Long-Term English as a Foreign Language Teaching Program for Primary School Students - Case Study Example

Long-Term English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Teaching Program for Primary School Students Name Institution Long-Term English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Teaching Program for Primary School Students Introduction This paper is an English teaching program for primary school students with no English speaking, reading, writing and listening skills in the country’s primary schools, particularly those between 9 to 10 years of age. Part I: The Program Goals and Objectives This program aims to provide students with the vocabulary and grammatical structures of English needed for performance at school as well as everyday living. In collaboration with the classroom teacher, the EFL teacher uses sound instructional strategies or techniques and tools to develop both language acquisition and cognitive academic language skills. This program provides the learner the opportunity to grasp not only academic aspects of the English Language, but also its social and cultural aspects through the teaching of writing, spelling, reading and listening. In other words, the goal of this program is to help students develop the language skills they need to be successful in class and members of the Australian society. In this respect, the objectives of this program are to: i. Nurture the self-identity and self-pride in the linguistic and cultural heritage of each student ii. Develop proficiency in the English Language iii. Help the students acquire proficiency in English listening, reading, speaking and writing skills iv. Acquire proficiency in all English content areas v. Provide the learners with both curricular and extra-curricular opportunities as it is for those who are already proficient in English Folio Resources Burns, A. & Burton, J. (Eds) (2008). Language Teacher Research in Australia and New Zealand. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Christison, M. A. (2005). Multiple Intelligences and Language Learning: a Guidebook of Theory, Activities, Inventories, and Resources, 2nd Ed.. Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center Publishers Cohen, A. & Macaro, E. (Eds.) (2007). Language Learner Strategies: Thirty Years of Research and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Dudeney, G. (2007). The Internet and the Language Classroom, 2nd Ed.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Johnson, D. & Johnson, F. (2008). Joining Together: Group Theory & Group Skills, 10th Edition. Boston: Pearson Education Kauffman, D. & Apple, G. (2010). The Oxford Picture Dictionary for the Content Areas (Monolingual English, 2nd Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press Kaufman, D. & Crandall, J. (Eds.) (2005). Content-Based Instruction in Primary and Secondary School Settings. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Relevant Visuals 1. Charts 2. Educational Television 3. Illustrated Story Books 4. Maps Relevant Websites ESL Café and LearnEnglish are two of the most popular EFL websites. They have: Clearly marked sections, materials and activities Clear instructions Easily retrievable material Relatively quick loading of activities Interaction tools Fun stuff encouraging interactive learning Activities catering for reflective and analytical learners Registration and Identification of Students for the Program Students for the EFL program should be registered through a central registration process. These students should complete a Home Language Survey. The survey should involve individuals answering questions written in English. Those who respond with a language besides English (both lexically and semantically) will be subject to a formal English language proficiency assessment to determine those who are should be placed in the EFL program. Assessment and EFL Placement It is important to note that while all the students who meet the criteria for placement in the EFL program are not proficient in English, the level of that in-proficiency is not the same in all of them. To determine the distinction between students in this respect requires the administration of an Idea Proficiency Test (IPT). This helps to determine the EFL instructional level placement for each student. After the administration of the IPT, every EFL student should be placed in an appropriate grade level according to educational experience as well as age. The placement of those who deviate from the expected age-appropriate placement should be based on factors not related to English language proficiency. EFL Levels: Teaching Strategies and Tools Based on the language assessment analysis, each level of the learners requires generally different teaching strategies. Level I (Non-English Proficiency Stage) Students at this level cannot actively produce language. Instead, they: respond by nonverbal means; memorize spoken and written words and phrases; heavily rely on pictures to better understand tests; exhibit limited comprehension of written language. Minutes per Day: 90 Teaching Strategy: The teacher at this stage focuses primarily on listening-comprehension activities: concrete words and vocabulary referring to familiar actions and physical objects that are easily demonstrable by both the teacher and learners (such as eat, walk, pen); activities whose meanings the learners can interpret; easily demonstrable instructions The teacher can also: teach verbal routines (such as greetings); use visual aid; provide role lay opportunities; illustrate meaning using gestures; model activities for the students, among others. Level II (Receptive Language Stage) Level I students can understand better illustrated stories and hand-on demonstrations. The scope of their receptive vocabulary