student. Teachers using the preventive
approach offer warmth, acceptance, and support unconditionally not based on a students
behavior. Fair rules and consequences are established and students are given frequent and
consistent feedback regarding their behavior. [10]One way to establish this kind of classroom
environment is through the development and use of a classroom contract. The contract
should be created by both students and the teacher. In the contract, students and teachers
decide and agree on how to treat one another in the classroom. The group also decides on
and agrees to what the group will do if someone violates the contract. Rather than a
consequence, the group should decide how to fix the problem through either class discussion,
peer mediation, counseling, or by one on one conversations leading to a solution to the
situation.

9
Preventive techniques also involve the strategic use of praise and rewards to inform students
about their behavior rather than as a means of controlling student behavior. To use rewards to
inform students about their behavior, teachers must emphasize the value of the behavior that
is rewarded and also explain to students the specific skills they demonstrated to earn the
reward. Teachers should also encourage student collaboration in selecting rewards and
defining appropriate behaviors that earn rewards. [11]
Good teacher-student relationships:
Some characteristics of having good teacher-student relationships in the classroom involves
the appropriate levels of dominance, cooperation, and awareness of high-needs students.
Dominance is defined as the teachers ability to give clear purpose and guidance concerning
student behavior and their academics. By creating and giving clear expectations and
consequences for student behavior, this builds effective relationships. Such expectations may
cover classroom etiquette and behavior, group work, seating arrangements, the use of
equipment and materials, and also classroom disruptions. Assertive teacher behavior also
reassures that thoughts and messages are being passed on to the student in an effective way.
Assertive behavior can be achieved by using erect posture, appropriate tone of voice
depending on the current situation, and taking care not to ignore inappropriate behavior by
taking action.[12]
Systematic approaches:
Culturally responsive classroom management:
Culturally responsive classroom management (CRCM) is an approach to running classrooms
with all children [not simply for racial/ethnic minority children] in a culturally responsive way.
More than a set of strategies or practices, CRCM is a pedagogical approach that guides the
management decisions that teachers make. It is a natural extension of culturally responsive
teaching, which uses students' backgrounds, rendering of social experiences, prior
knowledge, and learning styles in daily lessons. Teachers, as culturally responsive classroom
managers, recognize their biases and values and reflect on how these influence their
expectations for behavior and their interactions with students as well as what learning looks
like. There is extensive research on traditional classroom management and a myriad of
resources available on how to deal with behavior issues. Conversely, there is little research on
CRCM, despite the fact that teachers who lack cultural competence often experience
problems in this area.[13]
The Good Behavior Game:
The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a "classroom-level approach to behavior
management"[14] that was originally used in 1969 by Barrish, Saunders, and Wolf. The Game
entails the class earning access to a reward or losing a reward, given that all members of the
class engage in some type of behavior (or did not exceed a certain amount of undesired
behavior). The GBG can be used to increase desired behaviors (e.g., question asking) or to
decrease undesired behaviors (e.g., out of seat behavior). The GBG has been used with
preschoolers as well as adolescents, however most applications have been used with typically
developing students (i.e., those without developmental disabilities). In addition, the Game "is
usually popular with and acceptable to students and teachers." [15]
Positive classrooms:
Robert DiGiulio has developed what he calls "positive classrooms". DiGiulio sees positive
classroom management as the result of four factors: how teachers regard their students
(spiritual dimension), how they set up the classroom environment (physical dimension), how
skillfully they teach content (instructional dimension), and how well they address student
behavior (managerial dimension). In positive classrooms student participation and
collaboration are encouraged in a safe environment that has been created. A positive
classroom environment can be encouraged by being consistent with expectations, using
students' names, providing choices when possible, and having an overall trust in students. [16]
Assertive discipline:
Assertive discipline is another systematic approach of classroom management. Lee and
Marlene Canter discuss the ideas behind this approach in several published books.
Discipline without Stress, Punishments or Rewards:
Discipline without Stress (or DWS) is a K-12 discipline and learning approach developed by
Marvin Marshall described in his 2001 book, Discipline without Stress, Punishments or
Rewards.[17] The approach is designed to educate young people about the value of internal
motivation. The intention is to prompt and develop within youth a desire to become
responsible and self-disciplined and to put forth effort to learn. The most significant
characteristics of DWS are that it is totally noncoercive (but not permissive) and takes the
opposite approach to Skinnerian behaviorism that relies on external sources for
reinforcement.

