EFL Student Case Study

(1)

UNIVERSIDAD TÉCNICA PARTICULAR DE LOJA

La Universidad Católica de Loja

NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY

MAESTRÍA EN ENSEÑANZA DEL INGLÉS COMO LENGUA EXTRANJERA

_–

TEFL Program Portfolio

Degree thesis

Author: Kovacic, Mislav

Advisor: Pinza Tapia, Eliana Ivanova, Mgs

(2)

CERTIFICATION

Mgs. Eliana Ivanova Pinza Tapia THESIS ADVISOR

CERTIFIES THAT:

The following research work developed by Mislav Kovacic has been thoroughly

revised. Therefore, authorizes the presentation of the thesis, which complies with all the

norms and internal requirements of the Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja.

Consequently, I authorize this presentation for the corresponding legal purposes.

Loja, September, 2012

Signature _____________________________

Mgs. Eliana Pinza THESIS ADVISOR

(3)

AUTHORSHIP

The thoughts, ideas, opinions and the information obtained through this research are the

only responsibility of the author.

Date, September, 2012

___________________________

Mislav Kovacic I.D. 1723198782

Author

(4)

CESIÓN DE DERECHOS

Yo Mislav Kovacic, declaro ser autor del presente trabajo y eximo expresamente a la

Universidad Tecnica Particular de Loja y a sus representantes legales de posibles

reclamos o acciones legales.

Adicionalmente declaro conocer y aceptar la disposición del Art. 67 del Estatuto

Orgánico de la Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja que en su parte pertinente

textualmente dice: “Forman parte del patrimonio de la Universidad la propiedad

intelectual de investigaciones, trabajos científicos o técnicos y tesis de grado que se

realicen a través o con el apoyo financiero, académico, o institucional (operativo) de la

Universidad”.

Loja, September, 2012

______________________________

Mislav Kovacic C.I.: 1723198782

(5)

ABSTRACT

This thesis has two parts. The first part follows the development of one student’s writing

skills. This part starts with a pretest in which the student’s strengths and weaknesses

are analyzed. On the basis of this analysis a plan of action is made to address the

student’s weakness and reach the specified goals. The student’s progress is then

monitored and documented with 8 different artifacts that dealt with her weaknesses. At

the end, a post-test is administered to the student and her progress is analyzed.

The second part of the thesis looks at the NCATE/TESOL standards and how they were

all covered in this Master’s program. This part presents different artifacts which are

(8)

INTRODUCTION

Writing is one of the four core skills that need to be considered in language teaching.

This is also one of the most neglected skills in language teaching in Ecuador. As a result

students often have below average writing skills which inhibit students in a wide array of

writing activities, such as writing emails, essays, reports, etc. This thesis demonstrates

one way of developing this part of language by using a standards based approach

This thesis is part of the master’s program in Teaching English as a Foreign Language.

The primary motivation was to successfully complete the program and to be awarded

the master’s degree in TEFL.

There were two objectives for this thesis. In the first part, the main objective was to use

the knowledge gained in this program into designing a course for one individual and help

them reach their personal goals. The student’s goals were mainly to improve her writing

skills as this is an area which she felt she was lacking in most. Reaching her goals

involved developing and finding appropriate materials based on the initial placement test

and subsequent progress in classes. The student was given 8 classes in which her

progress was documented through the use of different artifacts that were used in

classes.

This was an applied research in which different theories on developing writing skills

were first analyzed and then applied in practice with the student. As was previously

mentioned, there was only one student in the research, making this a case study project.

The main importance lies in the application of different theories and knowledge to help

understand the processes behind second language acquisitions, specifically writing

skills, and aid one student in their development.

The second part had a different objective, and that was to review the program itself and

reflect on the various subjects that were focused on in the last two years.

(9)

subject area. Over the past two years, different standards were met through project work

in this program and this part of the thesis documents how the goal was accomplished.

NCATE/TESOL has eleven different standards, each one within a specific domain. At

least one standard, representing each domain, was selected to present my work and

achievement of the given standard. The objective of this part of the thesis is to

demonstrate our personal development as professionals, as English teachers.

The goals were successfully reached in both parts. In the first part, it is evident from the

post-test that the student had made significant progress towards achieving her goals.

The plan that was designed worked for this student as it addressed her weaknesses and

helped the student advance her language skills, and also build confidence. The second

part illustrates how all the NCATE/TESOL standards were considered in this program

(10)

METHOD

This study involves two parts. In the case study, the learner is a 27 year old professional

from Ecuador who works in tourism. She has studied English before at a local language

institute where she obtained the proficiency certificate from the institute. She also

studied the language in her high school and university. Since graduating from university,

she has not had the opportunity to learn or use the language extensively. As she was

recently promoted to a new position in the company where she works, she has decided

to start studying English again after her five year long pause. The learner is a native

Spanish speaker, but also speaks some French and German.

