|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gwangju-Jeonnam KOTESOL October Meeting
Time: Saturday, October 19, 2013, 1:30 p.m.
Place: Chosun University (Gwangju), Main Building (본관), Room 4211.
Admission: No charge. (Future membership is welcomed.)
Schedule
1:30 pm: Sign-in and Meet-and-Greet
2:00 pm: PRESENTATION I
Teaching Grammar to Young Learners Using PPP
Ross Chambers (Gwangju National University of Education)
2:45 pm: Refreshment Break
3:00 pm: PRESENTATION II
A Workable TTT* Approach for the Asian EFL Setting (* Task, Teach, Task)
Joseph Vitta (Sookmyung Women's University, Seoul)
4:00 pm: Swap-Shop Session
Share your Teaching Ideas, Classroom Activities, and ELT Games, Books, etc.
(Open to All Attendees. Handouts welcomed.)
4:30 pm: Announcements / Drawing for Door Prizes / Closing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reflective Practice SIG - Gwangju-Jeonnam KOTESOL group
Meeting at 11:00 Saturday morning (Oct. 19) at Starbucks coffee shop, Chosun University back gate (조대후문점).
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Presentation Abstracts and Biographical Sketches
Presentation I : Teaching Grammar to Young Learners Using PPP
By Ross Chambers
When we consider how grammar fits into the English language classroom, we may reflect back to our own experiences and see that, in the past, grammar by itself was considered the lesson. With the development of various teaching methodologies from the Grammar Translation Method, through Audiolingualism and up to Communicative Language Teaching, we have seen that the emphasis on and the place of grammar teaching has changed with time.
In this presentation, we will explore the role of grammar instruction within the context of the young learner classroom. Contrary to what many teachers believe, explicit grammar instruction is not always beneficial to young learners, as they do not have the analytical abilities of older learners, and neither do they have sufficient meta-language to understand the explanations given by their teachers.
It has been suggested that in order to assist young learners in developing their grammatical competence, rather than focusing on explicit instruction, teachers should create lessons where the learners are using grammar structures in enjoyable activities. Furthermore, when one looks at grammar activities from books, whilst they are often suitable for most learners in a mixed-level class, they are not always appropriate for lower-level learners. This can cause some difficulties for teachers in ensuring equal participation by all students.
Therefore, in this presentation, we will begin by looking at how the grammar instruction sequence of PPP (Presentation, Practice, and Production) can help all students participate effectively in a lesson. We will then explore several activities that can be used to present different grammar structures to young learners in a fun and engaging way.
What is presented here will not only be beneficial to those involved in the instruction of young learners, but also those who teach older low-level learners at institutions such as technical high schools will find something of benefit. It is hoped that teachers will come away from the presentation with an understanding that a direct focus on grammar is not always necessary. Secondly, they will also be armed with some activities that can be applied to the classroom on Monday to help their learners practice grammar in a meaningful and enjoyable way.
The Presenter
Ross Chambers is from the UK and came to South Korea in 2009, looking for a change in career and life direction. He worked in Seoul for two years as a native-speaking English teacher in a technical high school. In August 2011, he took up a position as a visiting professor at Gwangju National University of Education. He completed an MA in TESOL with Sunderland University in the UK, and his research on classroom interaction was published by the TESOL Review in their December 2012 issue. Ross also runs a meditation group on Monday evenings at the Gwangju International Center (GIC).
===============
Presentation II : A Workable TTT Approach for the Asian EFL Setting
By Joseph Vitta
From most online TESOL certificate programs to the most in-depth post-graduate teaching
courses, one of the more consistent and often-heard mantras of our craft is to create an environment where: (a) the student acts as a productive agent who is engaged in the classroom, and (b) the teacher is a monitor of that production and engagement. To that end, the Task-Teach-Task or TTT (Willis & Willis, 2007) approach has come into vogue as a way to promote more production and student centeredness when compared to the PPP or Presentation-Practice-Production approach (Evans, 1999). In this presentation, attendees will learn how the presenter has successfully used the TTT approach in his university classroom in a way that is: (a) workable, (b) applicable to settings outside of university, and (c) rewarding for all parties involved.