10
 As a process:
In the Handbook of Classroom Management: Research Practice and Contemporary
Issues (2006),[18] Evertson and Weinstein characterize classroom management as the actions
taken to create an environment that supports and facilitates academic and socialemotional
learning. Toward this goal, teachers must (1) develop caring, supportive relationships with
and among students; (2) organize and implement instruction in ways that optimize students
access to learning; (3) use group management methods that encourage students
engagement in academic tasks; (4) promote the development of students social skills and
selfregulation; and (5) use appropriate interventions to assist students with behavior
problems.
Dr. Tracey Garrett also describes classroom management as a process of key tasks teachers
must perform to develop an environment conducive to learning. These tasks include:
Organizing the physical environment
Establishing rules and routines
Developing caring relationships
Implementing engaging instruction
Preventing and responding to discipline problems
Classroom Management Essentials, created by Dr. Tracey Garrett, is a classroom management
app for the iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch that guides teachers through the tasks of classroom
management.
As time management:
In their introductory text on teaching, Kauchak and Eggen (2008)Kauchak, D., and Eggen, P.
(2008). Introduction to teaching: Becoming a professional (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education, Inc. explain classroom management in terms of time management. The
goal of classroom management, to Kauchak and Eggen, is to not only maintain order but to
optimize student learning. They divide class time into four overlapping categories, namely
allocated time, instructional time, engaged time, and academic learning time.
Allocated time:
Allocated time is the total time allotted for teaching, learning, and routine classroom
procedures like attendance and announcements. Allocated time is also what appears on a
student's schedule, for example "Introductory Algebra: 9:50-10:30 a.m." or "Fine Arts 1:15-
2:00 p.m."
Instructional time:
Instructional time is what remains after routine classroom procedures are completed. That is
to say, instructional time is the time wherein teaching and learning actually takes place.
Teachers may spend two or three minutes taking attendance, for example, before their
instruction begins. The time it takes for the teacher to do routine tasks can severely limit
classroom instruction. Teachers must get a handle on classroom management to be effective.
[19]

Engaged time:
Engaged time is also called time on task. During engaged time, students are participating
actively in learning activitiesasking and responding to questions, completing worksheets
and exercises, preparing skits and presentations, etc.
Academic learning time:
Academic learning time occurs when students 1) participate actively and 2) are successful in
learning activities. Effective classroom management maximizes academic learning time.
Common mistakes:
In an effort to maintain order in the classroom, sometimes teachers can actually make the
problems worse. Therefore, it is important to consider some of the basic mistakes commonly
made when implementing classroom behavior management strategies. For example, a
common mistake made by teachers is to define the problem behavior by how it looks without
considering its function.
Interventions are more likely to be effective when they are individualized to address the
specific function of the problem behavior. Two students with similar looking misbehavior may
require entirely different intervention strategies if the behaviors are serving different
functions. Teachers need to understand that they need to be able to change the ways they do
things from year to year, as the children change. Not every approach works for every child.
Teachers need to learn to be flexible. Another common mistake is for the teacher to become
increasingly frustrated and negative when an approach is not working.

11
 The teacher may raise his or her voice or increase adverse consequences in an effort to make
the approach work. This type of interaction may impair the teacher-student relationship.
Instead of allowing this to happen, it is often better to simply try a new approach.
Inconsistency in expectations and consequences is an additional mistake that can lead to
dysfunction in the classroom.[20] Teachers must be consistent in their expectations and
consequences to help ensure that students understand that rules will be enforced. To avoid
this, teachers should communicate expectations to students clearly and be sufficiently
committed to the classroom management procedures to enforce them consistently.
"Ignoring and approving" is an effective classroom management strategy. This involves
ignoring students when they behave undesirably and approving their behavior when it is
desirable. When students are praised for their good behavior but ignored for their bad
behavior, this may increase the frequency of good behavior and decrease bad behavior.
Student behavior may be maintained by attention; if students have a history of getting
attention after misbehavior, they may continue this behavior as long as it continues to get
attention. If student misbehavior is ignored, but good behavior results in attention, students
may instead behave appropriately to acquire attention.

