UNIVERSIDAD DE GUADALAJARA

CENTRO UNIVERSITARIO DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES Y HUMANIDADES

DIVISIÓN DE ESTUDIOS HISTÓRICOS HUMANOS
DEPARTAMENTO DE LENGUAS MODERNAS
LICENCIATURA EN DOCENCIA DEL INGLÉS COMO LENGUA EXTRANJERA

INFORME DE PRÁCTICAS PROFESIONALES QUE PARA OBTENER EL TÍTULO DE:

LICENCIADO EN DOCENCIA DEL INGLÉS COMO LENGUA EXTRANJERA

PRESENTA

GUADALAJARA, JALISCO.AGOSTO DEL 2018

Contenido
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Literature Review .................................................................................................................................. 5
Teaching Context ................................................................................................................................ 13
Three Professional Cases .................................................................................................................. 16
Young Learners: Disruptive behavior ............................................................................................ 16
Mixed Level Classroom .................................................................................................................. 23
Vocabulary Retention...................................................................................................................... 27
References .......................................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix .............................................................................................................................................. 32
Introduction
David Crystal (2003) estimates that there are 1.5 billion English speakers in the world.
That’s about a quarter of the world population. It could be that the first idea to pop in
mind that the population of native speakers is growing. But this is not necessarily the
case. There is more to this picture, and it represents this culturally connected modern
world. For instance, Crystal writes that the population growth in areas where English is a
second language is about 2.5 times that in areas where it is a fist language. As an
illustration, he mentions a picturesque example of a couple he met in the Emirates in
which a German oil industrialist and a Malaysian who had courted through their only
common language, English, decided to bring up their child with English as the primary
language of the home. “So here is a baby learning English as a foreign language as its
mother tongue”, he concludes. Situations similar to this example could be arising here in
Mexico, where many returning (from the U.S.A) Mexican couples could possibly be
raising their children in a bilingual manner.

According to Rosenberg (2017) there are 54 countries in the world where English is an
official language. But, it is an idea, once proposed by Graddol (2000), that it is those
who speak English as a second or foreign language who will determine its world future.
This, regardless of native speakers’ natural belief of owning the language. Graddol
proposes that “There are three types of English speakers in the world”: First-language
speakers (L1) - These native speakers live, for the most part, in countries in which the
dominant culture is based around English. These countries, however, are experiencing
increasing linguistic diversity as a result of immigration; Second-language speakers (L2)
- have English as a second or additional language, placing English in a repertoire of
languages where each is used in different contexts; and people learning English as a
foreign language (EFL). This third group is where the majority of English speakers in
Mexico can be found.

In the same way, Mexico’s English speaking context seems to be found under the
category of one of the two major ways, mentioned by Crystal (2003), that a language
can be ‘taken up’ by a country: “A language can be made a priority in a country’s
foreign-language teaching, even though this language has no official status. It becomes
the language which children are most likely to be taught when they arrive in school, and
the one most available to adults who – for whatever reason – never learned it, or
learned it badly, in their educational years.” More and more, Mexican citizens of all ages
are facing the need of learning and using the English language.

Although English may still not be fully considered as our second language, it does seem
like this is the level which is being aimed for lately. A reflection of this can be seen in
both the public and private sectors of education. For example, the recent English
programs being implemented in Mexico which aim to teach the English language to kids
as they begin their elemental studies in order to be more competent globally. An
international curriculum is now a priority to the objectives of an integral learning and the
language is now being given a more important role in our community, unlike decades
before where it was foreseen, especially in public schools. In the same way, private
bilingual schools in Mexico are arising. This means that more children are now studying
their academic subjects both in Spanish and in English. Moreover, they are being
presented to the culture of an English speaking country, a factor which they can use as
a tool to better understand this culturally linked world. With this in mind, we refer to
Crystal’s statement (2003) of what makes a global language: “Why a language becomes
a global language has little to do with the number of people who speak it. It is much
more to do with who those speakers are.” And will refer to English as such.

In this document I will inform of three issues I have confronted throughout my

professional EFL teaching experience. A journey which began in 2016 at IMAC (Instituto
Mexico-Americano de Cultura) and continued in the English School Funglish where I
currently work. The challenges presented in this paper are related to my present place
of work. These three situations influence the process of language learning and create a
problem, so I will intervene in an attempt to find a solution in order to help students with
their English. The three issues are: disruptive behavior in an EFL class for kids; a mixed
proficiency level group; and the rejection from students towards listening activities.
These three challenges will later be explained in greater detail along with the results
obtained after pedagogical interventions.
Literature Review
Being in contact and exploring the most modern and upcoming teaching methodologies
do not pass over the fundamentals of classic methodologies of course. The use of
language changes and so does the way of teaching it. The reason for a wide
background is to have a variety of methodological options available when choosing the
tools to teach the language. Therefore, the most representative English Teaching
methodologies will be reviewed as well as a brief analysis of current approaches
resulting from current needs.

It is important to have a clear understanding of what an approach and a method is. We

can define the concept of each parting from Richards and Rodgers’ (1986) rationale to
the way linguists and language specialists were aiming to improve the quality of
language teaching “[…] they often did so by referring to general principles and theories
concerning how languages are learned, how knowledge of language is represented and
organized in memory, or how language itself is structured.” Furthermore, in an attempt
to fully clarify the difference of an approach and a method, Richards & Rodgers refer to
American linguist Edward Anthony’s scheme proposed in 1963:

 “An approach is a set of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature of

language teaching and learning. An approach is axiomatic. It describes the nature
of the subject matter to be taught.”

 “Method is an overall plan for the orderly presentation of language material, no

part of which contradicts, and all of which is based upon, the selected approach.
An approach is axiomatic; a method is procedural. Within one approach, there
can be many methods.”

In this way, an approach is more about beliefs and assumptions on language learning;
while a method is a step-by-step guide on how to teach a second language, including
content and its order. In line with Celce-Murcia (2014), language teaching methodology
vacillated between two types of approaches: getting learners to use a language and
getting learners to analyze a language. In one hand, speaking and understanding the
language; in the other hand, learning its grammatical rules.
A classic and fundamental approach of translating grammar is described with a
synthesis given by Kelly (1969), it includes: Little use of the target language for
communication; instructions given in the native language; and early reading of difficult
texts. A typical exercise is to translate sentences from the target language into the
mother tongue. This may result in an inability on the part of the student to use the
language for communication, though. Not by design, the teacher does not have to be
able to speak the target language fluently. A viable alternative to Grammar Translation is
the Direct Method, procedure in which the ability to use language is emphasized rather
than the mere analysis of linguistic items. As pointed out by Celce-Murcia (2014), key
features are: “Lessons that begin with dialogues and anecdotes in modern
conversational style; the use of actions and pictures to make meanings clear; grammar
is learned inductively (not through rules); literary texts are read for pleasure, not
analyzed grammatically; the target culture is also taught inductively.” Also, the teacher
does not need to know the student’s native language because the use of the mother
tongue is not permitted. However, the teacher must be a native speaker or have native-
like proficiency in the target language.

