How can I help my eight grade students to speak english while participating in the class?

Texto completo

(1)Universidad Alberto Hurtado Facultad de Educación Pedagogía en Inglés Mary Jane Abrahams – Pablo Silva. Colegio Marista Marcelino Champagnat. “How can I help my eighth grade students to speak English while participating in the class? Gabriela Gauna August, 2015. 1.

(2) Abstract This paper is an action research project that explains the complete process of integrating and improving students’ English speaking skills while participating in class with eighth graders from a vulnerable school located in La Pintana, Santiago de Chile. The main methodologies implemented during this process involve the Krashen’s Input Hypothesis and. group work as part of teaching English as a Second Language and Classroom. Management respectively, which were considered as two important tools to improve students’ participation using L2 in the class. Keywords: Classroom participation, Input Hypothesis, Speaking skills. Este documento es un proyecto llamado Investigación-Acción que explica el proceso completo que integra y mejora las habilidades comunicativas en relación al uso de Inglés en un colegio vulnerable ubicado en la comuna de La Pintana, Santiago de Chile. Las principales metodologías implementadas durante este proceso incluye la Hipótesis del Input Comprensible de Krashen, como también el trabajo en grupo, siendo ellos parte de la enseñanza del Inglés como un Segundo Idioma y la Gestión del Aula, las cuales son consideradas como las principales herramientas para mejorar la participación de los estudiantes en clases usando L2. Palabras claves: Participación en clases, Teoría del Input, Habilidades Comunicativas.. 2.

(3) Index Introduction………………………………………………………… ……………...3 Context……………………………………………………………………………3 Rationale…………………………………………………………………………..6 Literature Review…………………………………………………………………6 Research Methodology……………………………………………………………11 Appendix………………………………………………………………………….16 1.1 Gantt chart…………………………………………………………….17 1.2 Letter of Request School Coordinator ………………………………..18 1.3Letter of Request Care Takers………………………………………….19 1.4Letter of Request Students……………………………………………..20. 3.

(4) Introduction The following document is an action research project that is going to be carried out in a school located in La Pintana, where I am working with eighth grade students while doing my final practicum internship. Furthermore, the intention of this document is to find out a specific answer to a specific issue. Throughout this project, I will show and describe the entire process that this action research involves, where students from 8 grade face troubles th. with participation during the English class. To begin, the context in which the action research is being developed will be described defining its location, payment, number of students and hours of English lessons. Following, a research problem and a research question will be set out and developed, specifying its contributions and relevance. Subsequently, in order to support the research question, a space for literature review will be assigned. The following step to continue with this process is the methodology where the procedures for data collection will be described, so that an analysis of the collected data can be done. Finally, after all the information and results collected, there will be a space for reflections, conclusions and implications the study had at the end of the process.. Context Colegio Marcelino Champagnat is a coeducational school that belongs to the Marist Brothers, and, it is located in the Southern part of Santiago, specifically in La Pintana. This school was founded 25 years ago with the objective to educate by evangelizing the school community (Colegio Marcelino Champagnat, n.d). Regarding. 4.

(5) Students’ caretakers, they live in a vulnerable context where drugs, gunshots and violence are part of their daily lives. At the moment, there are about 2100 students at the school, distributed from Pre – K to 12 grade. Colegio Marcelino Champagnat is a subsidized school, where parents do not th. pay for their children’s education, and the most economically vulnerable group obtains free lunches and weekly snacks. As it was already mentioned, I decided to work on my eighth grade class, made up by 15 females and 20 males, whose ages range from 13 to 14 of age. This particular class group has four hours for the English class, distributed those equally on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Furthermore, regarding English teaching and learning, students start learning the language from 5 grade, with teacher-centered lessons that are and spoken in Spanish th. mostly. As a result, students are not used to speaking the language. Consequently, as lessons are teacher-centered, it does not permit to have a space in which students can express themselves using the language and therefore, improve it. Conversely, during my internship, I have created some space to let my students to practice and use the language. However, although students’ participation is active, this participation is done in Spanish instead of English. As a result, when in some activities students are asked to participate in English, they stay silent and motionless. This, diminishes students’ participation and lessons get stuck in some parts, forcing me to spend more time for some activities than was planned.. 5.

(6) Research Question. The previous description leads us to set a research question: “How can I help my eighth grade students to speak English while participating in the class?”. Rationale With the purpose of building support for this project, the reasons of carrying on with this are basically two; academic and classroom management benefits. In first place, The Ministry of Education has established in the new Bases Curriculares (2012), that the four macro skills of the language (i.e., listening, reading, speaking and writing) should be covered and taught in an integrated manner (p.228), so that students can use the language productively and receptively. Notwithstanding, current approaches in the school are not covering all skills, leaving behind the development of the speaking language skills. Therefore, lessons are not promoting speaking skills as they should, since students do not participate speaking the language. Thus, one of the reasons why this project should continue is because students have to be able to speak the language and consequently, be able to develop the four macro skills as a whole. By having students that express themselves by speaking the language, the dynamic of the class will be improved as well. As students are going to be able to speak and use the target language, tasks and activities within the lesson will not seem affected and become fluent because students will be capable of participating by using their own words and knowledge. Considering the noticeable diminution of students’ participation when tasks are made to be spoken in English, it is impossible to avoid the relevance of this project. Even. 6.