Q.4 a) What is a difference between a Structural Syllabus and Functional

Syllabus? (10)
Structural Syllabus:
A Structural Syllabus (also known as Grammatical Syllabus, Formal Syllabus, Traditional
Syllabus, Synthetic Syllabus) is one in which grammatical structures form the central
organizing feature. The Structural or Grammatical Syllabus is one of the most common type of
syllabus and still today we can see the contents pages of many course books set out
according to grammatical items. The Structural Syllabus derives its content largely from the
structural linguists. It is a product oriented content based syllabus. Here the focus is on the
knowledge and skills which learners should gain as a result of instruction, not on how they
can attain them. The synthetic teaching strategy is essential to produce such a syllabus. The
Structural Syllabus happens to be the best known example of a Synthetic Syllabus. The
synthetic approach to syllabus design, according to Wilkins is:

A synthetic language teaching strategy is one in which the different parts of a language are
taught separately and step by step so that acquisition is a process of gradual accumulation of
the parts until the whole structure of the language has been built up.

MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
The major characteristics of the Structural Syllabus are as follows:

Theoretical Bases: The underlying assumptions behind the Structural Syllabus are that:

Language is a system which consists of a set of grammatical rules; learning

language means learning these rules and then applying them to practical language use.
The syllabus input is selected and graded according to grammatical notions of
simplicity and complexity. These syllabuses introduce one item at a time and require mastery
of that item before moving on to the next.
This type of syllabus maintains that it is easier for students to learn a language if
they are exposed to one part of the grammatical system at a time.
Content: The content of the syllabus is determined by giving top priority to teaching the
grammar or structure of the target language. The Structural Syllabus generally consists of two
components:

1. A list of linguistic structures, that is, the grammar to be taught, and

2. A list of words, that is, the lexicon to be taught.
Sequencing and Grading: Very often the items on each list are arranged in order showing
which are to be taught in the first course, which in the second, and so on. The criteria for
sequencing are various. The teacher regards the items from the point of view of levels or
stages. For example, beginning, intermediate, advanced, or grades, 1,2,3, etc.

Objectives: Grammar makes up the core of the syllabus. Whatever rules are followed,

12
 learning a language means learning to master the grammar rules of the target language. In
addition it also expected that the students will learn adequate basic vocabulary.

The teacher in following the syllabus may use either Audio-lingual

Method or Grammar Translation Method, or a combination of the two or an eclectic
approach. Whichever he uses, the content of the syllabus is determined by giving top priority
to teaching the grammar or structure of the language.

Procedure: In the initial stage of teaching, the linguistic components of the type of
performance desired are analyzed. Next the language is broken down into small grammatical
components and presented in a strictly controlled sequence. The sequence is arranged in
accordance with increasing complexity, from simple grammatical structure to more complex
grammatical structure. The learners are exposed at one time to a limited sample of the target
language. The teacher moves progressively through the syllabus until, theoretically, all the
structures of the target language have been taught. The learners job is to re-synthesize
language that has been taken apart, and presented to him in small parts. This synthesis takes
place only in the final stage of leaning, the so called the advanced stage.

ADVANTAGES
Many learning principles implicit in a structural approach are sound. The merits of a Structural
Syllabus are as follows:

The learner moves from simpler to more complex grammatical structures and may
grasp the grammatical system more easily.
Teaching and testing are relatively simple, because teachers deal with discrete-point
knowledge and skills. The teachers need not be fluent in the language they teach, since
grammatical explanations and drills do not require a high level of language proficiency.
It is very much helpful to develop writing skills.
It enriches students basic vocabulary.
Sequencing and selection of teaching items is not as difficult as it with other
syllabuses.
DISADVANTAGES
Despite its numerous advantages it has few shortcomings too. The drawbacks of a Structural
Syllabus are as follows:

The potential disadvantage of the Structural Syllabus is that it over-emphasizes

language structure and neglects communicative competence. It does not address the
immediate communication needs of the learner who is learning a language within the context
of a community where the language is spoken. In fact, the sociolinguistic aspects of
communicative competence are not in focus at all in a strictly structural syllabus. It is
therefore more useful in a context where the language learner does not have immediately
communication needs.
It hampers the students creative sides because it confines him/her within the walls
of some specific rules.
Here the role of the student is passive, since it is the teacher who is deciding what to
teach in which stage. It is, thus, a teacher dominated syllabus.