Change is present in any discipline, and it is the change in theories of language learning
where Richards & Rodgers (1986) identify a reflection of shifts in the kind of proficiency
learners need; for example: “a move toward oral proficiency rather than reading
comprehension”. Parting from this idea, we can identify early and mid-twentieth century
approaches that arose from the Reform Movement in language teaching, situated in
Europe during the 1890’s. A movement in which a group of phoneticians made some of
the first truly scientific contributions to language teaching. They advocated principles
such as the following, pointed out by Howatt (2004): “The spoken form of a language is
primary and should be taught first; The findings of phonetics should be applied to
language teaching; Learners should be given basic phonetic training to establish good
speech habits.” This also meant that it was essential for language teachers to have solid
training in phonetics. Approaches such as the Audiolingual and the Oral-Situational
represent this movement.
The Audiolingual Approach is established on Skinner’s idea (1957) that learning is
based on getting learners to repeat behaviors (verbal or nonverbal) until they become
fully learned habits. Therefore, mimicry and memorization is used. In the same way,
grammatical structures as well as skills are sequenced. Fundamentally, accurate
pronunciation is stressed from the beginning. The Oral-Situational Approach, according
to Celce-Murcia, “[…] advocated organizing structures around situations (e.g., ‘at the
pharmacy’ or ‘at the restaurant’) that provided the learner with maximum opportunity to
practice the target language. Faithful to the phonetical tendency of its educational
movement, it includes lots of choral repetition. In the same way, all language material is
practiced orally before being presented in written form.

More recent approaches to language teaching were developed during the final quarter of
the twentieth century and continue into the early twenty-first century. Such as the
Cognitive Approach, the Comprehension-Based Approach, and the Communicative
Approach. Furthermore, a new wave of methods with peculiar and personalized
characteristics came along. As Celcia-Murcia describes them, these methods were
rather specific in terms of the procedures and materials that the teacher, who typically
required special training, was supposed to use. Examples such as: Silent Way;
Community Language Learning; Total Physical Response; and Suggestopedia. These
have been labeled Designer Methods by Nunan (1989) These modern methods as well
as the classic ones provide a wide variety of tools to choose from when planning an EFL
class. Moreover, they are intended to serve as a reference to look back upon when
describing the three cases in this report.

The first case to be presented in this paper has to do with Young Learners. A young
learner can be defined as elementary school-age students. In the book Teaching
English as a Second or Foreign Language (2014), the co-author Joan Kang Shin
exposes that not all professionals in the field define young learners the same way. The
most notorious difference, it seems, is the age range. Shin lists experts like Cameron
(2001); Linse (2005); Nunan (2011); and Pinter (2006) which have defined young
learners as ranging anywhere from 5 to 14 years old. Shin then presents a confrontation
proposed in a large-scale study on young learners around the world done by Garton,
Copeland, and Burns (2011) where young learners are defined to range from 7 to 11.
Regardless of the difference within the age range, Piaget’s (1963) four stages of
cognitive development is available as a corner-stone to any ideal (see appendix 1):

Do young learners learn at a faster rate and with more ease than older learners? This
has been known to be one of the most common beliefs about age and language. When
describing the learner, in his book The Practice of English Language Teaching, Jeremy
Harmer states “People of different ages have different needs, competences and
cognitive skills […]” and continues this idea with a natural thought “[…] we might expect
children of primary age to acquire much of a foreign language through play, for example,
whereas for adults we can reasonably expect a greater use of abstract thought”. Now,
as he states, this is merely an expectation. Possibly emerged from the collective idea
that one may be too old for certain things or that everything ‘sticks’ to a child. Because
this may not always be the case. Considerably, it appears that older children (over the
age of 12) “seem to be far better learners than younger ones in most aspects of
acquisition, pronunciation excluded”, as Yu (2006) states. To reinforce this theory,
Jeremy Harmer refers us to Patsy Lightbown & Nina Spada as the ones who point to
studies showing that older children and adolescents make more progress than young
learners. It is suggested that the reason for this may have something to do with their
increased cognitive abilities, or maybe with the way younger children are taught.
Nonetheless, we take part on Lynne Cameron’s (2003) belief quoted by Harmer that
teachers of young learners need to be especially alert and adaptive in their response to
tasks and have to be able to adjust activities on the spot. In this way, this case will be
treated in a Harmer-like approach considering each student as an individual with
different experiences both in and outside the classroom.

However, the young learner’s learning process is not influenced only by the cognitive
factors. Therefore, in addition to Piaget’s four stages of cognitive development, Erikson’s
stages of his Psychosocial Development Theory (1959) (see appendix 3) will be
considered as well within this case. The fourth stage of development, or of ‘psychosocial
crisis’, involves industry versus inferiority and occurs during childhood between the ages
of five and twelve. These are precisely the ages of the young learners from this class.
McLeod (2018) introduces this phase by saying that it is at this stage that the child’s
peer group will gain greater significance and will become a major source of the child’s
self-esteem. McLeod summarizes this stage by stating: “The child now feels the need to
win approval by demonstrating specific competencies that are valued by society and
begin to develop a sense of pride in their accomplishments. If children are encouraged
and reinforced for their initiative, they begin to feel industrious (competent) and feel
confident in their ability to achieve goals. If this initiative is not encouraged, then the
child begins to feel inferior, doubting his own abilities and therefore may not reach his or
her potential.” It is also mentioned that in order for the child to develop modesty, some
failure is needed. In this way, the virtue of competence can arise in the child’s life.

Furthermore, and in order to work on a case of a mixed proficiency classroom, it is

necessary to look into what is it that defines a classroom as a mixed proficiency group.
Melinda Roberts (2007) lists characteristics of what makes a classroom multilevel, the
list includes: The student’s educational background in his/her first language; the cultural
expectation each student has regarding the role of the teacher; the student’s personality;
the student’s goals; the student’s age; and the student’s learning style. As early as the
times of learning theorist Lev S. Vigotsky, the factor of having a student with a higher
proficiency than another has been taken into account. Vigotsky (2000) presents the idea
that there is an area between what someone can achieve on their own and what they
can achieve together with a more capable person. Not only does the theorist confirm the
possibility of a heterogeneous group but also presents the benefit one can get from such
case. He calls the person with the higher proficiency the MKO (More Knowledgeable
Other) and insists that the MKO can be another student as well as the teacher. Nutt
(2014) continues to work with this idea presenting the use of peer-assisted learning for
review presentations in a heterogeneous class well. The author designed a presentation
task in which groups were formed with pairs of students with a notable different
proficiency to review units of the textbook. In anonymous questionnaires the class
expressed that they had learned from either helping or being helped by their peers,
resulting in a benefit for all students. Carlson (2015) also worked with a mixed-level
English class and shares the idea on how to maximize participation in such classroom
through the use of a self-learning portfolio. By making such portfolios. Students
formulate questions and draw conclusions before arriving to class and maximizes further
participation during class. Since no two learners are exactly alike, as English teachers
we should be able to find the differences and design our lessons in order to adapt to the
students’ needs.

It is important to have objective proof that the group is formed of students with different
proficiencies. A way of measuring this is with a test. Jeremy Harmer (2007) mentions
there are four main reasons for testing, which give rise to four categories of test:
placement tests, diagnostic tests, progress or achievement tests, and proficiency tests.
Looking at the definitions and examples of the different types of tests mentioned, the
proficiency test is the one we are looking for. According to its definition given by Harmer
himself, “proficiency tests give a general picture of a student’s knowledge”. Therefore,
this case will be corner-stoned using this as a measure.