(7) more, if students’ participation in their mother tongue abruptly changes from a coherent speech into a deafening silence. Additionally, this project is important because I believe that it will improve communication during tasks and among students as well, since students are going to be able to understand each other and therefore, to have a more active participation where thoughts, ideas. and. comments. are. going. to. be. built. from. previous. classmates’. participation. Furthermore, I hypothesize that interaction patterns such as student-student and teacher-students will become more fluent and dynamic because students are going to be able to build their own thoughts from what they hear, they will be also able to answer the teacher back when they are asked to speak the language. As was defined in the context, the English Department from this school is not promoting students’ speaking skills. Therefore, this project might bring additional benefits to the English language teaching in this school, since it might motivate English teachers to implement speaking tasks in their lessons and to make a higher use of L2 as well. As a consequence, I expect that teachers will think about a new model for planning their lessons that equally integrate the four skills of the language by teaching them as a whole, and will think of lessons that are more student-centered, rather than teacher-centered. Finally, this research has as a main objective to encourage students to speak L2 in class. Thus, what this research is expecting at the end of the process is to have a more spontaneous participation from students.. In other words, to have a non-rehearsed. participation where students speak using L2, according to what they know and from the opinions they have heard from other classmates.. 7.

(8) Literature Review In the previous part of this document, we have set the problem that regards to students’ lack of participation when they have to speak using L2. To begin with, it is relevant to clarify that this issue does not relate to students’ lack of motivation to participate since they do participate, but using their mother tongue. In this sense, Penny Ur (1996) describes four different types of a successful speaking activity which are; learners talk a lot, participation is even, motivation is high, and Language is of an acceptable level (p.120). In my practice, speaking activities could be considered as effective when students have to participate since they demonstrate eagerness and willingness to speak in the class. However, as students are using only their mother tongue, speaking activities cannot be considered successful. This is a problem that Ur identifies as one of the main issues with speaking activities, the use of mother tongue when participating (p.121). After the time I had to observe, I decided to change the focus of the class to one that is centered on the students rather than on the teacher. Therefore, activities turned to be more communicative where students were required to speak using the L2. I decided to make this change because by sharing ideas and communicating, students can learn more easily and acquire knowledge better. As Howard explains in his book Discussion in the College Classroom “when students verbally interact with the material, the professor and their classmates they are most actively engaged and most likely to be learning and developing thinking skills” (as cited in Reda, 2009, pp. 5). Consequently, as students become involved in the class, they are going to gain a greater motivation and improve their communicative skills (Junn, 1994, p.386). Furthermore, students are going seem benefited academically and with cross-curricular skills. On his book, Howards summarizes the 8.

(9) benefits that speaking in the class might bring, some of which are, on one hand, the development of the capacity for clear communication and the habits for collaborative learning, and on the other , the building of respect for students’ voices and experiences (as cited in Brookfield & Preskill 2005). The previous statement that regards to learning by speaking and participating can be supported also by Long’s (1996) Interaction Hypothesis. According to Long, interaction and negotiation of language become an opportunity to increase vocabulary, and they will also help to make students produce what they know (p. 451). Consequently, as speaking activities and class participation bring along the development of respect and the improvement of communication, they will also make the class to have a positive environment that provides learning through oral communication. For this paper, two themes have been identified as the main tools to overcome the issue on which this research is based. The first one is connected to classroom management and the second one to Second Language Acquisition (SLA), specifically the obtainment of input. First, there are many areas that classroom management covers; therefore, the chosen one directly relates to the identified participation problem, where “it refers broadly to all activities that teachers carry out in the classroom. It aims to promote student involvement and cooperation” (Sanford et al., 1983, cited in Jones and Jones, 2001 p.3). In order to reach the previous definition of classroom management, to carry out effective classroom participation Tomlinson & Cunningham (2003) establish that it is necessary to ensure a consistent and equal participation of every student (p.10). With this, every student will feel equal and secure to participate in class without being afraid of making mistakes. However, this becomes a problem when we consider the number of students in the class. According to Howard (2015), several studies have confirmed a negative relationship between class 9.