Functional Syllabus:
When we talk about syllabuses, we should have a clear idea of the definition. A syllabus is a
document which says what will be learnt. In fact, there are several different ways in which a
syllabus can be defined (Hutchinson 1987).
Functional-notional syllabuses reflects a broader view of language provided by
philosophers of language and sociolinguistics. Functions may be described as the
communicative purposes for which we use language, while notions are conceptual meanings
expressed through language (Nunan1988).
As we see from the above, the functional-notional syllabuses have something different
inside and each presents a specific trend. For functions, the communications are focused,
such as identifying, agreeing, offering, approving, inquiring, greeting, advising, suggesting

13
 and so on; for notions, the conceptual meanings are expressed, such as time, direction,
equality, cause, frequency, existence, ownership and so on. In order to have a better
understanding about the division of syllabus, according to Widdowsons idea, we learn that
functional-notional syllabuses are basically synthetic. But there are other different ideas. If
there is no ordered exposure to the grammar of the language, a notional syllabus is classified
as an analytic approach (Wilkins1976).
Functional-notional syllabuses have relatively strong merits. They can place the
students and their communicative purposes at the centre of the curriculum, and focus on
realistic learning tasks, everyday real-world language, as well as receptive activities before
rushing learners into premature performance. On the other hand, the real purpose in
speaking is emphasized and communicative functions are motivated. For the motional
syllabus, it makes the communicative facts of language into account from the beginning
without losing sight of grammatical and situational factors. It will produce a communicative
competence and because its evident concern with the use of language will sustain the
motivation of the learners (Wilkins1976). Since syllabuses directly guide the textbooks, thus
we can have a clear idea of the textbooks through syllabuses. There are many traditional
textbooks all over the world. Though they have great advantage their students are still
incapable of using the languagethey may know the system, but they cant communicate in
it. Therefor, communicative textbooks try to solve this problem by creating opportunities for
the students to use the language under the supervision of the functional-notional syllabuses
(Grant 1987)
Every coin has two sides, so there is no exception to functional-notional syllabuses.
When we talk about their merits, we shouldnt avoid the drawbacks existing inside. Selection
and grading of items become much more complex for syllabus planners, another aspect
concerned is to decide which items should be included in the syllabus. David Nunan(1988)
pointed out that the inventories of functions and notions do not necessarily reflect the way
language are learned any more than do inventories of grammatical points and lexical items.
Whats more, syllabuses can be characterized as being either synthetic or analytic, thus, the
functional-notional syllabuses looked very similar to the structural ones they were meant to
replace. According to H.H.Sterns idea, functional analysis on syllabus design should be in
consensus and second language programs will be more life like, more authentic, more
realistic and less abstract than courses based entirely on phonology, lexis, and grammar.

b) What are the various steps in designing and implementing a syllabus? (10)
Ten steps in preparing a practical language teaching syllabus:
1. Determine, to the extent possible, what outcomes are desired for the students in the
instructional program. That is, as exactly and realistically as possible, defines what the
students should be able to do as a result of the instruction.
2. Rank the syllabus types presented here as to their likelihood of leading to the outcomes
desired. Several rankings may be necessary if outcomes are complex.
3. Evaluate available resources in expertise (for teaching, needs analysis, materials choice and
production, etc.), in materials, and in training for teachers.
4. Rank the syllabi relative to available resources. That is, determine what syllabus types would
be the easiest to implement given available resources.
5. Compare the lists made under No. 2 and 4. Making as few adjustments to the earlier list as
possible, produce a new ranking based on the resources constraints.
6. Repeat the process, taking into account the constraints contributed by teacher and student
factors described earlier.
7. Determine a final ranking, taking into account all the information produced by the earlier
steps.
8. Designate one or two syllabus types as dominant and one or two as secondary.
9. Review the question of combination or integration of syllabus types and determine how
combinations will be achieved and in what proportion.
10. Translate decisions into actual teaching units.

Q.5 Define and exemplify the Presentation, Practice and Production stage of TEFL Methodology.
(20)
3Ps or PPP presentation, practice, production:
The PPP method could be characterized as a common-sense approach to teaching as it
consists of 3 stages that most people who have learnt how to do anything will be familiar
with.

