Teaching Portfolio of Joohee Park by Joohee Park

THE TEACHING PORTFOLIO OF

JOOHEE PARK 2010 SMU TESOL Master Program

INTRODUCTION This teaching portfolio displays my years of effort and preparation to enter the field of English language education field. Although I may lack classroom teaching experience by far compared to the other in-service teachers, this made me an empty canvas that can be drawn on with new academic knowledge, practical pedagogic skills, creative lesson contents and challenging teaching materials. In this portfolio, my ability and qualification of becoming an English teacher will be demonstrated in three parts: 1) Credentials that I have built over the years, 2) Classroom lessons and reflection samples of the GEP course, 3) Action research, carried on teaching practice.

during the GEP

INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS • PART 1 A Prepared Teacher – Curriculum Vitae – Certificates – Teaching Philosophy – Reference Letter

• PART 2 My Lessons and Reflections – Learner-centered teaching – GEP Lesson plans • Activities of the lesson • Teaching materials • Student works

– Reflective Journals

• PART 3 Action Research – Action Research Project 4

PART1 A PREPARED TEACHER The first part of the portfolio displays â&#x20AC;&#x201C; my Curriculum Vitae that states my academic background and professional paths that I have taken, official Certificates earned over the years, Teaching Philosophy that describes my perception of an ideal English teaching, and a Reference Letter written by the TESOL professor.

PART1

CURRICULUM VITAE 1

PART1

CURRICULUM VITAE 2

PART1

CERTIFICATES

PART1

CERTIFICATES

PART1

TEACHING PHILOSOPHY 1 My first experience with English I was 5 years old, and I was at a restaurant in a foreign country with my family. I became thirsty and asked my dad to get some water for me and he suggested that I try doing it myself. I hesitated first, and then asked my dad what exactly I had to say to the waiter. My dad told me what you want is ‘water’ and since you want to ask nicely add ‘please’ at the end. So there, I formed my very first English phrase which was “Water please-“. I don’t recall what we ate, or where we moved from there, but I sure remember the thrill and confidence I felt by actually getting a glass of water on my own in a foreign language! That two word sentence was the beginning of learning English to me and now I would like to teach other learners to take the first step or leap in this what seems to be the long and winding path of learning new language.

English as a communication tool I believe language is a communication tool; it should not be treated as just a school subject that you should drill on to reach at certain level in order to pass or enter in a better education program or job. You must use the language to interact with others in various social contexts. Language is a bridge that brings different cultures, business, information, knowledge and everything together. I have worked at various industries that prove, language is at the end what brings shares and connects the world as one. I am proud to become someone who can help people to achieve this by teaching that tool. As an English language teacher, I would like to use my own personal learning process, teaching experience and the knowledge I gained from TESOL program to help those who want to improve their English from early years. I would like to approach the learners to accept English as a special ability you can earn with some effort. With the ability the learners started to build, they can be in more control of anything and everything around you than when you didn’t have that ability at all. Giving them the most effective motivation to learn English is where I will begin with as an English teacher. To my students, language will no longer be a barrier and fear they cannot overcome anymore.

PART1

TEACHING PHILOSOPHY 2 My English class I would also like to provide students with classes that are surrounded by English using environment and taught to communicate with authentic, daily life and active English. I take the communicative approach that emphasizes the use of language and language as a communication tool rather than piecemeal rules to memorize. I would like to reach out to my learners as someone who has been through both learning and producing stages. I would like model a role of what they could become when they learn the language. I would like to help students to self-learn by extensive book reading and by absorbing foreign culture with various media tools. I would like the students to realize that they are surrounded by languages especially English, if you pay a little extra attention to it and make extra effort. Ability to communicate in English is no more an option for children and active working people of Korean society; it’s a ‘must’. I would like to become someone who can assist and support those who have great potential of taking significant roles in this global era.

PART1

REFERENCE LETTER

PART2 My Lessons and Reflections Throughout the semester, the GEP (General English Program) class was formed based on a content based language teaching strategy and strictly student-centered environment. The second part of the portfolio introduces two of the lesson plans I used to teach including the teaching materials and studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; works. Also midterm exam I created for the GEP class, results of the and my reflective journals after each lesson are put together.

PART2

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING The Practicum course of Sookmyung TESOL MA Program is one of two fifth semester options that finalize the Master program and grants a Master degree. The focus of the Practicum course is on developing and evaluating lesson plans based on the components and design features of the Multi-media Assisted Test of English (MATE) coupled with accepted principles of writing and reading skills development. Practicum I course revolves around planning and teaching an undergraduate English course within the GEP (General English Program). The MA students are broken down into groups of three or four and it is in these groups that students both plan for their GEP course responsibilities and implement the plans they have created. In addition to lesson planning and lecturing, the Practicum students also function as group leaders for the groups of GEP students during the class time and beyond.

Their

responsibilities as ‘Big Siblings’ are getting the GEP students to perform the assigned tasks, making sure that they understand the instruction and giving on-the-spot feedback to enhance their performance. Another challenge the group leaders have is to learn how to manage their little sisters’ individual needs and differences well and foster good relationships throughout the course in order to accomplish the objectives. 14

PART2

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING GEP, the General English Program for Sookmyung Undergraduates, meets once a week from 7:50 to 10:30. For the most part, the class involves the students in a variety of reading, writing, and presentation related activities focused on meaning and purpose. In general, the course keeps each student busy using English both in and out of the class. The focus for GEP II course is on the skills of writing and reading, but it is acknowledged that other skills will necessarily be used in the classroom and as part of the course. Students, therefore, expect much of the in-class interaction to be based on reading, speaking, and listening skills which are based on such exposure and practice, undoubtedly to improve. The basic philosophy underlying the course is that meaningful practice generated in an environment of facilitative feedback is the most efficient way of developing communicative competence. As a result, in this class, each student generates large amounts of language which are closely monitored. Each student receives assistance and feedback on a continual basis from their big siblings â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the MA Practicum students. For each lesson they have to resolve variety of tasks given with their classmates.

PART2

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING My group, the ‘SURFers’(Super Ultra Radical Fantastic-ers) and My little sisters – Haesol, Tong and Buyoung

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING

PART2

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING Active learning (Selfmotivating) Considering studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Responsibl academic & e learning emotional The needs Learner-

Centered Teaching Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Creativity

Strategy training Negotiation

between teacher and students In communicative classes, teachers talk less and listen more as active facilitators of their students' learning. Teachers set up exercises or activities but they must step back and observe students, sometimes acting as a referee or monitor to achieve the goal, students' performance. The students do most of the speaking, and frequently the scene of a classroom during a communicative exercise is active because they leave their seats to complete a task. The increased responsibility to participate makes students gain more confidence in using the target language in general. Students are more responsible managers of their own learning. (Larsen-Freeman, 1986).