Prior to starting her classes, she took the placement test which will also be analyzed as

the pre-test. According to the results of this test she was assigned to an A2 Elementary

level. Although her speaking skills were quite high for the level, she did have a low

grammar score which obviously affected her writing skills.

The learner decided to study general English once a week (Saturdays) for 5 academic

hours. Additionally, she also agreed to participate in this project by attending a

one-on-one lesson once a week for one-on-one academic hour. During this time the learner focused

solely on developing her writing skills as that is the skill that is least emphasized in our

general English class.

In the second part, all the NCATE/TESOL domains and their respective standards are

analyzed. This is accomplished through overview of different projects in the Master’s

program in which these standards were achieved. Part of this was done in our last

course, International Applied Professional Experience, while the rest was conducted by

examining all the projects in the past two years and interpreting which standard was

(11)

LITERATURE REVIEW

The first part focuses on the information behind writing acquisition and the second part

of this literature review deals with the NCATE/TESOL standards. These standards are

behind the standards based approach that was used in planning lessons for the student

in the case study. Before this project was started, a review of relevant theoretical

background was completed below.

Definition of writing

In Schmitt’s book (2002) Silva and Matsuda say that in the past writing was not

considered a proper goal of language learning. It was only used as a tool to promote the

learning of speech. Language specialist believed that people who learned to speak

would inevitably be able to write as well. That started to change in the second half of the

twentieth century.

However, according to the same authors, writing still remains one of the least

understood areas in second language acquisition. They state that one of the reasons is

the term writing itself which can refer to many different subjects, such as orthography,

literature or the actual process of writing and essay.

Above all, writing is a complex phenomenon in which writers have to consider the

following: writer, reader, text, and reality in order to construct written discourse

accordingly. Both the writer and reader are more complex than it might seem. According

to Murray (1982) they can be one person or more than one, they can be friends, critics,

teachers, etc. This role will influence the rhetorical structure of the writing piece and the

writer’s discursive identity (Ivanic, 1998).

Reality is another factor which influences the writing process. Silva and Matsuda (2002)

say that because people have a different perspective of reality, the writer has to use the

text to build their own version of reality. This ties to the last factor, text. Each text is

(12)

responds explicitly or implicitly (Bakhtin, 1986). These other texts also provide discursive

features that are often imitated in subsequent writing.

Process and product approaches

There are two main approaches in writing pedagogy nowadays according to Nunan

(1999).They are the process and product approaches. The author states that the

process approaches emphasize the steps students need to follow to write in a second

language, while the product approaches focus more closely on the final product.

Nunan describes the process approaches as ones on which the focus is on quantity

rather than quality. The final products will not be error-free as writers are encouraged to

write without worrying about correctness in the first stages. This is then followed by

different strategies, such as peer-editing and revising, to try to get the final product. The

same author talks about the product approaches as ones in which learners imitate,

copy, or transform models provided by the teacher or the textbook. The main emphasis

is on the sentence and its correctness.

Brown (2001) says that product approaches were dominant in the past when teachers

were mostly concerned with the final product. At the time, final products were expected

to meet certain standards of the rhetorical style, have accurate grammar and have

conventional organization. At the center of this approach was a model which the

students were expected to imitate.

Controlled composition and the paragraph pattern approach are representatives of the

product approaches. Controlled composition was developed within the audiolingual

approach (Silva and Matsuda, 2002) and is therefore viewed as a tool to reinforce oral

habits. In this approach, teachers focused on habit formation and error elimination to

create and reinforce desirable language behavior. Writing is seen as a service activity to

reinforce other language skills and to help language habit formation.

Similarly, in the paragraph pattern approach, emphasis is placed on the importance of

(13)

increasing awareness that writers need to produce extended texts and not just

grammatical sentences. Therefore, the focus is on the paragraph and its elements.

Basically, in this approach, students learn the different patterns and learning to write

involves developing skills in identifying, internalizing and producing these patterns.

On the other hand, Brown (2001) identifies process approaches as ones in which

students learn and focus on the process of writing, including understanding their own

composing process, building writing skills and strategies and focusing on revision and

rewriting. Students should be given enough time to go through their own processes, to

write and rewrite, and the role of the teacher is to give constructive feedback and to

encourage peer correction and editing. Silva and Matsuda (2002) say that teachers

should build an encouraging and collaborative workshop environment, provide enough

time and as little interference to allow students to work on their own strategies and

processes.

Characteristics of written language

According to Brown (2001) written language has the following characteristics that should

be taken into consideration: permanence, production time, distance, orthography,

complexity, vocabulary, and formality. Permanence is one factor which can make the

writing process scary for new learners. Once something is written down in its final

version, the writer loses power over the text and cannot make any changes to it.

Therefore, teachers should try to help students by introducing them to the process of

revising and rewriting early on.

