by

Dissertation Diary 5

I’ve decided to use my blog as a reflective tool while doing my dissertation project – the final component of my M.A. in ELT –  hypothesising that this will make it an even more effective learning experience for me, by mapping it, enabling me to look back on my thought processes and decisions and see what effect these have on the project development. (Other posts in this series can be found here) Once I get to the end (13th September is D-Day!), as well as looking back over the experience of doing the project, I plan to try and evaluate the effect of these reflective blog posts on it.

Having read Willis D. and Willis J. (2007) Doing  Task-based Teaching Oxford University Press, and made copious notes relevant to my materials, flicked through Willis, J. (1996) A framework for Task-based Learning. Longman (looks very useful and clear, I will refer to it while making my tasks), and looked at a bit of Nunan, D. (2004) Task-Based Language Teaching Cambridge University Press, I do feel a lot better informed about TBL now than I did before. There is a lot more similarity between Ellis (2003) and Willis&Willis (2007) than there is between those and Nunan (2004). For Ellis (2003) and Willis&Willis (2007), the task is central whereas for Nunan (2004), it comes at the end of lengthy preparation sequence that resembles PPP. I prefer the Ellis and Willis versions, which have a stronger link to SLA theory. I like the principles that Nunan’s version is based on:

  • Scaffolding (to maximise learners’ chances of successful task completion)
  • Task dependency (logical sequencing)
  • Recycling (to maximise learning opportunities)
  • Active learning (active use of language helps learners learn best),
  • Integration (form, function and meaning)
  • Reproduction to creation (not only reliance on models)
  • Reflection

(Nunan, 2004:35-38)

However I think they can be met through the Ellis and Willis approach, keeping the task central. Ellis and Willis both demonstrate how to scaffold the task through the preparation phase, while maintaining the focus on meaning and language (learner-directed – vs focus on form, which is teacher or materials led). Task-dependency is important vertically (within a lesson) and horizontally (across the task-based syllabus) – there needs to be logic behind it all. This can still be achieved while keeping the task central; it’s a matter of selection, grading and ensuring coherence. (In the case of my materials, the coherence is being maintained horizontally by the project thread and vertically by logical sequencing and grading of activities) Recycling can be achieved through giving learners the opportunity to produce similar meanings in different contexts (Willis and Willis, 2007). Active use of language occurs during the main task as well as in the preparatory and post-task activities. Integration is achieved through focus on language and focus on form, all contextualised. Making the task central does not prohibit creativity or limit the learners to following a model. And reflection can be woven in at any point in the task cycle, both vertically and horizontally.

As far as I can make out, Ellis (2003:163) believes that Consciousness-Raising (CR) Tasks, “a kind of puzzle which when solved enables learners to discover for themselves how a linguistic feature works” are tasks in their own right, with the non-linguistic outcome being awareness of the feature in question, while Willis&Willis (2007) believe in explicit form focus only featuring in the post-task phase, with implicit, learner-directed focus (language focus) able to arise at any stage. For CR tasks, Ellis (2003:163) identifies 4 main characteristics:

  1. There is an attempt to isolate a specific linguistic feature for focused attention.

  2. The learners are provided with data that illustrate the targeted feature and they may also be provided with an explicit rule describing or explaining the feature.

  3. The learners are expected to utilize intellectual effort to understand the targeted feature.

  4. Learners may be optionally required to verbalize a rule describing the grammatical structure.

Heightened cognitive engagement, in the discovery element, should make the forms learnt in this way more memorable. So, this is materials and teacher-driven discovery of elements of language, where the task consists of discovering whichever structure it is. (Now I begin to see why H was emphasising the need to clarify exactly where the overlaps and differences are between this and Language Awareness, and which elements I am using of each…) 

Language Awareness, then. As I discovered early on (see Dissertation Diary 2), Borg’s description of LA is cited thus in Svalberg, 2007 (emphasis as in original):

  1. It involves an ONGOING INVESTIGATION of language as a dynamic phenomenon rather than awareness of a fixed body of established facts.

  2. It involves learners in TALKING ANALYTICALLY about language, often to each other.

  3. It considers essential the INVOLVEMENT of learners in exploration and discovery.

  4. It aims to develop not only the learners’ knowledge about and understanding of language but also their LEARNING SKILLS, thus promoting learner independence.

  5. The aim is to involve learners on both a COGNITIVE and AFFECTIVE level.

Comparing Ellis’s CR features and Borg’s LA features, exploration and discovery of language are common to both. Talking about language is common to both, if the CR task is collaborative. Recognition of the importance of cognitive engagement is common to both. The aims, I think, differ slightly. I think LA is wider, embracing the affective level, the learner skills, as well as the dynamism of language. I think Borg’s first point almost seems to be contrasting LA with CR. Ellis (2003:166) claims that CR tasks are “an effective means of achieving a focus on form while at the same time affording opportunities to communicate” but warns that they are not “an alternative to communication activities, but a supplement” (ibid:167). I think LA is similarly effective with similar caveats, but allows greater breadth of focus, perhaps more holistic. I.e. language is more than “a puzzle” (it’s dynamic, it’s socially situated – if Critical LA is included), learning is more than cognitive engagement (includes “learning skills” and the “affective level”). Bolitho et al. (2003) stress the importance of affect in LA and in language learning – unsurprising, perhaps, given that Tomlinson is part of the ‘et al.’! – and this seems compatible with TBL, provided task design takes this into account. How? Presumably by allowing for personal response, using engaging texts and providing learners with the opportunity to engage emotionally as well as cognitively.

TBL and LA make good bedfellows on the level of theory and principles: Bolitho et al. (2003) explain that LA approaches “like Task-Based Approaches, reflect the research findings that, in both L1 and L2, language acquisition occurs when, and only when the learners are ready” whereas LA approaches “do not typically exploit a syllabus based on a prescribed inventory of language items”, again much like Task-Based approaches. In terms of theories of language, “Pedagogically […] Language Awareness is seen as inseparable from text awareness, and the emphasis on language and use and in context entails a view of language as a social and cultural medium”; the importance of use and context echoes in TBL. So, it seems logical to agree with Ellis in terms of the validity of CR tasks within TBL but expand such tasks to reflect LA principles too. I think if a set of materials can successfully embody this (as mine will aim to…!), learners will benefit from a task-based approach that is enriched by the LA principles of language and learning.