PART2

The Steps of implementing learnercentered teaching

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING • Collecting learner information Step 1

Step 2

• Selecting content • Selecting methodology

• Course evaluation Step 3

This initial data is usually factual information such as current proficiency level, age, educational background, previous learning experiences, time in the target culture and previous and current occupation. The reasons why student information is collected are: 1) to provide learners with efficient language strategies 2) to assist learners identify their own preferred ways of learning 3) to develop skills needed to negotiate the curriculum 4) to encourage learners to set their own objectives 5) to encourage learners to adopt realistic goals and time frames 6) to develop learners’ skills in self-evaluation.

PART2

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING Student Survey – page1

PART2

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING Student Survey – page2

PART2

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING Student Survey – page3

PART2

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING Student Survey – page4

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS Based on the result of the Student Survey, two lessons and one exam was prepared by my teaching group (Group 4) as below:

– 1st Lesson (Week 4) • Date: September 30th 2010 • Topic: Healthy Wellbeing Lifestyle • Function: Writing suggesting e-mails

– Midterm Exam (Week 8) • Date: October 21st 2010 • Writing Exam and MATE Test

– 2nd Lesson (Week 12) • Date: November 18th 2010 • Topic: Eat, Taste & Compare • Function: Writing Paragraph/essay of comparison and contrast

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

1st Lesson

• • • •

Date: September 30, 2010 – Week 4 Topic: Healthy Well-being Life Functions: Giving advice in a paragraph form Objectives: By the end of the class, students should be able to… – – – –

Use modal verbs Use proverbs, vocabulary, terms and phrases related to health Form advising sentences Compose an advising paragraph

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

1st Lesson

•

Topic: Healthy Well-being Life Process

Activity

Check-up

 Questions & Answers

Activity 1

 Evaluation of ‘Well-being’ lifestyle - Complete the given checklist in pair - Add the scores of each member to find the group score - Present the result in graph - Make sentences that best describe the group’s condition (short break)

Activity 2

 Wisdom Master - Provide selected problems to each group - Receive and give advice - List up gathered advice and choose best 3 for your group’s problem - Present - Select the ‘Wisdom Master’ of the class

Warming-up

Activity 3

Writing Assignment

 Watch a video clip  1P & 3A, Peer counseling - write your own problem - Circulate within group - Choose the most helpful advice - present to class  Write an email letter in paragraph(s), giving advices to your friend who needs help 29

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

1st Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

1st Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

1st Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

1st Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

1st Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

1st Lesson

GEP LESSON PLANS 

Midterm Exam

• •

Date: October 21, 2010 – Week 8 Midterm Exam & MATE Writing Test

PART2

MIDTERM EXAM 

Midterm Exam

PART2

MIDTERM EXAM 

Midterm Exam

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

Midterm Exam

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

Midterm Exam

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

Midterm Exam

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

Midterm Exam

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

Midterm Exam

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

2nd Lesson

• • •

Topic: Food - Eat, Taste and Compare Functions: Writing a paragraph / essay for comparison Objectives: By the end of the class, students should be able to… – – – –

Use comparative verbs Use vocabulary, terms and phrases related to cooking and food Form comparing sentences Compose an effective comparison essays

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

2nd Lesson

•

Topic: Eat, Taste & Compare Process

Activity 1

Activity < What’s in your mouth?> - All the members are blindfolded except for the big sibling - The big siblings help their sisters to taste two types of snack by asking the taste, shape and texture of the snack - Each member describes what they taste with food adjectives they learned in the reading assignment. - Members unfold the cover and review the adjectives - Two groups come out and present the adjectives

Activity 2

<Compare and find Ss and Ds> - Give out other contrasting snacks to groups. - Students taste different snacks and compare the tastes, shapes, colors, texture and origins. - In a given table, students fill up the similarities and differences of each snack in sentence forms using some conjunctions, comparative and superlative forms of adjectives and adverbs

Activity 3

<Open up a restaurant in Chung-pa> - Design a restaurant to be opened around Sookmyung University. - Write about ideal features of the restaurant in categories:

Activity 4

<Café Chungpa Vs. Café Ba-Ba-Reeba> - Introduce the most highly rated restaurant in Chicago with its reviews, menus and website. - Write its features in sentence forms - With the above comparison points, write a full paragraph that compares the two restaurants. 45

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

2nd Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

2nd Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

2nd Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

2nd Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

2nd Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

2nd Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

2nd Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

2nd Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

2nd Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

2nd Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

2nd Lesson

PART2

GEP LESSON PLANS 

2nd Lesson

PART2

REFLECTIVE JOURNALS Reflective Journal of Week 4 GEP II: Healthy Life – page1 This week’s class was the second actual learning lesson, first to be videotaped and the first lesson planned, prepared and run by group 4-my own teaching group. The objective of the class was to help students to form an advising paragraph in e-mail form. The class was divided into seven groups formed by one big sibling, and 3 to 4 GEP students. Overall the class of week 4 was completed without any outstanding problems, but of course there are regrets on some parts that would have worked out better if I had planned more carefully, organized precisely and managed the class thoughtfully. Jung-ok, my partner began the class by opening with post-Chuseok greetings and led smoothly to introduce our theme ‘giving advice’. Then she gave 10 minutes to check and exchange Q&As for the reading assignment as a group but we had to shorten it since we were behind the schedule and this checking time seemed to be dragging the beginning of the class. I led the first activity which was to go through a checklist to evaluate the students’ healthy life style and then form a sentence that best describes the problematic area of their conditions. We used an interview form for students to complete the checklist in a pair. What we neglected to consider was that there must be absent students and in that case, the group leaders would have to fill in, making the group a ‘leaderless group’. As a result, those ‘leaderless groups’ had difficulties in proceeding with interviews and any other pair or sometimes group works throughout the rest of the class. Especially for some lower level students who were not taken care by the group leader seemed to have difficulties following the lesson. Some students had difficulties understanding vocabulary in the checklist and other activities as well. I think it would be better not to assume the group leaders as fillers from the beginning because the little sisters need their close-up guidance from the leaders. Another thing is we should make students (1~2 persons in each group can take turns) to bring in a dictionary every day. Asking the group leaders for definitions all the time is not helping them build their vocabulary and not all the group leaders know all the answers either and also it is not very efficient for teaching group to give out all the vocabulary in advance for every lesson. Adding up individual scores and group scores took longer than we expected but showing it visually in a graph drew their attention and gave them motivation to proceed to the next step. We only asked each group to come up with two sentences but this would have been better if we had asked everyone to form a sentence individually from the first lesson. We had only three activities so we should have given more opportunities to individuals to practice their sentence forming throughout those limited number of lessons. Although we asked the groups to form a ‘full sentence’ they were getting too simple and short. I wish the group leaders have encouraged students to expand on their sentences but instead, but some of them even 58