14
The first stage is the presentation of an aspect of language in a context that students are
familiar with, much the same way that a swimming instructor would demonstrate a stroke
outside the pool to beginners.
The second stage is practice, where students will be given an activity that gives them plenty
of opportunities to practice the new aspect of language and become familiar with it whilst
receiving limited and appropriate assistance from the teacher. To continue with the analogy,
the swimming instructor allowing the children to rehearse the stroke in the pool whilst being
close enough to give any support required and plenty of encouragement.
The final stage is production where the students will use the language in context, in an
activity set up by the teacher who will be giving minimal assistance, like the swimming
instructor allowing his young charges to take their first few tentative strokes on their own.

Advantages of the PPP (3Ps) Method:

As with any well-established methodology, PPP has its critics and a couple of relatively new
methodologies are starting to gain in popularity such as TBL (task based learning) and ESA
(engage, study, activate). However, even strong advocates of these new methodologies do
concede that new EFL (English as a foreign language) teachers find the PPP methodology
easiest to grasp, and that these new teachers, once familiar with the PPP methodology, are
able to use TBL and ESA more effectively than new trainees that are only exposed to either
TBL or ESA.
Indeed, there are strong arguments to suggest that experienced teachers trained in PPP use
many aspects of TBL and ESA in their lessons, and that these new methodologies are in truth,
the PPP methodology with some minor adjustments.
At this stage you might well be asking, Its all very well having a clear methodology for how to
teach but how do I know what to teach? The language that we call English today has
absorbed a great many influences over the last thousand years or so. It has resulted in it
becoming a language that can provide us with a sparklingly witty pop culture reference from
a Tarantino script, 4 simple words spoken by Dr. Martin Luther King that continue to inspire us
today, and something as simple and mundane as a road traffic sign.
The Job of the EFL Teacher
As EFL teachers our job is to break down this rich and complex language into manageable
chunks for our students. These chunks of language are what EFL teachers call target
language We are going to look at an example of what a piece of target language might be and
then you will be given more detail on how this would be taught in a PPP lesson before finally
watching three videos with some key aspects of each stage of the lesson highlighted for you.
During the course we will spend a great deal of time in the training room equipping you with
the tools to employ a successful methodology for teaching the English language. You are
going to get opportunities to both hone these skills in the training room and put them into
practice in authentic classroom settings.
Of course you might be thinking, I dont have any experience of being in a classroom! How on
earth am I going to cope with standing at the front of a class with 20 plus pairs of eyes
looking at me waiting to see what I do?
All good TEFL courses are designed to train those with no teaching experience whatsoever.
We will spend the first part of the course in the training room making you familiar with all the
new skills you will need whilst giving you opportunities to practice them in a supported and
controlled environment.
Only after that, will you be put in an authentic classroom environment. It goes without saying
that the first time anybody stands up and delivers their first lesson will be a nerve-racking
experience. However, it is also an experience that mellows over time, and one that all
teachers remember fondly as time goes by and they feel more at home in a classroom.
There will be some of you out there with experience of teaching in a classroom already. You
may be well versed in employing many different methodologies and strategies in your
classroom already, but many or most will have been with native English speaking students, or
those with a near-native levels of English. This means that some of the skills we will be
equipping you with may feel a little alien at first, but your experience will not prove to be a
hindrance. Indeed, you will already have successful classroom management skills that can be
adapted to fit a second language classroom fairly easily and other trainees on the course will
benefit from your presence.
In addition, some of the skills that you will learn on the course can also be adapted to work in
a classroom of native speakers too, and it is not unusual for experienced teachers to
comment on exactly this after completing a good TEFL course.
Target Language in an EFL Lesson