The following are some premises suggested by Clark, M. (2011) on what to do if you
have EFL learners of various proficiencies in the classroom:

1. The first obvious suggestion is to set different tasks. With a particular group of
vocabulary items, a lower proficiency English learner may draw and label a
picture using the words, while the more advanced student writes an original text
using the same words.

2. Remember that there is more to knowing a word than its definition. While a new
student is learning what each word means, experienced students can be thinking
of opposites or creating word families.

3. In a listening task, have EFL students answer different questions. While one
student is listening to hear if the flight is delayed, the other may be listening for
why the flight is delayed or for how long.

4. The next suggestion is based on the philosophy that we learn the most when we
teach. Allow your more advanced students to explain certain concepts to the rest
of the class. This process will expose less proficient learners to new language,
while affirming the knowledge of more proficient learners. This will also cut down
on TTT (teacher talk time).

5. Rather than teaching, a less demanding role for more proficient English learners
is to act as a model. Demonstrate a Q&A exchange with the more advanced
student, and then ask that same student to repeat the interaction with the less
 advanced student. This will also allow your advanced student to practice those
all-too-confusing interrogative structures.

6. Peer correction is generally preferred over teacher correction, so allow the more
advanced learner to listen and correct the mistakes of less proficient learners.
However, you should also discuss and model appropriate strategies for correction
first before someone’s feelings get hurt.
Additionally, the following are five strategies to teach different levels of EFL students in
the same class shared in the English Educator Blog “FluentU”:

1. Use strategic seating.

2. Provide multiple levels of each activity.
3. Teach the same concept several ways.
4. Play games.
5. Give personal attention.

The premises suggested by Clark and the strategies shared by the English educators
blog FluentU will be used as a guide to carry on this challenge. In the same way, we will
work on this case using the resources provided by them as well. Such tools include
exams to test the levels of English, webinars on mixed-level classes, standards for each
level of English, a study on differences in learning styles, and an article on strategies for
mixed level classes.

Furthermore, the main action to be taken is to design multi-level tasks such as Abbott, M
(2018) explains. She states that task difficulty is influenced by three main factors:
Linguistic complexity (the language required to complete the task), Cognitive complexity
(the thinking skills required to complete the task), and Communicative stress (the
conditions under which the task is to be completed). When lesson planning, these
factors will be taken into account when modifying and adapting the tasks in order to
meet the different students’ needs.

In reference to one of the cases to treat in this paper, Holden (1999) states that one of
the most important issues in second language teaching and learning is vocabulary
learning and perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of learning a second language is
the retention of learned vocabularies. To this, Jeremy Harmer (2017) mentions that the
best way of introducing new words is for students to read texts or listen to audio tracks
and see or hear those words in action because students need to see words in context to
see how they are used. The importance of vocabulary in ESL is such that some authors
have even stated that vocabulary teaching should be viewed as a separate area in
teaching a foreign language, such as Channell (1998). This bold statement, could be
backed up by the idea that vocabulary is vital for language proficiency. Laufer (1997)
says that vocabulary adequacy and accuracy matter more than grammatical correctness
if we take into account fluency as the “ability to convey a message with ease and
comprehensibility”.

As Taheri (2014) points out, the traditional methods for learning unknown vocabularies
have not been so successful and students as well as teachers are tired of the routine
ways of teaching words. A viable alternative to this is reinforcing vocabulary through
games which helps learners develop and use words in different contexts. In a study
realized by Halitha & Kalai Arasai (2017) regarding the effect of using word games in
teaching English language vocabulary among upper primary students it was
concluded that games are proven to be useful and effective for teaching vocabulary.
They mentioned that through games students can improve their language for
interaction and communication. Although the study was focused on young learners,
what is mentioned about self-confidence could apply to other ages as well. “It
invokes interest in learning and helps students to participate in the higher level
competitions to achieve in their own way.” Due to the potential of using games to
enhance vocabulary learning, it is important to carefully consider all the factors
games imply. As Dr. Al Masri & Mrs. Al Najar (2014) state in their research about the
effect of using word games on primary stage students’ achievement in English
language vocabulary in Jordan, in order to achieve the most from vocabulary games,
it is important that suitable games are chosen. “Whenever a game is to be
conducted, the number of students, proficiency level, cultural context, timing,
learning topic, and classroom settings are factors that should be taken into account.”
Such recommendation will definitely be considered when choosing a game while
lesson planning for the third case to work on.
There are many advantages in using vocabulary games. Lee (1996) lists some
advantages of language games such as “a welcome break from the usual routine of
the language class”, “motivating and challenging”, “effort of learning” and “language
practice in the various skills”. Hansen (1994) points out another advantage, “it can
provide opportunity for shy students to involve voluntarily in classroom activities.”
Furthermore, according to Freeman (1986), language games have real life
communication features because the players are required to exchange ideas with
each other and also they will have the opportunity to receive immediate feedback
from their playmates and also their teacher. Taheri (2014) believes that games can
encourage learners discovering and voluntary involvement to the learning process.
She also mentions that this can also establish a better bonding between teacher and
learners. Richard-Amato (1988) states that games can lower anxiety, this making the
acquisition of input more likely. From the psychological point of view, Abdikhah
(1998) assures that games have many benefits. “They can reduce inhibition of the
learners especially if they are cooperating in the games not competing. The shy and
timid students who do not show any tendency to participate in class works will feel
more at ease and will participate more freely”. Moreover, according to Nguyen &
Khuat (2003), using games provides a relax and fun environment for learners,
therefore, help them to learn better. To finalize, agreeing with Taheri and like-minded
to her ideas, a good designed language game can create a real communication
context in the classroom which can help learners to improve their speaking ability.
This will be taken into account while taking action on the third case.

Teaching Context
The teaching context described in this report is situated in Funglish English School,
located in Guadalajara. It is a fresh and upcoming school that provides English classes
to the community of North-Eastern neighborhoods of the city like San Onofre. The
classes are aimed most especially to young learners and teenagers, which creates joyful
vibes. Faithful to their name, Funglish School promotes a lively environment to learn a
foreign language with enjoyable classes. The enrollment as well as the monthly fees are
very accessible in compliance with the local community with a mission statement to
serve their community. Getting to know and creating special bonds with every student is
very common and creates a familiar relationship within everyone. In the same way,
constant contact within groups takes place with linked activities such as is the
conversation club. Specially mouth by mouth, the school is gaining popularity in the area
and expanding its reaches.

Resources & School Equipment

The resources and equipment provided to the teachers are sufficient and varied. Much
of it is material relatable to young learners. Flashcards and Bingo of many themes such
as occupations, objects of the house, parts of the body, food, and animals are an
example. Much more, there are many fun games such as board games and of other
kind. In the same way, the school has a number of electronic tablets with all the class
audios available for each teacher. The school also provides markers every time new
ones are needed. There is Wi-Fi available to work with material online. Recently, the
spacious classrooms have been accommodated with air-conditioning for the comfort of
each student. The school cafeteria is also a plus inside the school because it’s a space
reserved for the students to get together and take a break without having to go outside.
This is a valuable aspect especially for the kids. Essentially, the school provides each
professor with their own Teacher Book for each level they teach. The students can
purchase their own book (including the workbook) right there and don’t have to go
outside looking to buy it. Additionally, the price of the Student Book is at a much
accessible price, especially compared to other institutions. This valuable factor is part of
the school’s philosophy expressed since the beginning to provide a service to the
community.

