• No se han encontrado resultados

Improving the amount of input in the EFL classroom : the importance and implications of providing input in the target language, avoiding the use of L1

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2020

Share "Improving the amount of input in the EFL classroom : the importance and implications of providing input in the target language, avoiding the use of L1"

Copied!
59
0
0

Texto completo

(1)1. Facultad de Educación Pedagogía en inglés. IMPROVING THE AMOUNT OF INPUT IN THE EFL CLASSROOM The importance and implications of providing input in the target language, avoiding the use of L1.. Tesis para optar al título profesional de Profesor de inglés de enseñanza básica y educación media. By Nicole Constanza Zárate Silva Tutor: Mary Jane Abrahams Santiago, Chile 2013.

(2) 2. CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... 4. I.. I.1 Resumen. .................................................................................................................................. 4 II.. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 6. III.. CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................. 8. III.1 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 9 PROBLEM........................................................................................................................... 10. IV.. IV.1 Research question ............................................................................................................... 10 RATIONALE........................................................................................................................... 11. V.. V.1 Hypothesis ............................................................................................................................. 11 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................... 12. VI.. VI.1 General objective ................................................................................................................ 12 VI.2 Specific objective ................................................................................................................. 12 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................... 13. VII.. VII.1 Theories supporting the use of the first language when teaching a TL ........................ 15 VII.2 Theories supporting the use of the target language ....................................................... 17 VIII.. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 20. VIII.4 Materials ........................................................................................................................... 22 VIII.5 Data Collection and Instruments ................................................................................... 22 VIII.6 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 23 VIII.6.1 Class observation ...................................................................................................... 24 VIII.6.2 Task Samples............................................................................................................. 26 VIII.6.3 Survey ........................................................................................................................ 32 IX.. ACTION PLAN PROPOSAL ............................................................................................ 37 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 40. X.. X.1 Further research ................................................................................................................... 41 XI.. CONSULTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................... 43. APPENDIX 1 .................................................................................................................................... 45 APPENDIX 2 .................................................................................................................................... 46 APPENDIX 3 .................................................................................................................................... 48 APPENDIX 4 .................................................................................................................................... 50.

(3) 3 APPENDIX 5 .................................................................................................................................... 51 APPENDIX 6 .................................................................................................................................... 52 APPENDIX 7 .................................................................................................................................... 53 APPENDIX 8 .................................................................................................................................... 55 APPENDIX 9 .................................................................................................................................... 56 APPENDIX 10 .................................................................................................................................. 57 APPENDIX 11 .................................................................................................................................. 58 APPENDIX 12 .................................................................................................................................. 59.

(4) 4 I.. ABSTRACT. This Action Research project presents the intervention done inside the 8th grade “B” EFL classroom from “Liceo 7 de niñas Luisa Saavedra de González”, located in Providencia, Santiago de Chile. Its objective is to discuss the importance and implications of improving the spoken input in the target language, and the avoidance of the L1 inside a classroom where no English was being spoken by the previous teacher. This discussion is based on the existing assumption regarding students’ inability to learn a foreign language when being exposed only to it, and the implications to this assumption which originated the context characterized by the non-existing use of the target language, as a way to ensure learning. The data provided is constituted by classroom observation, task samples, and a survey, which provides the necessary information to discuss the implications in relation to the aims of this project. I.1 Resumen. Este proyecto de investigación acción presenta la intervención realizada dentro de la clase de idioma extranjero correspondiente al 8vo básico B del colegio “Liceo 7 de niñas Luisa Saavedra de González”, ubicado en Providencia, Santiago de Chile. El objetivo de este proyecto es el discutir la importancia e implicancias del aumento del inglés hablado entregado a las estudiantes en el lenguaje a adquirir, y la evasión del uso de la lengua materna, en una clase donde la profesora previa, no hablaba el idioma Inglés..

(5) 5 Esta discusión se basa en la suposición en relación a la incapacidad de las estudiantes de aprender un lenguaje extranjero cuando son expuestas solo a este lenguaje, y sus consecuencias las cuales originaron el contexto caracterizado por la inexistencia del uso del lenguaje a adquirir, como una forma de garantizar el aprendizaje. Los datos obtenidos se constituyen de observación de la clase, muestras de actividades, y una encuesta, los cuales entregan información necesaria para discutir las conclusiones en relación a los objetivos de este proyecto..

(6) 6 II.. INTRODUCTION. Chile is not a bilingual country. During the recent years, it has been observed how some authorities have spread the need for Chile to be a country where English should be understood and spoken by a large number of its population. This need comes from the fact that English has become the global language; therefore, having proficiency in it will help people, for instance, to take part of the current economy. Despite the effort, and all the scholarships the government has given in order to achieve this goal, Chile is, in real terms, extremely distant from fulfilling that dream, and one of its reasons can be based on its school education. Being bilingual means having the ability to use two languages with equal fluency and accuracy, and to sound like a native in both, according to the BBC. Therefore, in order to reach a native level, the context surrounding the population should be strongly influenced by both languages, so it can allow people to use a first and a second one equally, and to gain fluency in them. Such scenario would mean several changes to our current reality, for example, promoting a bilingual education program as it has been done in countries such as Belgium and Canada, so people would be able to get practice on two languages, and use them for communicative purposes. In spite the intentions mentioned, real facts show a reality that is not favourable to the idea of bilingualism. The 2012 SIMCE shows that only 7% of the students from public schools obtained levels between A2 and B1, according the Common European Framework standards (MINEDUC, 2013) this means that 93% of the students from 11th grade do not.

(7) 7 have the language. This issue becomes even more complicated in view of the fact that the test does not even assess fluency, but only evaluates receptive skills. Certainly there are many factors influencing the acquisition of a foreign language. This Action Research project aims at discussing one of the most elemental bases of language acquisition, which in terms of teaching quality has to do with the amount of teacher’s use of English inside the EFL (English as a Foreign Language) classroom. In order to analyze the implications, I have considered a classroom environment highlighted by the teachers’ poor use of the target language..

(8) 8 III.. CONTEXT. The participants in this Action Research Project are a group of 8th grade students, from Liceo 7 Luisa Saavedra a-43” in Providencia, which is a public school for high school students. There are 44 students who come from different places of Santiago, thus, from a variety of different schools, which implies that all of them have got different previous levels of achievement in English. The very first noticeable issue among this group of students is that English is being taught using Spanish; this fact has been supported by the host teacher alluding to a variety of reasons. First of all she alludes to the type of school; she claims that working in a public school is much different and more difficult than teaching in a private one because there is a lack of resources, motivation, students´ previous knowledge about English is very poor, and quoting the teacher “there is no raw material” to do it in the target language. Second, she thinks students’ level of English is not good enough, and that students are not prepared for listening to the teacher talking in English only. Also, she proves her assumptions alluding to the fact that the school has been categorized as one of excellence in Providencia, and that the results they have been obtaining in tests such as SIMCE (32,1 % of students obtained A2 level, and 15, 4% B2 level) demonstrate students are learning what the Ministry of Education demands, despite the use of the mother tongue in the classroom. Accordingly, the study of English inside this classroom is reduced to its grammar. Also, considering the mentioned assumption, only two skills are being developed, which are reading and writing; hence, the class results being a teacher-centered class, with a lack of oral input provided to students..