PART2

REFLECTIVE JOURNALS Reflective Journal of Week 4 GEP II: Healthy Life – page2 simplified the sentences for the sisters. As a result, the first activity was not efficient enough for students to practice and learn to form advising sentences. The second activity was carried on by Jung-ok. Although we divided the group to ‘advisers’ and ‘collectors’ to simplify the anticipating traffic, there were still some misorganization during the survey process. This could have been better if we had labels for advisors and collectors. A lot of time, I myself had trouble remembering the group names whenever I had to call out someone from the group. We should start using nametags and group name boards or something from next class. However, the second activity went well because the task was meaningful to the students. It concerned their own problems and personal advice to their peers. During this activity everyone got a chance to write up or speak out at least six sentences. Another well planned part was (not just for this activity but throughout the lesson) well organized handouts that guided students what to do by looking at the template form. The checklist with a score equation, Group’s total score card for submission, survey form with a group name and six sections for survey, and 1P & 3A were the forms we used for the lesson. Although the method of selecting the two best advisors turned out to be little confusing, it gave a fun element to the activity. Overall, by the second activity we achieved to provide more opportunities to the students to practice sentence composition. I began the final activity by warming up with a video clip from a TV series ‘Desperate Housewives’. What I believed that would get students into more sincere and advising mode, could had been too slow and heavy for some. The video clip was not very helpful to pick up the pace of overall slow flow of the lesson. Our group had decided to reduce the number of activities to three because we thought last group’s four activities were too rushed. After having three activities, now we know that we should be able to include more activities and achieve more within those limited times. The final activity gave opportunities for each student to form multi-sentences for four times. Some lower level students struggled to form even a simple sentence, so it would had been very difficult for them to form a paragraph at this point. That’s why we had to leave paragraph composition for homework and wrap up the class lesson at composing 2~3 sentences. In other words, this means we could only achieve the students to form a few sentences in one lesson but I am not sure if they will be ready to complete their writing assignment afterwards. We should have included more paragraphs forming writing process, but for lower level students even multi-sentence forming was challenging. I realize that running a multi-level classroom is another big issue that we have to concern when we plan a lesson. 59

PART2

REFLECTIVE JOURNALS Reflective Journal of Week 12 GEP II : Food – page1 This week’s lesson was my group’s second and the last teaching session. Since we had midterm question making as one of our teaching weeks and being the last group, we only had three sessions to teach. Although there is a great sense of relief after finishing up the final lesson, but of course there are some regrets and wishes of ‘I should have done better’… Our group was lucky to have a topic as ‘food’, which was very meaningful to our students. Originally, the topic was supposed to be cooking but due to lack of facility and safety on the campus we ended up turning the topic to food and eating instead. Cooking was not possible, but we surely fed our students well and that made me worry too because maybe the students are just excited about the food they will neglect the core of the lesson. Somehow, the lesson flowed relatively well along with the amount of food we provided them. The first half of the activities mostly involved food tasting and comparison. As I realize in every lesson, the teaching group should try to do the activities themselves before they actually execute it as a lesson. For the first activity, I couldn’t have distinguished the difference between two snacks myself either. I guess, I only relied on the package of the snacks with different names, ingredients and looks. I assumed the students would be able to tell the difference instantly but turns out it wasn’t. In a way, because it was too tricky to tell the difference, students tended to pay more attention in adjectives to describe everything they sensed. Along with the activity, Jungok made sure to review the words used before and after the activity for better understanding. Moving on from the ‘word level’ of the first activity, the second activity dealt with comparative sentences. Again, for the second activity still the snacks were too similar – both being crunchy and sweet. Perhaps we should have mixed the two snacks from the first two activities. Another thing I noticed at this point was, since we were missing one group leader we had extra student in each group which gave burden to all the leaders compared to other weeks. As the lesson progressed, more writing was involved and relatively lower level students who were not in the teachers action zone tended to be left out, especially if that student was a ‘guest’ student from other group. Also, leaders who were seated at the end of the desks could not take care of every member of the group. For writing sentences, each group leader wisely managed their members to take turns so everyone could get a chance to write something down. For this week’s lesson, break time was utilized as one of the activities by tasting and comparing different brands of donuts. This donut activity was decided that morning and it was 60

PART2

REFLECTIVE JOURNALS Reflective Journal of Week 12 GEP II : Food â&#x20AC;&#x201C; page2 ad-libbed at the last minute. It gave students joy of tasting all different types of sweetness, but perhaps there were little too many types! However as a result, we received a distinctive review of preference according to the students which means the tasting activity worked. The second halves of the activities were led by myself. The third activity was designing a restaurant. Writing practice involved sentences with more descriptions and purposes and the whole activity was to get students to brainstorm and practice outlining. As usual, students always were more excited with props and preparation stages before the actual writing. The magazine was brought in to get students to help brainstorm, visual ideas, collect presentation materials and such but I discovered there were some students more focused in flipping through them. This activity could had been a better if more time â&#x20AC;&#x201C; up to 40 minutes were given to students to enjoy the magazine for the first 10 to 15 minutes and then get into serious and focused writing for 30 minutes or so. The task itself got the students all excited and made them involved more. The last activity was to compare the newly introduced restaurant with the ones groups had created. It was an extended activity from the previous one and same issue of limitation in time had occurred. Paragraph structuring was turned into a final essay and during that process we could not squeeze in rough drafting, revision, feedback. I had hoped that students will remember the structure and follow the process step by step when they actually write an essay. When each group came up to present their paragraph, although they had all the structures but their writing was more for verbal use, more like an impromptu script. After seeing their presentation I wondered if our last activity was appropriate for them to learn to write a paragraph or not. Overall this weekâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s class was possible because of the help from the group leaders. Six groups but more sisters to take care of must have been difficult for them but they managed with enthusiasm. Thanks mates!