For an LA approach, Tomlinson in Bolitho et al (2003:257) recommends that “some lessons are experiential, with the learners unaware that they are developing implicit awareness by focusing on features of a text in order to achieve an intended outcome” while “other lessons are both experiential and analytical, with the learners being helped to begin the exploration of features of a text which they have just experienced.”. To me, this parallels with the focus on meaning and focus on form elements of TBL. He adds that other lessons could be “analytical with the learners being asked to articulate and refine discoveries they have previously made” (ibid) – I think part of other lessons could, and this would be in keeping with the idea of recycling language in different contexts to refine awareness of how it is used, which Willis and Willis recommend. Tomlinson also recommends that “in all lessons learners are asked to think for themselves, and are encouraged to become more aware”. Within TBL, reflection is described as “a natural conclusion to the task cycle” (Willis 2006), though Willis (2006) emphasises the outcome of the task as the primary focus, while Ellis recommends that learner performance of the task and how they might improve it is equally valid. I think awareness of the reasoning behind the tasks is important too: metacognitive awareness. According to Vandergrift and Goh (2012), Self-awareness, task awareness and strategy awareness, elements of metacognition, are important in language learning. I think all of of these may be implicit in Tomlinson’s recommendation for learners to “become more aware”.

Ok, so now:

  • I am clear on how CR and LA are similar and how they are different: that’s one piece of homework addressed.
  • I’ve read Willis and Willis, and mined it for relevant, useful information in relation to my materials: another homework tick.
  • I’ve thought intensively about the organisation and labelling (with regards to what constitutes a task etc) of my materials and made a diagram to illustrate this: I’m clear in my head with regards to the vertical and horizontal progressions that I want. This is the beginning of the diagram:

Screen Shot 2013-06-14 at 09.19.24

So, each vertical pod is a task cycle but these task cycles sit in the macro-task cycle, which is the horizontal pod. So there is vertical sequencing and horizontal sequencing to think about. *NB The right-hand side of the horizontal pod should really be open, only closing right at the end of the very last vertical pod. But, I’m using power point to organise my thoughts and I don’t know how to make it do that, with only two vertical pods fitting per slide. 

I need to:

  • Address the culture issue
  • Continue mapping my skeleton back to the theory/principles and fleshing it out/pinning it down: doing day one was easy, having discussed it with H during the tutorial – the rest will be more challenging! But at least having talked through the process for one sequence, with H, and knowing what questions I need to ask and answer, I am in a good position to have a decent crack at this.

Screen Shot 2013-06-14 at 09.10.41

This is what I am attempting to do for all of my vertical sequences, as a starting point: identifying exactly what each part is and what it is trying to do. Once I have done this for all vertical sequences and made sure they cohere horizontally towards the main task of the horizontal cycle, I can then flesh them out more in terms of exactly what steps each task will entail etc. Part of identifying this information for each vertical sequence is the cross-referencing to theory and seeing if what I am trying to do matches with my rationale for doing it. My rationale for doing it is based on TBL and LA theory in interaction with my context. Obviously a massive omission in the above example, which is the only one I’ve done so far, is timing. Timing is still on the list of things to do…

  • Once I have mapped out the vertical sequences as above, and fleshed them out, including deciding how much time to allocate to each vertical sequence and therefore the complete duration of the horizontal sequence, I need to combine that with my diagram. The combination will then be the map of my materials.
  • Then I need to draft a rationale.

So, progress is being made….!

References:

Willis D. and Willis J. (2007) Doing  Task-based Teaching Oxford University Press

Willis, J. (1996) A framework for Task-based Learning. Longman

Nunan, D. (2004) Task-Based Language Teaching Cambridge University Press

Bolitho et al. (2003) Ten questions about Language Awareness in ELTJ vol. 57/3 Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2003) Task Based Language Learning and Teaching Oxford University Press

Svalberg, A. (2007) Language awareness and language learning in Language Teaching vol. 40/4. (Abstract: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0261444807004491) Cambridge Journals.

Of course, thoughts/criticisms/suggestions etc all as heartily welcomed as usual. 🙂

by

MATSDA (Materials Development Association) Conference, 13-14 July, University of Liverpool

On the 13th and 14th of July, the University of Liverpool will be hosting MATSDA’s annual 2-day conference. Well worth attending to catch up with the latest developments in the world of ELT materials!

You can find an advert for the conference here, and a full programme of who will be presenting on what topics, including abstracts, here. Please do download them and share them with anyone who might be interested in going!

These are the plenary speakers:

  • Mark Almond
  • Thom Kiddle
  • Alan Maley
  •  Hitomi Masuhara
  • Brian Tomlinson
  • Jane Willis

I’m going to be presenting on the Sunday too! All very exciting.

So if you have any time to spare and are able to get to Liverpool for a weekend on the 13th/14th July…

You know you want to! 🙂

by

Dissertation Diary 4

I’ve decided to use my blog as a reflective tool while doing my dissertation project – the final component of my M.A. in ELT –  hypothesising that this will make it an even more effective learning experience for me, by mapping it, enabling me to look back on my thought processes and decisions and see what effect these have on the project development. (Other posts in this series can be found here) Once I get to the end (13th September is D-Day!), as well as looking back over the experience of doing the project, I plan to try and evaluate the effect of these reflective blog posts on it.

Yesterday (a day earlier than planned, by necessity, but it worked out well in the end, happily!) I had my second tutorial with H. It was fantastic! Much better than the previous meeting (which was also really, really good, don’t get me wrong!), because I’d done some proper work on the project, so there was something to properly pull apart and get our teeth into. So, this post will summarise what we covered in 45mins of tutorial as well as the next set of goals that have emerged. Boy, do I ever have my work cut out for me now! (Both in synthesising that little lot AND implementing the resulting plan of action!)

(But a quick aside before I start: I think doing a dissertation project like this, with an experienced supervisor whom I trust implicitly (important because it means I feel comfortable discussing my [often questionable] ideas), a.k.a. a “more experienced other”, means exactly working in my own “Zone of Proximal Development” (a la good old Vygotsky) – I’m being scaffolded to work beyond my current capabilities and produce something that I wouldn’t otherwise be able to produce, acquiring valuable skills/learning in the process. Socio-constructivist learning in action. And I LOVE it! :-))

Right, to business…

We began with a somewhat timid “What do you think of my ideas?” from me, and the first thing addressed was a glaring gap in my reading thus far. So, next on my list to read is:

Willis D. and Willis J. (2007) Doing  Task-based Teaching Oxford University Press.

Or it might be…

Willis, J. (1996) A framework for Task-based Learning. Longman.

Ach, why not both! Basically, there is a Willis (and Willis?)-sized hole to be filled! I don’t have to follow the Willis framework but it can be a starting point, even if it becomes a case of simply rationalising why it isn’t there or using it as a point of comparison when discussing Ellis’s version. Not unreasonable – a dissertation project based on TBL with no mention of Willis OR Willis might be rather questionable!