(9) 9 III.1 Limitations The ideal methodology for this context, would have been implementing a communicative approach in the classroom. This would have been beneficial not only for the improvement of the amount of input, but also it could have taken the project further by promoting students’ use of the language as well, through activities that encouraged interaction in the Target Language. Nonetheless, at the moment this process started, the school provided the planning which had to be followed (For further information check Appendix 1) In addition, the topics had already been chosen, and the assessment procedure was also already established. Moreover, the school provided a document with the “methodological strategies” designed by the English Department, which addressed only two language skills, which were reading comprehension and writing, therefore oral language was not present (Check Appendix 2) Also, the method of assessment was characterized as being a norm- reference one that mainly assessed grammar, which turned out to be an important problem for this Action Research project, since it implies that the realization of it will be always influenced by the study of grammar rules (Check Appendix 3) Thus, unfortunately this Action Research can only be possible and achievable, if it is focused on input and the way the teacher presents language to students, instead of changing the approach and promoting students’ use of language as well..

(10) 10 IV.. PROBLEM. The teacher officially in charge of the group of students has established the first language as the tool for teaching the target language, because of the assumption addressed earlier in this Action Research project; therefore, there is no oral input in the TL provided to students. In addition, English is being treated and studied as a set of grammar rules that need to be put together, following its correct order, which means the sense of using English for communication is not present. It is true that there are some students that are good at remembering rules, and who easily understand the mechanics of the language; however, if language is understood as more than a set of rules, but as meaningful texts used for communicating and idea, then most of students are not actually able to understand the language, nor to use it, since the knowledge of the language is only reduced to its grammar. Accordingly, this Action Research project aims at discussing the assumption regarding the fact that students are unable to understand spoken input. As a result, this Research aims to answer the following: IV.1 Research question . What can I do to improve the amount of oral English input in the 8° “B” at. Liceo N°7 de niñas de Providencia, where the previous teacher established L1 as the language to teach L2? Some other specific questions that emerge from the main one are: . Why is input in L2 important in an EFL classroom?. . How can I check students’ comprehension of the L2, without using L1?.

(11) 11 V.. RATIONALE. The importance of input in the acquisition of a second language has been a recurrent issue for many researchers. It is believed when learning a L2, exposure to the target language is crucial. This belief is easily achieved, when students are learning ESL; that is to say, when being immersed in a context where this language is being spoken on a daily basis. Nevertheless, when learning EFL; which means, outside the natural environment of the language, the task of exposing students to the language to be acquired becomes more challenging. Consequently, when teaching in an EFL context, teachers need to provide enough input so students can understand how this language works, which is the first step to acquire a language. Input should be presented both written and spoken, and using all the resources available. If we take into to consideration a context with a lack of resources, the teacher becomes the main source of input; therefore, the teacher talking time turns to be the first step towards acquisition, if English is prioritized. When working with low level students, the use of English becomes the teacher’s responsibility, because students may not have the necessary level for using English independently. It may be argued that students could experience difficulties when reaching understanding, hence, teachers need to find ways to prioritize the use of English, against the use of the first language, in a way it is understood by low level students. V.1 Hypothesis Teachers of English as a Foreign Language should maximize the use of English inside the EFL classroom..

(12) 12 VI.. OBJECTIVES VI.1 General objective. . To provide input to students avoiding the use of the L1 VI.2 Specific objective. . Presenting comprehensible input to students in the target language. . Finding out whether the assumption regarding students being unable to understand. spoken English when teaching is true or not. . Discussing the amount of input in the target language to which students can and. should be exposed.  only.. Focusing the study of language on as a tool for communication rather grammar.

(13) 13 VII.. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK. The implementation of Chilean National English curriculum in this particular school shows that English is not being treated as a language, the current English programs given by the Ministry of Education intend to provide equal attention to the four skills of language (listening, reading, writing and speaking) so language is being fully covered. In order to understand the importance of teaching the four skills of language, and not only its written form, we first need to understand what a language is. There are many possible definitions for language found in different sources. “Language is a system of conventional spoken or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture express themselves. The functions of language include communication, the expression of identity, play, imaginative expression, and emotional release.” (Crystal, D 2013) “The method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way” (Oxford, 2013) “the system of human communication which consists of the structured arrangement of sounds (or their written representation) into larger units. e.g. morphemes, words, sentences, utterances.” (Duckett, 2011) Considering these different definitions, we can agree on the fact that they all mention “communication” as the function of language and that it is presented in both written and spoken forms. Moreover, if we consider what is understood by knowing a language, it is established that knowing a language goes further than understanding its grammar. Knowing a language means knowing what sounds are there in the language and what sounds are not, knowing that certain sound sequences signify certain concepts or meanings. Knowledge of language.

(14) 14 enables you to combine words to form phrases, and phrases to form sentences. Knowing a language means being able to produce new sentences never spoken before and to understand new sentences never heard before. (Rodman, R, & Hyams, N. 2011). Accordingly, when teachers teach a language they need to cover all the forms and components of a language, that is to say, the different skills needed for both understanding and using the language ( listening, speaking, reading and writing) as well as its sounds, vocabulary, and grammar. Therefore, teachers will eventually present the language to students using both written and oral forms which is the input students receive, thus, the quality of the input will depend on the decisions made by the teacher when deciding how to present language to students. Certainly, the input should be provided in the target language, as a way to develop receptive skills (reading and listening) Several theories suggest the importance of input for the language students. In order to understand this importance, it is central to discuss what acquiring a language means; Noam Chomsky first discussed the ability humans have for understanding languages, which is referred to “Universal Grammar”, he suggests language is a system of cognitive structures innate to every human being, which instead of being learned; they are naturally developed, as if they were organs. (Osiatynski, W. 1984 ) Vivian Cook addressed to this theory in relation to language acquisition, stating that considering these properties as inherent to humans, in order to acquire language the child also needs evidence about a particular language; he needs to hear sentences of English to know how to fix the parameter for the order of Verb, Subject, and Object. (Cook, V. 1985) Having reviewed some language acquisition theories, I will now point to the real discussion, in relation to the aims of this Action Research project, which is based on the.