(10) size and participation. Therefore, when having 35 students, participation becomes a challenge. Despite the high number of students, Ur (1999) suggests different strategies that might help students to participate. One of them, is the use of group work activities. For instance, if students are asked to get in groups of four, the total number of 35 will be reduced into 9 groups, where communication and involvement will be facilitated, since each group will gather all group members’ opinions. Another strategy that Ur (1999) suggests and that can be complemented with group work activities is to name a monitor in each group that promotes and reminds the use of L2 in the activity while also reporting to the teacher how students’ performance was when using the L2. Apart from classroom management, there is another important area that regards to second language acquisition. In this domain, the concept of input brings along varied tools that can enhanced this current participation issue. In the first place, Gass and Selinker (2008) on their book Second Language Acquisition cited that input refers to what is available to the learner (as cited in Corder 1967). In other words, input refers to the amount of contents that are able for students to acquire. In this regard, if classroom management is effective, the more input is given, the more students can acquire. Going in depth, Krashen (1985) restates the definition of input, defining it as comprehensible input, which it is represented by (i + 1). In this sense, comprehensible input is the language that is heard or read and that is slightly above learners’ current level. Accordingly, “speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause. Speech cannot be taught directly but ‘emerges’ on its own as a result of building competence via comprehensible input” (Gass & Selinker, 2008, p. 309). As was already said, giving enough comprehensible input, will cause the improvement of speaking skills and therefore, of participation. Subsequently, as this research tries to look 10.

(11) for students’ oral production, there is a second element from input hypothesis that regards to. language. productive. skills.. This. is. the. output. hypothesis. which,. “is the act of producing language (speaking and writing) and it constitutes, under certain circumstances, part of the process of second language learning” (Swain, 2005, p.471). Taking these two elements into consideration (i.e., input and output), the strategies that might be used should provide enough comprehensible input, so that students can acquire it and as a result of that, produce it. In summary, students will learn through input (i.e., the exposure to language), output (the production of language) and feedback, in order to produce output in interaction (Gass & Mackey, 2006). In his Input Hypothesis, Krashen (1989) suggests that students “who perform better on vocabulary tests report more free voluntary reading” (p.441). In other words, before production, students previously read something that pre-taught them new vocabulary. Therefore, one of the scaffolding strategies that can be used in this process is to pre-teach vocabulary by listening or reading, before making students participate. Additionally, going back to the use of comprehensible input (i + 1), speaking activities should not be applied for new vocabulary (Scrivener, 2005, p.148). Instead, these activities have to create a balance between what is already known and words that are slightly above students’ current level. To conclude, in order to overcome the identified issue, the strategies to be developed in this process are going to go hand in hand with classroom management techniques, such as group work activities, the acquisition of input and the production of output. Additionally, the use of pre teaching activities by reading and listening, where students can work in groups and all students’ opinions, participation and production, can be equitably considered inside the classroom. 11.

(12) Research Methodology In this section, different methods for the collection of data have been chosen to be analyzed in order to come up with different conclusions. It is expected that, at the end of the process, a final result will overcome the problem that has been identified. In this regard, two main participants have been pinpointed, dividing the data collection process into two parts. The first part corresponds to collecting student’s perspective in terms of class participation and the second, relates to the classroom management skills that the teacher will apply during this process and to how students response towards them. Before starting the process for collecting data, the first step is to send a request letter to the school’s Second Cycle coordinator, in addition to consent forms for students and their caretakers to get the necessary permission to involve them during this process (see Appendix for letter of request). The objective of sending a request letter is to let them know they are being participants of this project, what their roles are and in what activities they are going to be participating along this research. The original idea to start with the collection of data was to make a focus group so that I could know in which conditions students feel better and more confident participating in class. These conditions include group size, type of activities, and modes of group work, among other. However, there was an issue about time that the school did not allow me to start with this process. Therefore, questions regarding group work, are going to be included as part of the closure of every lesson that is going to be filmed. In this regard, these questions will be developed as a whole class discussion, mostly. This, change brings up two important points. A first modification to the plan is that students are going to be asked about pair work or group work after they have. 12.

(13) tried, so that they can speak in relation to what they experienced, and second is that this data will be included in the transcription of the video recordings. As was stated in the previous section, the activities to be applied in this research include the use of group activities. Therefore, this data-collection method might be useful to know well the information stated before and to complement it with the mentioned strategies. Once the teacher has gathered students’ opinions, the next step to follow is the implementation of strategies. For this step there will be two main data-collection tools. One of them is a video recording, so that classroom management techniques and students’ participation can be observed and described according to the objectives this research brings. For this, there will be an observation sheet whose focus is mainly on how students were organized and how this worked through the development of the lesson. Moreover, video recordings will be transcribed so that the use of L2 can be clearly identified. Additionally, I will write a journal after every lesson, where she will include a description of the class, and a reflection considering classroom management and participation. This process will be repeated for every new strategy to be applied. In this regard, it will be possible so see whether there is any progress or not. In the case the strategies mentioned do not have a positive result, regarding the improvement of students’ participation using L2, new ones will be put into practice, starting a new cycle of action research.. 13.