Production time is a factor which implies that most written work has a different time

deadline. This is especially the case in classrooms where students often have limited

time to complete their writing assignments. Brown suggests that some process time

should be sacrificed to help our students achieve their goals.

The following factors are related in that it depends who the readers are. Distance,

complexity, vocabulary, and formality will be different if we are writing for a child or our

(14)

vocabulary will be used and vice-versa. In general, writing places a heavier demand on

vocabulary than speaking does.

Nunan (1999) compares written and spoken language and notes that written language is

context independent, monologic in nature, edited and redrafted, records the world as

things, and lexically dense. He says written language is context independent because

writers communicate across time and distance and the piece of writing has to recreate

the context for the readers. It is usually monologic because it is written by one person.

Finally and as previously mentioned, the lexicon is more complex and contains more

content words as nouns carry most of the meaning.

In addition to the mentioned characteristics, we also have to consider genre in writing

processes. Harmer (2007) says that writing is extremely genre-bound. Writers are bound

by certain characteristics that belong to the discourse community and which are

considered specific to the genre. For example, an advertisement will look very different

from an essay and both are easily recognizable due to their characteristics.

Contrastive rhetoric

Contrastive rhetoric is based on an article published by Robert Kaplan in 1966. He

stated that different languages have different patterns of written discourse which might

make learning writing skills more difficult for some cultures than others. For example,

while English writers tend to get straight to the point, Chinese writers will spiral around

the point, making it difficult for Chinese learners to learn the proper English discourse.

This theory has been criticized recently. Brown (2001) says that there were serious

problems in Kaplan’s study. Kaplan did not have an English control group in his study;

he based his conclusions on style manuals. Furthermore, the study was overgeneralized

as his conclusions were applied to all English writers and to all oriental languages.

Obviously, there are many differences in the Oriental languages and such

generalizations seriously undermined his conclusions. Leki (1991) continues to say that

much of the early work on contrastive rhetoric was intuitive rather than empirical.

(15)

the mistakes they make are not due to their own inadequacies, but they are due to the

contrast between the two languages.

Types of classroom writing

Brown (2001) lists five major types of classroom writing. He begins with the imitative or

writing down type. In this, learners simply copy what is on the board, e.g. English letters,

words, sentences. The goal is for the students to learn the different conventions of the

English language. A perfect example of an activity of this type is the dictation where the

teacher reads a text slowly and the students copy what they hear.

Second type of classroom writing is intensive, or controlled. In it, students are presented

a paragraph which they have to change in some way. This technique is quite useful for

reinforcing grammatical concepts (Brown, 2001). E.g. students may be given a

paragraph and instructions to change all the simple present tense verbs to simple past

verbs. As is evident from the example, this type of writing requires very little, if any,

creativity from the students. Guided writing is similar to controlled but in it, the teacher

does not have as much control. An example of this is an activity in which students watch

a video and then have to write a short summary. The teacher helps by asking guiding

questions such as who the main character is, where the story takes place, etc.

Self-writing is the next type. This is one of the most common activities in all classrooms

as it involves the essential skills of note-taking. What makes this activity different from

the others is that there is no audience, the only person who usually reads this is the

student him or herself. On the other hand we have display writing, and as the name

suggests, this involves everything that will be on display. For instance, short answers,

essays, reports, etc.

Finally, the last type of classroom writing is real writing. This type of writing has three

subcategories: academic, vocational/technical, and personal (Brown, 2001). Academic

writing involves opportunities of conveying information not just to the teacher, but to our

peers as well. This kind of writing is typical in ESP and EAP courses. In vocational

(16)

This type of writing involves real-life skills that students use in their daily routine. The

last one is personal; the main difference usually being its informality as opposed to the

more formal academic and vocational types of writing.

In addition to the previously-stated knowledge, a complete overview of the different

NCATE/TESOL standards is presented in the second part of this literature review. This

shows how the Master’s program helped us evolve into better teachers who are able to

conduct case studies and help students reach their individual goals.

NCATE/TESOL standards

TESOL is the primary source for the development of ESL standards in the United

States. Many states, such as California and New York, used the TESOL standards for

teachers of second and foreign languages.

The NCATE/TESOL standards were developed by TESOL (Teachers of English to

Speakers of Other Languages) after research showed that Interstate New Teacher

Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) did not have any standards that would

be applicable to teaching of second or foreign languages. These standards were first

developed in 2001. There are currently eleven different standards in five domains.

TESOL standards revision

As previously mentioned, the standards were published quite recently (2001), and

therefore the subsequent revision (2005) was more of an update than a rewrite. The

objective remains the same, and that is to prepare teachers for initial license in ESL

teaching. Likewise, they still have the five domains, which are language, culture,

instruction, assessment, and professionalism.

Each standard still has a descriptive rubric (approaches, meets, and exceeds standard)

which help institutions document candidate performance and give suggestions.