(15) 15 amount of the target language input that should be provided by the teacher, when teaching a second or foreign language, and the amount of use of the first language, for teaching the target language. I would like to present both pro and con theories in relation to the use of the first language, inside the EFL or ESL classroom.. VII.1 Theories supporting the use of the first language when teaching a TL A study based on English instruction in the UAE, discussing the pedagogical decision made by the government of the United Arab Emirates, concluded that the use of the first language can be an efficient tool for achieving student comprehension of vocabulary, and of difficult concepts and instructions, stating that the use of the L1 has positive implications for second language acquisition (Mouhanna, M. 2009). This idea is also highlighted by Vivian Cook, who provides ways of using the L1 positively in teaching, mentioning not only the explanation of meaning and difficult concepts as reasons for using the first language, but also when checking comprehension, presentation of grammar contents, giving instructions, for classroom management purposes, assessment, further interaction with students, and for providing lower level students participation. (Cook, 2001) Others authors have also criticized the over use of English only in the classroom, defining its implications as controlling and belonging to a teacher- centered approach. For instance, a study carried out in Spain, concluded that the mother tongue presents important benefits for second language acquisition. It has been suggested that a more open- minded approach to using the mother tongue could be adopted in order to encourage learners to focus on similarities and differences between their first language, and the target language under study, than just use it as a managerial aid. (Rodríguez, C., & Oxbrow, G. 2008). This study also alluded to reasons given by Elsa Auerbach on this matter. She takes the discussion of.

(16) 16 the use of a monolingual approach further from the classroom, stating that the TESOL organization itself had passed a language rights revolution, supporting measures which protect the right of all individuals to preserve and foster their linguistic and cultural origins (Auerbach, E. 1993) She argues the fact that the classroom should also be considered an opportunity for cultural exchange among its members; therefore the prohibition of the use of the first language by non-native English speakers could be considered an act of discrimination and control through language. Although, the reasons Auerbach presents in relation to the use of the mother tongue, this statement has been provided considering the ESL field, where the discussion of monolinguals is based on the education of immigrants living in an English speaking environment, and not considering and EFL setting, therefore the consideration of her ideas by previous action researchers is not valid, in the EFL field. Having considered the previous statements, we can conclude that the use of the L1 has got pedagogical, classroom management, and facilitating purposes, considering it not only for ensuring comprehension but also providing helpful tools when learning the language while focusing on its form, proposing a contrastive study of it, using the mother tongue as a base for building up knowledge of L2. Even though these considerations may sound appropriate to ensure learning, it is important to highlight that the use of the First language, in this sense, follows the understanding of language as a set of grammar rules, and the teaching of these rules pushes teachers to constantly rely on the first language. On the contrary, what this actions research project intends to achieve, is to avoid a grammar focused EFL classroom, in order to center the attention of the study of language as being a tool for communication. Consequently, if we understand the function of the use of the first language mentioned above, as messages, these can be given in the target language as well, as soon as teachers find the right way to make those messages comprehensible to students..

(17) 17 VII.2 Theories supporting the use of the target language Most of the authors mentioned before, have discussed the use of L1, as positive for the acquisition of a target language, which does not mean they have forsaken the fact that input in the Target language must be provided. It is important, at this point to highlight that the focus of this research is the improvement of the input given by the teacher in a classroom where no English was being spoken. In relation to this idea, authors such as Pinker have addressed the importance, of TL input. He says that children most definitely do need to hear an existing language to learn that language, he also refers to the term “positive evidence” as the information available to the child about which strings of words are grammatical sentences of the target language, and that by “grammatical” it is meant only those sentences that sound natural in colloquial speech, not necessarily those that would be deemed “proper English” in formal written prose. (Pinker, S. 1995) If considered this idea, it can be sustained that the importance of input is not related to the acquisition of the grammatical features of the language, but it is about the evidence and meaning it provides. The previous statement could be more familiar when talking about ESL, since it refers to the “child”; nevertheless, other authors have discussed similar ideas, in view of an EFL context. It is said that a child learns the language all day, every day, whereas an adult learner only hears the target language in the classroom, which could be as little as three hours a week. (Tucker, M. 2003) Consequently, it can be stated that teachers should opt for maximizing the use of the target language, since if we compare the amount of input a child or an ESL student gets when learning a language, with an EFL student, the last one’s only certain opportunity for getting input is the classroom. Furthermore, in relation to the usefulness of teaching the TL using L1 for teaching grammar, I will also like to discuss the importance of focusing on form, when teaching a.

(18) 18 second language. Stephen Krashen mentions the fact that formal rules, or conscious learning, play only a limited role in second language performance, since when using the language for communication, people are not paying attention to the grammar of the sentences being uttered, but on their meaning. Therefore, when teaching a language, teachers should choose a communicative approach, because we acquire by “going for meaning” first, and as result, we acquire structure. (Krashen, S. 1982) Considering this previous idea, Stephen Krashen develops a theory called “Comprehensible Input” which states that the effective teacher is someone who can provide input and help make it comprehensible in a low anxiety situation, arguing that the use of L1 rules is hypothesized to be the result of falling back on first language, when a second language rule is needed for production but it is not available. He states that this would result in temporal solution, and it would not mean real progress, since the solution is not to contrast the two languages, but simply the “ignorance”, as when comprehensible input is provided, the learner starts building up competence in second language, via listening by understanding the language around; speaking ability emerges on its own, after enough competence has been developed by listening and understanding. (Krashen, S. 1982) In addition, Krashen also refers to the theory of the “Affective Filter” as vital when providing comprehensible input. Those whose attitudes are not optimal for second language acquisition will not only tend to seek less input, but they will also have a high or strong affective filter, even if they understand the message, the input will not reach the part of the brain responsible for language acquisition. (Krashen, S. 1982) As a result, comprehensible input needs to be developed within a context where students of a second language can feel comfortable and confident, avoiding frustration and lack of motivation..

(19) 19 Subsequently, if these theories were considered, the teaching implications would be changing the approach to language, and opting for a communicative one. All things considered, it can be concluded that there are two clearly defined focuses when deciding how to approach language, and so the amount of input a teacher provides. One of them is the one focused on form, which proposes a contrastive study of the language, relying on students’ previous knowledge on their first language. The second one is the one focused on communication, which states that teachers should not focus on the grammar, but to promote comprehensible input in the TL, so students can naturally develop competence in the target language, in order to convey meaning. This Action Research project is more compatible with the second one, since when teaching grammar, teachers can feel forced to go back to the L1, as they tend to rely on the previous knowledge students have about this particular component of language, which can be the grammatical knowledge about the mother tongue, especially among low level learners. On the contrary, while focusing the study of language on its meaning, grammar loses importance and the temptation of using L1 decreases, and it can be even neutralized if teachers use the right strategies to provide comprehensible input with a low affective filter..

(20) 20 VIII. METHODOLOGY. Bearing in mind the problem previously addressed and the limitations I have at the participant school, it has been decided to focus this project on one stage of the lesson in which the teacher has more participation, which is when presenting new language; I believe teachers have more faculties to vary the language they use and so exposed students to a diversity of words, when presenting new language, rather than for instance, giving instructions, since instructions could be considered as routines. For presenting the language I will be contextualizing the function of the specific structure to be presented to students, and I will identify its essential elements of meaning (EEM’s) instead of focusing on its grammar, adapting my English to the level of the students as a way to discuss those EEM’s. Afterwards, in order to present those EEM’s to students and check its comprehension at the same time; I will ask short comprehension checking questions (CCQ’s) based on those EEM’s. For instance: Structure: “ If I go to the USA, I will visit the statue of liberty” If the EEM’s are ●. It is a condition. ●. It is imaginary and present. ●. Its consequence is in future. ●. It is not real. ●. The consequence is probable to happen.