(14) In conclusion, in order to have concrete and valid results, the times students use L2 will be tabulated, where at the end there will be a line graph, so that progress can be demonstrated as a whole, supported also with my personal appreciations from journals. Data Analysis To begin with the data collection process, the first step was to video record the first class which was carefully planned according to what was concluded from the literature review. The learning objective of the first lesson was to create sentences using comparatives. To achieve this, Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (1985) suggests that, production is a result of gaining input beforehand. Therefore, this lesson plan was organized according to this statement, where instead of having the focus on students’ participation, it was focused on students’ language acquisition. Consequently, the grammar rule and vocabulary were presented before practicing. In order to pre teach vocabulary, the first technique that was used –to ensure students’ understanding- was asking students for the meaning of specific words, as shown in box 1.. BOX 1: COMPARATIVES LESSON Teacher: What is the meaning of cheaper? Students: Barato. Teacher: Which one is cheaper? Students: El Rojo. Teacher: What is the meaning of more expensive? Students: más caro. During the English class on October 27th, 2015, Teacher and Students interacting. 14.

(15) After having checked students’ comprehension, a short matching activity was done, where students had to match the pictures with the corresponding adjectives, so that they could acquire the vocabulary needed for this lesson. In this part of the class, less Spanish was used, having an increase in the use of English. However, two types of answers were given from students. On one side, students started to use English but as a result of drilling, since they repeated what I said before. On the other side, there are yes or no questions that were used to check activities. See both uses in boxes 2 and 3.. BOX 2: COMPARATIVES LESSON. BOX 3: COMPARATIVES LESSON. Teacher: Who is bigger here? This one or that one?. Teacher: Who is stronger? This one? Students: No. Students: that one. Teacher: This one? Students: Yes. During the English class on October 27th, 2015, Teacher and Students interacting.. During the English class on October 27th, 2015, Teacher and Students interacting.. The last two activities of the lesson had to do with creating sentences using comparatives with the vocabulary learnt during the class. These activities were done in pairs, and at the end of them, sentences were checked as a whole class discussion, by sharing and giving feedback from students when necessary, as it is possible to see in box 4.. 15.

(16) BOX 4: COMPARATIVES LESSON Teacher: Can you share the second sentence please? Student: The bird is angrier than the pigs. Teacher: Yes! Is that correct? Students: Yes During the English class on October 27th, 2015, Teacher and Students interacting.. As is explained above, it is possible to identify four types of answers when students participate in the class, which are; Spanish, yes or no, drilling and spontaneous answers. The following table shows how many times students made use of every type of answer in this lesson. Table 1 Type of Answers Given by Students when Participating in Speaking Activities Type of Answer Spanish Yes/No Drilling Spontaneous. Amount of answers 20 16 11 7. When observing the previous table, it is important to remind the reader the objective of this research which is mainly to increase the use of English when participating in speaking activities and therefore, having a spontaneous participation. As it is possible to observe in the table, the use of Spanish is the one that leads, followed by yes or no answers, drilling and finally spontaneous ones. These answers go from the easiest to the most difficult ones to perform, since guidance diminishes in order to let students speak spontaneously. Therefore, spontaneous answers in English are the most difficult ones to produce. Although, the spontaneous use of English appeared only a few times, “at the end of it, students perfectly produced what the learning objective of this lesson was” (First 16.

(17) observation, 2015) and also that the majority of the students offered to be volunteers to come to the front and write their sentences on the board, which demonstrates that students understood better and participated more actively during activities. Additionally, to support the progress in this lesson, students also thought that working in pairs was better because if their classmate knew something they did not know, his /her classmate could share it, and therefore learn it. (See appendix for observation sheet). Moving on to the next class, it was planned differently. To begin, we did a short review about the vocabulary learnt in the previous class, where I asked students to recall words and then to create a sentences using one of the adjectives as it is possible to see in box 5. This first part of the class, in my opinion got closer to the objective of making students speak spontaneously, since students were able to recall vocabulary they had learnt in the previous class (see appendix for observation sheet), without any extra support or guidance. The next part of the lesson was focused on practicing comparatives playing with a board game, where students had to create comparative sentences with every square they got. In this part, in terms of the use of English, I can say it decreased (see appendix for observation sheet). Most of students were using Spanish. However, at the moment of creating sentences, students used English every time they could. Finally, at the end of the class, there was a space to give feedback and also to share students’ opinions about working in groups. In here, every monitor of each group presented two different sentences they got from the game and the rest of the class had to give feedback when necessary as it is possible to see in box 6.. 17.

