Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Cambridge Delta module 3

2 582 vues

Publié le

  • Soyez le premier à commenter

Cambridge Delta module 3

  1. 1. Emmanuel Bathalomew DELTA Module 3: Extended Essay LDT: Developing teachers’ activity set-up for young learners of primary school age. Table of contents Part 1: Key issues…………………………………………………………………………3 Part 2: Need analysis: Background……………………………………………10 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 1
  2. 2. Findings:…………………………………………………………………………..12 Challenges teaching Young Learners:…………………………….13 Teacher beliefs about learning and teaching:………………13 Part 3: The Course:…………………………………………………………………..15 Aims and objectives:……………………………………………………16 Course Constraints:……………………………………………………..17 Course plan:………………………………………………………………….18 Course Materials:………………………………………………………….19 Part 4: Assessment:……………………………………………………………………21 Course evaluation:……………………………………………………….24 Part 5: Conclusion:…………………………………………………………………….24 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………….27 Appendices:……………………………………………………………………………….28 Developing teachers’ activity set-up skills for young learners of primary school age Part 1 Introduction: 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 2
  3. 3. For decades exponents of different language teaching methods have put forward methods that they claim best serve language teaching. These methodologies, ranging from the Grammar Translation Method, the Direct Method, the Audio-Lingual Method, the Silent Way, Suggestopedia, Community Language Learning, the Total Physical Response Method, Natural Approach, Oral Approach, Situational Language Approach, through to the Communicative Approach can leave language teachers in a state of uncertainty as to which approach to choose and how to go about that choice. While these methods purport to be different, it would however be wrong to assume that they project entirely different roads to language teaching. Rather, it has been observed that most of these methods have overlapping theories and approaches to language learning and teaching. What may superficially appear to be a new method, is often merely a variation of an existing method presented with new nomenclature or, as Wilga Rivers (1991, p.283) succinctly puts it, “the fresh paint of a new terminology that camouflages their fundamental similarity.” It has however been observed by teachers that, given the diversified nature of the language classroom and the complexity of language learning and learners, “no single perspective on language, no single explanation for learning, and no unitary view of the contributions of language learners will account for what they must grapple with on a daily basis” (Larsen-Freeman, 1990, p. 269). This widespread dissatisfaction with the notion of methods has led many to the conclusion of what Jarvis (1991, p. 295) aptly posits as “Language teaching might be better understood and better executed if the concept of method were not to exist at all”. Most ELT teachers have 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 3
  4. 4. therefore slowly come to the realization that “no matter how much intellectual energy is put into the invention of new methods (or of new approaches to syllabus design, and so on), what really matters is what happens when teachers and learners get together in the classroom...” (Allwright and Bailey 1991). My focus in this EA is teacher preparation before the “…get together in the classroom…” We are now in what is often termed the “post-methods” era, and a time when the internet offers teachers a wider range of resources and activity banks than ever before. Rather than adhering to a potentially restrictive method, teachers may tend to employ an eclectic approach, and hence the key methodological factors become the principled selection and effective execution of learning activities – my focus in this essay is to improve the latter, that is, activity set-up among young learner teachers of primary school age. I have chosen developing activity set-up skills for teachers of young learners of primary school age as my specialism for the Delta Module Three assignment, as it is my informed judgment (from my classroom experience and research) that teachers with good awareness and superior activity set- up skills are better placed to handle classroom interactions. Also, they can further ensure that their lesson aims and objectives are met, or as Allwright and Bailey 1991 highlight, position them to be “alive to what goes on in the classroom, alive to the problems of sorting out what matters, moment by moment, from what does not.” Accommodating for language in the classroom and engaging learners to participate optimally in lessons are two of the most difficult tasks that we 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 4