(21) 21. The CCQ´s could be: ●. Teacher: (pointing the “if” clause) Is it about the past? Students: No. ●. Teacher: (pointing the “if” clause) Is it about the present? Students: Yes. ●. Teacher: (pointing the “if” clause) Is it real or imaginary? Students: imaginary. ●. Teacher: (pointing the “will” clause) Is it present? Students: No. ●. Teacher: (pointing the “will” clause) Is it future? Students: yes. ●. Teacher: (pointing the “will” clause) Is probable to happen? Students: Yes. These questions will be followed by a controlled activity to be done in pairs, and a final freer task, to be done in groups. (To check staged lesson go to appendix 4) Following this method, I intend to check its comprehension through the encouragement of interaction between the teacher and the class. This technique can be done as a whole class or by addressing students individually, this last option is beneficial when ensuring attention of certain students. I particularly learned this technique during a TESOL course I took at the Institute of Continuing and TESOL education, belonging to the University of Queensland, Australia. I ignore who first proposed it, but I decided to use it, since it allows me to check comprehension by asking a direct question to students, and the answer they give me will not only reflect their understanding of the function of language being presented, but also their comprehension of the questions I ask, which are also considered as input..

(22) 22 VIII.4 Materials Considering the fact I was not allow to change the planning, and I just had access to worksheets, and the textbook given by the Ministry of Education, I will keep the content planned by the English Department of the school, only changing the implementation of some activities, and I will intend to avoid focusing on form. The worksheets will be mainly taken from the book called “New Thumbs up! 4” by Oxford University Press, which contains information gap activities to be done in pairs. (To see a sample, check appendix 5) Moreover, I will help myself to provide comprehensible input with the use of the whiteboard, markers, dictionaries, the occasional use of colored cardboards, and body gestures. In terms of technology, the English department has access to one data projector, on which I avoid to rely, since it is not always available. I also have access to speakers, which I will use for listening activities. Finally, I will use a notebook where I will be taking notes about my observations, in relation to students’ answers for the CCQ’s, and a survey I created myself. VIII.5 Data Collection and Instruments The methodology chosen to this Action Research involves both qualitative and quantitative data, considering some of the methods to collect data described by Anne Burns (2010). Class observation, I will write my reflections on students’ responses and participation at the moment of checking comprehension, as well as personal reflections regarding my ability to provide comprehensible input..

(23) 23 Task samples, I will collect students´ works as a way to analyze whether students followed instructions correctly, and to assess their performance after having presented language. Survey, to discuss students’ appreciations towards the methodology implemented. This last method will serve as a way to turn the results into more objective ones. In order to be consequent with this study, the survey was asked in English; however, it was allowed to use Spanish in the “comments” as a way to avoid affecting the results by students’ competence on productive skills. In addition, the survey was anonymous, in order to avoid influencing students’ answer. (To see the survey, go to Appendix 6) VIII.6 Data Analysis The action Plan was implemented, but with difficulties. As it was mentioned in the limitations section of this report, the school encouraged a grammar focused study of language. Also, the host teacher interrupted the lessons and even she sometimes translated what I said, which of course makes this Action Research project lose its aim. In addition to that, the lesson plan previously presented was divided by the host teacher into four classes, since she believed students were not able to do what I proposed, in the time I projected. (To see the modified lesson plan, Check appendix 7). Still, this lesson plan was useful to gather some data for this Action Research, regarding the improvement of the amount of input in the target language..

(24) 24 VIII.6.1 Class observation These are the CCQ’s question that were asked to students, during the first day of the lesson plan (Appendix 6) The language to be presented was focused on an example, so no grammatical features were addressed while doing this, since the objective was to discuss the function of the structure, and not its grammar. The original idea was to use an example alluding to the topic “political elections” but since I was asked to divide the lesson, I focused the example using students´ previous work (a poster about English speaking countries) Participation was registered using a scale from 1 to 10, being 10 most of the students, and being 1 none of them. The attendance was of 33 students out of 44. Language:. If I go to Scotland, I will see a castle. EEM’s. CCQ’s. Imaginary situation. Is it imaginary or real?. A) Imaginary. (pointing the will clause) Is it about the past or the future?. A) Past. 9 (option B). B) Future. *One student said “past” and the other ones corrected her.. Is it possible or impossible to happen?. A) Possible. 6 (option A). B) Impossible. 2 (option B). Is it possible or impossible to happen?. A) Possible. 9 (option A). Future result. (First time) The condition is possible (Second time) The condition is possible. Possible Answers. Participation 8 (option A). B) Real. B) Impossible.

(25) 25 Considering students’ responses, it can be concluded that most of them were able to identify the use of this structure, and interact with its analysis successfully. Question one was an easy question for students, since most of them answered it correctly. The reason to this can be found on the context of the question; they knew they were not traveling to Scotland, so they could infer it was an imaginary situation. Consequently, using an example that was distant was helpful to highlight the idea of the situation being imaginary. The Second question was even simpler than the first one; therefore, students answered it with no visible difficulty, which is also demonstrated by the number of students participating. It is important to mention that students sounded more secure when giving their answers. This result can be explained through the connection students may established between the idea of “future” and the word “will”. This also proves students’ previous knowledge about this verb tense. The last question resulted to be confusing, because the idea of “being possible” to happen was interpreted by them as if it was probable during their lives, to travel to Scotland, and eventually see a castle. I decided to ask the question again, introducing it by the following idea: “Imagine you won a trip to Scotland”. Probably, if I had chosen a different context for the last question, such as “If you go to Plaza de Armas, you will see the cathedral” the confusion would have been avoided, but it is also important to consider that the topic of the unit was “Life in other countries” and that took this example from a poster a group of students had done, as part of a previous activity.

(26) 26 the main teacher had set about “English speaking countries”, which was about a Scotland, and which was shaped as a castle. The scores given to participation never reached 10, since as I asked the questions I noticed some students did not respond to them. The reasons to this situation can be varied; lack of motivation, misunderstanding, insecurity, lack of interest, among others, and as I could not find the cause during this step of the lesson, I decided to I pay special attention to those students, after having set the task, while monitoring. VIII.6.2 Task Samples The results to this task are based on a pair work activity, consisting of an information gap exercise, in which students had different pieces of information, which had to be exchanged, in order to create meaningful ideas. (Check Appendix 5) This activity was originally done orally, since the intention was also to promote speaking practice, but I asked student to register the results on a piece of paper to serve as data for this Action Research project. In relation to this, there was no format established at the moment of writing the answers on the paper, so students registered in different ways. This situation had no implications in the success of the activity, since it was always meant to be done orally. In addition, the instructions to this activity were also given using no Spanish, I mainly used imperatives and I sequenced the work; first was “Students A” ’s turn to ask and “Students B” ‘s to answer, and then “Students B asked” and “A’s” answered. I modeled the activity with a student using the example given in the worksheet..