H likes the combining the Language Awareness work with Task-Based Learning idea, so that was a good start. I need, though, to clarify exactly what the cross-over is between Ellis’s Consciousness-Raising and Language Awareness – if I claim they are similar, I need to be very clear how they are similar and how they are different.

Regarding the culture element, for the rationale I need to be aware (and state) exactly what my approach is:

  • what cultural content am I including?
  • what exactly is it that I am aiming to do AND aiming not to do in terms of culture? E.g. I’m not trying to get them to learn about the Queen/parliament!, it’s a different kind of culture and a different approach, an enabling approach.
  • what exactly are the materials doing and not doing with culture?
  • what about intercultural capability?

We discussed how I am approaching the syllabus. My task cycle is preparatory tasks, the main task (exploiting the ESE), then tasks using the information gathered, then ending up with it on the wiki and then reflection. I need to think about/justify in the rationale my approach to language focus (in terms of selection).

Then we moved onto the (somewhat half-baked) framework I produced yesterday (just in time for the meeting!) and spent the rest of the meeting pulling it apart in great detail, which was very useful (genuinely!).

Here is the framework as it was: Framework Draft 1  

One of the criteria for calling something “task” is that it must have a non-linguistic outcome. (NB: A non-linguistic outcome needs to be tangible e.g. for the task “Find 3 pieces of dirt under your table”, the outcome would be the three pieces of dirt!) “Page 1” involves scaffolding use of the self-access centre. However, that may be the pedagogical goal of the sequence but it isn’t an outcome – as far as the task goes it’s a means to an end. The leaflet that the learners are going to produce is an outcome but it’s an outcome of the post-task element rather than the main task. In the end we established that the data collected through use of the self-access centre (scaffolded via a worksheet which will be a photocopiable resource in the teacher’s book) was the non-linguistic outcome of the main task. Getting from the outcome of the main task (the data collected) to the outcome of the post-task (the completed leaflet) will require more scaffolding for the learners. Another task…

And herein lies a major flaw in the current framework: The word “task” is repeated so many times that it becomes at best confusing and at worst meaningless. I need to decide what I am going to label a “task” and what I am going to label an “activity” and I need to be careful in applying these labels.

  • What I call things needs to be principled and thought out so that it is clear when the big task is coming, which will have all the qualities specified in the literature.
  • Avoid the trap of calling everything a “task” and then not knowing what is meant anymore. It will make things seem more sensible.

“Page 2” – With regards to the vocabulary focus, I need to think very carefully about how to focus on form in a) Task-based learning and b) Language Awareness approach. Is this going to be teacher and materials led or is it going to be students finding what they find useful? Need to link back to the theory – look carefully at what L.A. says about how much it should be teacher/materials-led and how much it should be open to students to look for examples of x and work out the rules for yourself. Need to think about exactly how I am going to do this.

  • Will the students be able to work out the rules?
  • What happens if they can’t?
  • Are the resources there for the teacher to guide them?
  • Is the L.A. approach suitable for everything? Or suitable only for some language points?

For the materials-led form focus, I can have a language reference in the book as well as the L.A. stuff, but I need to justify why I am combining these approaches. Now is the time where I need to go backwards and forwards between this initial draft framework and the theory, it’s a good stage to do this. And keep asking for every step of it:

  • Is this compatible with the theory or am I just trying to shoehorn something in for the sake of it or something that doesn’t quite fit with the ethos of what I am doing?
  • What am I going to put in my rationale to justify this?
  • Is the world ready for this?! Or might I want to include something a bit more traditional (e.g. the language reference vis-a-vis Language Awareness approach) to make it more palatable?
  • What are the non-linguistic outcomes for each of the tasks in the task cycle?
  • What exactly is the purpose of each main task?
  • Exactly which part of the task is the main part? (It is from this that the non-linguistic outcome must emerge.)

“Page 3” – It starts to become clear that I am taking the students through a process, almost like a research process, some input at the beginning and preparing them for the main task (exploiting E.S.E.) through making questions/a questionnaire and then exploiting the data collected. So each of the stages is a mini-task but the whole thing is also one big task cycle.

To make it easier to understand:

  • I need to make a framework of the macro task cycle, divided up into stages, A/B/C/D etc however many stages.
  • That framework then should be reflected in the mini-tasks that go on in each lesson so that each lesson is going to take on a task cycle.

It’s a matter of the labels and the language I use around it that will make my pattern transparent.

  • I need a formula that will be followed for each mini task and for the overall task.
  • A diagram in the rationale would be good.
  • And I must pay attention to the headings for everything and the language used to describe everything (very important!).

That’s what will (hopefully!) make it understandable for me/H/teachers and students who use the materials/to anyone who looks at the materials: They would be able to look at the pattern, understand it, see how everything fits in. That will also make it fit what I say it’s doing, vis-a-vis the theory (Ellis and Willis and so on), which will be important for the rationale: bringing it all together in perfect harmony… (ah, can you just imagine it…somewhere wayyy up the dissertation mountain…)

So, next goals:

  • Address all the above bullet points/questions
  • Think about how long each mini task cycle is going to take and therefore how long the macro cycle will take as well. (This is important because if it’s a 20hr cycle, then I only need to make one but if it’s a 10hr cycle, then I need to make two)
  • Make sure the task sequence that is followed each lesson is clear (in terms of non-linguistic outcome, duration etc)
  • Maintain the inclusion of different kinds of tasks.
  • Map out the the materials – an outline (what is each task going to be, what is each stage in each lesson going to be, that kind of thing)
  • Draft a rationale if possible (or headings and notes and references otherwise)

There’s no one way to structure the rationale, but I do need to consider and include:

  • Description of the context
  • What theories I’m drawing on (methodology, SLA, materials design…) [this is the biggest part of it]
  • Main principles behind what I’ve chosen to do.
  • Make an argument for the design of the materials in the way that I’ve done it (why I’ve chosen the methodologies/principles that I’ve chosen )
  • Why TBL? What task cycle am I using? What kind of tasks? How are the materials organised? Exemplify it.

Essentially it’s a whole justification of what I am doing. So I can make a diagram of the task cycle, relate it back to the theory and justify why it is that students will be learning from this task cycle in that context better than they would if done in a different way. It answers the question: “Why are my materials like this?”