15
Recall how it is the job of the EFL teacher to break down the rich tapestry of the English
language into manageable bite-size chunks, suitable for study in an average study period of
50 minutes. As mentioned, we refer to these chunks as target language. As EFL teachers we
will select target language that is appropriate for both the skill level and the age of the
students.
The target language that you will see being presented in the videos is Likes and dislikes for 6
food items.
The teacher you will watch in the video has a clear aim, which is to ensure that:
**By the end of the lesson, students will know the names of 6 food items in English and will
be able to express whether or not they like them in a spoken form by entering into a simple
dialogue consisting of,
Do you like ___?,
Yes, I like ___., or
No, I dont like ___.
The six food items are ___. In short, the students will be able to name the 6 food items by the
end of the lesson and tell whether they like them or not.**
Presentation Part 1 of PPP
You may have delivered a few presentations in your time but the type of presentation we
deliver in a second language classroom will differ quite a bit from those. For a start, you were
speaking to proficient users of the English language about something they were, most likely,
vaguely familiar with anyway. In an EFL classroom we dont have those luxuries, so we have
to be careful about the language we use and how clearly we present the new language that
we wish for our students to acquire.
Lets look at 4 key things that should be occurring in an effective second language classroom
presentation:
1 Attention in the Classroom
Learners are alert, have focused their attention on the new language and are responsive to
cues that show them that something new is coming up. A simple way to ensure some of the
above is if the teacher makes the target language interesting to the students.
The language will of course, be of more interest to the students if it is put into some type of
context that the students are familiar with. In the case of likes and dislikes for young learners
a visual associated with a facial expression will be something they can relate to. Naturally, the
easier it is for them to relate to the context, the more likely they are to be interested in the
language presented.
In the case of the target language for the videos a smiley face visual and a sad face visual on
the whiteboard linked to the phrases I like ___. and I dont like ___., respectively. A teacher
might make exaggerated facial expressions whilst presenting these ideas to make the ideas
both fun and easy to perceive for the students. This is often referred to as contextualization in
EFL classrooms.
2 Perception and Grading of Language
We want to ensure that the learners both see and hear the target language easily. So if a
whiteboard is being used, it should be well organized with different colors being used to
differentiate between different ideas. If images are being used, there should be no ambiguity
as to what they represent and sounds made by the teacher should not only be clear, but
should be repeated and the teacher needs to check the material has been perceived
correctly, and can do this by asking the students to repeat the sounds he or she is making.
Learners will be bombarded with a series of images corresponding to sounds made by the
teacher during the presentation stage and it is the teachers responsibility to ensure that they
are not overloaded with information and that clear links are being made between the images
and the associated sounds.
Therefore, there is an onus on the teacher not to use any unnecessary language at this stage.
That is to say the grading of their language should be appropriate for the level of their
students and the language they use should consist of the target language and any other
essential language required to present the ideas clearly such as commands like listen! The
commands should, whenever possible, be supported by clear body language.
3 Target Language Understanding
The learners must be able to understand the meaning of the material. So in the case of likes
and dislikes they perhaps need to see an image of a happy face and associate it with liking
something and a sad face and associate that with disliking something.
We also need to have a way of checking if the learners did indeed, understand the material
presented without asking the question, Do you understand? as this invariably triggers the
response yes! from learners who are keen to please their teacher and not to lose face. We, as
teachers, need to be a little more imaginative in checking our students understanding of

16
material presented. Ideally, we should be checking the learners understanding in context. In
the videos you will see, expect to see the teacher doing this during the presentation stage.
4 Short-term Memory in the Classroom
The learners will have to retain the information from the presentation and use it further on in
the lesson when we have consolidated their learning of the material and we will give them an
opportunity to produce it on their own.
For the target language to be retained by the learners, it needs to be engaging and we need
to consider that different learners will remember the material in different ways. Some by the
way the material is seen, others by the way it is heard, and others if it is associated with a
physical movement perhaps. We need to make sure our presentation has something to enable
all these types of learners to retain the information.