Academic Offer
The academic offer of this school is English courses, and most recently French classes,
to children and teenagers. There are three levels for children and juniors with ages
ranging from seven to twelve years. They work with the Backpack Series of English
books published by Pearson –Longman. By this age, the young learners have already
learned to read and write so all four skills can be practiced. Although, vocabulary is
emphasized much more. Regardless of this, grammar is taught but not in an intensive
manner. During these early stages, classes are supported with the use of flashcards,
games, and songs. I have just recently begun to teach children and have one group of
seven young learners.
There are six levels offered for teenagers and older students. They work with the Top
Notch and Summit series of English textbooks published by Pearson. The levels offered
can be divided according to the textbook in use. The first four levels aim to range the
CEFR framework from an A1 level to a B1 level of English. The reach of the last two
levels, using the Summit textbooks, aim to range a B1 level to a C1 level of English.
These classes are characterized by learning with projects and making presentations; in
the same way, they stay faithful to the school’s philosophy of fun and dynamic classes. I
count with five different groups under these characteristics throughout the working week.
In both the young learners and teenager courses, there is an English-Only policy
although flexible to students’ needs and understandable of the teachers’ beliefs on
language learning. Moreover, during the first sessions for beginners, the use of the
mother tongue is not prohibited and is actually encouraged if needed especially in
grammar rules. Gradually, the use of Spanish is discouraged in compliance with the
students. Language tools to do so are provided, of course.

Academic Schedules
The schedules offered in Funglish follow two modalities: Monday to Thursday; or
Saturdays only. Fridays are reserved to French courses. During the weekdays, classes
take parting from the afternoon. Only Saturday courses count with morning classes at
the moment. The classes for young learners have a daily duration of one hour and a
half, from 3:30. The classes for older students have a length of two daily hours,
disregarding Saturday courses which are of four hours. These sessions count with a 15-
minute break in which the students can have a snack inside the school’s cafeteria. Four-
hour classes have an extra ten-minute break to ease the long sessions. Young learners
are not allowed to exit the installations until their tutors pick them up.

Class Context
I have been teaching English as a foreign language in this school since February of
2018 when I began substituting classes and by the month of March I counted with my
own groups during weekdays and on Saturdays. Most recently I continued with a group
of young leaner’s in the month of September.
A brief description of the three different groups for the three cases exposed here will be
given to put in context each case. The first, a newly acquired class, is a group of seven
young leaners who range from the ages of eight to eleven years. I teach this class as a
result of their teacher leaving with not much prior notice. After receiving general
information on the group I was asked if I wanted to continue with them and did so. This
happened within an immediate timeframe and under the unfortunate circumstance of not
being able to talk to the teacher due to their departure. They are currently in the first
level using the Backpack 1 textbook so they are beginning their English learning
journey, earlier than most Mexicans gladly. The case regarding this group is disruptive
behavior. They are all well-mannered kids and are not reckless but I fear the possibility
of bullying as well as the lack of interest arising due to some behavior that takes place
during class. The second is a case of mixed levels. Two students coming from a
discontinued group two levels higher were added to my original group of three beginner
students. The possible loss of interest from the new coming students as well as the
possible feeling of impairment arising from the beginning students is what I will be
looking to attack. Finally, the third case to treat is a Saturday only group with vocabulary
retention difficulties. The group is formed of 11 teenage students ranging from 13 to 16
years of age. They attend class for four hours with a 25-minute break. The case will be
treated with the aim to look for the best ways to help them on vocabulary retention.

Three Professional Cases

Young Learners: Disruptive behavior
As mentioned before, in this document I will address three professional experiences.
The first one corresponds to Disruptive Behavior in Young Learners. As I began
teaching this rewarding group of young learners, I immediately experienced a different
type of behavior from what I was accustomed to with my students, it had a more
disruptive distinction. Although I was expecting to take part in a different teaching
context, because it would be my first ever group of children, it definitely threw me off
balance when I experienced more than the expected. The Cambridge Dictionary defines
‘disruptive’ as “causing trouble and therefore stopping something from continuing as
usual”. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ‘disrupt’ as a transitive verb meaning “to
break apart; to throw into disorder; and to interrupt the normal course or unity of”. What
stands out is the matching interpretation that the normal course of something is stopped
from continuing as usual, due to trouble or disorder.

What are the signs of disruptive or bad behavior? It is important to identify what actions
to consider as such. In the pedagogical website that provides resources and materials
for ESL kids’ teachers, ‘ESLKidstuff’, we can find a list of these (roughly ordered in
severity) as reference. These factors will be used in the instrument to identify disruptive
behavior in each student (see appendix 4). The instrument will be in use for a time lapse
of two weeks during class. Each time a student does an action marked as a sign of
disruptive behavior; a mark will be made in order to identify the most common disruptor
in class.

During the first two weeks of observation, the two most recurrent signs of misbehavior
were not doing homework and refusing to do what the teacher asks. Every student in the
classroom had a mark under these signs both weeks. Deliberately going slow and
making inappropriate noises with classroom objects were the two factors least observed,
having only one mark during both weeks and none at all. Although, one student resulted
to deliberately go slow practically every day. Fortunately, there were no signs of fighting
observed in the classroom (a possible problem which was feared from happening and
triggering bullying). Instrument Results Weeks 1-2:

Student Student Student 3 Student Student Student Total

1 2 4 5 6

Not standing or 1 6 7 6 4 1 25
sitting straight
Laughing at 1 7 3 7 3 21
inappropriate
times
Not using polite 8 5 5 18
language when
asking for things
Practical jokes 1 6 1 6 2 16

Making 1 4 1 2 2 10
inappropriate
noises with
classroom objects
Speaking in their 5 2 1 6 2 16
own language
when they should
be using English
Deliberately going 1 7 1 1 10
slow
Not doing 3 2 7 7 6 2 27
homework
Cheating in 3 1 7 2 7 2 22
games
Not following 1 2 7 4 6 2 22
instructions
Refusing to do 3 3 7 7 7 2 29
what the teacher
asks
Doing the 1 7 6 7 21
opposite of what
the teacher asks
Saying bad or 3 7 2 7 19
hurtful things
Saying bad 7 7 14
words, e.g.
cussing, swearing
Fighting 0

In conclusion, the most important sign of misbehavior to contrast is the lack of

compromise with the tasks assigned for homework and working on students’ attitude
towards instructions.

Code of Conduct
After seeing these results, a decision was made to create a formal agreement of
classroom norms in order to ensure a progressive environment. Jeremy Harmer (2007)
states that all groups – whether in education or anywhere else – have ways of behaving
and quickly establish norms for this behavior which delineate the ways things are done
in the group. He mentions that if groups behave according to norms which have been
laid down or picked up then it makes sense for teachers to become personally involved
in the creation of norms which the group will adhere to. Khasinah (2017) also shares this
same idea, “[…] Another way to hinder students’ misbehavior is by making an
agreement or a code of conduct”. Most definitely, the students’ active agreement with
such norms is indispensable. In order to achieve this, Harmer gives us these three
things to bear in mind: Norms need to be explicitly discussed; Norms can be jointly
negotiated; Norms need to be reviewed and revisited. With this in mind, along with the
students the classroom norms were agreed.