(27) 27 Sample 1 (to see original, go to Appendix 8) Answers: Sue 1.. If Sue visits Paris (A). She will climb the Eiffel tower (b). 2.. If Sue get home late (A). her parents will be angry (b). 3.. If Sue doesn’t wear gloves (A). her hands will be cold (b). 4.. If Sue have a picnic (A). it’s will rain (b). 5.. If sue goes to the cinema. She will fall asleep (b). Nick 1.. If Nick eats all the cake. he will not feel well. 2.. If Nick buy new trainers. he will score a goal. 3.. If Nick goes to the music festival. he will see texas. 4.. If Nick study hard. he will pass all his exams. 5.. If Nick split up with his girlfriend. he will be very unhappy. This pair of students’ work shows that they were able to achieve the goal of the task, which was to exchange information to create meaningful sentences. There are no mistakes observable in terms of the right use of the function of the language (the first conditional) since all the sentences are coherent. The only observable problems are related to grammatical errors, mainly regarding the use of the “s” for third person singular in the simple present, but since the focus of this task was never related to grammar, it should not be considered as failure; the grammatical errors did not affect the message of the sentences. The format they followed shows they sequenced the work, so it also demonstrates comprehension of the instructions..

(28) 28 Sample 2 (to see original, go to Appendix 9) Answers: Sue: 1.. She will climb the Eiffel tower. 2.. It will rain. 3.. Her hand will be cold. 4.. Her parents will be angry. 5.. She will fall sleep. Nick 1.. He won’t feel well. 2.. He will score the goal. 3.. He will see Texas. 4.. He will pass all his exams. 5.. He will be very happy.. This sample would seem less coherent, if we considered it as a writing activity; students only registered the pieces of information that each of them had to discover. However, in view of the fact it was done orally, it demonstrates interaction and pair work, since in order to have obtained the given sentences, they necessarily needed to exchange the questions containing the context to each of them, and it also proves they were focused on the message rather on the form. Certainly, there are no grammatical errors as in the first sample, but this is because they did not include the part referring to the simple present, in which most of the errors are possible to occur, due to the use of the “s”..

(29) 29. Sample 3 (to see original, go to Appendix 10) Answers: 1.. A What will happen if Sue visit Paris? B She will climb the Eiffel tower. 2.. A What will happen if Sue get home late? B Her parent will be hungry. 3.. A What will happen if Sue have a picnic? B It day will rain. 4.. A What will happen if Sue doesn’t wear gloves? B She will have a could. 5.. A What will happen if Sue goes to the cinema? B She will see a movie. This sample shows students were able to follow the structure of the interrogative form of this piece of language. Probably, they considered the one given as an example in the worksheet, to complete the rest of them, which proves students are capable of understanding grammar, with no explicit presentation of it. Moreover, they presented the same mistakes as sample 1, in relation to the grammar rules for the simple present, but this is not relevant for the achievement of the task. Also, this sample could be taken as the best one to prove that it was originally done orally, since in item number 2, the original word given in the worksheet was “angry” instead of “hungry”, therefore, the interference must have been due to pronunciation problems; “Student b” who had this piece of information probably pronounced the word “angry” as “hungry”, so “student a” registered the word as it was heard, or “student a” misspelled it. Nonetheless, this situation also shows a lack of comprehension of the message by student “A” since the word “hungry” was not coherent to the context of the sentence, so she could have probably noticed the mistake done by student “B” if she had understood the message, if it was the case. The same problem can be observed in item number 4, with the word “could”.

(30) 30 In addition, there is also a problem with the function of pronouns; as it is observed in item 3, “it” should be replacing “day”, but both words were included in the answer instead. This is something to be considered for further study with students. Last, this task is not complete, since they only registered the first part about Sue. Sample 4 (to see original, go to Appendix 11) Answers: I. 1.. If Sue visits Paris, she will climb the Eiffel tower.. 2.. If Sue have a picnic, it will rain. 3.. If sue not wear gloves, she will her hands- be cold. 4.. If sue get home late, she will her parents- be angry. 5.. If sue go to the cinema, she will fall asleep. II. 1.. If Nick’s eats all the cake, he will not fell well. 2.. If Nick’s buys new trainers, he will score a goal. 3.. If Nick’s go tos the music festival, he will see texas. 4.. If Nick’s studys hard, she will pass all his exams. 5. If Nick’s splits up with his girlfriend, he will be very unhappy. This sample presents a closer format to the example that was given during the presentation stage of the lesson. However, it also shows some mistakes that affect the understanding of the message. For instance, in the first part, items 3 and 4 show an error based on the subject of the sentences, were “her hands” and “her parents” are not understood as such, which eventually does affect the understanding of the idea. This is a problem that can be explained by the fact students are used to follow a given pattern when doing a task, instead of focusing on the meaning of the structure; if the focus was the message, they would have noticed that, for instance, “Sue’s hands will be cold, if she doesn’t wear gloves”. However,.

(31) 31 since they clearly copied the structure of the sentence given as example, the work they did was “mechanical” as they intended to be accurate by following the right structure, instead of checking comprehension and coherence of the message. There are also other noticeable mistakes such as the use of the possessive “s” in the second part of the task about Nick, and also the frequent mistake in relation to the simple present “s”. All things considered, these four samples can be understood as different levels of achievement of the task, while samples number 1 and 2 are coherent in relation to the message of the sentences, samples 3 and 4 present some mistakes in relation to comprehension, either related to pronunciation or the mechanical work students are used to do, as they focus on grammar and its frequent exercise of “following patterns” On one hand, the majority of the answers given showed coherence in terms of the relationship established through the use of the first conditional, in relation to the possible consequence considering an imaginary situation, which proves that the goal established for the lesson was achieved. On the other hand, this exercise showed that there are some students who were already used to understanding the language as patterns to be followed, instead of tools to exchange meaningful messages, which is something that should be consider for further activities with students, and helpful to discuss the fact that focusing the study of language on its form does not ensure accuracy in terms of communication..

(32) 32 VIII.6.3 Survey (To see samples, go to Appendix 12) At the end of the practicum process, I encouraged students to answer a survey which asked for their opinion regarding the use of English by the teacher. This survey was answered by 41 students: Question 1: I understand when the teacher speaks in English. Never Sometimes Usually Always. Ranking. N° of students. Never. 0. Sometimes. 1. Usually. 15. Always. 25. Question 2: I feel stressed and/or frustrated when the teacher speaks in English. Never. Ranking. N° of students. Never. 29. Sometimes. 8. Usually. 4. Always. 0. Sometimes Usually Always.

(33) 33 Question 3: Extra linguistic things such as body gestures help me to understand difficult words/ concepts.. Never. Ranking. N° of students. Never. 0. Sometimes. 1. Usually. 10. Always. 30. Sometimes Usually Always. Question 4: What is your opinion about the teacher speaking in English most of the time? A) I like it because I understand B) I don’t like it, I prefer Spanish C) I don’t care D) I think the teacher can speak English and Spanish. A B C D No answer. Option. N° of students. A. 32. B. 3. C. 0. D. 5. No answer. 1.