(18) BOX 5: COMPARATIVES, GROUP WORK LESSON Teacher: What adjectives do you remember? Student: Happy Student: Angry …. Teacher: How did we make sentences? Give an example. Krishna? Student: Bigger. Teacher: Yes, that is how we use the adjective, but we need the complete sentences. Student: The woman. Student: Is bigger Student: than the man. During the English class on October 29th, 2015, Teacher and Students interacting.. BOX 6: COMPARATIVES, GROUP WORK LESSON Teacher: Thank you Byron. Now your turn, Jose. Jose: My brother is more taller than me. Teacher: Ok… Is that correct? Students: No Teacher: Why? Student: Because it is taller than me. During the English class on October 29th, 2015, Teacher and Students interacting.. 18.

(19) In terms of group work, students also felt more comfortable and secure. According to their opinions, it was better than working individually because “they learnt more vocabulary”, they learnt more English and they could share knowledge” (personal communication, October 29th, 2015). In this regard, according to the previous information given before, students have demonstrated a noticeable change in terms of the type of answer they give in comparison to the previous class. As it is possible to see in table 2, spontaneous answers increased five times more compared with the previous class, having as a consequence the diminution of the other types of answers. Table 2 Type of Answers Given by Students when Participating in Speaking Activities Type of Answer Amount of answers Spanish 9 Yes/No 9 Drilling 4 Spontaneous 34. In order to finish the unit, students now had to learn superlatives. As students have already learnt the vocabulary and grammar structure needed, teaching this new content was not troublesome, and no more than 15 minutes were necessary to teach and to practice it. To start with superlatives, I presented a picture that mixed both, comparatives and superlatives, where then students were asked comprehension questions that demonstrated the difference between them. Next, in a whole class discussion, we created two different sentences using two different adjectives in the superlative form. The, comparison was made, so that students could see the differences easily. Finally, as this had to be a graded lesson, I. 19.

(20) prepared a worksheet that mixed both contents and it could be done in pairs. In this part, I started monitoring and solving students’ doubts. However, no student was incapable of fulfilling it, since all of them finished at the corresponding time. Consequently, as before conducting this research, some activities got stuck because of the lack of participation when speaking English, this problem has also improved. Therefore, lessons are also working according to how they were planned.. Reflection and Analysis of Intervention In conclusion, the strategies that were taken from the literature review achieved the main objective of this project. In the first place, students felt more comfortable participating when they knew the vocabulary beforehand. This is possible to confirm due to how the results in terms of the type of answer students produced, where the use of Spanish decreased and answers turned to be spontaneous in English. In terms of the use of Spanish, students kept using it, but for more comprehension question where they had to make more complex sentences. However, I did not consider this as an issue, since using the vocabulary the lesson did not include was not a focus of this current research. Additionally, in terms of group work, it was also more efficient because I was able to monitor and to give feedback to all students since, according to the applied techniques I could get all students’ opinions, questions and doubts. For the same reason, according to the results given previously, working in groups of four had a higher achievement in relation to the objectives of this action research, rather than working in pairs. In my opinion, this happened because when students worked in groups of four they felt more supported and there was also more knowledge to share.. 20.

(21) Finally, having taught these contents following and integrating the methodologies I concluded from the literature review, when I had to teach the content that followed, superlatives, it was easier for students to understand it, since vocabulary was already taught and they only had to learn a new grammar form without being so overwhelming for them. This easier understanding was noticeable because students did not get stuck on understanding the meaning of the sentence translating word by word. Instead, they understood the new content by comparing the difference with previous content only.. Conclusion and Implications As were explained before in the first sections of this document, the main implications this action research might bring were related on one side, to the integration of the four macro skills the teaching of English as a Second Language involves, that is to say teaching listening, reading, speaking and writing. Additionally, as this research was focused on integrating the skill that lacked, speaking, this research would also bring improvements on communication skills as a group. As a consequence of this, this improvement might motivate teachers to implement speaking tasks in their lesson plans and therefore, creating also a new model for planning that involves this new approach. In first place, regarding the implementation of speaking tasks, as it is possible to see in the data analysis, at the end of the process, students were able to speak more spontaneously using L2, reducing the amount of the use of Spanish during the lesson. Consequently, the diminution of students’ participation when participating using English changed at the moment of applying the techniques concluded from the literature review section, increasing participation in English.. 21.

(22) However, despite the implementation of this new approach worked, teachers were not informed. Thus, no changes could be done outside this class. In terms of research methodology, working in groups was fundamental. For this, a focus group was organized to get to know in which conditions students learnt better. Nevertheless, this was not possible to do since the Second Cycle coordinator did not authorize me because of time issues. As a result of this, I included the same questions within the lesson. However, I felt I would have come with better and more precise results if I had implement the focus group, due to it would have been more personalized. Apart from that, in terms of limitations of this research, group work cannot be randomly organized because students have to feel comfortable at the moment of working groups. Additionally, changing the approach of teaching in this school might also be a problem, since teachers will have to change the lesson plan format and it would be inconsistent with the one that the school has. Consequently, they would not be approved by the school. Finally, because of time issues I could not implement more group work activities that involved speaking activities. Therefore, this is an idea I would like to research and to improve more in the future. Moreover, as this research was developed in a complicated context, where students’ relationships stuck the fluency of the class, I would also like to improve speaking activities that inductively teach and integrate values that improve students’ relationships.. 22.