The defined norms are the following: bring your homework; teamwork; no cheating in
games; be honest; and respect. They were written on a big paper by the students and
pasted on the wall (see Appendix 5). The students put their signature on this paper
showing their understanding and agreement. They had fun inventing their first signature
in what may have been their first experience realizing that their word has a value of
honor. In order not to have an unwanted long list of rules, five essential norms were
sought. The unwelcomed feeling of imposition was intended to be avoided by chatting
about what was right and wrong in the classroom, this while is playing a game that the
students enjoy much. This friendly environment well contrasted any presence of
imposition.

After the classroom norms were presented, the instrument to identify disruptive behavior
was used throughout the initial week studying under the newly established norms. This
time, unlike the first two weeks of observation, actions were taken in order to contrast
disruptive behavior. This was done in appliance to the classroom norms and under
Harmer’s philosophy to ensure the success we are striving for. In the book “The Practice
of English Language Teaching”, he helps us with insights on how to create successful
classrooms and modifying problem behavior. He lists essential actions to bear in mind if
we wish to achieve the goal of a successful classroom. They are: act immediately; keep
clam; focus on the behavior not the student; take things forward; talk in private; Use
clearly agreed sanctions; and to use colleagues and the institution. The following are the
signs of disruptive behavior encountered in a short school-week of three days:

Student Student Student 3 Student Student Student Total

1 2 4 5 6

Not standing or N/A 3 3 1 7

sitting straight
Laughing at N/A 3 3 1 7
inappropriate
times
Not using polite N/A 3 3
language when
asking for things
Practical jokes N/A 2 3 1 6

Making N/A 3 2 1 6
inappropriate
noises with
classroom objects
Speaking in their N/A 1 1
own language
when they should
be using English
Deliberately going N/A 1 1
slow
Not doing N/A 1 2 1 1 5
homework
Cheating in N/A 2 2 1 5
games
Not following N/A 1 1 1 3
instructions
Refusing to do N/A 1 1 1 3
what the teacher
asks
Doing the N/A 1 1 1 3
opposite of what
the teacher asks
Saying bad or N/A 3 3 1 1 8
hurtful things
Saying bad words, N/A 1 1 2
e.g. cussing,
swearing
Fighting N/A

The most recurring sign of misbehavior was saying bad or hurtful things. A pair of
students had a mark every day, this happened towards one of their classmates. This
stands out because this factor was not highly observed during the first two weeks of
observation. The least recurring signs during this time lapse were speaking in their own
language and deliberately going slow. Now, there were two specific signs of misbehavior
intended to contrast: not doing homework and students’ attitude towards instructions.
Although these signs were still present throughout this week, they were no longer the
two most recurring signs. However, one sign of misbehavior just as alarming (previously
mentioned), arose. Therefore, there was still much work to do.

After working under Harmer’s philosophy of essential actions and reacting towards
disruptive behavior, the instrument was applied for one final week. These were the
results:

Student Student Student 3 Student Student Student Total

1 2 4 5 6

Not standing or N/A

sitting straight
Laughing at N/A 3 3 2 8
inappropriate times
Not using polite N/A 4 4
language when
asking for things
Practical jokes N/A 1 2 3

Making N/A 2 2 4
inappropriate
noises with
classroom objects
Speaking in their N/A
own language when
they should be
using English
Deliberately going N/A 1 1
slow
Not doing N/A
homework
Cheating in games N/A 3 2 5

Not following N/A 2 2

instructions
Refusing to do what N/A 2 2 4
the teacher asks
Doing the opposite N/A 2 2
of what the teacher
asks
Saying bad or N/A 2 2 1 1 6
hurtful things
Saying bad N/A 2 2 4
words, e.g.
cussing, swearing
Fighting N/A

As we can see, not doing homework was successfully contrasted for one week with no
marks for any student. Although the code of conduct was of great guidance, this
achievement was aided by setting goals (a strategy which will be presented more
thoroughly later on in this paper). However, laughing at inappropriate times and saying
bad or hurtful things were still present and were still being directed towards one of the
kids. I talked directly to the two students who were doing this against their classmate
and explained the severity of this. Additionally, expressed I would request to talk with
their parents if the hurtful words continued. Fortunately, bullying did not arise.

Setting Goals
“Motivation is one of the main determinates of second/foreign language learning
achievement.”, Dörnyei (1994). Stefan Thomson argues that young learners are unlikely
to recognize the importance of language use outside the classroom and limit their
practices to school context. This, he mentions, because “They will have little contact with
native English speakers outside of the classroom”. Since children deal mostly with
concrete ideas, abstract notions of integrating with people outside of their culture in the
future will have little or no effect on their motivation.” This may lead to a lack of interest
in learning the language, a disinterest which may gradually trigger misbehavior.
Thomson continues his idea by saying that since young learners are less likely to be
motivated than older learners; it is up to the teachers to develop pedagogical strategies
to aid them. One way this can be done is through setting up goals for the students. With
this in mind and as reference, disruptive behavior could be tackled with a co-operative
strategy formed of a code of conduct and setting goals (see pictures in Appendix 5).

“Oxford and Shearin argue that in order to function as efficient motivators, goals should
be specific, hard but achievable, accepted by the students, and accompanied by
feedback about progress.”, Dörnyei (1994). Taking advantage and best out of the
common misbehavior of not doing the homework, we set the objective of achieving one
day of the week where everyone completed and turned in their homework. This was
planned looking to understand that this goal cannot be achieved unless the continuous
acts of interruption or misbehavior are avoided. A chart was created by the students with
their names on it where each time they brought their homework they would get a
positive checkmark. Once a day is reached with the homework being turned in by all
students, a pizza party will be held as a prize.

The goal was achieved in the first school day of the third week after both the code of
conduct and the homework-chart were put up. One student did not attend during this
time lapse and was no longer considered. In the same way, absences from due dates
were disregarded until every student that was present when the homework was
informed turned in their work. The pizza party created a harmonious environment of a
cooperative achievement. This was greatly celebrated by the children.

Mixed Level Classroom

Penny Ur (1991) argues that no two learners are really alike and homogenous classes
do not actually exist. Sharing this point of view one would not ever expect a tailored
class made up of similar students, yet sometimes face the bumpy situation of a class
with students of uneven proficiency. I have recently encountered a challenge in my
workplace where a pair of students, coming from two levels higher, joined my three
students who began in March of last year. This, with the compliance and understanding
of the two incorporated students that they would join a group with less time learning
English. Regardless of this and moreover, they did not want to stop practicing the
language due to the fact that their group had been discontinued.

The challenge of teaching a group of mixed proficiency students is mainly that they may
not learn because of feeling bored or lost. If time is spent teaching the beginner basics,
the more advanced students may begin to get bored. In the same way, if you begin to
focus on more advanced themes, the beginning students may eventually be lost.
Fortunately, there exists a number of tools to tackle this problematic. For example, the
resources mentioned earlier provided by the English Educators Blog “FluentU”. As well,
such as stated in the beginning, we will begin to work on this case by applying an exam
to the students to have a general picture of their proficiency in English. The exam was
retrieved from the webpage EnglishTag. They have a catalogue of exams available
ranging from A1 to C2. The one selected was the A1 seeing that this is the CEFR level
which the beginning students are managed to reach and the level which the new coming
students should have already achieved. (See Appendix 6). The specific use of this exam
will be parallel to the original achievement test that is applied by the norms of the school
respectively.