(34) 34 Comments: Not all of the students answered this section. 1.. Me cayó bien y es simpática, Miss I love you. 2.. I love miss Nicole.. 3.. La queremos miss. 4.. Buena profe, simpática entretenida. 5.. Es una Buena profesora, sabe explicar bien en Inglés.. 6.. Explica en Ingles las actividades, se le entiende el Inglés y sabe explicar la materia.. 7.. La miss Nicole es una muy Buena profesora, e hizo que entendiera todo incluso aunque hablara en Inglés.. 8.. Profe la amamos. 9.. Profe la quiero mucho. 10. The teacher is a good teacher 11. La profe es muy simpática y encuentro que enseña muy bien 12. La profesora explica bien 13. La profe es muy Buena 14. Me gustó mucho la miss Nicole, profe la quiero mucho (de la javi que la ama) 15. La profe es excelente 16. Me encanto la profe porque apoya y ayuda en diferentes cosas, se nota que tiene vocación 17. Muy Buena profesora, con vocación y ganas se entiende muy bien lo que habla y se preocupa de que entendamos 18. La profesora habla muy bien inglés, logro entender y es súper motivada para hacer las clases. 19. La profe me ayuda a muchas cosas, estoy más que satisfecha con su desempeño 20. Excelente la profesora, muy buena explicando la materia. Siempre entendía cuando me explicaba 21. Es la mejor profe de Inglés, no se vaya 22. The miss Nicole is the best 23. Very good teacher, we love you miss 24. I love you miss! You are a nice person 25. Siempre te explica lo que no entendiste 26. Es muy buena profesora y entiende todo lo que explica 27. The miss Nicole is the best 28. Entendí todo y me quedo muy claro, usa gestos que lo hacen aún más fácil 29. Miss Nicole es una excelente profesora, me gusta mucho sus clases ya que le entiendo mucho..

(35) 35 Regarding question number one, 60, 97% of the students claimed understanding in front of the input given in the target language, and 39,02% chose either “usually” or “sometimes” when referring to the frequency of times they understood the teacher using English. This proves the fact that it is possible for students to understand new language and words, presented using the target language only. Regarding question number two, 70,73% of the students said they “never” felt either stressed or frustrated when they teacher spoke in English, and 29,26% claimed having felt stressed or frustrated either sometimes or usually. This means that the affective filter needed for understanding was in general low, still there was a number of students whose affective filter must have been higher during certain situations. The reason for this can be related to the fact that new types of activities were developed, such as information gap worksheets, or reading exercises; when students are faced to a new type of instruction, they may present difficulties to understand. Also, factors such as contextual issues; topics, words, and resources could have been helpful to avoid frustration, if they had been changed. Question number three shows that there are other things that can help students to understand a new concept, such as body gestures, drawings on the board, facial expression, etc. 73,17% of them felt these things always helped them to understand, while 26,82% found these factors helpful either usually or sometimes. The last question proves students’ feelings or appreciations towards an EFL class using only the target language. 78% of the students like the teacher speaking in English, 7% said they preferred Spanish, 1,2% of them said both L1 and the target language can be used by.

(36) 36 the teacher, and only 1 student did not answer, which demonstrates that even when some of them felt either frustrated or with difficulties to understand the target language, they still preferred it. All these answers are supported by the comments that 70,73% of the students added to the survey. However, the comments show a deep felt affection for the teacher; therefore, it could be argued that this affection influenced the good results of the survey, in relation to the use of English. If that was the case, the results are still positive regarding the affective filter theory (Krashen, 1982) which is a good improvement regarding the acquisition theory, and the importance of the environment for acquisition of new language. Furthermore, the comments show that 6 students felt intrinsically encouraged to use English, despite it was allowed to use Spanish to answer this section..

(37) 37. IX.. ACTION PLAN PROPOSAL. All things considered, this action Research demonstrates that there is a variety of things teachers can do to improve the input provided in the target language, and help its comprehension among students; however, the very first thing that needs to be taken into account is the fact that students will be able to receive oral input, even when being low level students, if teachers provide a comprehensible one, avoiding stress and frustration. Input results to be highly important to the EFL classroom, not only because it exposes students to the language, but it also creates an environment for starting its use; during this process I was able to observe students saw me as the “teacher who speaks only English” and this situation encouraged them to start using English as well. In order to apply this methodology, there are certain things that need to be considered: . Be constant with the use of the target language: when teachers change their. discourse and either start from one day to another to use English only, or they stop the use of English to start using Spanish, the belief towards its use is affected; students will not understand the benefits of using English only, if the previous day was not such situation. Moreover, if a teacher loses the motivation and changes to Spanish, the hidden message they may be giving to students is that they were not able to understand English, so it is necessary to translate, or avoid its use. Hence, the change should be done little by little, if a teacher is used to avoid English, and it should be maximize and established from the beginning, when a teacher is new to a group of students..

(38) 38 . Encourage a positive environment for learning: there are other factors influencing. the success of the improvement of input, such as the rapport teachers build with students. During my years of observation at different schools, I noticed that some students did not like a particular subject, because they did not like the teacher, consequently their motivation and their disposition towards learning was very low. I believe the methodology was successful because of that; I was able to establish a good relationship with students, which helped me with the encouragement of input in the target language. If I had had a bad rapport with them, their affective filter would have been high, and none of my interventions would have been fruitful. . Choose meaningful topics: Topics result to be a very good way to present. comprehensible input to students. Through the use of examples and themes that are relevant or familiar to students, it is easier to avoid the use L1, since topics help students to relate concepts and even to infer certain ideas. . Pay attention to the context: Certainly the results show that sometimes context can. affect the understanding of a new language, if you give an example such as “traveling to Scotland” to a group of students who have never been abroad, you can create confusion. . Try to change the focus of the study of language: Clearly, this proposal aims at. approaching language through the use of a communicative approach. However, grammar focused approaches are more frequent in education nowadays, and sometimes they are imposed to teachers. Still, teachers can start changing the approach little by little, by working with both approaches, and proving that communicative tasks result more effective for communication..

(39) 39 . Do not underestimate your students: The may reason why teachers avoid the use of. English in the EFL classroom, is because it is believed low achievers will be incapable of understanding new words. This Action Research proposal shows that students are able to understand new language, if teachers present input in a way it is comprehensible, considering students’ previous knowledge, context, level, etc. . Trust your capacity: Sometimes teachers feel discouraged to use English in the. classroom because they feel their level is weak, and they find easier to present new language in Spanish. Then, it is crucial to trust your own competence when using English, and avoid fossilization by self - study of language and practice of it. . Help yourself with non-verbal communication: the use of body gestures, facial. expressions, drawings, mimicry, etc., helps you to explain unknown language, when the topic is not enough..