  5. 5. as teachers face in our daily bid to teach new language. Thus classroom language accommodation include consciously employing concise and clear articulation with appropriate signposting at critical points in the lessons, using visuals, grading our sentences in terms of length and speed, modelling, activating learners’ schemata, scaffolding, and varying instructions according to levels. As such, there is the pertinent need for us to be exposed and be familiar with language and activities that really work in the classroom. Language used for the start and end of lessons, asking questions and checking understanding, controlling energy levels, using the IWB, fun activities, collaboration etc. For the sake of this specialism however, activities set up has been subsumed into four categories: Interaction patterns, teacher and learner roles, learning styles and energy levels and classroom instructions. From my classroom teaching experience, research and observation of both experienced and less experienced teachers, it is my impression that the four categories listed above are the core pillars to a successful lesson. Varying interactions patterns and teacher and learner roles, catering for different learning styles and managing energy levels and using effective classroom language were, from my experience and a survey conducted among teachers, the most challenging and critical procedures during a lesson. In my bid to cater for learner-centred lessons in my everyday teaching, I have experimented with and conducted surveys on several lessons were some or all of the listed categories have been either employed or totally ignored. My findings accentuated the need for a development of these set- 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 5
  6. 6. ups and more so among young learner teachers of primary school age; as they enable the teacher to manage energy levels, ensure appropriate learner participation, and create working routines that have a positive impact on learning. They also help to motivate learners and ensure that different learning styles are catered for and different needs met. While these are not ranked in any order of preference, I feel very much inclined to start by highlighting learning styles and managing energy levels as these, to a very large extent, determine the pace and learning environment of the language classroom. Keefe defines learning styles as “the composite of characteristic cognitive, affective, and physiological factors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning environment” (Keefe, 1979). Managing energy levels on the other hand is how a teacher helps control the mood of the class. Warmers, settlers and stirrers are activities that do this. Warmers ‘warm’ up and prepare learners for the lesson. Settlers ‘settle’, calm a class down while stirrers likewise ‘stir’ energize/reenergize the class. Consolo (2000) observed that in the classroom, learners and teachers are seen as members of the contexts in which spoken language has social and pedagogical functions. This brings me to the importance of interaction patterns in the teaching classroom. Rivers (1987) suggests that “through interaction, students can increase their language store as they listen to or read authentic linguistic material, or even output of their fellow students in discussions, skits, joint problem solving tasks, or dialogue journals”. Varying interaction patterns therefore extends the role of language beyond mere 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 6
  7. 7. communication to the establishment and maintenance of relationships in the classroom (Cazden, 2000) which can be replicated outside the classroom. Using the right interaction patterns is therefore not only a fundamental factor in the success of any classroom activity but also a core ingredient to achieving learning aims. Crucial also, to both successful teaching and learning are giving and checking instructions as these “ … are the main way that teachers manage classroom learning…” Thornbury (2006) because if learners are expected to successfully complete a task, instructions on how to execute the task should not only be simple but logical and achievable. As Scrivener (2005) highlights “An essentially simple activity can become impossible, not because the students couldn’t do it, but because they didn’t understand what to do.” I have witnessed this first hand as a teacher during my earlier teaching days and as an observer observing experienced and less experienced teachers. Giving simple and clear instructions and checking that learners do understand what is to be done and what is required of them, is therefore key to language teaching and learning, especially with young learners. Lalonde, Lee and Gardner (1987) listed three classroom behaviours that have been identified by teachers as significant for the good language learner. The good language learner is therefore someone who “…actively vocalizes corrections, speaks out regardless of making mistakes, and focuses on getting ideas across…” From my classroom experience and observations, I have discovered that in order to create an environment where learners would become good learners, we as teachers, need to vary our classroom 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 7
  8. 8. roles. We therefore have numerous roles to fulfil both in and out of the classroom. Anthony Mollica (1998) summarises these roles as: Out-of Class Roles: Researcher Planner Manager Advocate Organizer Evaluator Communicator In-Class Roles: Teacher Motivator Evaluator Facilitator Innovator Communicator Disciplinarian As shown above, it can be observed that in order to be good teachers we must spend considerable time outside the classroom to engage in activities that will maintain and enhance our professional status in term of competency, fluency and proficiency, Mollica (1998). Awareness of and development of the different roles that we as teachers have to undertake in and out of the classroom, is therefore quite significant as they not only develop learner’s linguistic competence but also ensure active learner involvement in the learning process. Part 2 Need Analysis James, Jason, Zoe, Elaine, Daniel and Tess are new teachers in a language school in China, who have been teaching under a year, and are from the UK, Canada, China and the USA respectively. Appendix 1. I chose them for this 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 8