Practice Part 2 of PPP

Practice can roughly be defined as the rehearsal of certain behaviors with the objective of
consolidating learning and improving performance. Below are some of the characteristics of
an effective language practice:
1 Practice Validity
The practice activity must have learners rehearsing the skill or material it purports to
practice. So in the case of the lesson you will view shortly, it must have the learners
practicing both the food vocabulary items and the structure of the dialogue, i.e.,
Do you like ___?,
Yes, I like ___, or
No, I dont like ___.
2 Pre-learning
Before we ask our learners to practice new language, we must have ensured that they have
some understanding of the new language. We will have done this during the presentation
stage. If they have not had the new language clearly presented to them and been aided in
being given some understanding of it, then they (the learners) will not be practicing at this
stage but will be going through another initial learning stage. Worse still, they will feel like
they are being tested on something they havent been allowed to gain an understanding of.
3 Volume (Amount) of Practice
Here, we are referring to the number of opportunities every student in the class has to
practice the new language and not the level of sound. The more opportunities each student
has to practice the target language, the more effective this stage of the lesson is.
So in the case of likes and dislikes, we might give the students individual worksheets where
they have to fill in some part of the dialogue and the name of a food.
4 Success Orientation
The students should have an opportunity to practice the new language and in order for this to
happen they need an activity that both stretches them and is a task they can complete
because of course, if it wasnt, they wouldnt be getting any opportunity to practice.
5 Issuing Activity Instructions and Managing the Activity
Of course, whilst it is important to select an appropriate activity, it is equally important to
issue clear and unambiguous instructions for the activity itself so all of your students are clear
as to what is expected of them. We will be issuing instructions for the activity in the students
second language so we need to make use of clear visuals to support any language we have to
use and strong demonstrations of what is expected.
Managing the activity should consist of the teacher being mobile during the activity, offering
praise and being on hand to show struggling students where relevant information may be
found on the whiteboard.
Practice Stage of PPP EFL Lesson with subtitles

Production Part 3 of PPP

The students have now had the target language presented to them clearly and have had an
opportunity to practice it in a controlled environment. If we return to the swimming instructor
analogy, it is now time to let them take their first few tentative strokes in the pool on their
own with supervision and encouragement from the instructor.
As with the practice stage, we have to initiate an activity that allows them opportunities to
use the target language in the classroom. In fact, the characteristics of a production stage

17
activity are quite similar to the practice stage with one key difference and that is, student
autonomy.
During this stage, the students will be producing the target language with minimal assistance
from the teacher as opposed to the practice stage where the teacher will be on hand to assist
students rehearse target language that has only just been presented to them.
Here are some of the key aspects of a production stage activity:
1 Volume (Amount) of Production
As with practice, we want to create as many opportunities for our students to produce the
target language albeit this time, more independently. This means we avoid activities where
the students speak to the teacher as this allows limited opportunities (the students have to
wait their turn before they get a chance to speak to the teacher). Instead for spoken
activities, we look to get the students speaking in pairs, speaking to each other as much as
possible, whilst we as the teachers go around the classroom offering minimal assistance but
lots of positive reinforcement.
2 Production Validity
Again, we should initiate an activity that allows the students to produce the target language
that we presented to them and not a variation on it (although this is not strictly true with
higher level students).
So, in the case of likes and dislikes for food, we should set up an activity where the students
are saying, Do you like pineapple? as opposed to, What do you think of pineapples?
3 Production Contextualization
The activity should simulate a reallife situation where they (the students) may use the target
language. In the case of likes and dislikes for food this might be a menu with images of the
food items or perhaps a series of images of the food items to prompt the dialogue,
Do you like ___?,
Yes, I like ____, or
No, I dont like ___.
Note that a successful production activity will also have aspects that set it apart from a
practice activity, including:
4 Student Autonomy
Students will be speaking, using the target language, with ideally, little or no support from the
teacher.
They shouldnt be looking things up on either the whiteboard or on any materials they have
on their desk (e.g. a completed practice worksheet) so a teacher may choose to erase
information from the whiteboard for this stage and the teacher might also choose to get
students to clear their desks.
5 Issuing Instructions for an Activity
As with the practice stage whilst it is important to select an appropriate activity, it is equally
important to issue clear and unambiguous instructions for the activity itself so all of our
students are clear as to what is expected of them. We will be issuing instructions for the
activity in the students second language so we need to make use of clear visuals to support
any language we have to use and strong demonstrations of what is expected, just as we will
have done during the practice stage.
6 Correcting Errors
During the Activity
It is important that the students get as many opportunities to speak using the newly acquired
language. Therefore, a teacher shouldnt be drowning them out by speaking at length, over
the top of them to correct any errors. This obviously differs from the practice where students
expect the teacher to assist them as they rehearse (not produce) newly acquired language.
Clever use of body language by the teacher will enable them to be discrete in correcting
errors and will allow them to offer much needed encouragement to students as well.

18