PART2

REFLECTIVE JOURNALS

PART3 ACTION RESEARCH The final part of the portfolio introduces the Action Research Project I have done to bridge the gap between education research and GEP teaching practice throughout the semester. The topic of the Action Research is â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;the challenges that EFL teachers face when they teach mixed-language proficiency level studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. The problems were identified within the GEP class and treatments were suggested and implied to resolve the identified problems.

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

PART3

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................... 2 Problems Identified ......................................................................................... 4 Possible Solutions ........................................................................................... 5 Treatment ........................................................................................................ 7 Appropriate lesson level for the students Grouping of the class Seating Arrangements

Findings .........................................................................................................10 Lesson plan at Moderate Mid level Seating arrangement: Grouping & Pairing MATE Test result progress

Conclusion and Implication ..........................................................................13

References ......................................................................................................15

Appendix A ....................................................................................................16 Initial Surveys and Interview for students

Appendix B ....................................................................................................17 Final Surveys and Interview for Big Siblings

Appendix C ....................................................................................................18 STUDENT SURVEY

The challenges of EFL teachers in teaching mixed-language proficiency level classes Graduate School of TESOL Practicum II

Yobien Yoon Hyunyoung Park Joohee Park

Introduction This action research paper is conducted by three TESOL Master Program students – Joohee Park, Hyunyoung Park and Yobien Yoon, while teaching undergraduate students in General English Program (GEP) II course in the fall semester of 2010 at Sookmyung Women’s University. The MA students are currently in-service and pre-service teachers. The subjects who participated for this research are Sookmyung Women’s University undergraduate GEP II students, with different majors, ages and language proficiency levels. Most of them are Korean students but there are also three exchange students with Chinese nationality. More detailed information on the classroom and course situations are as follow: The Practicum course of Sookmyung TESOL MA Program is one of two fifth semester options that finalize the Master program. The focus of the Practicum course is on developing and evaluating lesson plans based on the components and design features of the Multi-media Assisted Test of English (MATE). Practicum I course revolves around planning and teaching an undergraduate English course within the GEP (General English Program). The MA students are broken down into groups of three or four and it is in these groups that students both plan for their GEP course responsibilities and implement the plans they have created. In addition to lesson planning and lecturing, the Practicum students also function as group leaders for the groups of GEP students during the class time and beyond. Their responsibilities as ‘Big Siblings’ are getting the GEP students to perform the assigned tasks, making sure that they understand the instruction and giving on-the-spot feedback to enhance their performance. Another challenge the group leaders have, which is what this action research is based on, is dealing with the different levels and personalities of the students within the group. Heterogeneous student groups are created so that the students can learn from each other, but this also often demands extra work on the part of the group leader to make sure that everybody is prepared, engaged and is performing to the best of their abilities during the class (Van Vlack, 2010). The ‘Big Siblings’ need to learn how to manage their ‘Little

Sisters’ individual needs and differences well and foster good relationships throughout the course in order to accomplish the objectives. GEP, the General English Program for Sookmyung Undergraduate students, meets once a week from 7:50 to 10:30. For the most part, the class involves the students in a variety of reading, writing, and presentation related activities focused on language forms and functions that the students can use both in and out of class. The focus for GEP II course is on the skills of writing and reading, but it is acknowledged that other skills will necessarily be used in the classroom and as part of the course. Students, therefore, expect much of the in-class interaction to be based on reading, speaking, and listening skills which are based on such exposure and practice, undoubtedly to improve. The basic philosophy underlying the course is that meaningful practice generated in an environment of facilitative feedback is the most efficient way of developing communicative competence. As a result, in this class, each student generates large amounts of language which are closely monitored. Each student receives assistance and feedback on a continual basis from their big siblings – the MA students. All of the students are a member of nine groups that are formed by three to four GEP students with one MA student as a group leader. Within each group there are students with different backgrounds, majors, academic years, nationality and English proficiency levels. Regardless of these differences, for each lesson they have to resolve same tasks given with their classmates. As Raj (2010) suggests in his study, a great number of classrooms consist of mixed level groups of different students’ needs and language proficiencies. Roberts (2007) also indicates that the students’ educational background in his/her first language can be affected to consist of mixed level students in a class. Bell (1998) points out that students in a mixed level class are separated by more than just their level of control of the English language. She insists that teachers must consider the students' previous experience with education, their country and culture of origin, their individual differences such as age, intelligence and motivation, and their particular learning situations. Regarding these points of view, most language teachers teach mixed level classes in some form or other, and various different types of mixed-level classrooms can be found in any educational system. The real mixed-level classroom may be a combination of the following types: combined classes of different year levels, classes of mixed proficiency levels, and classes with some students who have studied the target language and some who have not, native-speakers or learners with an extensive background in the target language, and classes of mixed motivation levels (In About the Mixed-level Classroom, 2010). Based on the above-mentioned researchers’ description of mixed level classes, it can be safely said that the GEP class that the TESOL MA students teach can be classified as a class of ‘mixed-language 3

proficiency levels’, and ‘mixed-motivation levels’. However, we solely focus particularly only on the mixed-language proficiency level classroom situation for this research. To diagnose the language proficiency of the GEP students, the MATE test scores are used identify their proficiency levels. The MATE writing test is a multi-media test designed to generate the best possible writing performance from the test-takers by engaging them in a variety of authentic, real-world writing tasks, and thus these writing samples were used for a pre-set and stringent system of assessment. The MATE writing test consists of four major levels with the fewer sub-levels. They are from the highest proficiency of Expert (E), Commanding High (CH) and Commanding Low (CL), Moderate High (MH), Moderate Mid (MM) and Moderate Low (ML), to the lowest proficiency of Rudimentary (R). Throughout the semester, the GEP II class takes the MATE writing test three times. First one is taken on the second week of the course, second with mid-term exam and the last one with the final-exam at the end of the semester. The GEP II students have to perform improvement over these series of MATE writing test and this will be reflected on their final grades. Also, the test results are assumed to show how effective the lessons and group activities performed by the MA students are and they will also reflect the sufficiency of the treatment of this action research.

Problems Identified With the above point of view, it is obvious that MA students are faced with the GEP class with mixed language proficiency levels. Before dealing with the difficulties of teaching mixed level classes, it is important to look at some of its advantages. The advantages are from general mixed-level classes including both mixed language level and mixed-motivation level classes. The mixed group class enables students to develop their language proficiencies in cooperative learning and they increase students’ self confidence and motivation by intriguing each other to become better than where they are (Sydney, 2001). Also, it helps students develop organizational skills and manage their learning. When students have mixed levels of members in a group work, they are encouraged to learn and help each other and are also allowed to work at their own pace. (ibid.) However, there are some disadvantages found in the mixed level classrooms. Generally all students have different learning styles and strategies, and they all learn at different speeds. Thus, teachers are constantly faced with choices and risks between the more advanced students at the risk of being bored of the lesson, or the lower level students at risk of alienating by focusing on their more able peers (Myles, 4

2002). In addition, teachers always have to deal with problems of students reacting to the topic differently because their individual preferences are different. Firstly, some students may find the topic boring and very difficult, whereas some may find it interesting or very easy. Another problem is that some of the students find it difficult to speak in the target language for many reasons. Other students, however, might like to express everything they think or feel by using the new language. As a result, some students may take many turns, while others do not speak for the entire lesson. Lastly, often usually the higher level students finish the tasks before the other students do and they may misbehave while waiting for the others to finish. The weaker students, on the other hand, cannot finish the tasks as quickly as the strong ones and may lose their confidence. Consequently, mixed abilities may result in classroom management problems (Deniz, 2005). By taking the advantages and disadvantages of the mixed-level classroom situation in to account, the research pays attention to the two following problems in the group activities of GEP II classes. First, when either a teaching group or the group leaders teach a lesson, students show different levels of comprehension from the same input provided, depending on their language proficiency levels. This causes unbalanced processing of group activity works. Secondly, there is a risk of both lower and higher language proficiency level studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; participation and motivation to affect the counter higher and lower level students in negative directions. Therefore, the research question for this study withdrawn from above is: â&#x20AC;&#x153;How do EFL teachers overcome the challenges they face in teaching mixed-language proficiency level classes?â&#x20AC;?

Possible Solutions As a possible solution for the identified problems, we discussed the following: First, a teaching group needs to plan the lesson carefully considering the comprehension and expected interaction of each level of students. They should implement the average comprehension level of students into the activities in the lesson. Roberts (2007) argues that instead of creating different lessons with different objectives for the different proficiency levels, teachers can teach to the middle proficiency level of students and then assign different, appropriately leveled tasks. In this respect, teaching multi level of GEP class with proficiency level setting at MATE Moderate Mid (MM) level seems to be the best solution for every level of students. Thus, for the GEP II class, the level of each lesson should be set at MM level described in MATE Writing

Test Rater Training Handbook (2010) as follows: the student is 1) satisfactorily able to complete tasks showing no major problems in using language to provide simple concrete information of a personal, concrete nature; 2) able to use fairly complex sentences to offer simple explanation, and 3) give personal information, but some information might still be missing and the format might be substandard. In addition, 4) able to write explaining personal matters, and 5) show signs of being able to construct writing on less personal but there are gaps in their ability to complete the demands of less personal tasks. Also the student 6) able to write in most informal settings on some topics of personal interest and daily activities, but has trouble with more formal topics. Lastly, the student might be 7) able to write to a limited extent on non-personal issues and has some awareness of comparing and contrasting. (MATE Writing Test Rater Training Handbook, 2010) Furthermore, it would be helpful to inform students the intention of the level adjustment for better understanding of the lesson. As Chris (2009) also suggests, the teacher should point out clearly that the class might be too difficult or too easy for the weaker or stronger level students prior to the lessons. Otherwise, students might become disruptive or discouraged. Secondly, group leaders (Big Siblings) should know their students carefully to assist and draw more participation and evoke motivation in order to make them interact actively within the group. More participation and motivation will lead to maximizing effective language production.

Based on the

leaderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s careful observation, the members can be paired up by high and low language level students to help each other counteract effectively within a group for activities. Valdez (2010) explains that teachers can also use learners as resources by letting them share their knowledge and expertise with others in the class. In addition, Couzens de Hinojosa (2010) supports Valdezâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s opinion that pairing weaker students with stronger students gives both students benefits. Stronger students solidify their knowledge of English because they have to explain things to the weaker students. In the same respect, weaker students benefit because they get things explained to them in different ways. Also according to a CALPRO1 (2010), on managing the multilevel classroom, the grouping activities can be used strategically for effective classroom management tool to provide efficient use of teacher and student time. During the group works, students can assist each other, which enables teacher to work with individuals or small groups that require personal help. With a concern about grouping and lesson plan, it might be better to consider setting the lesson plan level to MM and give each student additional works according to their proficiency and language skills. For example, when a task of writing a paragraph is given, all group students brainstorm 1

CALPRO: California Adult Literacy Professional Development Project. It is to foster continuous program improvement through a comprehensive, statewide approach to high-quality professional development for the full range of adult education and literacy providers working in agencies funded by the California Department of Education.

together, then the lower proficiency level student can make an outline while the other higher proficiency level student writes the rest of the paragraph. Roberts (2007) also introduces writing activities that can be completed in pairs, in cross-ability groups, or as a whole class. In these activities, the higher-level students who complete their tasks early can work alongside the students who require additional support. For more effective micro-management of the group, the group leader can also adjust their classroom or group management strategy to maximize participation and motivation of different language level students. First, readjusting their action zone (Richards and Lockhart, 1996) by choosing a seat arrangement where the group leader can reach each student most conveniently during the class can help group leaders to reach each student more sufficiently. This includes not just the language level but also studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s personality, physical condition, stress factors, needs for taking the course and such, by consistent bonding through various communication channels. In GEP class, every group has a big sibling to assist them throughout the lesson. Even though it is a small group of 3 or 4, big siblings might miss a chance to interact with the group members equally. Richards (1996) points out those students within the teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s action zone usually get advantage of interaction and they are more likely to participate actively in a lesson. Also it would be ideal if the group leader can set their role as a model for the members of each group and demonstrate and facilitate the activities as a lesson proceeds. After reviewing the result of the initial observation, further data collection was required. We reviewed literatures of the researches on the same topic to find relevance of the solutions and performed survey of group leaders twice to compare the results of before and after the treatment. (Appendix A.) Individual interviews of the group leaders followed to gather some more in-depth information of the groups. Also, the results of the initial and final MATE test were compared to see the differences between the initial and the final condition of students.

Treatment Appropriate lesson level for the students We select one lesson plan from the lessons that took place during the GEP II class of 2010 Fall semester and analyze its content based on the MATE MM level of language. The lesson contents are evaluated based on MATE Writing Test Rater Training Handbook (2010) standard to see whether they are suitable for the GEP students or not. Following that, reading and writing assignments are evaluated to review if

they are suitable for students at the writing level of MM, keeping in mind that it could build up from Moderate Low level to challenging as Moderate High for more effective result of the lesson. Teachers are responsible for providing appropriate language input in class and students’ exposure to English can be maximized when the input is adequate to them.