  9. 9. assignment because in my role as Senior Teacher, I have to observe, mentor and offer insight on their teaching methods and techniques. Following Brown’s (1995), Soriano’s (1995), Hutchinson & Waters’ (1992), and Witkin and Altschuld’s (1995) definition of needs analysis, I carried out a series of need analysis surveys taking into account learners’ “necessities,” “lacks,” “wants,” and “gaps” and gathered information that served as the basis for the course design that will meet the needs of these teachers, Brown (1995) Appendix 1 : Need Analysis results. Using the Present-Situation Analysis model, I used the following needs analysis tools: First, I administered questionnaires (suggested by Jordan, 1997) to teachers asking about their personal details, the number of minutes spent planning, the most important procedures in a lesson, the most challenging procedures and their reasons for teaching young learners in order to gain a general understanding of what methods and approaches they use and what procedures they were struggling with (Robinson, 1991). I then observed a series of lessons taught by them paying particular attention to the areas highlighted as challenging. Next, questionnaires were again administered only this time, on their beliefs about teaching and learning and on their knowledge and skills as teachers (Richard & Lockhart, 2000) to determine what their expectations were (as teachers and of the learners) before and after a lesson. Appendix 2 Finally, teachers completed questionnaires on their perceived strengths and weaknesses in activity set-up, perceived areas of activity set-up that cause 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 9
  10. 10. the most difficulty and other areas the teachers have self-identified as problematic, (Richard, 2000) so as to be able to plan my course. Appendix 3 Findings General information As detailed in Appendix 1: General information of teachers; James, late 20s, is British and has been teaching young learners for less than six months. Jason, also late 20s, is from Canada and has been teaching YL for less than a year. Zoe and Elaine, early and mid 20s, are Chinese and have been teaching YL for less than a year. Daniel and Tess, late and mid 20s, have been also been teaching YL for less than a year. James enjoys teaching YL as he finds it challenging and different from previous line of work. Jason has always wanted to be part of children’s educational growth and teaching YL provides that opportunity. Zoe can easily relate to YL; teaching them is therefore more staying in touch with the child in her. For Elaine and Tess, teaching YL is more rewarding, full of surprises and tangible than AL and Daniel thinks that teaching YL is humbling. Challenges teaching Young Learners The questionnaires reveal that almost all the teachers struggle with giving and checking instructions, varying interaction patterns and teacher roles, 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 10
  11. 11. managing energy levels and catering for multi-levels as challenging procedures during a lesson. They therefore think that a course designed to help with the development of activity set-up in the primary classroom should be centred on the listed procedures. Appendix 3: Strengths and weaknesses. Teacher beliefs about learning and teaching James believes that every learner is capable of learning giving the right environment and that teachers should be knowledgeable, humanistic yet professional. For Jason, learning is at its best when learners are inquisitive and have the environment that caters for that inquisitiveness and our role as teachers is to guide learners in their inquiry of knowledge. Zoe thinks that Learning is about exposure and support and that helping learners notice that gap is our primary role as teachers. Tess holds the views that learning is all about motivation, input and instruction and as teachers, our primary role is to create an environment conducive enough for learning and teaching to take place. Daniel believes that language learning is mostly about need, motivation, support and environment and that our primary role as teachers is setting a purpose for learning. For Elaine, learning in any form, consists of the acquisition of knowledge and how we go about acquiring that knowledge is what learning is all about. Our role then is to create an environment that caters for high learner involvement. Appendix 2 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 11
  12. 12. Self- Diagnosis – Teacher perceived strengths in activity set-up James thinks he has good classroom energy and motivation which account for overall rapport with learners but struggles to successfully manage energy levels, which affects activity outcomes. For Jason, support for both strong and weaker learners which ensures that multi-levels are catered for is his strongest suit in the classroom. He however struggles with warmer, settler and stirrer balance which makes lessons one-dimensional. Zoe states that good scaffolding and monitoring which ensure that learners are supported and engaged are her strengths but struggles significantly with stirrer and settler balance and varying interaction patterns. Tess highlights that her good classroom energy and dynamics which helps with rapport and learner participation are her strengths and that managing energy levels and varying interaction patterns are her weakest. Daniel and Elaine think that classroom management skills and keeping learners motivated are their strengths but struggle with varying interaction patterns and giving and checking instructions. Appendix 3 Part 3 The Course 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 12