(17)

Domain 1. Language

The first domain is related to the actual language and the knowledge, understanding,

and use of major theories of language to help students develop language and literacy in

the content areas. Within this domain we have two standards; they are: language as a

system and language acquisition and development.

In the first one, teachers need to be able to show understanding of language as a

system. This includes knowledge of phonology, morphology, syntax, pragmatics and

semantics. Teachers need this knowledge to be effective teachers because EFL student

needs will differ depending on the cultural background. Furthermore, it is this knowledge

of the language that will help teachers observe similarities and differences between

languages, something that helps teachers understand native language interference and

how it affects students’ acquisition of English. This will also allow teachers anticipate

problems and difficulties students my experience. Finally, comprehensive understanding

of the language they are teaching allows teachers to serve as good models of both

spoken and written English.

The second standard in this domain is language acquisition and development. Teachers

understand the different processes that students undergo in their acquisition of

language. This understanding includes the communicative, social, and constructive

nature of language which teachers can use to build linguistic scaffolding for their

students. Likewise, teachers can show an understanding of the personal and affective

variables to create positive learning atmosphere for all their students in which students

do not fear to use English.

Teachers understand the acquisition process and the factors that influence it, such as

the learner’s age, education, L1, and experience. They are able to relate this to the

theories of language acquisition and design effective lessons which provide optimal

learning input and goals. Understanding the importance of learner’s L1 is particularly

important as this is what sets the foundation for language acquisition and provides the

(18)

Domain 2. Culture

There is only one standard in this domain and it is culture as it affects student learning.

Mastering this domain will involve understanding and using major concepts, principles,

theories and research connected to the role of culture to build positive learning

environments for everyone.

Teachers can show that they can recognize the importance of culture in language

acquisition and they address this issue in practice. Learner’s cultural background needs

to be considered to choose appropriate techniques. If this aspect is not considered, the

results will not be as favorable. Teachers can also recognize potential cross-cultural

conflicts and can act to prevent them and the negative consequences that bring to the

learning environment.

Understanding the learners’ home culture is also important in creating a sense of

community and involving the learners’ families into the process of language acquisition.

This includes knowledge of values, beliefs, roles and status, family structure, learning

styles and modalities, to name just a few. All these factors allow teachers to plan and

design culturally sensitive lessons result in a pleasant learning environment and

instruction.

Domain 3. Planning, implementing, and managing instruction

Teachers who successfully master this domain know and understand strategies related

to planning, implementing and managing ESL/EFL instruction. They are able to teach

using a variety of teaching strategies which develop and integrate language skills and

can accomplish this by using different teaching resources and technology.

The first of the three standards is planning for standards-based ESL and content

instruction. Teachers are able to apply concepts and research to plan classroom

instruction in a supporting environment for learners. This planning includes addressing

(19)

language proficiency. Planning includes specific standards-based objectives, and they

use a number of different techniques to achieve them.

The second standard is implementing and managing standards-based ESL and content

instruction. Teachers know, manage, and implement a range of different

standards-based teaching strategies to develop and integrate English listening, speaking, reading,

and writing. Not only academic objectives are considered, but also a variety of activities

that the learners find relevant and meaningful for their social environment. Teachers

base their lessons on students’ interests to help enhance comprehension and

communication and to reach students’ language development goals.

The final standard belonging to this domain is using resources effectively in ESL

instruction. Teachers show familiarity with a wide range of materials, resources, and

technology, and use them effectively in their classroom. This allows them to choose

appropriate, motivating and culturally sensitive materials to help their learners achieve

their objectives. The materials may come from one of the following sources: ESL

curricula, trade books, textbooks, online multimedia, the Internet, etc.

Domain 4. Assessment

This domain has three standards in which teachers demonstrate understanding of

issues and concepts of assessment. Furthermore, they are able to use the same in their

classrooms.

The first standard is issues of assessment for English language learners. Teachers

understand a range of different assessment issues, such as accountability, bias,

language proficiency, etc. One issue that teachers should be familiar with is the different

purposes of assessment and its basic concepts. More importantly, assessment should

be equitable, accurate, consistent and practical to administer. Furthermore, we should

have constant formative and summative testing, and the test tasks should be designed

(20)

Important part of this first standard is also the knowledge of how assessment for native

speakers and ESL/EFL students differ. Assessment may be culturally biased and

therefore invalidate our learners’ results. This can happen if we use pictures with which

our students are not familiar, e.g. a picture of a famous actor if the student does not

have a TV. Linguistic bias is another example, if we enforce only one dialect which

favors some students and does not consider other possibilities. Finally, the last example

related to actual test items, students need to be familiar with possible types of questions

if we are to avoid bias. E.g. we should not include multiple choice question, if our

learners have never seen them before.