(40) 40 X.. CONCLUSION. This action research intended to address an idea that seems to be obvious for many teachers, but that in reality is not frequently practiced; the use of English by the teacher which is just only the basis for language acquisition. If teachers teach the target language using the first language, the importance of English as a tool for communication loses its value, and the English class becomes into a lesson of rules and components about the language, that are then memorized and never used by the students or the teacher, with no practical outcomes; thus, if students find these rules too difficult to memorize, their attention and motivation in relation to the target language may decrease. On the contrary, if teachers teach the target language, using only the target language, or most of the time, they show students that English is useful for communication. If they also communicate in a way it is easily understood by students, the sense of English being a tool easily dominated by anyone and beneficial for knowledge helps to improve motivational problems, participation, and the obtainment of practical outcomes. It is not the idea to forsake grammar completely, but to understand that grammar is one feature of language, therefore its study should not be prioritized; grammar mistakes are always present in the acquisition process of a student, so focusing the study and assessment of a language only on it can affect the process itself. It is crucial then to promote the recycle of knowledge so students can go back to the piece of grammar that is causing them problems, as many times as possible, so they can naturally acquire it instead of memorizing it. The results obtained during this process proved that humans are naturally capable of decoding any piece of language, even when it is unknown or knew, since language is not.

(41) 41 only about words, but also context and extra linguistic elements such as body gestures that also help comprehension. Therefore, it is teacher’s duty to maximize the use of the target language, and to take advantage of the different techniques available to provide comprehensible input. Certainly, it was impossible to change the focus of the study of language from grammar to communication, as the school imposed the planning, objectives of the lessons, the focus of assessment, etc. Yet, it was possible to demonstrate that focusing the study of a new language on its form does not imply real acquisition, since when it is the case, students understand language as patterns lacking on meaning. Consequently, it can be concluded that teaching a foreign language is absolutely possible, even when avoiding the use of L1. After having improved the amount of input in the target language, and checked its success in terms of comprehension, I would like to suggest ideas for further research. X.1 Further research Throughout this process, I was able to try some activities which could be considered as part of the Task – Based Language learning, such as the one provided in this Action Research. I consider this method useful to encourage communicative language, since it promotes interaction and avoids conscious learning of it. As it was addressed before, David Nunan (2004) defines this method as a piece of works that involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language, while their attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to express meaning, and in which the intention is to convey meaning rather than manipulating form. (Nunan, D. 2004).

(42) 42 Task-Based Language Learning” (Nunan, 2004) intends to explain the study of language, as the realization of tasks that would allow interaction among students- some examples of these tasks are given:  Information/Reasoning / Opinion gap activity  Questions and answers (such as a guessing game)  Dialogues and role plays  Matching activities (such as Bingo)  Pictures and Pictures stories (Spot the difference, sequencing)  Puzzles  Discussion and debates As this action Research Project was carried out within a context full of limitations, it was not possible to develop this method or a communicative approach, which would have implied not only improving the input, but also the use of English by students. Since this original plan was not possible, I would like to encourage further study on how to apply a communicative approach, such as the method mentioned, in a classroom with similar characteristics but no limitations, or at any school where this approach has not been considered; it would be very interesting to see the effects and implications of this in our educational reality, which is characterized by being focused on grammar approaches..

(43) 43 XI. . CONSULTED BIBLIOGRAPHY. Auerbach, E. (1993) Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom. TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 27, No. 1. University of Massachusetts at Boston.. . BBC. “Multilingualism”. Retrieved November 5, 2013, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/yourvoice/multilingualism.shtml. . Bob Duckett, (2011) "Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics” (4th edition). . Burns, A. ( 2010 ) Doing Action Research in English Language. Taylor & Franics, Ney York.. ● Crystal, D. Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Language” Retrieved November 11, 2013, from http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/329791/language ● Cook, V. (2001) Using the first language in the Classroom. University of Toronto Press. ● Cook, V. (1985) Chomsky's Universal Grammar and Second Language Learning. University of Essex. ● Cook, V.J., Long, J., & McDonough, S. (1979), ‘First and second language learning’, in G.E. Perren (ed.) The Mother Tongue and Other Languages in Education. ● Krashen, S. Language Policy Web Site. Do Other Countries Do Bilingual Education? Retrieved November 5, 2013, from http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/UW-euro.htm ● Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. University of Southern California. Pergamon Press Inc..

(44) 44 ● Ministerio de Educación de Chile - Mineduc . (2013) 18% de los estudiantes evaluados logra certificar su nivel de inglés en el Simce 2012. Retrieved November 5, 2013, from http://www.mineduc.cl/index2.php?id_contenido=24301&id_portal=1&id_seccion=10 ● Ministerio de Educación de Chile (2013) Resultados SIMCE III Medio 2012 Inglés ● Mouhanna, M. (2009). Re-Examining the Role of L1 in the EFL Classroom. UGRU Journal, ● Nunan, David. (2004) Task-based Language Teaching. The United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press. ● Osiatynski, W. (1984,) The Noam Chomsky Website. On Language and Culture, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Wiktor Osiatynski. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1984----.htm ● Oxford Dictionaries. “Language” Oxford University Press. Retrieved November 11, 2013 from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/language ● Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2011) What is language? An Introduction to Language (9th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth. ● Rodríguez, C., & Oxbrow, G. (2008) L1 in the EFL classroom: more a help than a hindrance? Porta Linguarum. ● Pinker, S. (1995) An Invitation to Cognitive Science: Language. Chapter: Language Acquisition. Massachusetts Institute of Technology ● Tucker, M. (2003) First and Second Language Acquisition. Retrieved on October, 2013 http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f03/web2/mtucker.html.

(45) 45 APPENDIX 1. Sector IDIOMA EXTRANJERO INGLÉS Curso: 8vo Básico.. Docente:. Rossana Barría Valladares. Nº Hrs.. Fecha. Mes: Septiembre.. 4. 9/10 al 13/10. Unidad: la vida en otros países y comunidades (diferent lives). Actividad y evaluación I. Contenidos :  Superlativos  Pasado Simple  Oraciones condicionales (1er condicional) Aprendizaje esperado: 1. Reconocer vocabulario temático de la unidad. 2. Identificar estructuras referidas a comparaciones. 3. Identificar estructuras referidas a posibilidades y habilidades presentes y pasadas. 4. reconocer indicadores de frecuencia de las acciones 5. Aplicando elementos ortográficos, como el punto y la mayúscula. 6. Identificar estructuras referidas a condiciones futuras.. Indicador de Desempeño. Fecha prueba de nivel o global y parciales.. . Leer y demostrar comprensión de información e ideas principales explícitamente señaladas en textos informativos, descriptivos y narrativos, breves y simples, relacionados con la vida en otros países y comunidades.. . . Seleccionan información específica relevante referida a personajes, lugares, características y hechos importantes. Discriminan información verdadera de falsa del texto, relacionada con posibilidades y habilidades pasadas y presentes. Por ejemplo : she couldn’t walk Usan adjetivos comparativos, superlativos y adverbios de frecuencia, al completar textos que describen objetos, personas, lugares y acciones.. Escuchan diálogos y completan la información en función a lo extraído de los diálogos..