At this point time ran out (I reckon we could easily have gone on for another 15mins or half an hour if H hadn’t had back to back appointments all afternoon – we only talked through the first two pages of the plan and touched on the third!). Next meeting will be at the end of June. Plenty to be getting on with meanwhile… So many questions to answer, so much thinking to do, so much to produce. I think I might still be in the foothills of this dissertation mountain!

First things first, time to go to the library and dig out the Willis collection…

As ever, any thoughts/criticism/comments etc all very welcome! 🙂

by

Useful EAP-related resources

This annotated collection of resources is for anyone with an interest in EAP, including people like me who want to learn more about it. There’s lots of stuff out there, some of which I have found, so I thought I would gather it all into one place for convenience. If you know of any other resources, which are not included here (and I am sure there will be plenty!), please do comment on this post with a link to the resource and a short description of what it contains, so I can add it to this list – such contributions would be much appreciated!

Blogs

This blog goes with the #eapchat hashtag on Twitter, which was founded by Tyson Seburn (@seburnt). Discussions are had on the first and third Mondays of every month, at 9 a.m. and 3p.m. EST. In between these times, plenty of interesting links appear in the hash stream.

This blog’s tagline is “Polemical. Questioning, debating and exploring issues in EAP” – says it all really! A lot of interesting stuff related to EAP there to get your teeth into.

This blog describes itself as “The diary of an EAP practitioner on a journey to self-educate”  – and the author has been in EAP since 2009. An interesting mixture of things EAP-related to read.

This blog carries some useful posts for people who are trying to get work in EAP – and of course the website itself is where a lot of universities advertise their jobs. The blog describes itself thus: “This blog covers a wide range of topics within English for Academic Purposes (EAP) including English language learning and teaching (ELT) and English for specific purposes (ESP).

Ana Christina’s blog has a page devoted to EAP-related links, including links aimed at students, and lots of other interesting stuff to look at besides.

A blog with reflections on EAP, kept by Steve Kirk – some really interesting stuff, well worth a visit.

Individual Blog Posts

This blog post contains some useful tips for academic listening preparation.

Adam Simpson’s blog post investigates what we should be asking ourselves when we teach EAP.

This blog post looks at the role of humour in university learning. Can students be trained to laugh? Read on and find out…

Websites

“A global forum for EAP Professionals” , BALEAP offers institutional and individual memberships which entitles you to a bunch of interesting stuff (I’m about to join, actually!). They also run various conferences and events.

This is a collection of links to various EAP resources, curated by @PatrickAndrews, including blogs, websites, articles and newspaper articles. Lots to explore!

This is a bibliography related to learner corpora and forms part of a website belonging to the Centre for English Corpus Linguistics. The list and the site itself look to be very useful.

This Scoopit page, curated by Steve Kirk, contains a variety of informative resources for EAP Practitioners. Lots of interesting stuff to go at here!

by

Shortlisted for the British Council TeachingEnglish website’s “Blog of the month”!

I am very grateful to the British Council TeachingEnglish website for shortlisting me for this award for my post on Metacognition, which was inspired by the reading and materials development I’ve done as part of my M.A. and which I posted in late May.

Click here to see the shortlisting (it will open in a new tab), which gives you the opportunity to vote by “like”ing if you wish.

Otherwise, thank you to everyone who has visited my site for a look-see thus far and to everyone who has “followed” it recently (and less recently!) – I hope it continues to be of interest to you! 🙂

by

Dissertation Diary 3

I’ve decided to use my blog as a reflective tool while doing my dissertation project – the final component of my M.A. in ELT –  hypothesising that this will make it an even more effective learning experience for me, by mapping it, enabling me to look back on my thought processes and decisions and see what effect these have on the project development. (Other posts in this series can be found here) Once I get to the end (13th September is D-Day!), as well as looking back over the experience of doing the project, I plan to try and evaluate the effect of these reflective blog posts on it.
    Having spent the last 24hrs reading and grappling with the theory behind Task Based Learning, what does and doesn’t constitute a TBL task, how to design a Task-Based Syllabus, how to grade tasks in terms of their complexity and the different criteria that need to be considered in order to do this, how to sequence tasks to maximise learning and so on and so forth, (the beginnings of) my plan (well, plan A anyway – no guarantee that this will actually be implemented, more than likely it will just be the first to be discarded!) is slowly emerging. In fact, according to Ellis (2003:229), I may just about have started to establish my “starting point” – “the determination of the goal(s) of the course in terms of its pedagogic focus (general or specific purpose), skill focus (listening, speaking, reading, writing, learner training) and language focus (unfocused or focused)”…
Continue reading →
by

Dissertation Diary 2

I’ve decided to use my blog as a reflective tool while doing my dissertation project – the final component of my M.A. in ELT –  hypothesising that this will make it an even more effective learning experience for me, by mapping it, enabling me to look back on my thought processes and decisions and see what effect these have on the project development. (Other posts in this series can be found here) Once I get to the end (13th September is D-Day!), as well as looking back over the experience of doing the project, I plan to try and evaluate the effect of these reflective blog posts on it.

Delta module 1 exam is over, all semester 2 assignments are in: time to focus on this dissertation now. My next meeting with H is on Wednesday (assuming I’m ready), so I’m in the process of responding to everything that was raised for consideration in the first meeting. As well as getting my head around all those questions that emerged, I need to prepare a possible framework for my materials. So, here goes…

So far, since my last dissertation meeting, I’ve read (in order):

Nault, D. (2006) Going Global: Rethinking Culture Teaching in ELT Contexts  in Language, Culture and Curriculum vol. 19/3.

Ellis, R. (2009) Task-based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings in International Journal of Applied Linguistics vol 19/3. Blackwell Publishing.

Svalberg, A. (2007) Language awareness and language learning in Language Teaching vol. 40/4. (Abstract: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0261444807004491) Cambridge Journals.

Bolitho et al. (2003) Ten questions about language awareness in ELTJ vol. 57/3. Oxford University Press.

Next on my list to read: 

Van den Branden, Bygate and Norris ed. (2009) Task-Based Language Teaching: A reader John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based Language Learning and Teaching Oxford University Press.

My context:

Private language school in Leeds

Upper intermediate learners

Multilingual classes

Continuous enrolment (students arriving and leaving regularly, some stay for a number of months, others as little as a week or two)

Big mixture of learning goals (some want to study in the U.K., some want to improve their English because it will help in their job back home, some are on holiday and want to improve their English at the same time, for some it’s a hobby).

They study General English in the morning and in the afternoon the sessions are more skills-focused and for those that want it there is the possibility of joining an IELTS preparation class or having one to one tuition.