has also expanded and they can respond non-verbally. They can also initiate conversation and respond with one word or gestures (like pointing). But they cannot comprehend most textbooks; their writing is largely limited to 2-5 words; and exhibit large gaps in reading, vocabulary and grammar comprehension. Minutes per Day: 90 Teaching Strategy: At this stage, the teacher should continue with level I activities but should start to allow time for speaking (such as pronunciation of words referring to familiar actions and objects); teach words in context; ask what, who and yes-no questions; and conduct role playing activities that utilize vocabulary and verbal routines. The teacher should not worry about correcting the grammar of the students. He/she should also accept that words and gestures appropriate in the students’ native languages and give grammatical versions of them without disapproving. Level III (Survival English Stage) At this stage, students understand most non-academic vocabulary they hear in class; write and/or read appropriately (that is according to their developmental stages); can comprehend some of the academic tests; and can understand cause and effect. However, they have difficulty with word usage and order, grammar and inferences. Minutes per Day: 45 Teaching Strategy: The teacher should continue with level II strategies. But in addition, he/she should allow even more time for speaking activities more than listening. He/she should also teach easily demonstrable content activity; conduct storytelling accompanied by visual aid followed by ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions on the story; and utilize communication games and role-playing activities. Again, the teacher should not correct the learners’ grammar; use even highly conceptualized lessons; model correct punctuation and sentence structures; and provide positive role models (such as by grouping them with their peers in advanced stages). Level IV (Developing Fluency Stage) Students in level IV can participate in conversations and do not rely on concrete elements of context. They can communicate their thoughts more completely. In this respect, they can express ideas on various topics, write and convey meaning, and comprehend material that is developmentally appropriate. They however still show small gaps of grammar and vocabulary. Minutes per Day: 45 Teaching Strategy: Here, it is possible to teach subject matter successfully. Although the students will demonstrate small grammatical errors, the teacher should not correct these as they will soon disappear. Level III strategies are still applicable and important at this stage. The teacher should ‘shelter’ concepts in new content areas by introducing them using chants, music and visual aid; ask critical questions that encourage students to speak longer and ask questions. Success Assessment Criteria As already noted, this program covers a period of between 5 to 7 years. The evaluation of the primary school students targeted here is as follows. At levels I and II, the teacher does not grade subject areas. Instead, the teacher uses tags such as Outstanding Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory to note progress in special area classes (such as P.E and Art, among others). However, the teacher can use district grading system at levels III and IV. The EFL teacher, in this respect, reports the progress of the student in report cards. Finally, a student is taken off the program when he/she meets the basic requirements of English proficiency (in accordance with the district proficiency standards) in the four areas: listening, reading, writing and speaking. Moreover, students can be released when the can score C or above in core subject areas (such as Arts, Language Mathematics, Science and Social Science), among others. Part II: The Rationale A good collection of research on EFL/ESL programs shows that it takes between 5 to 7 years for the students to fully acquire a new language. In this respect, the acquisition of foreign/second language skills requires guide, intensive and constant practice (Cummings, 2001). This is why this program is based on a long-term process (lasting between 5 to 7 years). It recognizes the need for a step-by-step process of teaching EFL; the categorization of learners in levels and the appropriate teaching techniques and strategies applicable at every stage. In this case, the focus is more on successful acquisition of English rather than finishing the program This long-term strategy is also in response to the two aspects of language in an academic setting: academic and conversational language. According to Cummings (2001), “ample amount of research from both North America and Europe suggests that EFL/ESL students frequently develop fluent surface or conversational skills in the school language but their academic skills continue to lag behind grade norms” (p.25). It is therefore important that educators are aware of these researches because they would help them create the distinction between academic and conversational language skills and how the failure to make that distinction can lead to premature notions of success and closing down of EFL programs. As already noted, the key objective of this program is not just about helping the students in their academic needs, but also helping them fit in and become a part of the Australian society (sharing in the social events and conversations). This long-term program addresses the two aspects of language. More than these, however, this program recognizes the role that other factors play in the learning context and outcomes. Particularly, this is in reference to the role of the learners’ native cultures. Indeed, ample research shows that culture considerably influences the behavior of learners and the