  13. 13. The course was an intensive one-week, 56 hours course, taught by me and my Director of Studies in China in a private language school during 2013. During each day, tuition (in-person or video), observations, activities and presentations were timetabled for 8 hours. These ran from 9:00am to 17:00 with 15, 30 and 90-minute breaks for tea and lunch. Aims and Objectives Course aims, as Richard (2001) states; broadly define the purpose of the course as such, this course aimed to:  Develop young learner of primary school age teachers’ activity set-up skills through tuition, observations and practice. Course objectives, as suggested by Richard (2001) describes in smaller units of learning, what the aims seek to achieve and also provide a basis for the organization of teaching activities. This course aimed to help: Appendix 4 Course Plan  Raise teachers’ awareness of their roles in and outside the classroom.  Raise teachers’ awareness of the differences between young and adult learners.  Raise teachers’ awareness of the stages of a lesson and what goes into a lesson plan.  Develop and practise teachers’ instruction giving and checking skills. 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 13
  14. 14.  Raise teachers’ awareness of and provide opportunities to experiment with different interaction patterns and teacher roles.  Raise teachers’ awareness of different learning and styles and what roles these play in learning. Course Constraints The course took place during the second week induction of the teachers in our private language school in China. Given that teachers were from different backgrounds (countries) and teaching experience, their motivation, teaching beliefs, strengths and weaknesses varied considerably in many areas. These constraints were addressed by differentiation where appropriate (video, in-person etc). Resources, such as books and videos, interactive whiteboard and space were readily provided by the school as the course was incorporated into the induction training of new and less experienced teacher. I however initially had issues with the assessment phase of the course, as the school wanted to use the results as part of the appraisal for the teachers’ probation. This was later duly resolved and the course was delivered as planned. Course plan The course as designed (Appendix 5) is a 56-hour course spread over a week (Monday to Sunday) and convened from 09:00 to 17:00 with 15, 30 and 90- minute breaks for tea and lunch. Appendix 5: Course Plan 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 14
  15. 15. This was a learner-centred approach course designed with the teachers’ situation in mind; (Hutchinson & Waters, 1992) taking into account teachers’ needs, necessities, lacks, wants, and gaps, Brown’s (1995), Soriano’s (1995), and Witkin and Altschuld’s (1995). The course comprised input (loop; in- person or video), observations, research and practice. I particularly chose Loop Input as the primary method of delivering the course as it does not only provide opportunities for teachers to experience the processes and contents of learning by doing but also caters for explicit input with reinforcements ( post-tasks reflection) to help teachers absorb and digest input for subsequent replication. Appendix 6 Input was therefore either in-person (me or my Director of Studies) or video lessons of other experienced teachers highlighting or teaching a particular activity set-up skill. The morning sessions were mainly for input and reflections while the afternoon sessions were aimed at practice and overall feedback. At the end of each day’s session, teachers were set written homework in order to be prepared for subsequent sessions. The input sessions raised awareness and highlighted the importance of a particular skill set (e.g. Lesson Planning) and the necessary steps/stages involve to make the set skill a successful in the classroom. The presentation stages of the sessions gave teachers opportunities to replicate the input and skills that they had earlier engaged with making the 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 15
  16. 16. learning process experiential (Alexander et al., 2008:87). These were followed by feedback sessions to clarify any issues teachers had and to reinforce the set-up skill(s) of the day. Course Materials Given the broad nature of resources available on activity development skills, I decided to narrow down material selection to those that were of immediate relevance to the needs of the course. The following resources were therefore used: As evidence in Appendix 6  Approaches & Methods in Language Teaching (J. Richards & T. Rogers, 1986)  How to Teach English (J. Harmer, 1998)  Learning Teaching (J. Scrivener, 1994, 2005)  The Practice of English Language Teaching 4th Ed (J. Harmer, 2007)  Teaching Languages to Young Learners (L. Cameron, 2001)  Teaching English in the Primary Classroom (S. Halliwell, 1992)  Teaching English To Children (W. A. Scott & L. H. Ytreberg, 2005)  What English Teachers Need to Know (D.E. Murray & M.A. Christison, Vol II 2011)  Classroom Dynamics (J. Hadfield, 1992)  Classroom DIY, A Practical (M. Leimanis-Wyatt, 2010)  The Classroom Survival Manual (R. L Partin, 2009)  The Ultimate Teaching Manual (Gererd Dixie ,2011)  A course in Language Teaching ( Penny Ur, 2009) 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 16