The second standard is language proficiency assessment. Teachers can use a variety of

standards-based proficiency instruments to show growth and identify areas that need

more work. They can correctly identify, place, and reclassify language learners by

knowing how to interpret and apply the results in classroom instruction. They can also

use and design a range of different assessment instruments, both formative and

summative.

Finally, the third standard is classroom-based assessment for ESL. Teachers here can

show understanding of the relationship between teaching and assessment and are able

to assess their learners in an integrative way. One method is by creating a student

portfolio which reflects on the student’s progress over time. As this is a collection of

student’s classroom work, it allows unbiased assessment. Teachers also understand the

value of assessment using rubrics, self-assessment, and peer-assessment to promote

self-learning.

Domain 5. Professionalism

The last domain deals with professionalism and how teachers need to keep current with

the new advanced in the field. This information should then be used to improve their

(21)

The first standard is ESL research and history. We need to be able to demonstrate

knowledge of history and current educational policies to design effective instruction for

their learners.

The second standard is professional development, partnership, and advocacy. Teachers

need to be able to take advantages of professional growth opportunities and serve as

one of the pillars of their community by building partnerships with the parents,

(22)

CHAPTER I: EFL STUDENT CASE STUDY – A CASE STUDY OF AN

EFL WRITING STUDENT

Pretest

The pretest used was the standard EF placement test

(http://www.englishtown.com/partners/coef/checkout/register.asp) which tests the

following skills: grammar, reading, and listening. This was followed by a 10 minute

speaking test which is also standardized and in it the interviewer asks set questions to

determine the right level for the student. Finally, as writing section had to be added to

determine the areas where the student needs most help.

As is evident from the results of the placement test, the student is an elementary student

with above level scores in her reading comprehension and speaking abilities. The oral

interviewer determined that she was at a high elementary level of English at the time of

the test. However, it is also noticeable, from the writing pre-test, that this student has not

used English for a long time and that her grammar suffered as a result with obvious L1

interference problems.

The student was asked to write 5 sentences stating why learning English is important to

her to determine her ability to write in English. The student was given 5 minutes to

complete this task. She made several errors which are typical for Spanish speakers at

this level, e.g. omission of subject pronouns and overuse or omission of articles. The

levels of vocabulary and grammar complexity were also surprisingly low. This pretest

clearly identified areas of weakness which were focused on in the lessons with the

(23)

Name:

Date: 13/03/2012

This student took the HIMA Adaptive test.

The HIMA Adaptive Test is highly accurate, since each question is weighted according

to difficulty. Therefore, only the resulting % of each section is important. Students may

have different % for receiving the same number of correct and incorrect questions, so

those values are not shown

Correct Incorrect Blank Score

Overall score: 17 13 0 33%

Grammar: 4 6 0 21%

Reading: 7 3 0 45%

Listening: 6 4 0 32%

Writing:

Recommended level: A2 Elementary

Adaptive Test results (Overall %) New Real English CEF Level

0 - 25% A1 Beginner

26 - 39% A2 Elementary

40 - 55% B1 Intermediate

56 - 74% B2 Upper-Intermediate

75 - 99% C1 Advanced

(24)

(25)

Artifact #1

Based on the results and analysis of the pretest, I have decided to focus on correcting

grammar errors first. My assumption was that because the student studied English in the

past, she would not need extensive grammar explanations, but just simple reminders as

to certain grammar rules.

The student was reminded that sentences in the English language need a subject and

that often these are in the form of subject pronouns. In this first stage she was also

instructed to start her sentences with a subject pronoun and a simple sentence was

taught (subject+verb+complement).

Furthermore, we reviewed the two simple tenses (present and past) and their use. As

suspected, the student had no major problems with these grammar points as she has

seen them several times while she was learning the language and scored perfectly in

this artifact. However, multiple errors were seen in the use of object pronouns and

(26)

(27)

Artifact #2

In the second lesson, and as a result of the first artifact, I emphasized the different

pronouns in the English language. This is one area which causes problems quite often,

even at higher levels. This is probably due to the fact that object pronoun do not exist in

the Spanish language.

I explained the different pronouns, i.e. subject and object, and followed that by

administrating the worksheet. In it, the student had to fill in the blanks with the correct

pronoun.

At the end of the class, the student showed comprehension of the different kinds of

pronouns in the English language. The only problem student had was with pronouns

following the preposition to, she thought this preposition is followed by a subject

(28)

(29)

Artifact #3

In this lesson we covered the compound sentences. The student was introduced to the

most common conjunctions like and, but, or and their uses. She was also instructed in

the use of comma with compound sentences.

At the end of the lesson, the student was asked to fill out the below worksheet to check

her understanding of the topic. As is evident from the worksheet, the student

(30)

Artifact #4

This lesson was planned to focus on order of adjectives in the English language. Even

though this student did not show that this is problematic in her artifacts, I noticed in our

classes that she did sometimes make the mistake of using the adjective after the noun.