Thus, Krashen (1982)’s Input

Hypothesis is one of the most important theories of second language acquisition. The Input Hypothesis is about how learners acquire a second language rather than learn. This acquisition moves from stage “i”, where “i” represents current competence, to “i+1”, which is the next level. According to this hypothesis, acquirements improve and progress when students receive second language ‘input’ that is one step beyond their current stage of linguistic competence. This is done with the help of context or extra-linguistic information. In other words, acquisition takes place when students are exposed to enough comprehensible input that belongs to level “i+1”. The main task of a teacher is to provide comprehensible input to the students as much as possible, and it is crucial for their language acquisition because their language acquisition device is activated when they are provided with comprehensible input. For ML students, “i+1” level would be MM and for MM level students, one step above would be MH. Therefore the language level set at MM but within the proficiency range of ML to MH will be sufficient for GEP students to be challenging enough for their level.

Grouping of the class The nine big siblings/group leaders of the GEP II class are surveyed twice in order to find out more detailed information on their little sisters from a close observer’s point of view. The questionnaires were formed in order to discover changes in the motivation, comprehension and production performance of the students during the first half of the course. They answered the survey based on their observation half way through the course after the mid-term exam. The survey includes the following questions: 1. Do you feel that your little sisters are more motivated to participate in writing activities compared to the beginning of the course? A. Yes

B. No

2. Do you think their comprehension has been improving?

A. Yes

B. No

3. Do you think their production has been improving? 1. Yes

B. Not really

C. No

4. What do you think your siblings feel most difficult about in this class? A. Vocabulary B. Writing assignment C. Reading assignment D. Making an outline for a paragraph E. Pair(group) activities

The second round of survey, similar to the first one was given to the big siblings/group leaders again at the end of the course to see the changes. 1. After 14 weeks of GEP course, do you feel that your little sisters are more motivated and participate more in writing English activities compared to the beginning of the course? A. Yes

B. No

2. After 14 weeks of GEP course, do you think their comprehension has been improving? A. Yes

B. No

3. After 14 weeks of GEP course, do you think their production has been improving? A. Yes

B. Not really

C. No

3-1. Which part of writing skills did your siblings improve the most? A. Structure

B. Vocabulary

C. Content

4. After 14 weeks of GEP course, what do you think your siblings feel most difficult in this class? A. Vocabulary B.

Writing assignment

Reading assignment

D. Making an outline for a paragraph E.

Doing pair(group) activities

5. Interview question: What did you observe in your group with different leveled students during the group activities?

Seating Arrangements Half way through the course, we requested siblings to pair up students with higher level student and weaker level student during the class. The seat for a big sibling should be in the center of the group so that he/she can look after of all the group members with eye-contact possible distance. In addition, a big sibling was asked to sit closer to weaker level students than higher level students because those students need more attention. Big Sibling

High Student

High St.

Low St.

Big Sibling

Low St.

High St.

Low St.

Findings Lesson plan at Moderate Mid level The lesson plan of week 11 for GEP class was chosen as a sample. It was analyzed whether the lesson was designed for MM (in the range of ML to MH) level as a target or not. (See the description of MATE writing levels above) The objectives of the lesson are for students to learn to “be able to write an essay with a proper format and give their opinion about fashion using various vocabularies”. These objectives are relevant to the qualification of the SMU MATE standard of MM students of: ‘completing tasks in using language to provide simple concrete information of a personal, concrete nature’ , ‘using fairly complex sentences to offer simple explanation’ , and ‘being able to construct writing on less personal tasks’.

The topic of the lesson is fashion, and the task of stating their opinions about proper dress code in working places, is given. The language level required to complete the task was evaluated to be appropriate because students in moderate mid level are already able to write on some topics of personal interests. The activity of writing opinion essay about dress code requires students to use various vocabularies to describe fashion related terms. Furthermore, while writing the essay, each student in a group was given a role so that they could participate in the activity according to their language level. For example, a lower level student took a role as a designer who selects clothes on the website, a moderate mid student wrote the outline, and a higher level student was responsible for completing the whole essay.

Seating arrangement: Grouping & Pairing The results of the two surveys, given to the big siblings after the mid-term and right before the final exam show some changes in the direction of improvement. The first question is if the big siblings felt that ‘the little sisters are more motivated and participate more in activities’, after the midterm 7 of them answered ‘Yes’, while 2 of them answered ‘No’. However, for the final survey all 9 siblings answered ‘Yes’ to the same question. The second question is if the big siblings thought the little siblings’ comprehensions have improved. For the former survey, 6 answered ‘Yes’, and 3 answered ‘No’. However, for the final survey all 9 siblings again answered ‘Yes’. The third question asked if the language production of the little sisters have been improving or not. For the former survey 7 answered ‘Yes’ and 2 answered ‘No’ but for the final, all 9 siblings answered ‘Yes’. The fourth question was found irrelevant to the topic so it was removed from the analysis. We also found out the information of groups from the interview of group leaders. Most group leaders observed that each member of the group works as a team although they have different language proficiency levels. They were very cooperative and helped each other. Therefore, in view of these two survey results, it is quite likely that the seating arrangement and strong-weak paring of students suggested by the researchers have been effective in terms of participation and motivation improvement of the GEP students.

MATE Test result progress Furthermore, to see the language proficiency changes of the GEP students during the researching groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s treatment period, the MATE test results were compared as below: Group &Leader

Name

Initial

Final

Changes

Score

Level

Score

Level

KYY

Mod Mid

Mod High

PJE

Mod High

Comm

KJH

Mod Mid

Mod High

MJY

Mod Mid

Mod High

CEY

Mod Mid

Mod High

YHN

Mod High

Comm

KHM

Mod High

Comm

CEJ

Mod High

Comm

PDE

Mod Low

Mod High

Turtle Sisters

BSH

Mod High

(NJH)

WYR

Mod High

Comm

Chicken &

SJE

Mod Mid

Beer

KYH

Mod Mid

Mod High

(YYB)

BJW

Mod High

Comm

SMR

Mod Mid

Mod High

LSJ

Mod Mid

SJI

Mod Mid

Mod High

Soondoobu

LEJ

Rud

Mod Low

Sky

JYM

Rud

Mod Mid

(Draper)

Mod Mid

-1

Monami

LGY

Mod Mid

-1

English Master (KMH)

Dream Fighter (LHN)

Young Seniors (PHY)

Rainbow lions (KHJ)

(LJO)

SURFers (PJH)

KSY

Mod High

Comm

WSH

Mod Mid

Mod High

JGE

Mod Low

Mod Mid

OBY

Mod Mid

Mod High

KHS

Comm

Mod Mid

Comm

From the results of the MATE test, it was found that out of 27 GEP students three students (11%) have showed the improvement of over 21 in their test score results. Four students (15%) showed improvement of 16 to 20 points; nine students (33%) showed improvement of 10 to 15 points and eight students (30%) showed improvement of 1 to 9 points during the course. However, one student was not able to take the final exam and there were two students (7%) whoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s scores decreased by 1 point each. Nevertheless, it is clear from these results and observations that the language proficiency of the 93% of the GEP students have improved whether it be by little or by greater difference over the period of time.