The test was modified and adapted from the original to be divided in 5 segments. The
first two segments evaluating Grammar, the next two evaluating Vocabulary, and the
final one evaluating the use of prepositions of place. The highest possible result in the
test is of 56 points. These were the results: The two new coming students got a score
higher than 90%, with 51 and 55 points respectively. The three students who belonged
to the initial group got a score lower than 80% with 39, 41, and 43 points respectively.
All the students with a grade lower than 80% had trouble in the second Grammar
section converting affirmative sentences into negative, especially with the use of the
third person. Furthermore, the correct use of the prepositions of place was not
satisfactory even from one of the new coming students. Taking into account that the
exam was designed with an A1 CEFR level and considering the results, the conclusion
is that the two new coming students practically met such standard of proficiency. The
three students from the original group placed in a satisfactory midpoint yet seems low
when placed in parallel to the other results. These five students will be studying in the
same group, so further action must be taken.

Looking at the results, we can safely say that the group is formed of two students being
more advanced than the other three. Now, as mentioned in the beginning, we will begin
to use the strategies that were stated. The first one being to use strategic seating. So,
the blog mentions there are three ways to do this: buddy system (one advanced student
with one beginning student), mixed-level group (where in a small group of four or five
students of the same level there is one of the other level), and same-level groups. These
last two techniques appear to be especially effective in a large class. Since my group is
formed of only five students the use of this strategy will take into account the students
present on the day of the session.

Moreover, further action is to design tasks with mixed levels of complexity such as
stated before and being guided by Marilyn Abbott’s presentation of such strategy. The
factors to take into account are linguistic complexity, cognitive complexity, and
communicative stress. This, considering the students result in their proficiency test. The
following is the rationale behind the lesson plan created to work with this group. Before
this lesson, students had been working on the same tasks. Since the pair of new coming
students had already completed the tasks on their book before, they were simply asked
to help the other three students. However, this resulted in them not having a task for
themselves to work on as well. After the lesson, it is intended to have all students
working on the task. This, with different levels of complexity. A language objective was
set for the lower proficiency students as well as for the higher ones respectively. This in
contrast to previous lessons where there was only one language objective for all
students. Although the goal was kept the same, “to compare people”. During the warm
up, students were paired with a peer of different proficiency. Regardless of this, my role
was to facilitate the process by eliciting questions could be asked and writing them on
the whiteboard for all. Concept checking took place, but this time after the first question
and using it as an example, allowed the higher proficiency student to formulate more
questions to check understanding from the lower proficiency student. Regarding the
main task, which was a listening activity, the task’s complexity was modified by creating
five open questions about the same dialogue. The original task to be answered and
included in the textbook is to check all true statements. The activity was kept this way for
the original group of students; however, before checking all answers, they were also
challenged to answer the five added open questions aimed for the higher proficiency
students - a challenge which some students openly took. Finally, to link the students
back and as practice, they were instructed to express each other’s similarities and
differences using their initial annotations from the warm-up activity. The homework and
follow-up was a series of sentences like they had done with their peers but now of one
of their family members. (See Lesson Plan on Appendix 7)

The result of the use of this strategy was satisfactory in the sense that the group
practiced their skills in parallel. The new coming students were enthusiastic to have
another task to work on regardless that they had already completed the one included in
their book. In the same way, the three students from the original group completed the
task in a satisfactory manner and accepted the open question challenge. In this way,
tackling the rising situation of the students being bored or lost respectively.

Finally, the periodic achievement test that is applied to all groups was used to measure
gaps between the proficiency of all students after action was taken. The desired
objective is to find little to no gap to show that actions taken were somehow efficient.
The Top Notch 1 - Unit 4 exam is designed to an A1 CEFR level. Therefore, the two
higher proficiency students were expected to pass it smoothly due to them coming from
a higher level. As for the three lower proficiency students, the objective was to get
results from them not far from their other two classmates, showing that working with
higher proficiency classmates was not a problem. However, satisfactory results were
also expected because this is their original level. These were the results out of 33
possible points from the exam: The two higher proficiency student both got a passing
grade and higher than 90%, 30 and 33 points respectively. The three lower proficiency
students all got a passing grade and higher than 80%; 27, 29, and 32 points
respectively. As we can see, one of the students from the original group who started out
as having a lower proficiency than the two new-coming students got a grade in the same
range as them. The other two students considered as of lower proficiency did not stay
behind and got a satisfactory grade as well.

In order to measure the undesired gap that exists between both group of students, the
following chart was done. The chart shows the results of the initial proficiency test and
the average point difference between both group of students. In the same way, it shows
the results of the lasts achievement test along with the average point difference between
the same. The main objective when taking action was to reduce this gap and getting
high grades from all students.

Proficiency Test Average Achievement Test Average

Student 1 39/56 69% 29/33 88%
Student 2 43/56 76% 27/33 81%
72.6% 88.6%
Student 3 41/56 73% 32/33 97%

Student 4 51/56 91% 30/33 91%

94.5% 95.5%
Student 5 55/56 98% 33/33 100%

There is a difference of 21.9 points between both groups of students in the proficiency
test. That gap was reduced to 6.9 points in the achievement test. The students who
started with lower proficiency got closer to those with higher proficiency. Meanwhile, the
higher proficiency students did not lower their performance. This represents a positive
outcome to the challenge of dealing with a mixed level classroom, preventing the
students to feel bored or lost.

Vocabulary Retention
This case is a Saturday only group with vocabulary retention difficulties. They usually
have many vocabulary doubts during their periodic achievement test and very rarely
make use of such words afterwards. The objective with this group of teenage students is
to ease their experience with the vocabulary section in their periodic achievement test
and to facilitate the retention of such words for further practical use.
As mentioned before, the way to do so is by using vocabulary games to enhance their
proficiency in vocabulary. This, with the previously discussed idea that vocabulary
knowledge and use brings up the ability to convey a message with ease and
comprehensibility. A series of vocabulary games will be designed and/or adapted to aid
students in their vocabulary retention. To begin to do so, first we have to display the
students’ performance regarding their attainment of words seen during the most recent
unit. This will be shown using the results of the vocabulary section of their periodic
achievement test. Within and before this phase, occasional vocabulary games took
place in the classroom. Moreover, and most significant, such games had not been
subject to selection or considered for their suitability.

These are the results.. The results of the exams will be displayed here. After that, Im
planning to begin using suitable games until the next exam. (Im going to show those
games on the lesson planes too.) The results of the next exam will be compared to the
first in order to conclude this third case.