Students can also use the self-access room, which has a suite of computers, some graded readers and other resources. This is supervised on a daily basis by different members of staff, for 2hrs on a Monday and an hr Tuesday to Thursday, who are on hand to help the students find something suited to their needs/wants.

The majority of the students particularly want to improve their speaking and listening, but there are some whose speaking/listening are already pretty good and whose writing lets them down. These tend to be the students who want to study in the U.K. and choose the IELTS afternoon classes. Students also tend to have learnt English at school in their home countries, usually with a heavy grammar focus.

I want to make materials for the morning classes, so systems and skills needs to be integrated and content suited to General English learners.

The teachers at this school are all pretty experienced and used to preparing weekly schemes of work based on the course books in use. There are also regular CPD sessions. They do, however, make good use of teachers books in their planning – whether or not they then elect to adhere to what the teachers book says. So, a good set of teachers notes to accompany my materials will be a must. Ideally, these notes will have a lot of flexibility built in, rather than being didactic.

Theory:

Having (re)read the articles listed above, I think a well-designed set of TBLL materials, using elements of the Language Awareness approach would work well for this context:

  • Although usually associated with speaking tasks, Ellis (2009) points out that tasks can be input-based too. Apparently in a book of his, he has a chapter on the use of listening tasks in TBL – I will be reading that! I believe it should therefore be possible to design materials, using this approach, that ensure focus on all 4 skills, as well as grammar/vocabulary/pronunciation – Ellis (2009) explains that focus on form is not limited to grammatical form and cites studies that show focus on vocabulary and pronunciation. So it’s possible, the challenge will be designing materials that promote and enable this.
  • Tasks can be focused or unfocused. A task-based syllabus can be purely focused, purely unfocused, or a mixture. I would go for a mixture, as I can see benefits for both task types.
  • Language Awareness can be deductive or inductive, but inductive is most common. According to Borg, cited in Svalberg (2007), there are five main features of an LA methodology:

  1. It involves an ONGOING INVESTIGATION of language as a dynamic phenomenon rather than awareness of a fixed body of established facts.

  2. It involves learners in TALKING ANALYTICALLY about language, often to each other.

  3. It considers essential the INVOLVEMENT of learners in exploration and discovery.

  4. It aims to develop not only the learners’ knowledge about and understanding of language but also their LEARNING SKILLS, thus promoting learner independence.

  5. The aim is to involve learners on both a COGNITIVE and AFFECTIVE level.

(Svalberg, 2007:291, emphasis here as per the article)

  • (Continuing from the above bullet point) As is mentioned in this article, there is a crossover here between LA and Ellis’s Consciousness-Raising approach to grammar, which he believes is compatible with his TBLT framework. I’m inclined to agree with Ellis on this one, I think his TBLT framework and elements of the LA approach could complement each other nicely. I would add a further metacognitive element, so that learners are helped to understand this non-traditional approach and not feel threatened by it.
  • Combining the two approaches would enable a greater variety of learning styles to be catered for: LA is very analytical BUT, as cited above, aims to involve learners affectively too. Affective engagement could come, for example,  through use of engaging texts, to which learners respond, in input-based tasks as well as through use of input or output-based tasks which draw on learners’ experiences and backgrounds.
  • Using tasks which generate written output would enable learners who are keen to improve their writing the chance to do this, while those learners who are most interested in speaking would still benefit from the task process, which would involve collaboration and therefore the opportunity to speak. Speaking skill development, meanwhile, could come through form focus in speaking tasks, by focusing on features of spoken discourse. In keeping with the LA approach, awareness of how and why these features are used, and to what effect, would need to be incorporated.

Other features that my materials will include:

Development of intercultural awareness

This, I believe, would be helpful for learners, whether they stay long term in the (multicultural) UK, e.g. to study, or whether they return to their own countries and use English as a language of wider communication. Nault (2006:323) recommends that more attention be focused on “issues such as cultural misunderstandings, cross-cultural pragmatics, stereotypes, non-verbal communication and culture shock”. Of course, the question is quite how to go about this. I think one immediate resource would be the diversity of learner backgrounds within classes in my context. Another interesting resource would be recordings of learners’ own interactions with each other during tasks. These could be compiled into a corpus and learners could look for patterns. (This needs further thought with regards to how it would work on a practical level!)

Use of the English-Speaking Environment

This is a valuable resource for these learners, so it would be beneficial for materials to exploit it. I think this would work well as a project thread. So it could be that tasks prepare learners to undertake the project, then scaffold them through the process of undertaking it, after which it could be used as a basis for further tasks. Then the cycle would begin anew. For this element, I am also considering use of a wiki. The non-linguistic goal of the wiki would be to create a resource for incoming learners to access, which would help them better understand and negotiate the ESE of Leeds. In terms of dealing with the constant flow of new learners, new learners would join existing groups (as these lost members) and existing group members would then explain what they have been doing and what they intend to do. New learners would also access the resource, once established, and begin to participate, helped by their group.

The school/context has a social programme, which learners can take part in. This would be a resource that could be tapped in the course of these projects. Additionally, learners stay in residences with other non-native speakers or in host families. This, too, could be exploited by the materials. For example, activities could include surveys and interviews about what people do for fun in Leeds or the types of films they like and why. Learners are keen to interact with people in their environment, so giving them a purpose and scaffolding the process through use of pre-, during- and post-project tasks would be helpful for them and may also motivate and help those who are keen but uncertain about how to go about it or perhaps shy. The collaborative element would provide additional support.

Information gathered, e.g. what people do for fun in Leeds, could be compared with learners’ own countries/cultures, but also in terms of different-subcultures, such as different ages, different social backgrounds etc. A task could be used to scaffold this process, the outcome of which could also go on the wiki. Thus, as well as information about Leeds and the people who live in it, either temporarily or permanently, there would also be information about how this compares with other countries in the world. Newcomers to the class could add their perspective to such tasks at any time, if their country wasn’t represented in a particular task, or they wanted to add to the representation of their country, as well as participating in whatever the current project was.

This will be where the “originality” of my materials comes in: Because they are designed specifically for the E.S.E. rather than as a global course book, they will scaffold the use of this environment as a learning tool. (In fact, Tomlinson, 2008, complains that “none of the books [that he reviewed for this volume] seem to really help learners to make use of the English which is in the out of school environment everywhere”.)

Use of multimedia

As well as the wiki/project element, it would be useful to scaffold learners’ use of the self-access centre computer suite, to enable them to benefit more fully from this resource. In order to do that, tasks could be used which require grouped learners to use the suite initially during class time and then outside of class time, with subsequent in-class discussion/reporting/presenting/reflecting/evaluating based on this.