(23) References . Brookfield, S. D., and Preskill, S. (2005) Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.. . Colegio Marcelino Champagnat (n.d). Nuestro Colegio: Resumen.. Retrieved. Semptember 4th, 2015 from http://www.cmch.maristas.cl/colegio . Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (Third ed.). New York: Routledge.. . Howard, J. (2004). Discussion in the College Classroom: Application for Sociology Instruction (First ed.). Washington DC: American Sociological Association.. . Junn, E. (1994) “Pearls of Wisdom: Enhancing Student Class Participation with an Innovative Exercise.” Journal of Instructional Psychology, 21(4), 385–387.. . Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.. . Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. New York:Academic Press.. . Ming-tak, H., & Wai-shing, L. (2008). Classroom management: Creating a Positive Learning Environment (K. Kenedy, Ed.). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.. 23.

(24) . Ministerio de Educación de Chile (2012). Bases Curriculares para la Educación Básica.. Retrieved. August. 27th,. 2015. from. http://www.curriculumenlineamineduc.cl/605/articles-30013_recurso_14.pdf . Reda, M. M. (2009) Between Speaking and Silence: A Study of Quiet Students. Albany,NY: SUNY.. . Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning Teaching (Second ed.). Macmillan education.. . Swain, Merrill (2005) “The output hypothesis: theory and research”. In Eli Heinkel, ed. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.. . Tomlinson, C., & Eidson, C. (2003). Differentiation in Practice: A Resource Guide for Differentiated Curriculum Grades 5-9.Alexandria: ASCD.  Ur, P., & Wright, T. (1999). Module 2: Practice Activities. In M. Williams (Ed.), A course in Language Teaching Practice and Theory (First ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. 24.

(25) Appendix 1.1 Gantt Chart August Weeks. 1. Finding the problem. x. Setting the question. 2 x. 3. September 4. 1. 2. x. x. 3. October 4. 1. 2. 3. November 4. 1. 2. x. x. 3. 4. x. x. x. Introduction. x. Context. x. Rationale. x. Literature Review. x. Stage 1: Asking for permission 1.1 Asking for the school permission 1.2 Asking for parent's permission 1.3 Asking for student’s permission Focus group. x. H. x. O. x. L I. x. Stage 2: Applying Literature. D. 2.1 strategy 1. A. x. 2.1.1 Video Recording. Y. X. 2.1.2 Journal. S. x. 2.2 strategy 2. x. 2.2.1 Video Recording. X. 2.2.2 Journal. X. 2.3 strategy 3. x. 2.3.1 Video Recording. X. 2.3.2 Conclusions. X. 2.4 Comparing results Conclusions. 25.

(26) 1.2 Letter of Request School Coordinator 7 de Septiembre de 2015 Gabriela Gauna Estudiante en Práctica Universidad Alberto Hurtado. PERMISO PARA EL DESARROLLO DE UN ESTUDIO DE INVESTIGACIÓN. Estimada Fabiola Estay. Yo, Gabriela Gauna, practicante de quinto año de la carrera Pedagogía en Inglés de la Universidad Alberto Hurtado, escribo esta carta con el fin de pedir autorización para desarrollar una investigación-acción en el Colegio Marista Marcelino Champagnat. El foco de esta investigación, tiene como principal propósito mejorar la participación de los estudiantes dentro de la sala de clases y sus habilidades orales del habla Inglesa en el curso 8 año A. Para esto, se realizará una recolección de datos, la cual involucra procesos como grabación de videos dentro de la sala de clases y además, la realización de un “Focus Group” con dichos estudiantes. En caso que esta solicitud sea aprobada, el proceso finalizará durante las últimas semanas del mes de noviembre del año 2015. Los resultados serán comunicados a la comunidad escolar y serán ocupados solo para fines educacionales. La aceptación para llevar a cabo esta investigación será enormemente apreciada Le saluda atentamente,. ___________________________ Gabriela Gauna Aprobada por: ___________________________ Fabiola Estay. 26.