References Commented [V1]: Font size

 Crystal. D. (2003) English as a Global Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press. Pg. 3
 Rosenberg, M. (2017, September 23) What Countries Have English as an Official
Language? Retrieved October 2018, from ThoughtCo.:
https://www.thoughtco.com/english-speaking-countries-1435414
 Graddol, D. (2000) The Future of English? UK: The British Council. Pg. 10
 Richards, Jack C. & Rodgers, Theodore S. (1986) Approaches and Methods in
Language Teaching. UK: Cambridge Language Teaching Library. Pg. 14
 Anthony, E. (1963) ELT Journal, Volume XVII, Issue 2, 1 January 1963, Pages
63–67
 Celce-Murcia, M. (2014) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (4th
Edition). USA: National Geographic Learning. Pg. 4
 Kelly, L. G. (1969) Twenty-five Centuries of Language Teaching. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House
 Howatt, A. P. R. with A. G. Widdowson (2004). A History of English Language
Teaching (2nd Edition). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
 Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
 Nunan, D. (1989) Understanding Language Classrooms: A guide for teacher-
initiated action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
 Shin, J. (2014) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (4th Edition).
USA: National Geographic Learning. Pg. 551
 Piaget, J. (1963) The Language and Thought of the Child. New York, NY: W.W
Norton.
 Harmer, J. (2007) The Practice of English Language Teaching 4th Edition.
Pearson Longman. Pg. 81
 Idem pg. 380
 Idem pg. 229
 Yu, M-C. (2006) The effects of age on starting to learn English. Modern English
Teacher 15/2. Pg. 53
 Cameron, L. (2003) Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children.
ELT Journal 57/2.
 McLeod, S. A. (2018, May 03). Erik Erikson's stages of psychosocial
development. Retrieved on November 2018 from
https://www.simplypsychology.org/Erik-Erikson.html
 ESL Kid stuff. (2012, November 29th) Dealing with Bad Behavior in an ESL Kids
classroom. Retrieved on November 2018 from:
https://www.eslkidstuff.com/blog/classroom-management/dealing-with-bad-
behavior-in-an-esl-kids-classroom
 “Disrupt” definition retrieved on November 2018 from: https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/disrupt
 “Disruptive” definition retrieved on November 2018 from:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/disruptive
 Thomson, S. Teaching Young Learners: Adapting the classroom for YELLs.
University of Birmingham. Retrieved on November 2018 from:
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-
artslaw/cels/essays/younglearners/ThomsonYL.pdf
 Khasinah, S. (2017) Managing Disruptive Behavior of Students in Language
Classroom. Universitas Islam Negeri-Ar Raniry Banda Aceh, Indonesia: Englisia.
Retrieved on November 2018 from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322711531_MANAGING_DISRUPTIVE
_BEHAVIOR_OF_STUDENTS_IN_LANGUAGE_CLASSROOM
 Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and Motivating in the Foreign Language
Classroom. The Modern Language Journal.
 Clark, M. (2011, March 2nd). Handling Mixed-Proficiency EFL Classrooms.
BridgeTEFL. Retrieved on December 14th, 2018 from:
https://bridge.edu/tefl/blog/handling-mixed-proficiency-efl-classrooms/
 Roberts, M. (2007). Teaching in the Multilevel Classroom. Retrieved on
December 14th, 2018 from:
http://www.pearsonlongman.com/ae/download/adulted/multilevel_monograph.pdf
 Ur, P. (1991). A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
 FluentU English Educator Blog. Make It Happen: 5 Strong Strategies to Teach
Different Levels of ESL Students at Once. Retrieved on December 17th, 2018
from: https://www.fluentu.com/blog/educator-english/different-levels-of-esl-
students/
 Abbott, M. L. (2018, February). Designing classroom tasks for classes with mixed
levels of students. Western Canada Language Training Learning Event,
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Edmonton, Alberta. PDF
Presentation retrieved on December 17th, 2018 from
 https://www.norquest.ca/NorquestCollege/media/pdf/media-
centre/events/2018/WCLTL/Day-1/Dr-Marilyn-Abbott.pdf
 Level Test A1 retrieved and modified from
http://www.englishtag.com/tests/level_test_elementary_A1.asp
 Vygotsky, L. S. (2000). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 Nutt, J. (2014) “The use of peer-assisted learning for review presentations in
heterogeneous classes” The Language Teacher volume 38, number 5, pg.42.
 Carlson, G. (2015) Idea Sharing: How to Maximize Participation in a Mixed-level
English Class. Otemae University.
 Holden, W.R (1999). “Learning to learn: 15 vocabulary acquisition activities.”
Modern English Teacher, 8(2), 42-47
 Channell, J. (1988) “Psycholinguistic consideration.” In R. Carter & M. Mc Carthy
(Eds) Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 83-97). London, Longman.
 Laufer, B. (1997). “What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: Some intra-lexical
factors that affect the learning of words.” In N. Schmitt., & M. McCarthy (Eds.),
Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140– 155). Cambridge:
CUP.
 Taheri, M. (2014) “The Effect of Using Language Games on Vocabulary
Retention of Iranian Elementary EFL Learners” Journal of Language Teaching
and Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 544-549, May 2014
 Haritha, K & Kalai Arasai, N. (2017) “Effect of Using Word Games in Teaching
English Language Vocabulary among Upper Primary Students” Online
International Interdisciplinary Research Journal Volume-07, Issue-05, Sept-Oct
2017
 Al Masri, A & Al Najar, M. (2014) “The Effect of Using Word Games on Primary
Stage Students Achievement in English Language Vocabulary in Jordan”
American International Journal of Contemporary Research Vol. 4, No. 9;
September 2014
 Lee, J.M. (1996). English Games. The People Publisher, Seoul.
 Hansen, F. A. (1994). Testing Testing: Social Consequences of the Examined
Life. University of California Press, California.
  Freeman, D.L. (1986) Teaching and principles in language teaching Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
 Richard-Amato, P. (1988). Making It Happen: Interactions in the Second
Language Classroom. Longman, New York.
 Abdikhah, SH. (1998). “The effect of language games on vocabulary
improvement”. Unpublished MA thesis, Tehran: Tarbiat Modarres University.
 Nguyen & Khuat (2003). Learning “ Vocabulary through Games.” Asian EFL
Journal.

Appendix
Appendix 1: Common European Framework for Languages

Level group Level Description

 Can understand and use familiar everyday

expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the
satisfaction of needs of a concrete type.
 Can introduce themselves and others and can ask
A1 and answer questions about personal details such
Breakthrough as where he/she lives, people they know and
A or beginner things they have.
Basic user  Can interact in a simple way provided the other
person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to
help.
  Can understand sentences and frequently used
expressions related to areas of most immediate
A2 relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family
information, shopping, local geography,
Waystage or
employment).
elementary
 Can communicate in simple and routine tasks
requiring a simple and direct exchange of
information on familiar and routine matters.
 Can describe in simple terms aspects of their
background, immediate environment and matters
in areas of immediate need.
 Can understand the main points of clear standard
input on familiar matters regularly encountered in
work, school, leisure, etc.
B1  Can deal with most situations likely to arise while
travelling in an area where the language is
Threshold or
spoken.
intermediate
 Can produce simple connected text on topics that
are familiar or of personal interest.
B  Can describe experiences and events, dreams,
Independent hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and
explanations for opinions and plans.
user
 Can understand the main ideas of complex text on
both concrete and abstract topics, including
B2 technical discussions in their field of specialization.
Vantage or  Can interact with a degree of fluency and
spontaneity that makes regular interaction with
upper
native speakers quite possible without strain for
intermediate either party.
 Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range
of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical
issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of
various options.
 Can understand with ease virtually everything
heard or read.
C1  Can express ideas fluently and spontaneously
Effective without much obvious searching for expressions.
 Can use language flexibly and effectively for
operational
social, academic and professional purposes.
C proficiency or
 Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on
advanced complex subjects, showing controlled use of
Proficient organizational patterns, connectors and cohesive
devices.
 user  Can understand with ease virtually everything
heard or read.
C2  Can summarize information from different spoken
Mastery or and written sources, reconstructing arguments and
accounts in a coherent presentation.
proficiency
 Can express themselves spontaneously, very
fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades
of meaning even in the most complex situations.