outcome of the learning process. According to Sawir (2005), in EFL learning, cultural differences usually “cause interference, interruption and misunderstanding in American classrooms” (p.571). To see how culture influences the learning context and outcomes, Exley (2005) interviewed five Australian EFL teachers on Indonesian EFL students. Most of the teachers implied that Indonesian students are ‘good students’. By this, Exley (2005) explained, the students were determined, willing and wanting to learn and incredibly well-behaved. Another teacher used the term ‘happy to learn’. Other terms were ‘totally attentive’, ‘motivated’, and ‘eager to learn’, among others. On the other hand, most of the teachers also observed that the students were largely passive learners, using terms as ‘shy’ and ‘quiet’. In this case, all the teachers interviewed believed that this had to do with the traditional teaching in the Indonesia” “a regimented learning environment… [in which] the students digest information… and then regurgitate it on the state examinations” (Exley, 2005, p.6). Mineishi (2010) makes more-or-less the same findings in his study on autonomous learning among EFL learners in East Asia. ‘Autonomy’ here refers to the willingness of the student to learn independently or with others. This is an issue of culture. For example, some students would not eat with others students from other cultures. In many cases, EFL teachers encourage their students to communicate amongst themselves during social events (such as during meals at the dining hall or students’ café. This is what Cui-yun (2007) calls ‘cooperative learning’. For this particular student, this is not possible. Ultimately, he/she cannot learn at the same as those who participate together in social events and communicate with each other (even in broken English). Experience has been found to be a key factor for successful learning. Besides the refusal to participate in activities involving physical contact, other culturally-influenced behaviors include the unwillingness to answer if one is not sure they have the right answer. In high-context cultures (predominant in Asia) this might mean ‘losing face’ which is said to not just affect the individual but also the extended family. But if the student does not reveal their weaknesses through errors, it is not easy for the teacher to help them get better Exley, 2005; Mineishi, 2010). Therefore, it is important to take into account the cultures of the learners. This involves the teacher: being a good observer of cultural patterns; understanding the nature of the learners’ cultures and their implications for the classroom; gaining all facts on the ethnic and cultural backgrounds of the students; and providing for these cultural differences (that is each student) both in planning and conducting learning instructions (Bray, 2009). The cultural consideration is part of a teaching concept that is becoming increasingly popular today; that is, student-centered approach. This approach is based on the premise that no two learners are the same, and these differences are the results of the environments they interact with or have interacted with before (that is, the learning context and the backgrounds). In this respect, teacher is not supposed to impose rigid teaching framework, but adapt his/her teaching in accordance with the needs of students and in the particular learning context. In other words, the instructional strategies and tools used must be appropriate for the students and the context of learning (Yuan, 2010). For example, using television as an instructional tool is not possible in a rural school with no electricity. In this particular case, a student from a country where English is an official language is not the same as the student from a country where English is not a major language (such as in the former French colonies in Africa). In this respect, the teacher should take into account the unique language difficulties of his/her students, understand the root cause of these difficulties and find the best strategies for helping students learns trough their unique difficulties (Sawir, 2005). However, these two issues (cultural considerations and student-centered approach) pose problems of scope. In other words, the question is how possible it is to address the needs of every student in the learning context, and how differentiated the teacher’s approach should be. There is the question of whether it is possible to do this. But perhaps of the biggest problem with implementing a student-centered approach is tat teachers tend to over-focus on the differences and not the areas of similarity (Exley, 2005; Sawir, 2005; Cui-yun, 2007). References Bray, L. (2009). Cultural Dimensions for a Foreigner Teaching English in a Thai University. TESOL in Context, 2, 1-10 Cui-yun, C. (2007). IEDC Method: A New Approach to Promote Students’ Communicative Competence. US-China Education Review 4(9), 30-33 Cummings, J. (2001). Empowering Minority Students, California Association for Bilingual Education Exley, B. (2005). Learner Characteristics of ‘Asian’ EFL Students: Exceptions to the ‘Norm’, in Y. Janelle, (Ed.), Proceedings Pleasure Passion Provocation, Joint National Conference AATE & ALEA: Gold Coast (Australia) Mineishi, M. (2010). East Asian EFL Learners’ Autonomous Learning, Lerner Perception on Autonomy and Portfolio Development: in the Case of Educational Contexts in Japan. International Journal of Art and Sciences, 3(17), 234-241 Sawir, E. (2005). Language Difficulties of International Students in Australia: the Effects of Prior Learning Experience. International Education Journal, 6(5), 567-580 Yuan, L. (2010). Student-Centered Approach and Communicative Language Learning in the Exam-Oriented EFL Settings, Guangxi University, China Read More