And now it’s time for me to go away, get more books out of the library and work on a unit framework and an organisational framework within which units will sit. For it to be task-based, the task needs to be the unit of organisation, but also to consider is the task-as-plan vs task-as-process, sequencing of tasks to maximise their yield for learners, and how this will fit together with the ESE project and intercultural awareness threads…

References:

Ellis, R. (2009) Task-based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings in International Journal of Applied Linguistics vol 19/3. Blackwell Publishing.

Nault, D. (2006) Going Global: Rethinking Culture Teaching in ELT Contexts  in Language, Culture and Curriculum vol. 19/3.

Svalberg, A. (2007) Language awareness and language learning in Language Teaching vol. 40/4. (Abstract: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0261444807004491) Cambridge Journals.

Tomlinson B. and Masuhara H (2008)  Materials used in the U.K. in Tomlinson, B. (ed.) English Language Learning Materials: a critical review. Continuum. London.

Hopefully progress is being made…  However, I would be interested to hear anybody’s thoughts on what I have explored in this post – be as critical as you like! 🙂

by

Delta Tips 6: Useful Resources for Module 1 Exam Revision

This is the sixth in a series of blog posts I’m doing in response to the number of Delta-related searches that bring visitors to my blog. Each post in this Delta Tips series will deal with a different element of the Delta, based on my experience of doing it (and surviving to tell the tale! ) 

Delta Module 1 exam revision is a painful process, there’s no denying it. The good news is, the pain can be alleviated somewhat by having a good set of revision materials at your finger tips. Here is an annotated list of resources, divided up by category, that I have found useful:

Methodology:

A trip down ELT Methodology Memory Lane: A webinar by @chiasuan, based on a TESOL France plenary she did – this is a pleasant way to brush up on everything that’s been and gone in ELT and that you might be expected to demonstrate knowledge of in the Delta exam.

Terminology:

Quizlet Delta Class: @Sandymillin has brought together all sets of Delta-related flashcards on Quizlet into one handy collection. You can use this Quizlet class to study and to test yourself on the kind of language you will need to be familiar with to get through the exam.

British Council’s TeachingEnglish website has a useful Knowledge Database  with succinct definitions for all manner of terms, conveniently indexed alphabetically. A good point of reference if there’s anything terminological you aren’t confident about.

Phonology:

Helping students with connected speech on Rachael Roberts’ ELTResourceful site gives a succinct overview of features of connected speech which might help refresh your memory on the subject.

For learning all those symbols for the different phonemes, I recommend Adrian Underhill’s chart – and on this Onestopenglish page  you can also find a link to the Sounds app, if you prefer a more interactive approach and are blessed with an ipad/tablet/thing.

Exam technique:

Delta Paper 1 and  Delta Paper 2 both go into great detail, explaining exactly what it is Cambridge are looking for, as well as all the many, many things Cambridge won’t love you for. So for an in-depth analysis of each paper, including example questions and answers, this should be your next stop.

Sue Swift’s “An ELT Notebook blog” is another very good source of exam technique advice, equally detailed and helpful for filling you in on what’s hot and what’s not as far as Cambridge is concerned. Part 1 is the first of her posts about the exam and logically enough begins with the first tasks of paper 1, and you can follow this series as far as Part 7, a journey which will take you right through to the end of Paper 2! If you register (it’s free!), you can also do a quiz on each paper.

Official Cambridge ESOL offerings:

Here is the official Examination Report for June 2012. It’s long, it’s tedious but it’s full of what you need to know if you want to give Cambridge what they are after! And hey, you were looking for bedside reading, right?!

Want some exam practice? Try Paper 1, June 2010 and Paper 2, June 2010 for size.

When you’ve done, why not check your answers using the June 2010 Examination

If you have written a post/created a useful resource or you have come across a post/useful resource that isn’t listed above and that you think would fit into this collection, please comment below with the link and a brief description. If you are revising for Delta module 1, good luck – and may the Cambridge cards fall in your favour!! 

by

Delta Tips 5: Module 1, Paper 2

This is the fifth in a series of blog posts I’m doing in response to the number of Delta-related searches that bring visitors to my blog. Each post in this Delta Tips series will deal with a different element of the Delta, based on my experience of doing it (and surviving to tell the tale! ) 

The assessment for Module 1, as every Delta trainee is all too aware, is a 3hr exam. This consists of two papers, each one of which you are given 1.5hrs to complete, making 3hrs of hell in total. This post will focus on Paper 2. (For Paper 1, click here. For a collection of links to resources that might help you with your revision, click here.)

Paper 2 includes 4 tasks:

Task 1 requires you to critique a test, by identifying 6 points, which should be a mixture of positives and negatives, and their applicability to the learner referred to in the rubric.

Task 2 is based on an extract of course book material. In part a, the rubric directs you to focus on certain of the activities in the extract, for which you must identify 8 purposes in relation to the extract as a whole. For part b, you must identify six key assumptions about language learning that can be identified in the same activities that you looked at for part 1 and give two reasons per assumption.

Task 3 maintains the focus on the same piece of course book material as Task 2, but brings extra activities into the mix. You have to identify 10 ways in which these extra activities combine with the activities you looked at in Task 2.

Task 4 is the pot-luck question. It may involve a procedure, a technique or a method, for which you have to list advantages and disadvantages and/or consider the principles behind them. Whatever it is, 20 separate, correct points are required to gain full marks on this question.

Here are my top tips for completing Paper 2 successfully:

Task 1

  • Read the entry on Testing in Thornbury’s A-Z of ELT – it gives a nice overview of different test types and testing issues.
  • Read the rubric very carefully: It provides a brief description of the situation that the given text is being used for and this will, or at least should (if you want the marks…), influence your answers. You’ll be told about the learner’s needs, their level, the purpose of the course and purpose of the test. You are critiquing the test for use in this particular situation.
  • Use a page for “positives” and a page for “negatives” and label them as such (don’t use “advantages”/”disadvantages” or “strengths”/”weaknesses” or any other variation). Using a separate page allows you to come back and add/change things without the page getting too cramped.
  • You must make at least six points. To gain the marks, these six points must be in the guideline answers. If you have time, you may want to include an extra one or two for luck.
  • For each point, you need to indicate the applicability for the learner described in the rubric.

E.g.

Positives

1.

Point: Discrete point testing task type. This allows candidates plenty of fresh starts, increasing the reliability of the test.

Applicability to learner: If X is unable to answer one question, she can still demonstrate her knowledge/ability on the others.

  • You need a mixture of positive and negative points, but this time, unlike with the “strengths and weaknesses” question in paper 1, there is no requirement for the balance to be 3-3 – as long as you include something of each, the balance is up to you.
  • There are a couple of extra marks to be had for using testing terminology – your face validity, content validity, reliability, practicality etc
  • Don’t write too much per point – if you feel the urge to, at least wait until you’ve gone through the rest of the test, have had a stab at answering all the questions and are on the “going back and filling in the gaps” phase.
  • Practice using past papers and checking your answers against examiners reports/guideline answers.

Task 2

For Part a (identifying the purpose of the activities in relation to the extract as a whole):

  • Make sure you indicate which exercise you are referring to and ONLY refer to the exercises that the rubric instructs you to refer to. (It might be worth highlighting/asterisking said exercises, so you don’t get sucked in to writing about others.
  • Use infinitives of purpose, to avoid falling into the trap of describing what the learners do with the exercise.

E.g.

Ex.   Purpose

x       To expose learners to the target language in context prior to focussing them on form

  • Look at some guideline answers and build up a bank of useful infinitives of purpose that you can use.
  • Make sure your purposes are related to the extract as a whole.
  • There are 16 marks to be had, and you get 2 marks per correct purpose. “Correct”, of course, means “appears in the guidelines answers” – so if you can, throw in some extra purposes for good luck.
  • Practice on any course book material at your disposal.
  • Practice using past papers and checking your answers against the guideline answers/examiner’s report.

For Part b (identifying the rationales inherent in the activities focussed on in part a):

  • Make sure you clearly indicate which exercise your assumption is referring to – if you don’t, you won’t get any marks.
  • There are three marks available per assumption/rationale – so you need your assumption and two reasons in order to score full marks for each. (An extra reason per assumption if you can quickly/easily think of one to put may not go amiss – you give yourself more chance of hitting what’s on the mark scheme then)
  • Don’t forget you are only referring to the activities specified in the rubric – this is where having highlighted/asterisked them to start with is helpful: your mind remains focussed!
  • Lay your answer out clearly so that it is easy for the examiner to identify an assumption and two reasons.

E.g.

1.

Assumption: Learners need to see the language in context (Ex. x)

R1: So that they can see how it is used.

R2: This mirrors how the L1 is learnt.

(I actually prefer to make a table for this – one column for assumptions, one for exercise, one for rationale, but don’t know how on WordPress! However you approach it, just make sure you have a framework that focuses your mind on what is required)

  • Use past papers and guideline answers to practice answering and check your answers.

Task 3

  • Don’t forget to do it. (I nearly did in my mock in December, and I wasn’t alone in that!)
  • Highlight the additional exercises that the rubric requires you to focus on (maybe even in a different colour, if your brain works that way!)
  • You need ten correct points for ten marks – as ever, a few extra increases your chances of hitting the guideline answers.
  • Use bullet points so that your points are clearly separated
  • Make sure you mention what exercises from Task 2 the additional exercises combine with. Underline them for good measure.

(I use a table for this one too: One column for exercise, i.e. additional exercise, one column for how exercises combine with the exercises in task 2. Why? Those column headings remind me to mention the exercises from task two!)

  • Think about interaction patterns, skill development, language development, skill balance, degree of scaffolding provided etc

Task 4

  • Don’t panic
  • Use bullet points – make sure each bullet point is only making one point. Keep them as short as possible. You get 2 marks per point, so you need to make 20 correct points in order to gain full marks in this question. The more bullet points you make, the better the odds are that 20 of them will be in the guideline answers!
  • Don’t say the same thing in 3 different ways – you’ll only score for it once! (Ahem…!)
  • Don’t go off on a tangent – keep checking that you are actually answering the given question rather than fabricating your own questions to answer!
  • Write down anything that might be remotely possibly correct, however simple it may seem – you don’t lose points for incorrect answers.
  • Think about different learner levels, contexts, backgrounds, types etc to give you extra ideas for what to write about.

General Tips

  • Don’t forget, Task 4 has the biggest number of points and time allocation, in terms of your time management: It may come last in the paper but it packs a pretty big punch!
  • Use bullet points where possible.
  • Don’t forget to give examples where required.
  • Don’t get bogged down by any of the questions at the expense of others.
  • Task 3 is only worth 10 points – handy to grab if you can, not worth stressing over at the expense of other tasks if you are struggling.
  • Read the rubrics super carefully.
  • Stay calm – move onto another task if you start getting flustered. You can always come back to the one you were struggling on and you may find it easier when you’ve done something else and had a break from stressing over it!

If you think I have left out anything essential, or simply have any helpful tips to add, please do so by commenting on this post. If you are embarking on Delta module 1, good luck – it is an interesting experience!! 

by

Delta Tips 4: Module 1, Paper 1

This is the fourth in a series of blog posts I’m doing in response to the number of Delta-related searches that bring visitors to my blog. Each post in this Delta Tips series will deal with a different element of the Delta, based on my experience of doing it (and surviving to tell the tale! ) at Leeds Met. 

The assessment for Module 1, as every Delta trainee is all too aware, is a 3hr exam. This consists of two papers, each one of which you are given 1.5hrs to complete, making 3hrs of hell in total. This post will focus on Paper 1. (For Paper 2, click here. For a collection of links to resources that might help you with your revision, click here)

Paper 1 includes 5 tasks:

Tasks 1 and 2 deal with terminology. In Task 1, you are given six definitions, for each of which you must supply the correct term. In Task 2, you are given six terms and must give definitions and appropriate example for four of them.

Task 3 is an activity, for which you have to identify five features (type specified by the rubric) that learners at a particular level would need in order to complete the activity successfully. For each feature, you must give an example.

Task 4 is based on a piece of authentic material. You must firstly identify five features that are typical of the genre and include an example for each. Then, you will have 3 further questions focusing on a mixture of form, meaning and pronunciation of selected language from the text.

Task 5 requires you to analyse a piece of learner-produced text. This is usually written but can also be a transcript of spoken language. First, you have to identify 3 key strengths and 3 key weaknesses of the text, providing an example for each. Then, you have to select a weakness to prioritise, giving 3 reasons for your choice.

Here are my top tips for completing Paper 1 successfully:

Task 1

  • Study your A-Z of ELT by Scott Thornbury (if you haven’t got one – either buy it or beg/borrow/steal it from somebody!)
  • Only give one term per definition – if you aren’t sure and put two down, you will not gain the mark if one is correct. (Stands to reason – it’s not the examiner’s job to choose the correct term!)
  • Read a lot – of ELT-related stuff that is, cheap thrillers won’t help you here! – over an extended time period. Repeated exposure to terminology in action will probably help at least some of it sink in. This tip is no good the day before the exam, really!

Task 2

  • Structure your answer clearly. Use bullet points and make it obvious where your definition, further point and example are.

E.g. c. pragmatic competence

Def.: ability to interpret/use appropriately the illocutional meaning/function of an utterance

f.p.: Differs from culture to culture, so learners need to learn how to do this using the target language.

e.g.: “It’s cold in here” could be a request to shut the window.

  • Don’t forget your example or your further point, they are each worth a mark. Your definition will only score one mark.
  • In terms of revision, revise as for Task 1

Task 3

  • Read the rubric carefully: What level learners is the activity aimed at? What type of features are you asked to provide? E.g. “speaking subkills/features of discourse”
  • Lay out your answer clearly

E.g.

Feat.: Questioning others’ opinions

E.g.: “That’s interesting, but what about…”

  • Make sure the features and examples you give are suitable to the level of learner specified i.e. not too easy or too hard.
  • Mentally picture running the activity in class and think about how you’d prepare your learners and what things they might struggle without.

Task 4

For the identification of generic features:

  • Before you look at the text, look at the rubric and how the material is defined, e.g. “a human interest story from a popular newspaper”. Predict what features you might expect to see in such a text. Then look at the text and see how much of what you predicted is there.
  • Practice on any authentic material you can get your hands on – from leaflets to cereal packets.
  • Use  CLOGS to help you get a good spread of features. CLOGS stands for Content, Layout, Organisation, Grammar/Lexis, Style.
  • Check what the rubric specifies you include or do not include e.g. “You must include features of organisation and of language” or “Do not include more than one feature of layout” Make sure you follow these instructions! (Easy to forget in the heat of the moment…)
  • Give an example from the given text for each feature you identify.
  • If your mind goes blank, move on to the next question – this is only worth one mark per feature/example.

For the focus on form/meaning/pronunciation:

  • Use bullet points and break down your answer into as many bullet points as you can without being ridiculous. This will enable the marker to identify your points more easily.
  • Put down anything remotely relevant, no matter how simplistic. (Yes, you can get a mark for saying “you” is second person singular or “the” is a definite article.)
  • You can get the 35 marks allocated to this part of the task from any of the sub-questions (usually b, c and d), so play to your strengths.
  • Put down as many points as you can in time that you have. (Some may not be accepted according to those pesky guidelines answers, so having a few in reserve is never a bad plan!)
  • Use phonemic script for the pronunciation focus questions and think about features of connected speech. Also remember stress. (The sentence sort rather than the Arrrrrrrgh sort ;-))

Task 5

  • Use one piece of paper for strengths and one for weaknesses. That way, you can come back and add things if your mind goes blank and you feel the need to look at another question meanwhile. Label your pieces of paper “Strengths” and “Weaknesses” (not “Positives” and “Negatives” or any other variation)
  • Lay your answers out clearly:

E.g.

Weaknesses

Category: Accuracy of grammar

Explanation: Persistent misuse of present simple

E.g.: “only child never have to”

Effect on reader: may lower the reader’s opinion of the language/cognitive ability of the learner.

  • The “effect on reader” slot is to try and trap the few bonus marks that it is possible to gain in this question. You may or may not feel it worth it in terms of time management.
  • Read the rubric carefully. What level is the learner who produced the text? What areas are you asked to focus on? Highlight them and refer back to them; make sure your answer matches them.
  • When selecting your weakness to prioritise, consider the level of the learner, how pervasive the weakness is and how easy or otherwise it might be to fix it as well as the effect this would have on the learner’s production and on their reader/listener.
  • You must give reasons for your choice – the questions I just recommended you consider in selecting the weakness can become reasons.
  • Lay out your answer clearly:

E.g.

Weakness to Prioritise: Misuse of present simple

Reason 1: At this level, the learner shouldn’t be making this mistake and there is danger of fossilization if it is not attended to.

Reason 2: Prioritising this will enable positive transfer across other genres.

Reason 3: It will greatly increase the learner’s chances of success in exams or in finding a job.

  • There are bonus marks to be had if you include more detail in your reasons: a bare list of reasons gains 3 marks, adding more information can get an extra mark per reason. Whether or not you want to learn the tricks for the extra 3 marks is up to you!
  • Related to the above bullet point: study an Examiner’s report/guideline answers for this question – it is pretty formulaic (something that I gather is going to change when the exam is given an overhaul!) so learn the formula!

General tips for Paper 1:

  • Manage your time carefully: Don’t get bogged down by any of the questions. If you struggle with something, leave it and come back to it – you may find you can answer it when you’ve answered something else and, in doing so, calmed down. If you reach the recommended time limit (in brackets next to the task number), move on to the next task. You can always come back and fill in any gaps if you have time.
  • Do a past paper under exam conditions: This way you can make sure you know how fast you need to write and learn to manage your time. You can work out what order you prefer to do questions in. (If terminology panics you, don’t start with Task 1. Paper is unlimited so as long as you are using a sheet per answer and you hand in all your sheets, you are free in your choice of what order to work in. Doing a mock also gives your hand a chance to get used to extensive, high speed writing! (This is one of the good things about doing the Delta integrated with M.A. in ELT at Leeds Met – you do individual tasks and a complete mock paper to get M.A. accreditation, and that, together with the extra revision classes they chuck in prior to both the mock and the real exam, all becomes a valuable learning process for the real Delta exam! – Let’s just say, in that mock I learnt all about the importance of time management and remaining calm…!)
  • Look at examiners reports and guidelines answers: Cambridge are rather particular about what they want and how they want it – examiners reports and guidelines answers can shed some light on this!
  • Learn how to package your answers. My suggestions above for laying out the answers may seem like a faffy waste of time, but there is a good reason behind them: If you have learnt a framework for answering the question, then once you write down that framework, it focuses your mind on what is needed, meaning you are less likely to include superfluous information or omit essential information. Even if you don’t want to waste time writing down frameworks in the exam, having them in mind will still help you package the answers how Cambridge want them. Making a chart can help with getting your head around answer frameworks, mark allocation and so on.
  • Read the rubrics carefully and highlight essential information like learner levels, features to focus on etc.
  • Don’t write too much – use bullet points and keep them short.
  • Don’t forget to give examples where required

Delta module 1 is about what you know, but it’s also about exam technique and packaging what you know in a Delta marker-friendly way. So it’s definitely worth spending time on that as well as on revising terminology etc.

If you think I have left out anything essential, or simply have any helpful tips to add, please do so by commenting on this post. If you are embarking on Delta module 1, good luck – it is an interesting experience!!