Appendix 2: Piaget’s Cognitive Development Stages

Stages Age Range Description

• Identifies object performance, the object still exists

when out of sight.
Sensorimotor From birth to 2
years • Recognition of ability to control onject and acts
intentionally.
• Begins to use language.
• Egocentric thinking difficulty seeing things from other
Preoperational 2 to 7 years
viewpoints.
• Classified objects by single feature i.e. color.
• Logical thinking.
• Recognizes conservation of numbers, mass and
Concrete
 Operational 7 to 11 years weight.
• Classifies objects by several features and can place
them in order.
• Logical thinking about abstract propositions.
Formal 11 years and
• Concerned with the hypothetical and the future.
Operational onward
• Create hypotheses and test.

Appendix 3: Erik Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development

Stage Psychosocial Crisis Basic Virtue Age

1. Trust vs Mistrust Hope 0–1½

2. Autonomy vs. Shame Will 1½-3

3. Initiative vs. Guilt Purpose 3-5

4. Industry vs. Inferiority Competency 5 - 12

5. Identity vs. Role Confusion Fidelity 12 - 18

6. Intimacy vs. Isolation Love 18 - 40

7. Generativity vs. Stagnation Care 40 - 65

8. Ego Integrity vs. Despair Wisdom 65+

Appendix 4: Instrument to identify disruptive behavior (Factors taken and adapted from:
https://www.eslkidstuff.com/blog/classroom-management/dealing-with-bad-behavior-in-
an-esl-kids-classroom)
Student Student Student Student Student Student

1 2 3 4 5 6

Not standing or
sitting straight
Laughing at
inappropriate
times
Not using polite
language when
asking for things
Practical jokes

Making
inappropriate
noises with
classroom
objects
Speaking in their
own language
when they should
be using English
Deliberately
going slow
Not doing
homework
Cheating in
games
Not following
instructions
Refusing to do
what the teacher
asks
Doing the
opposite of what
the teacher asks
Saying bad or
hurtful things
Saying bad
words, e.g.
cussing,
swearing
Fighting
Appendix 5
Pictures of Code of Conduct and Homework Chart

Appendix 6 - Proficiency Test

Retrieved and adapted from:
http://www.englishtag.com/tests/level_test_elementary_A1.asp

A. Choose the correct option

1.
A. Where are you from?

B. What is your from?

C. What from are you?

2. Are you French?

A. Yes, I is

B. Yes he is

C. Yes I am

3.
A. He live on London

B. He live in London

C. He lives in London

4.
A. I don't like coffee

B. I doesn't like coffee

C. I does like coffee

5.
A. He goes to work in bus

B. He goes to work by bus

C. He goes to work by the bus

6.
A. George has very big car

B. George a very big car has

C. George has a very big car

7. Do you speak English?

A. Yes we do

B. Yes we don't

C. Yes they do

8.
A. Look at that house over here

B. Look at that house over there

C. Look at that house under there

9.
A. He Italian, he not Polish

B. He is Italian, he isn't Polish

C. They is Italian, they isn't Polish

10.
A. What do you have breakfast?

B. When do you have breakfast?

C. Where breakfast you?

11.
A. Where is the train station?

B. What is train station?

 C. Where the train station is?

12.
A. Give me the book!

B. The book me give!

C. Give the book me!

B. Put negatives
I like coffee but I don't like tea

1. I drink whisky butt ____________________ rum.

2. He speaks Japanese but ____________________ German.

3. They like Pop but ______________________ Rock.

4. She eats Chinese food but _____________________ Vietnamese food.

5. You play drums but ________________________ guitar.

C. Add these words to each group

Germany brown Swedish seventy June Friday
green twelve Tuesday December Switzerland snow
eight wind February Nineteen Italian Norwegian
orange rain Greek April Sunday Sun

Countries Nationalities Days Numbers Months The Colors

Weather
D. Add correct verbs
1. __________ a book a. ask
2. __________ a letter b. listen
3. __________ to a song c. live
4. __________ at a picture d. work
5. __________ a question e. read
6. __________ English f. speak
7. __________ in town g. look
8. __________ in a bank h- write

E. Fill in the correct prepositions

Options: near / in / on / under

We live _____ New York. _____ The Bowery. We live _____ a big apartment _____ the third

floor. Our building is _____ the library. _____ our apartment is a bakery. We are very happy

_____ our neighborhood.

Appendix 7 – Lesson plan for mixed proficiency group

Lesson Plan
Funglish School Group: Top Notch 1 Julio I. Macias
N. of students: 5 Time: 2 hrs
Context
Before this lesson, students had been working on the same tasks. Since the pair of new
coming students had already completed the tasks on their book before, they were simply
asked to help the other three students. However, this resulted in them not having a task
for themselves to work on as well.
After this lesson, it is intended to have all students working on the task. This, with
different levels of complexity.
Preparation
Theme of the unit: The Extended Family
Goal: Compare people
 Language objective for lower proficiency students: Students will be able to
identify similarities and differences by checking statements that are true.
 Language objective for higher proficiency students: Students will be able to
identify similarities and differences by answering open questions.
Vocabulary: alike; the same; similar; the same kind of; we both; both of us; don’t look
alike; look different; different; but.
Material: Whiteboard; Student Book; Recorder; Tablet with the audio track.
Lesson Delivery, Procedure, and Complexity Modification of the original task
Warm-up: Ss will be asked to annotate their differences as well as their similarities along
with their partner.
T will facilitate process by eliciting which questions could be asked and writing them on
the wthiteboard.
Vocabulary section: Ss will listen and repeat the vocabulary.
Concept checking will take place by assigning names to each character from the
Student Book and T will ask Ss questions, e.g: Does [Krista] like rock music?
Listening comprehension section: Lower proficiency ss will be asked to check the
statements that are true. Higher proficiency ss will be given five open questions to
answer. All students will hear the same interview.
To help lower proficiency students prepare for the listening task, they will be instructed
to read the list of statements before listening to the interview.
The first time through, ss will be asked to only listen for how Lucille and her sister Laura
are alike. The second time, ss will be asked to listen for how they are different.
The task’s complexity was modified by creating five open questions about the same
dialogue. The questions are:
1. How old is Lucille’s younger brother?
2. Who wears glasses all the time, Lucille or Laura?
3. What type of food do they love?
4. Why do they sometimes wear the same clothes?
5. Name one difference.
To conclude, as a group, the answers to the true statements will be checked. To
challenge the lower proficiency students, thy will be asked to try and answer the open
questions as we check them together.
Practice: Using the ss’ initial annotations about the similarities and differences between
them, they will be instructed to express such by using the vocabulary presented.
To facilitate process, an example will be given on the whiteboard.
Follow up/Homework: Ss will be asked to write six sentences stating the differences and
similarities between them and one of their family members.