(46) 46 APPENDIX 2. PLAN DE ESTRATEGIAS METODOLÓGICAS PARA 8º BÁSICO 2013/SEMESTRE 2. OBJETIVO:. Mejorar habilidades descendidas en comprensión lectora y producción escrita . Reforzar contenidos mínimos obligatorios.. APRENDIZAJES A EVALUAR 1. Comprender material escrito auténtico 2. Discriminar estructuras morfosintácticas para demostrar comprensión 3. Aplicar estructuras morfosintácticas 4. Discriminar léxico específico para demostrar comprensión 5. Inferir información específica para demostrar comprensión CONTENIDOS DE ARRASTRE 1. Presente Simple y Pasado Simple 2. Auxiliares de tiempo presente y pasado 3. Verbos regulares e irregulares 4. Vocabulario para propósitos específicos 8º BÁSICO ESTRATEGIAS METODOLÓGICAS EN COMPRENSIÓN LECTORA 1.. Desarrollar lectura guiada, de modo de facilitar la comprensión del texto a través de preguntas y significado de léxico. 2.. Inferir información a partir del título, para anticiparse al contenido temático del texto. 3.. Localizar elementos cognados para facilitar la comprensión lectora. 4.. Recatar aprendizajes previos de modo de asociarlos al contexto temático y morfosintáctico. 5.. Parafrasear oraciones o párrafos, para demostrar comprensión. 6.. Justificar oraciones falsas en forma escrita y oral utilizando si es necesario la lengua materna. 7.. Identificar ideas principales en textos de mediana extensión. 8.. Identificar estructuras morfosinácticas para facilitar la comprensión. 9.. Identificar verbos regulares en tiempo presente y pasado.

(47) 47 ESTRATEGIAS METODOLÓGICAS PARA LA PRODUCCIÓN ESCRITA. 1.. Utilizar formula morfosintáctica para construir oraciones gramaticalmente correctas y semánticamente coherentes y cohesionadas. 2.. Asociar concordancia sujeto-verbo y congruencia en la conjugación del verbo. 3.. Reconocer y escribir oraciones completas, es decir SUJETO- PREDICADO-COMPLEMENTO. 4.. Utilizar conectores para unir oraciones. 5.. Responder preguntas utilizando el tiempo verbal correcto. 6.. Combinar oraciones que hagan uso de palabras que indiquen secuencia y orden dentro de un relato.. 7. Ordenar sucesos o eventos en forma lógica dentro de una narración 8.. Usar expresiones de tiempo pertinentes al tiempo verbal. 9.. Desarrollar escritura guiada, oraciones o párrafos. 10. Escribir párrafos a través de trabajo colaborativo o grupal, según las instrucciones otorgadas.

(48) 48 APPENDIX 3. Department of English Teacher: Rossana Barria Valladares TEST OF ENGLISH 2 –LEVEL 8TH GRADE B NAME:. CLASS. Objetivos: Comprender material escrito. Discriminar información. Aplicar estructuras morfosintácticas. Producir oraciones escritas Contenidos: Pasado Continuo/Pasado Simple/ Vocabulario para propósitos específicos. Tiempo. 70 minutos. Puntaje Máximo Aprobación: 48= 7.0. Evaluación:. Sumativa con calificación. Puntaje Mínimo Aprobación : 28 = 4.0. ______________________________________________________________________________ PART 1: Choose the correct answer to complete the statement below using THE PAST SIMPLE 1.. Peter….. to the school yesterday. sold. went. built. 2.. He …… a glass of juice last night. drinked. drunks. drank. 3.. I .............. a big fish. ate. eat. eating. 4.. Gregory ......Mary. love. loved. loves. 5.. John and I........ in the same class. studied. studyed. studying. 6.. I......... ...at 6 everyday. got up. getting up. gets up. 7.. Where........ Erick yesterday?. is. was. were. 8.. We ......... coffee. buyed. bought. taught. 9.. John and Bill......... three dogs. haved. has. had. 10.. My brother …….. in a restaurant. built. worked. watched. 11.. I ..... tennis last Sunday. played. plays. to play. 12.. Where…..Erick and Mary yesterday?. was. be. were. 13.. I………. an email yesterday night. met. sent. spoke. 14.. Billy………. my keys on the table. found. swam. wrote. 15.. I…….. a 7 in the test. worked. came. got. 16.. I…….. a romantic song. slept. sang. went. 17.. We ...... houses last summer. learnt. read. built. 18.. Peter…….. to the concert. felt. went. understood.

(49) 49 18 marks PART 2: Write the correct form of the Past Continuous tense. 1. 2.. I (do)_______________________ my homework and Phil (listen to)_________________music While my brother (read)__________________ a book, I (play) ______________________the guitar.. 3.. I (eat) _____________ a sandwich every night and Robert (cook)____________________dinner. 4.. Mr. Smith (drive)________________________ while he (listen to) _______________ music. 5.. Linda (drink) _______________________ while his boyfriend (dance)__________________. 6.. John (run)_________________________ while his wife (walking)_____________________. 7.. While my mom (buy)_________________ some cookies I (speak)____________________to my friends. 14 marks PART 3: Was or Were? Decide whether to use 'was' or 'were'. 1.. Boris ____________ learning English.. 2.. They _____________ swimming in the lake.. 3.. Your father _____________ repairing the car.. 4.. I _______________ reading a magazine.. 5.. You _____________ packing your bag.. 6.. My friends _______________ watching the match on TV.. 7.. It ____________ raining.. 8.. The dog ____________barking.. 9.. The children ___________ brushing their teeth.. 10.. Anne and Maureen ____________ singing a song.. 10 MARKS PART 4: Write questions using THE PAST SIMPLE 1. “ My sister arrived at 7 am” What time……………………………………………………………..…………………? 2. “George and Daniel went to the school” Where………………………………………..……………………..? 3. “ My birthday was in August” When………………………………………………………………………………….……..? 4. “ They went to the cinema” Where ……………………………………………………………………………………….? 5. “I learnt English” What …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..? 6. “ I was at home at school” Where ………………………………………………………………………………………….? 6 marks.

Referencias

Documento similar

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that reading authentic literary material in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom can improve students’ language learning skills as

In relation to language knowledge of L1/vehicular language (The teacher has knowledge of the L1/vehicular language in terms of fluency, accuracy, lexicon and

In the case of speaking, researcher shows that a rich variety of activities might be done to promote this particular language skill in the language

An overview of the literature on input indicates two ways of making input comprehensible: the first one is to premodify input before it is offered to the learner, (premodified

Even though the 1920s offered new employment opportunities in industries previously closed to women, often the women who took these jobs found themselves exploited.. No matter

The results obtained from students’ responses to the questionnaire used in this research study indicate that the academic trajectory of students in the Language Teaching program at

These situations include showing knowledge of the answer of a question by students if they do not know how to say it in the second language or using the mother tongue to

In the “big picture” perspective of the recent years that we have described in Brazil, Spain, Portugal and Puerto Rico there are some similarities and important differences,