This, coupled with my professional experience, made me realize it is something that is

important to focus on and prevent fossilization of this error.

The student was first explained the correct order of adjectives. Subsequently, she was

given a worksheet in which she had to write simple sentences with given adjectives in

the correct order. The student had no difficulties completing this task. There were only

two errors with articles, one which is typical for Spanish speakers an small because they

(31)

Artifact #5

Another common error is the use, omission or overuse, of both definite and indefinite

articles. This artifact was designed to address this problem and explain their usage.

After a thorough explanation the student was given the below worksheet. The first part

focuses on the use of indefinite articles, while the second part focuses on the use of

definite articles. Subsequently the student had to match the rules to the example. There

were no obvious difficulties for the student in the first part, but she did struggle with

(32)

(33)

Artifact #6

In this lesson, the focus of instruction switched from grammar to the writing process. The

first part of the lesson was reviewing the previous 5 lessons, and after that, the student

was told to write a short essay to an assigned prompt.

The purpose of this assignment was to evaluate student’s strengths and weakness as

far as her writing organization goes. The student had to write at least 10 sentences. The

topic of the essay was routine and habits and as suspected, the student had problems

organizing her essay and there was no paragraph format. She simply wrote 9 sentences

(34)

Artifact #7

Based on artifact #5, the rest of the time was spent teaching the student how to improve

her writing and the process behind it. For this lesson, I decided to focus on paragraphs.

From my experience, many Ecuadorians have problems organizing their written work in

paragraphs and usually struggle with topic sentences. In this lesson and after explaining

how to successfully write paragraphs, the student had to match the topic sentences with

(35)

Artifact #8

In the last lesson we reviewed the writing process. The student was introduced with the

concepts of brainstorming, drafting, revising, proofreading and rewriting. Exercises that

deal with the concepts were designed in the worksheet below.

The student had some difficulties with the concepts of brainstorming and drafting, but

that was most likely due to not being used to these concepts. At the end of the lesson it

appeared the student managed to grasp the five concepts. The worksheet only included

(36)

Student self-evaluation

According to the self-evaluation, the student had very low self-esteem when she first

joined our school. As she did not use the language for a period of five years, she felt that

it would be extremely difficult to learn everything again. Fortunately, that was not the

case with this student, and as she realized this her self-esteem rose at the end of the

course.

The student understands that she still has a lot to learn and with her new position she

feels that time might be a problem in the future. Hopefully, it will not be a problem she

will not be able to solve as she is on the right track of achieving written fluency.

She found the steps we covered in lesson eight quite useful and plans on using them in

the future. Another point is that she plans on reading more in English which will be quite

(37)

(38)

Post-test

In the post-test, the student was presented with a similar task as the one she found in

the pretest. The task was to write a paragraph on the importance of the English

language in her life. This was a timed exercise; the student was given 20 minutes to

complete the task as I did not want to rush her and get the results which would be

affected by lack of time. She was instructed at the beginning of the class that she would

need to apply everything that was covered in the two-month period to this writing

assignment.

The post-test undoubtedly shows improvement over the pretest. Sentence structure is

used correctly, although some instances of L1 interference still exist (word order). The

paragraphs are also structured properly. Obviously, because of the low level the student

started with, some areas, like vocabulary and grammar, will still need to be improved,

but overall the student is on the right track to achieve her goal of being able to write in

English. I was surprised to see that article use remained a problem for this student, even

(39)

(40)

CHAPTER II: STANDARDS BASED POSITION PAPER

In this paper TESOL/NCATE standards have been used to analyze how the MS

program has been directly applied to my daily responsibilities as an English teacher. All

five of its domains and its corresponding standards have been examined.

Domain 1. Language

Standard 1.a. Language as a System

Candidates understand the English language as a complex system involving phonology,

morphology, syntax, pragmatics, and semantics and can use this understanding to help

their students in their language acquisition.

Artifact for Standard 1.a: Language as a System

Name of Artifact: Cambridge Advanced English Test Results

(41)

Rationale:

As part of Standard 1.a, candidates have to demonstrate proficiency in English and

serve as a good language model for their ELLs (1.a.4.). Therefore, I have decided to

improve knowledge of the English language and certify my results by taking different

EFL exams. The first one we had to take was the TOEFL exam to get accepted into the

program and since then I have also taken Cambridge ESOL CAE exam.

As the artifact clearly shows, I achieved exceptional marks in all 4 language skills and

passed with Grade A, which gives me the equivalent of a C2 level on the Common

European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Level C2 is the highest level

on the CEF and this shows that I possess the sufficient language skills which are

necessary to model the language for ELLs in both spoken and written English.

Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and development

Candidates can use different methods to aid their ELLs’ language achievement. They

can do this by using their knowledge and understanding of different theories and

research in language acquisition and development.