  17. 17.  Planning Lessons and Courses (T. Woodward, 2009)  100 Ideas for Lesson Planning (Anthony Haynes, 2010)  Classroom Instructions That works ( J.D. Hill & K.M. Lynn, 2006)  Classroom Interaction and Social Learning (K. Kumpulainen & D. Wray, 2002)  A Guide to Effective Instructions (D.C. Orlich et al, Teachong Strategies, 2010)  Teaching and Learning Languages (Anthony Mollica, 1998)  Learning to Teach English (Peter Watkins, 2005)  Effective Language Learning (Graham Susan, 1997).  Designing Task for the Communicative Classroom ( Nunan David, 2001) I am of the impression that choosing from a range of course materials made it a lot easier to meet the needs, aims and objectives of the course, as most of the materials directly addressed activity set-up skills with practical examples. Appendix 6 Daily Course Plan Part 4 Assessment and Course Evaluation In this section, I will discuss assessment in general and highlight how teachers were assessed. Authentic assessment, incidental or intended is an important aspect or learning and teaching (Brown, 2003). It should contain tasks and contexts that are interesting, authentic, real life, and is done at different times and using a variety of methods which reveal the learning and development of the learner; the higher the degree of authenticity 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 17
  18. 18. therefore, the more positive the effect and motivation for learning (Gulikers et al, 2004, p.68). Taking into consideration Gulikers et al’s five dimensions of authentic assessment and as can be seen from the course overview and daily plan (Appendix 6), formative, summative and criterion-referenced assessments were carried out in order to measure the degree to which knowledge of activity set-up skills was grounded in profound understanding and how that knowledge was demonstrated in an authentic manner. Also, to ensure that assessment at different stages of the course was reliable, valid, interactive and practical ( Hyland, 2006), assessment tasks only assessed the skills that were taught( activity set-up skills) with emphasis on improving both learning and delivery of the course and feedback ( peer, tutor-led) was consistent with the assessment. As this was a skills focused course, formative assessment was however used on a daily basis to help in the delivery, learning and teaching/realigning of the course. Teachers were, for example, quizzed after each input session (peer or tutor-led) with a whole class feedback session which helped demonstrate teachers’ understanding of the concepts and skills. When it came to the practical demonstration of the skills taught, assessment was mostly based on teachers’ performance of the individual presentations at the end of each day’s session and these sought to help teachers replicate the types of tasks they would have to carry out in their future teaching making the assessment of immediate importance and more 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 18
  19. 19. meaningful (Bachman & Palmer, 1996). For example, teachers were asked to draft a lesson plan at the start of the course highlighting the necessary classroom procedures. As the course progressed, they were required to make relevant changes to those lesson plans as they deem fit and share with their other participants why those changes were needed. This helps highlight and reinforce their understanding and knowledge of the necessary procedures and why these are integral to making a lesson successful. The final demo lessons were summative in nature, testing all the activity set-up skills developed throughout the course. These exhibited the overall success of the course while the feedback sessions catered for ways that course delivery could be improved. The final exam was a multiple choice exam used to test and reinforce teachers’ understanding of the course which was peer-marked marking the process a worthwhile and meaningful one. The effects of the assessments overall, had a positive and beneficial (Hughes, 1989:2) backwash as teachers’ activity set-up skills were directly tested. Also, teachers’ overall performance on the course did not play any role in teaching appraisals. Course evaluation Hutchinson and Waters (1987) suggested that in order to evaluate the usefulness of the course and to determine to what extent the course met learners’, in this case teachers’ needs, evaluation should be carried out during and at the end of the course. Course evaluation was therefore done 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 19
  20. 20. on a daily basis at the end of each day’s session during feedback and at the end of the course when teachers were asked to evaluate the course making suggestions were necessary. It was also agreed that teachers would continue giving feedback on the usefulness, validity and practicality of the course as they put said skills to use in their daily teachings. Part 5 Conclusion As highlighted and discussed in the Part 1 of this essay, the need for teachers, especially among young learners teachers of primary school age, to be aware of and develop their activity set-up skills, is integral to their teaching and development as good teachers. In order to successfully address teachers’ needs as indicated in the Need Analysis section, I gathered and analysed data i.e. through surveys and observations. These were used to determine what areas needed attention the most and how these would be addressed in a way that teachers would develop these skills without loosing motivation. After analysing teachers’ beliefs about learning and teaching and their perceived strengths and weaknesses in activity setup, I designed a teacher training course that catered for these needs and delivered it with the help of my Director of Studies. Teachers were more aware and alive to activity set-up in and outside of the classroom after the course and I believe this was primarily because of the course. Although the course did not cater for other classroom challenges like learner motivation and classroom management, teachers were however 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 20
  21. 21. made to understand good activity set-up skills will aid in addressing these challenges. From the post-course interview conducted, the course also gave teachers more insight into teaching methodologies and approaches and further helped distinguished the pronounced and subtle differences between young and adult learners. It further helped highlight the roles and expectations from them and their learners which placed them in a better position to cater for learners’ needs and expectations. The striking limitation of the course was its intensive nature, as teachers had too much to take in and replicate in a short period of time. I do however believe that this and any other remaining issues will be addressed in subsequent individual observations and feedback sessions. In conclusion therefore, given that this is my first ever designed and delivered teacher training course, I recognise that there are a number of limitations but the course did address and develop teachers’ activity set-up skills needs. 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 21
  22. 22. Bibliography Allwright, R.L. & K.M. Bailey (1991). Focus on the language classroom: an introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anthony Haynes(2010). 100 Ideas for Lesson Planning: Continuum Anthony Mollica, (1998). Teaching and Learning Languages: Soliel Publishing Inc. Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum : A systematic approach to program development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York:Cambridge University Press. Cazden, C.B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. D.C. Orlich et al, (2010). Teaching Strategies: A Guide to Effective Instructions Wadsworth D.E. Murray & M.A. Christison ( 2011). What English Teachers Need to Know Vol II: Routledge Gererd Dixie, (2011). The Ultimate Teaching Manual: Continuum Graham Susan, ( 1997). Effective Language Learning: Multimedia Matters Ltd. 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 22
  23. 23. Gulikers, J.T.M., Bastiaens, T.J., Kirschner, P.A (2004). The Five- Dimensional Framework for Authentic Assessment: Open University Press Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1992). English for Specific Purposes: "" " A learning-centred approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. J.D. Hill & K.M. Lynn (2006). Classroom Instructions That works: ASCD J. Hadfield( 1992). Classroom Dynamics: Oxford J. Harmer (1998). How to Teach English: Longman J. Harmer(2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching 4th Ed: Longman Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes : A guide and resource book for teachers.Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press. J. Richards & T. Rogers (1986). Approaches & Methods in Language Teaching: CUP J. Scrivener(1994, 2005). Learning Teaching: Heinemann K. Kumpulainen & D. Wray (2002). Classroom Interaction and Social Learning: Taylor & Francis L. Cameron(2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners: Cambridge Lalonde, R. N., Lee, P. A., & Gardner, R. C. (1987). The common view of the good language learner: An investigation of teachers' beliefs. The Canadian Modern Language Review. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1990). On the need for a theory of language teaching. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.) M. Leimanis-Wyatt (2010). Classroom DIY, A Practical: Routledge 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 23
  24. 24. Nunan David( 2001). Designing Task for the Communicative Classroom: Cambridge University Press Penny Ur (2009). A course in Language Teaching: Cambridge Peter Watkins (2005). Learning to Teach English: Delta Publishing R. L Partin (2009). The Classroom Survival Manual: Wiley Richards, J.C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. S. Halliwell (1992). Teaching English in the Primary Classroom: Longman Soriano, F. I., & University of Michigan. School of Social Work. (1995). Conducting needs assessments : A multidisciplinary approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. T. Woodward(2009). Planning Lessons and Courses: Cambridge W. A. Scott & L. H. Ytreberg (2005). Teaching English To Children: Longman Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments : A practical guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 00367_301_bathalomew_Delta3_LDT_1213 24