(27) 1.3 Letter of Request Care Takers 7 de Septiembre de 2015 Gabriela Gauna Estudiante en Práctica Universidad Alberto Hurtado. PERMISO PARA EL DESARROLLO DE UN ESTUDIO DE INVESTIGACIÓN. Estimado Apoderado/a. Yo, Gabriela Gauna, prácticante de quinto año de la carrera Pedagogía en Inglés de la Universidad Alberto Hurtado, escribo esta carta con el fin de pedir autorización para desarrollar una investigación-acción en la sala de clases, el cual su hijo/a pertenece. El foco de esta investigación tiene como principal propósito mejor la participación y las habilidades orales del habla inglesa de los estudiantes en dicho curso. Para esto, su hijo/a estará involucrado en filmaciones dentro de la sala de clases y además, en un “Focus Group” con el resto de sus compañeros. De contar con su autorización, el proceso finalizará durante las últimas semanas del mes de Noviembre del año 2015. Los resultados serán comunicados a la comunidad escolar y serán ocupados solo para fines educaciones. La aceptación para llevar a cabo esta investigación será enormemente apreciada Le saluda atentamente,. ___________________________ Gabriela Gauna. Aprobada por:. ___________________________ 27.

(28) 1.4 Letter of Request Students 7 de Septiembre de 2015 Gabriela Gauna Estudiante en Práctica Universidad Alberto Hurtado. PERMISO PARA EL DESARROLLO DE UN ESTUDIO DE INVESTIGACIÓN. Estimado/a estudiante Yo, Gabriela Gauna, practicante de la carrera Pedagogía en Inglés de la Universidad Alberto Hurtado, escribo esta carta con el fin de pedirle autorización para desarrollar un estudio de investigación, en el cual usted será parte. Esta investigación tiene como principal objetivo mejorar la participación en clases y el desarrollo de sus habilidades orales en relación a la enseñanza del inglés. Durante este proceso, se necesitará la colaboración de usted y de sus compañeros para la realización de un “Focus Group” y grabaciones de video dentro de la sala de clases. De haber accedido a esta propuesta, el proceso terminará durante las últimas semanas de Noviembre de año 2015. Los resultados serán comunicados a la comunidad escolar y soloserán utilizados para fines educacionales. La aceptación de esta invitación es de suma importancia y será enormemente agradecida Le saluda atentamente, ___________________________ Gabriela Gauna. Aprobada por:. ___________________________. Gabriela Gauna 28.

(29) Estudiante en Práctica Universidad Alberto Hurtado. 1.5 FOCUS GROUP GUIDELINE. 1.- ¿Con cuántos compañeros acostumbran a juntarse durante el recreo?¿Es el mismo grupo con el que acostumbran a hacer trabajos en grupo cuando es pedido? 2.- ¿De cuantas personas forma el grupo con el que se juntan usualmente? 3.- Entre actividades individuales y en pareja ¿Cuál les acomoda más? ¿Por qué? 4.- Entre actividades individuales y en pareja ¿Cuál creen ustedes que facilita el aprendizaje y por qué? 5.- Entre actividades en pareja y grupales ¿Cuál les acomoda más y por qué? 6.- Si les acomoda las actividades en grupo ¿Con cuántos creen ustedes que sería eficiente trabajar? 7.- ¿Les gusta participar en clases? 8.- ¿Creen ustedes que la participación en clases utilizando el inglés los beneficia a ustedes en términos de aprendizaje? ¿Por qué? 9.- ¿Qué tipo de actividades les gustaría ver implementadas en la sala de clases? 10.- Personalmente ¿Creen ustedes que la sala de clases y la profesora promueve un ambiente de confianza donde todos puedan opinar sin tener miedo a equivocarse o burlas? ¿Por qué? 11.- ¿Creen ustedes que la participación se vería mejorada, si las actividades fueran más en grupo que individuales? De ser así, ¿Hablarían todos los miembros del grupo?. 29.

(30) 1.6 Appreciations From Class Observation First Observation Tuesday 27th, October, 2015. Class: 8th grade Today class’s contents were about teaching and learning comparisons. The learning objective of this class was to make students create sentences using comparatives. To begin with, I asked students for the meaning of “comparatives”, to make them to get engage easily, and students got the meaning at first sight. The, I showed them two different pictures with the comparative form that corresponded. There was one with stronger and the other with taller, and students had to match the comparative with the picture. Then, they did the same exercise, but with a worksheet, where they had 7 adjectives and 7 pictures. To continue, we went through the language focus from the book, and analyzed the sentences so that we can clarify the difference between short and long adjectives. After that, students had to create two sentences using the information given in a chart from the book. Finally, with the adjectives give previously on the worksheet, students had to create 7 sentences and then share them to the class. In this class, for the last two activities I made students work in pairs, so that they could share what they have learnt so far. As students were learning this topic for the first time, the pre part of the lesson was focus on understanding and checking student’s comprehension. I decided to make it that way because students are not able to produce if they do not get the enough input as Krashen states. After, I checked students’ comprehension; I left them sort of lonely and working more independently. When they had to create sentences from the information given in the chart, I felt quite happy about it because they could produce what it was expected. Moreover, for the last exercise, they instead of making 2 sentences in 10 minutes, they were able to make 7 sentences in the same 10’ minutes, which means, students progressed while they were practicing. Therefore, as I checked that students had their sentences written, for the final correction with the whole class, I made them speak, telling their sentences. In my opinion, it was a good starting. Although students did not speak English the whole class, at the end of it, I could make them to perfectly produce what the learning objective of this lesson was looking for. 30.