Artifact for Standard 1.b: Language Acquisition and Development

Name of Artifact: 4 Lesson Plans

Date: August 2011

(42)

Rationale:

Through these lesson plans I have demonstrated understanding and applying

knowledge of the role of individual learner variables in the process of learning the

English language (indicator 1.b.5.). The lesson plans use different approaches and

(43)

The lesson plans include scaffolding the language for the learners to aid their

comprehension and production while taking into account the different personal and

affective variables that affect language acquisition. Therefore, we have activities that

focus on developing linguistic, intrapersonal, interpersonal intelligences, among others.

This provides individualized language and content learning goals.

Domain 2. Culture

Standard 2. Culture as it affects student learning

Candidates know and understand the different principles, and the role of culture behind

language acquisition. They can use this knowledge to construct supportive learning

environment.

Artifact for Standard 2.: Culture as it Affects Student Learning

Name of Artifact: Professional Experience

Date: April 2010 – Present

Rationale:

Indicator 2.e. says that candidates will understand and apply concepts about the

interrelationship between language and culture. I have achieved this goal indirectly in

my current job. As the person in charge of hiring new teachers, I try to hire teachers

from different English-speaking countries so that they can transmit their knowledge and

the interdependence of language and culture.

At any given time, we have teachers from at least 4 different English-speaking countries.

Furthermore the material we use at EF is a combination of different English accents and

(44)

Domain 3. Planning, implementing, and managing instruction

Standard 3.a. Planning for standards-based ESL and content instruction

Candidates can use their knowledge to plan a standards-based class. Concepts,

research, and best practices are involved in this process.

Artifact for Standard 3.a.: Planning for Standards-Based ESL and Content Instruction

Name of Artifact: Project Plan

Date: February 2011

(45)

(46)

Rationale:

Students’ needs are assessed and a class is planned based on the results of the

(47)

In this assignment we had to design our own class for adults, in this case business

oriented class. ELLs’ needs had to be assessed first and based on that a class was

designed. Activities are student centered and the role of the teacher is that of an aid and

not an all-knowing authority.

Standard 3.b. Implementing and managing standards-based ESL and content instruction

Candidates can implement different strategies to develop ELL skills of listening, reading,

speaking, and writing. They use academic content to achieve these goals.

Artifact for Standard 3.b.: Implementing and Managing Standards-Based ESL and

Content Instruction

Name of Artifact: Goals and Outcomes

Date: September 2010

(48)

Rationale:

In this assignment we were asked to consider the goals and outcomes of a course we

designed. In my case, I designed an IELTS course which obviously had to focus on

academic development of the four language skills and the way to improve them.

Indicator 3.b.2. was accomplished in this task.

Language was view with a goal to achieve ELLs’ language and personal developmental

goals. Activities that develop authentic use (university surroundings) of the language

were developed and students were given access to content-area learning objectives

(online studies).

Standard 3.c. Using resources and technology effectively in ESL and content instruction

In addition to standard teaching materials, candidates are also able to use a variety of

new technology to achieve their goals. Technology like the DVD, Internet and computers

(49)

Artifact for Standard 3.c.: Using Resources and Technology Effectively in ESL and

Content Instruction

Name of Artifact: Technology

Date: January 2012

(50)

Rationale:

Candidates can select challenging, interesting, and motivating materials to support

student learning. They can find a wide range of nonprint resources, such as websites

(51)

In course 530 we examined different tools that are available on the Internet to meet our

learners’ language and content learning needs (indicator 3.c.4.). Websites such as

Google+, wikis, Twitter and Blogs were investigated and we were able to enhance,

create and adapt materials for our learners.

Domain 4. Assessment

Standard 4.a. Issues of assessment for English language learners

Candidates can demonstrate understanding of the different processes that affect

assessment; they can explain these to the members of their community and participate

in groups to design new tests.

Artifact for Standard 4.a.: Issues of Assessment for English Language Learners

Name of Artifact: Kinds of Tests and Testing Effects on Teaching

Course: TEFL 547 Testing and Evaluation in TEFL

(52)

Rationale:

Candidates can show an understanding of different exams and their purposes (indicator

(53)

In this artifact different Cambridge ESOL (KET, PET, FCE, CAE, and CPE) were

analyzed. Their strengths and weakness were presented and based on this a decision

can be made on the best exams to use in the classroom. Testing effects were also

examined, such concepts as backwash, reliability and validity.

Standard 4.b. Language proficiency assessment

Candidates can make informed decisions on language assessment. They can use

assessment to properly identify and place ELLs.

Artifact for Standard 4.b.: Language Proficiency Assessment

Name of Artifact: Placement testing at EF

Date: October 2010 – Present

Rationale:

Candidates need to show understanding of national requirements for ELLs (indicator

4.b.1.), identifying their entrance and exit levels from the program. Informed decisions

(54)

My professional experience has me involved in placement testing on a daily basis. Not

only is this something that is done for students at the place where I work, but it is also

done for large corporations, public schools and the Ministry of Education. Therefore, I

need to show an understanding of national requirements, procedures and instruments to

be used for the tasks of identifying ELLs’ entry and exit levels.