Conclusion and Implication It is inevitable that almost every class may consist of mixed level students whether it be the mixture of language proficiency, motivation, participation or any other factors of the individual students in the class. However, for a language teacher it is not easy or physically possible to consider and pay attention to every single studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s need by their levels in the class. Based on the information collected in this research, focusing on to the middle level of proficiency would be the only effective solution to solve this problem, at least in the mixed-language proficiency level class. It would be even more effective for students, if the teacher notifies the level of the lesson to be taught in the beginning of the class, to assure what the students could expect from the language level about to be used in class. In addition, selecting meaningful contents appropriate to the overall students and adjusting seating arrangements to widen teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s action zone would be highly recommended to overcome these difficulties in the mixed-level classes. Moreover, teaching mixed-level class needs to be aware of the interests and motivation of both higher level students and lower level students in order to facilitate their willingness and motivation to learn English. In this regard, pairing is one of the effective methods to improve both level students by 13

drawing synergy effect from each other. For example, higher level students can help lower students with lessons; and vice versa, the lower level students may enhance self-esteem for higher level students as well. Nevertheless, it should not over see that there are some limitations to this action research. First, the research does not deal other factors affecting the improvement of students’ language proficiency but only focuses on the mixed-level features. Second, only one sample lesson was selected to analyze the appropriateness of the lesson level even though the other lessons for the GEP class have been designed differently from the sample lesson. In addition, it would be more precise analysis if more sample lesson plans designed for MM level were found. The result of analysis also needs to apply for the next lessons to adjust MM level. Lastly, the treatment application period was not long enough out of fourteen lessons to collect significant result or findings for solution. To conclude, there are no certain set rules for successful teaching, thus continuing studies on the subject would be necessary and highly recommended in the future. They may include more factors such as student’s personal background information such as personality, motivation, age, culture and origin. Apart from teachers’ effort of dealing with mixed-level classes, it will be necessary to provide more teachers’ training to help teachers in dealing these mixed-level classes. It is also crucial for teachers to be updated with new methodologies introduced and approved by other studies and researches and be prepared to adapt them into their classroom practices. For teachers to be flexible to revise their practices and imply new pedagogical findings are important attitude to improve their ever changing teaching environments.

References About the mixed-level classroom. Retrieved November 12, 2010, from the World Wide Web: http://activity-resources.jpf-sydney.org/ar/multi/intro.htm (Unpublished) Bell, J. S. (1998). Teaching multilevel classes in ESL. Carlsbad, CA : Dominie Press. Couzens de Hinojosa, S. (2010). Teaching Mixed Level Classes. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from the World Wide Web: http://tefltips.blogspot.com/2008/06/teaching-mixed-level-classes.html. (Unpublished) Dunn, W. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (1998).Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and Krashen’s “i+1”: Incommensurable constructs: incommensurable theories. Language Learning. Hus H.-W. (2009). Helping less proficient children in mixed-level classrooms; A study of TEYL teacher strategies used. Language at the University of Essex (Lang UE) 2008 Proceedings (2009). 52-66 Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman. Managing the mixed-levelinstructional classroom: instructional strategies in the multi-level, multi-subject classroom. California Adult Literacy Professional Development Project. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from http://www.calpro-online.org/training/multi.html. (Unpublished) MATE Management Committee. (2010). MATE writing test rater training handbook. Seoul, Korea: Sookmyung Women’s University MATE Management Committee. Myles, J. (2002). Classroom focus: Japan using high level students as teaching assistants in a mixed ability classroom. TESL-EJ, 6 (1) Retrieved November 11, 2010, from http://www.teslej.org/wordpress/issues/volume6/ej21/ej21cf1/ (unpublished) Raj, A. (2010). Teaching English in large multi-level classrooms. Retrieved November 16, 2010, from the World Wide Web: http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/forum-topic/teaching-english-large-multi-levelmulti-lingual-classroom (unpublished) Richards, J.C. & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Roberts, M. (2007). Teaching in the multilevel classroom. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pearsonlongman.com (unpublished) Valdez, M.G. (2010). How learners’ needs affect syllabus design. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from the World Wide Web: http://eca.state.gov/forum/vols/vol37/no1/p30.htm (unpublished) van Vlack, S. (2010). Issues in EFL. Spring 2010 Issues in EFL,8 (1) 163-187.

Appendix A

Initial Surveys and Interview for students

1. Do you feel more comfortable when you are interacting with similar language level member(s)? A. Yes

B. No

2. Is this GEPII class lesson difficult for you to follow? A. Yes

B. No

3. Do you feel that you want to study English harder through this class? A. Yes

B. Not really

C. No

We asked the following questions to the group leaders: 1. What are the difficulties or conveniences in running different language level students in one group? 2. How do the higher language level students react to activities below their language level? 3. How do the lower language level students react to activities above their language level? 4. To overcome the difficulties from dealing with different language level students in one group, what have you done so far? Please state some examples. 5. Do you think it is effective to pair up a higher level student with a lower level student? The changes we could make for the above problem is by forming the groups with similar language level members and by giving assignments according to their group levels

Appendix B

Final Surveys and Interview for Big Siblings

1. After 14 weeks of GEP course, especially for the intensive writing classes, do you feel that your little sisters are more motivated and participate more in writing English activities compared to the beginning of the course? A. Yes

B. No

2. After 14 weeks of GEP course, especially for the intensive writing classes, do you think their comprehension has been improving? A. Yes

B. No

3. After 14 weeks of GEP course, especially for the intensive writing classes, do you think their production has been improving? A. Yes

B. Not really

C. No

3-1. Which part of writing skills of your siblings improve the most? A. Structure

B. Vocabulary

C. Content

4. After 14 weeks of GEP course, especially for the intensive writing classes, what do you think your siblings feel most difficult in this class? A. Vocabulary

B. Writing assignment

D. Making an outline for a paragraph

Reading assignment

F. Doing pair(group) activities 5. Please comment any special observation on your sibling during GEP writing class.

Appendix C

STUDENT SURVEY

Major (전공):

Year (학년):

Age (나이): ____

안녕하세요 밴블랙 교수님의 GEP 학생여러분! 저희는 보다 효과적이고 만족스러운 수업을 준비하기 위하여, 여러분들의 요구조사를 실시하고자 합니다. 다음의 질문에 솔직하고 성실한 답변을 부탁드립니다. 조사결과는 수업활동과 자료를 구성하는 데에만 참고할 것입니다.

Which word below best describes your personality in general? 당신의 성격은 어느쪽에 가깝습니까? 가깝다고 생각하는 번호에 체크해주십시오.

Introverted -----1----------------2----------------3----------------4----------------5------- Extroverted (내성적) 매우내성적 내성적인편

중간

외향적인편

매우외향적

(외향적)

Briefly describe your English learning experience. 자신의 영어학습 경험을 적어주세요. In school (학교교육)

How long? (기간)

Private tutoring (과외)

How long? (기간)

Studying English in a language institute (영어학원경험) Living abroad (해외체류경험)

Where? (장소)

How long? (기간) How long ?(기간)

Having foreign friends (외국인친구와의교제) Describe (설명): Other experience (기타경험):

What do you do with English? Where? 영어를 어디서 주로 어떤 용도로 사용합니까? (해당란에 표시하고 설명) ( ) studying

where/ what/why

( ) chatting

where /how 18

( ) working (아르바이트)

where/how

( ) meeting people

where/how

( ) club activity

where/what/how

Others

How many hours do you use English per week? 일주일에 몇 시간 정도 영어를 사용 하십니까? ( ) never

( ) 3 - 6 hours

( ) 6 - 9 hours

( ) more than 10 hours

Have you ever taken any standardized exams? Indicate which one(s) and the approximate score received. 정규시험을 보신 적이 있다면, 점수를 적어주세요.

Score:

( ) less than 3 hours

MATE

TOEIC TOEFL TEPS IELTS SEPT Other test: (

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

) )

Have you ever studied English? If you have, what kinds of skills have you studied? 영어회화 수업을 받아보신 적이 있습니까?

Listening: Yes No (circle one) If yes, what did you learn? 듣기 수업을 참여한 적이 있다면 수업 내용을 간단히 써주세요. __________________________________________________________________________

Speaking: Yes No (circle one) If yes, what did you learn? 말하기 수업에 참여한 적이 있다면 수업 내용을 간단히 써주세요. __________________________________________________________________________

Reading: Yes

(circle one)

If yes, what did you learn? 읽기 수업에 참여한 적이

있다면 수업 내용을 간단히 써주세요. __________________________________________________________________________

Writing: Yes No (circle one) 수업 내용을 간단히 써주세요.

If yes, what did you learn? 쓰기 수업에 참여한 적이 있다면

__________________________________________________________________________

Which of these have you done in English? (Check all that apply) 다음 중 어떤 것을 영어로 해보셨나요? (해당 사항을 모두 체크해 주세요.)

Debating ___ Presentations ___ Role Play ___ Interviews ___ Narration ___ Online chatting ___ Writing Essays____ Writing Email_____ Other: ___________________________

What are your plans for the future? What job would you like? 졸업후의 계획은 무엇입니까? 어떤 직업을 갖고 싶습니까?

__________________________________________________________________________

Why are you learning English? Please, list three reasons. 영어를 배우는 이유를 세가지 써주세요.

__________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________

10. What parts of English do you have the most confidence in? Rank the following in order (1=most confidence, 8=least confidence) 어떤 영어 영역에 가장 자신이 있습니까? 자신 있는 순서대로 (1=가장 자신있음, 8=가장 자신없음). Vocabulary ( Speaking (

) Grammar ( )

Listening (

) Reading ( ) Writing (

) Pronunciation ( ) Test preparation (

) )

11. What expectations do you have in the GEP class this semester? 이번 학기 GEP 수업에 기대하는 것은 무엇입니까? 구체적으로 생각해서 적어주세요. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________

12. What are the things that you would like to do in this GEP class? GEP 수업에서 특별히 했으면 하는 것을 고르세요. 여러 개 골라도 좋습니다. (

) grammar practice

(

) games/fun activities (

(

) role play/skits(역할극) (

(

) watching videos or movie clips (

(

) story writing

(

) writing poetry

(

) writing essay

(

) writing a resume

(

) others

) using audio tapes

) pronunciation drills (

) discussions ( (

) vocabulary activities ) using Internet materials

) writing email (

) writing business documents

13. What kinds of topics are you interested in? (order of importance) 관심 있는 주제를 골라보세요. (좋아하는 순서대로) language learning ( ), study abroad ( ), jobs & career ( ), campus life ( ), travel ( ), celebrities ( ), shopping ( ), leisure activities ( ), food(cooking) ( ), fashion ( ), friends ( ), dating/relationships ( ), family ( ), sports ( ), holidays ( ), social issues ( ), games ( ), technology ( ), movies ( ), cartoons ( ), art ( ), music ( ), others

14. Is English your friend or enemy? 영어는 당신의 친구입니까, 적입니까? Friend

-----1----------------2----------------3----------------4----------------5------- Enemy

15. I think I am good at English. 나는 영어를 잘한다고 생각한다. (1=정말 그렇다, 5=전혀 그렇지 않다.)

1 (strongly agree)------2-------------3--------------4-----------5 (strongly disagree) 16. How would you rate your English reading proficiency? 당신의 영어 독해 능력이 정도라고 생각하시나요? (e.g. rudimentary 하, moderate 중, commanding 상) _____________________________________________________ 17. How would you rate your current English speaking proficiency? 당신의 영어 회화 실력이 어느정도라고 생각하시나요? (e.g. rudimentary 하, moderate 중, commanding 상)

18. How would you rate your current English writing proficiency? 당신의 영어 쓰기 실력이 어느정도라고 생각하시나요? (e.g. rudimentary 하, moderate 중, commanding 상) _____________________________________________________

19. Do you have any concerns about this class? 이 수업 담당 선생님께 하고 싶은 말, 수업에 대한 어떤 고민거리가 있으면 적어주세요.

THANK YOU