This presentation has three parts. The first is a brief discussion of why TTT is preferable to PPP from the theoretical and methodological perspectives. Next, attendees will learn how the presenter has manifested this productive and student-centered approach within his classroom. This is explained via a presentation of a model lesson involving a unit from a textbook (originally intended for PPP-based teaching) he teaches and a sharing of the presenter’s students’ opinions. Finally, the presenter offers ways that attendees can also run TTT-based lessons in their classrooms. During this final part of the presentation, it is hoped that there will be interaction to brainstorm additional tips and advice! During the second and third phases, an emphasis is placed on showing attendees not teaching within the university setting will have the opportunity to explore how they might use TTT in their different contexts.
Theoretical Overview
1. Introduction
This serves as a ‘mini’ literature review underpinning the presentation. It is hoped that the reference list provided at the end of this brief missive is used to guide further reading. This summary does, however, end with a brief description of how the reviewed literature is operated in my presentation. In other words, use this as reference guide!
2. Defining PPP
Doff (1998) and later Willis and Willis (2007) noted that PPP or presentation, practice, production holds sway over the realm of ELT instruction. Richards and Rogers (2001) argued that the approach provided “the novice teacher the reassurance of a detailed set of sequential steps to follow in the classroom” (p. 246). The arguments supporting PPP all revolved around the notion that the approach facilitated a workable way for the language teacher to get her students to produce in the L2. Because of this, such training courses as CELTA and the various TEFL offerings found around the world were predicated around PPP in their original design and continue to teach it today.
In practice, the ‘three P’s’ see the target language move from controlled presentation and practice to more open-ended student production/activity (Evans, 1999). The teacher, therefore, operates a lesson which is planned for the most part beforehand. That is not to say that no adjustments take place but what is done in class is mostly predetermined and at the discretion of the teacher.
3. TTT as a Reaction against PPP
At the core of TTT is the rejection that language can be learned passively and that the teacher controls the SLA process (Willis and Willis, 2007). TTT or task, teach, task (also known as test, teach, test) has students’ having a strong voice in what is taught and done in the classroom. Now, it is important to note that the teacher is still choosing the day’s objectives and task(s) but the teacher must adjust and adapt throughout the lesson. Student performance begins the lesson during the first task and informs what the teacher teaches during the ‘teach’ phase. In other words, observed student strengths and weaknesses are driving the instruction (Lindsay and Knight, 2006). The subsequent task has the teacher putting the students into another activity which is governed by the same objective as the first while extemporaneously adjusting it relative to the student production in the initial task and what has been taught during the preceding ‘teach’ session.
This presentation argues that the benefits of TTT fall into three main areas (see Willis and Willis, 2007; Willis, 1996). First, the approach shares agency and allows for the students to have a real say in where a lesson is headed. TTT also makes sure that the teacher does not spend time teaching something that the students already know and therefore the lesson remains of interest while pushing them to work things out without ‘handholding.’ Finally, using TTT better operates the student-centered and productive themes which are now in vogue in the field of SLA and ELT.
3.1 Theoretical Support: Connectionism
While the presentation is not overly concerned about theory in the abstract, a connectionist view of language which sees language as beholden to neural network activation (Schnelle, 2010) can help to frame TTT’s benefits. To put it succinctly, TTT facilitates activation in the beginning and allows the teacher to give helpful input to guide and improve subsequent activation and therefore improve the networks governing L2 production (see Hudson, 1984, 2008). In other words, PPP is inefficient in this process of improving the language network(s) while TTT is not.
References
- Doff, A. (1988). Teach English. Glasgow, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Hudson, R. (2008). Word grammar, cognitive linguistics and second language learning and teaching. Retrieved from: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers/sla.htm.
- Hudson, R. (1984). Word grammar. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
- Lindsay, C., & Knight, P. (2006). Learning and teaching English. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Richards, C., & Rogers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Schnelle, H. (2010). Language in the brain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, UK: Longman Addison-Wesley.
The Presenter
Joseph Vitta has been involved in ESL/EFL in some shape or form since 2004. He has taught at the primary, secondary, and university levels in Tokyo, New York, and Seoul. Currently, he is a head teacher at Sookmyung Women’s University in Seoul. His chief academic interest is how neurology, psychology, and teaching practices can interface and work together to provide the best language learning and teaching experience possible. To that end, he actively researches in the CALL, lexis, and authentic assessment arenas and has publications in the TESOL Review and the Asian EFL Journal. Mr. Vitta has also served as a reviewer for both Korean and Taiwanese journals and was the program chair for KOTESOL’s National Conference in 2013. He earned his MA in TESOL from Sookmyung Women’s University in August, 2012 and is currently pursuing an Ed.D. in TESOL from Queens University – Belfast.