(31) In conclusion, although it was not a spontaneous participation, students participated using L2, which is one of the objectives my action research is trying to improve.. Second Observation Thursday 29th, October, 2015. Today’s lesson, we continue working on comparisons but it was a class for practicing, instead of receiving more input. Therefore, the first 15 minutes were dedicated to review the contents and vocabulary seen last class, so that students can get engaged and prepared to continue with the following activity. Therefore, I asked some questions about vocabulary and the use of comparisons that were answered as a whole class discussion. Then, the activity that followed was a board game, where students had to get in groups of four that were organized randomly (each student got a number from 1 to 9, where then all the ones were together and so on). I explained the instructions, and here I have to stop a bit because I felt my instructions were not so clear at first. However, I modeled the activity so that students could understand better. Students started working, and I monitoring them. My impressions were positives, since all groups were working without issues. Besides, the thing that surprised me the most was that, although it was a competition, students were helping each other to create sentences and move forward. In terms of using L2 In the groups, I could not hear much speaking spontaneously, but they were practicing while pronouncing the words they got in their turns and also when they had to create the sentences. From my perspective, this class was a real progress, since the use of L2 in the class noticeably increased. Additionally, as these words were learnt already, students felt more secure when participating, pronouncing the words naturally as if they were said in Spanish.. 31.

(32) 1.7 Observation Sheets OBSERVATION SHEET. Date: October 27th, 2015 Content: Comparatives Number of Students: 30. 1.- Indicate the setting arrangement at the beginning of the lesson and how it was at the end of the class. In this lesson, there were not any setting arrangement changes. All activities for this lesson were planned to be done in pairs, and as students are sitting that way, no changes were necessary. Drawing:. 2.- Describe how was the use of English at the beginning of the lesson. Was it spontaneous or not? At the beginning of the lesson, the use of English was not much. Students only answered yes or no questions and the English words they used were produced as a result of drilling and saying what I said before. Therefore, it was not spontaneous nor it came from students’ previous knowledge neither. 3.- Describe how was the use of English at the end of the lesson. At the end lesson, I could not notice a spontaneous use of English either. However, students were able to produce and create comparative sentences, sharing them orally among the class, pronouncing correctly in English. 4.- How was participation developed? I would not say all the students, but I would say most of them. From video recordings, it is possible to see that students were on task most of the time. Besides, at the moment of 32.

(33) checking whether students’ answers were right or wrong, the majority of students offered to be volunteers to come to the front and write their sentences on the board.. 5.- Were activities done in pairs or in groups? If it so, how well they were developed? Activities were done in pairs. While I was monitoring, I could notice that students were communicating each to get the same results from the activity. Additionally, at the end of the class, students were asked about working in pairs, and how well or bad was it, and students’ answer was that they felt it was more efficient because if one of them did not know something, her/his classmate could know it, and therefore, share it. According, I might say, that results are in accordance to what students said, since at the end of the lesson, students were able to create sentences on their own.. 33.

(34) OBSERVATION SHEET. Date: October 29th, 2015 Content: Comparatives Number of Students: 33. 1.- Indicate the setting arrangement at the beginning of the lesson and how it was at the end of the class. In this lesson, there was not any special setting arrangement at first. However, when we started the group activity, students got together in groups of four. Drawing:. Teacher. 2.- Describe how was the use of English at the beginning of the lesson. Was it spontaneous or not? At the beginning of the lesson, when we were making the review about previous class, in my opinion, it was spontaneous because students were able to recall vocabulary we had learnt previous class. However, when students started working in groups, the use of English decreased, but although they did not speak in English, they were able to produce sentences using comparatives anyways. 3.- Describe how was the use of English at the end of the lesson. At the end of the lesson, there were two parts. One of them was to share students’ feelings and sensations about working in groups. In this part, some students were able to use the language spontaneously. The other part was about sharing their sentences to have feedback, and students had to share their sentences orally. This part was not so spontaneous, but students were able to produce and to speak. 4.- How was participation developed? Participation was done in groups. When I was monitoring, I could see that most of the students were working without issues. However, some groups were stuck because they 34.

(35) were writing any type of sentences, except comparative ones. Therefore, I had to stop there and explained them again. At the end of the class, participation was sort of disorganized because students didn’t respect turns. However it turned out good, since eadh group had the possibility to share their opinions.. 5.- Were activities done in pairs or in groups? If it so, how well they were developed? This activity was done in group of four. In my opinion, students performed well enough. They were able to write comparative sentences correctly, most of the cases.. 35.

(36)