Standard 4.c. Classroom-based assessment for ESL

Artifact for Standard 4.c.: Classroom-Based Assessment for ESL

Name of Artifact: Assignment 3 for TEFL 547

(55)

Rationale:

Candidates show awareness in the use of language assessment to identify weaknesses

and areas where work is needed. The results of this assessment can then be analyzed

(56)

In this artifact a pretest was designed to identify areas of weakness for one ELL. The

results were examined and subsequently a lesson was designed to focus on these

areas. Finally, after this lesson, another posttest was administrated which showed

favorable results of the lesson.

Domain 5. Professionalism

Standard 5.a. ESL research and history

Candidates are able to conduct their own research and can demonstrate knowledge of

both historical and present educational policy. They can apply this knowledge to their

personal practice in their daily duties.

Artifact for Standard 5.a.: ESL Research and History

Name of Artifact: Concept Paper – Native Language Interference in Speakers of

Spanish

Date: July 2011

(57)

(58)

(59)

(60)

(61)

Rationale:

Indicator 5.a.3. is met in this artifact because it is demonstrated that classroom research

can be read and conducted. In this artifact, native language interference is analyzed with

(62)

The artifact starts with a theoretical background where it is shown that historical

research can be read. This is then followed by research work which included designing

the questionnaires, selecting the candidates and conducting the interviews. The results

were then analyzed and based on the results of this research, the teaching techniques

used up to that point were modified to address the problems of native language

interference with an aim to limit future L1 interference.

Standard 5.b. Professional development, partnership, and advocacy

Candidates have to demonstrate that they can take advantage of professional growth

opportunities and well as the ability to serve as advocates for issues affecting EFL.

Artifact for Standard 5.b.: Professional Development, Partnership and Advocacy

Name of Artifact: International Standards and How to Implement Them

(63)

(64)

(65)

(66)

(67)

(68)

Rationale:

Candidates have to show they can advocate for appropriate instruction and assessment

by sharing their knowledge with both colleagues and parents. They have to provide

support for teachers, administrators, and families as they make decisions in the school

and community (indicator 5.b.7.).

I have organized a series of conferences for EFL teachers and school administrators on

the importance of international standards in EFL assessment. This is a seminar that has

been presented to over 100 teachers and administrators, as well as 200 parents over

the course of 3 months, and which has so far yielded positive results in that more than

10 school and 5 universities, country-wide, have decided to switch to Cambridge ESOL

(69)

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EFL student case study

Based on the results of her progress, this student is highly motivated as she

understands that this is a skill she will need more and more in her professional career.

Her goal is to eventually get a job in another country where she will need to use English

every day. Currently she is at an A2 level and will need to go up to at least a B2 level to

achieve this goal. At the current pace, it will take her around a year to do this so the only

worry is the issue with time she mentioned in the self-evaluation.

As she has had one-on-one classes for the past two months, she must also decide if this

is something she wants to continue. As previously mentioned, she is studying in a group

class on Saturdays, but the classes do not focus on writing as much as they do on other

skills. If she is not able to continue with her private classes, she will need to talk to the

teacher and they should design supplementary activities for her specifically focusing on

development of writing skills.

Obviously, it is difficult to expect someone to learn everything in a matter of a couple of

months, but I strongly believe this student more than capable of achieving her goals with

a little guidance from her next teachers. She has all the skills necessary for success and

as her new position will involve her in the language more, her progress will be faster as

well.

I expect her to continue developing her writing skills by practicing at home. She also

mentioned that she will start reading newspapers as well. These are great ways to

improve her skills and the only thing I would recommend is to pay special attention to

(70)

TEFL program portfolio

As witnessed in the second part of the thesis, this program provides invaluable insight

into our own development as teachers. Without realizing, we have started addressing all

the different domains and standards that belong to NCATE/TESOL. This is something

that improves us personally, and also prepares for future teaching jobs, whether they

are here in Ecuador or elsewhere. It is on us now to continue this practice, and if

(71)

REFERENCES

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language

pedagogy (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Essex: Pearson

Education

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in

academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing

pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 123-143.

Murray, D. (1982). Teaching the other self: The writer’s first reader. College Composition

Language, 33, 140-147

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle

Publishers

Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. K. (2002). Writing. In N. Schmitt, (Ed.), An introduction to

(72)

ANNEXES

(73)

(74)

(75)

(76)

(77)

(78)

(79)

(80)

(81)

(82)

EFL Student Case Study – TEFL Program Portfolio

UNIVERSIDAD TÉCNICA PARTICULAR DE LOJA

NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY