Feedback on writing tasks in large classes

This post stems from a conversation I had with my colleague over a pint a few months ago. We were talking about ways of giving feedback on students' writing that are considered sufficient for large classes.

When teachers have a small class of learners to work with, it is relatively easy to give each individual detailed feedback. Some teachers use correction codes, whereas others may provide comments along the lines of 'good points' and 'things to work on'.

In large classes, however, this approach is time-consuming at best and impractical at worst. What I usually do is to read through each student's written work first - it usually takes me a minute or two to read a 250-word essay or article. This gives me a brief idea of a student's strengths and weaknesses. Then I spend another few minutes or so writing my overall comments. In a class of 15 students, it usually takes less than two hours.

To deal with language errors, I select sentences from various students' written work - both good examples and sentences with errors - and compile them in a single Word document. In the next lesson, my students discuss these sentences; they often recognise their own writing! This discussion task is a form of delayed error correction with peer correction in the feedback stage.

IH Journal: Issue 53

To complete my current sub-skills series, I discussed ways of encouraging language learners to use cohesive devices in writing.

Issue 53 makes interesting reading with articles dealing with the latest developments in ELT: artificial intelligence (AI), plural-lingual classrooms, and Brexit's effect on the landscape of ELT in Europe.

How can teachers convert extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation? I've been trying to seek answers to this question, and I've found one in Christopher Walker's article.

Read the IH Journal (Issue 53) here.

Here is the direct link to my article - Developing the Sub-skill of Using Cohesive Devices in Writing.

Encouraging students to use complex sentences in speaking

How can teachers encourage students to use complex, more advanced grammatical structures in speaking?

Over the years, I've come across various classroom ideas ranging from giving students a checklist of target language items to tweaking the task requirements so that students have to produce certain advanced grammatical structures.

I've also heard some teachers complaining about the contrived nature of the above ideas. While these may force students to produce the target advanced grammatical structures in the lesson, students are unlikely to be able to use such structures naturally once they leave the classroom. What's the missing link then?

If language production involves formulation of mental ideas prior to realisation of such ideas with language, teachers need to connect grammatical structures to their use(s).

Here are four ways in which students can use complex grammar or sentences in speaking:

• add information about someone/something using the (non-defining) relative clauses;
• give examples using the conditional structure;
• introduce contrast by using subordination or concession (e.g. Although and Despite), rather than co-ordination (e.g. But and However); and
  
• give opinion using the 'which'-relative clause in the tail part of an utterance.

 

Teaching students with dyslexia

I've just been to a webinar by Boelo van der Pool, who was invited by International House World Organisation to talk about dyslexia and ADHD.

Here are some key ideas I was able to take away:

• Although there is no international agreement on certifying dyslexia, it is believed that around 10-15% of the population have varying extents of this 'learning difference'.
  
  
• Language learners with dyslexia may process information more slowly; they tend to be creative as they think outside the box rather than follow the conventional way of interpreting ideas.
  
  
• To target the way in which dyslexic learners process information, teachers can adapt written texts by:
  
  1. aligning the text left, not justify
  2. using a less fancy font, such as Arial, Tahoma or Verdana
  3. increasing the font size slightly
  4. increasing the line spacing, e.g. 1.5 instead of 1.15
  5. further dividing a text into shorter paragraphs by topic or idea
  6. using a plain, non-white background colour (or recycled paper for the whole school!)
  
  In short, textual information should be presented in a way that is easier for both dyslexic and non-dyslexic learners to locate. (No cramming!)
  
  
• Other techniques that aid dyslexic learners include using visuals to aid learners' understanding of a text and using colour coding consistently.
  

IATEFL Brighton 2024 - Day 3

I only spent half a day at the conference as I had planned for a quick trip to see my mum in Manchester before the working week starts again.

This morning's plenary session was given by Letizia Cinganotto, who summarised some of the recent developments in ELT as well as teaching other languages (LOTE, languages other than English). This acronym is commonly used in Italy but not elsewhere. Despite the clarity of the surrounding context, I suspect that some in the audience might not understand what LOTE stands for and would therefore benefit from a brief explanation. Having said that, one theme that emerged from her talk was the shift towards pluralism in language teaching and learning. In addition to her listing the approaches and the competencies already familiar among the ELT circles, she mentioned several classroom projects under 'plural-lingual' approaches with which her university in Siena had experimented in different countries. She argued against monolingualism and suggested a change of our mindset away from monolingual perspectives. Finally, she made a reference to the PISA 2025 Assessment Framework, which aims to include 'plural-lingualism' as one of the key competencies.

Marianne Jones shared her experiences of dealing with emergent language under the following three approaches/methods: weak-end TBL, strong-end TBL and Dogme. She used a fitting analogy of 'chips' for the target language and 'mayonnaise' for the emergent language. (I personally like salt and vinegar in real life.) She walked the audience through a sample task under each of the two TBL lesson frameworks, explaining her criteria for responding to her students' emergent language: 1) errors leading to miscommunication (i.e. communication breakdown); 2) the lack of 'task'-specific language. Finally, she invited teachers to consider their own filters when it comes to the achievement of learning aims in a lesson. This affects the way in which teachers respond to their students' emergent language in the classroom, if at all. On a personal note, having experimented with all of the above approaches extensively, it was an excellent opportunity for me to compare notes with her. I also found out she had worked as an English language teacher in Rome, Italy, whereas I am based in Milan.