2
�Introduction………………………………………..3
�Resume……………………………………………...4
�Teaching Philosophy……………………………..5
�Reference Letter………………………………….7
�Introduction………………………………………..8
�Teacher’s License………………………….……..9
�Mate Training…………………………….…….....10
�Certificate of SMU TESOL Record….………...11
�Education IT Specialist Training……………....12
�English Teachers Training at Sonoma Univ…13
Professional Document
Teaching Experiences
Personal Document
�Introduction…………………………………….….14
�GEP lesson plans of ‘Study Abroad’…………..18
�Sample materials and students’ work…………21
�Reflective journal ………………………….…..…23
�Feedback from students……………….………..27
�Action Research……………………….………….28
3
An English teacher can help students not only improve
their language skills but also broaden their views to see the
world. I think students will see, listen, and think more things
around them if they learn a new language. Personally, I’m
proud of myself to be an English teacher and want to share
my background on how I became a teacher, what I have
experienced so far and the basic beliefs of English
teaching. The key words which I keep in mind in teaching
English are communication, motivation, efforts and respect.
I included my resume and teaching philosophy as my
personal documents.
Personal Document
4
-Personal Document-
Park Hyun Young •508-1103 Geumgokdong, Bundang, Seongnam •(Tel.)010-4370-0718•[email protected]
A current Middle school English teacher, who respects students, cooperates with other
teachers, counsel parents, and has enthusiasm for teaching English.
Teaching Experience Yongin Baekhyun Middle School 2009 –
present
Teach 1st and 2nd grade students English currently.
Have taught 3rd grade students English for 1 year.
Design afterschool English program and teach TEPS.
Teach low level students who have difficulties to follow the regular curriculum.
Jukjeon High School 2004
– 2008
Taught 1st grade English Writing, 2nd grade English Reading and Conversation, and 3rd
grade students English for Korean SAT.
Migeum Middle School 2003
Taught 1st grade students English.
Education and Qualification Master of TESOL(2009~Present); TESOL, Sookmyung Women’s University, Seoul
Bachelor of Education (2003) ; English Education, Chungang University, Seoul
Certificate of TESOL(2006); TESOL, Sookmyung Women’s University, Seoul
Certificate of SMU Mate Rater Training(2010), Sookmyung Women’s University, Seoul
Level 1 Teaching License of Gyeonggido(2006), Ajou University, Suwon
Technical Proficiency MS word, Excel, Power Point, Hangeul Word, Internet searching
Professional Activities Instructor for English Speaking Contest, Migeum Middle School(2003)
Leader of English Broadcasting Club, Jukjeon High School.(2004)
Member of English Ability Test Committee, Gyeonggi Education Department(2009)
Staff of Summer English Camp, Yongin(2009)
Member of Gyunggi English Teachers Association(2008~Present)
* References available all upon request.
I. Resume
5
-Personal Document-
One of my teaching philosophies is language teaching focusing on
the communication aspects of language learning. By getting a
chance to use the language, my experiences as an English learner
affected my teaching philosophy. By talking to foreigners outside
of the classroom, writing letters to foreign pen pals, and surviving
with English while traveling, I have become more interested in English. These are good
examples of how I was motivated to study English. Output means not just producing a
language but ability to use it as a tool of communication. In my class, I usually let my
students do something in English. In listening class, students make their own dialogue
and speak out in the end. I sometimes make students write their ideas related to reading
content in English in my reading class. I believe providing students with speaking and
writing activities helps them improve English.
My next principle is related to the motivation to learn English. I survey my
students about learning English in every first class. The biggest value I
intend to put is why they learn English. I think language is not the main
aim itself but the tool to use with. Therefore, I usually encourage my
students to think about what they want to be in the future and how English will be
benefit to succeed in that area. Then, I expect students’ attitude in class to become
more active and responsible when they learn English.
In addition, the important philosophy in my teaching lies in making constant efforts
to develop teaching materials and methods. I think teachers should be busy
with learning. By attending seminars, teachers’ training courses, doing
researches, teachers can find the best methodology that fits their own
classes. Language keeps changing in a real life and students’ learning styles
are various. Therefore, I need to keep up with those varieties. For example,
I have learned collaborative learning which is a student-centered method in
a teachers’ training course, and I could find out it made my class
atmosphere more active. However, there are still problems to be solved
such as assessment and class control. I need to keep searching for an
effective teaching method. One of the reasons why I decided to join the
TESOL program is to update my teaching skills. What I have to keep in mind
that I shouldn’t be afraid to adopt new method in my class.
Lastly, I respect my students and try to praise them as much as possible. Korean
English learners are afraid of making mistakes. They have stress on their English to be
II. Teaching Philosophy
6
perfect. I think that is the big obstacle to improve their English ability.
Even though students produce wrong sentences I praise their trial at
once before I correct them in an indirect way. When shy students read
their writing works slowly and quietly I encourage them to finish the
presentation and give them a big hand. I’m also interested in how to
make a reward effectively and powerfully. It shouldn’t be a purpose but it has a role to
students do their best in learning English.
Teaching needs efforts and I will open my mind to be flexible in every situation.
There is no correct one answer in education, but teachers keep trying to fid the
appropriate method to their students. Based on the experience of teaching, I will modify
and seek for the new methodology.
8
I am an English teacher but I keep learning English like a
student. It makes me have more confidence and skills in
teaching English and it leads me to be a better teacher. I
included teacher’s license, certificates of MATE training,
SMU TESOL, education IT specialist, and extended education
in Sonoma State University. These demonstrate how I have
been training myself to improve my teaching skills.
Professional Document
14
Through the Practicum of the TESOL program, I could
practice designing lessons, organizing materials, managing
and analyzing the classes. These processes were done
interactively with MA students. This session demonstrates
how I have improved my teaching techniques and
classroom management skills. I included lesson plans about
‘study abroad’, class reflective journal, sample materials
and students’ works and feedback from GEP students.
Teaching Experiences
15
-Teaching Experiences-
Practicum 1
Group 1 (Mihyang, Kim, Hanna Lee, Hyunyoung Park)
Lesson Plan _ Week 5
1. Function : Descriptive writing
2. Topic : Study abroad
3. Objectives: Students should be able to write a paragraph with a topic sentence to
describe people, dormitory rooms, and campus in a university of a foreign country.
4. Assign little sisters of the teaching group to other 6 groups before the activity as follow:
- Eun Ji, Ha Neul → Turtle Sisters
- Hyun Min, Yieon →Chicken & Beer
- Da Eun, Ji Eun →Rainbow Lion
- Jeong Yoon →SoonDooboo Sky
- Ji Hye →Monami
- Eun I →SURFers
5. Class Procedure
Time/
Duration Activities Content Materials
Class
Structures/
Big
siblings’
Role
7:50~8:0
0
(10min)
Assignment Check-up
(Questions & Answers) Check-up
8:00~8:3
0
(30min)
<Lesson Introduction >
1. Lesson introduction ‘Campus life’ using PPT
2. Video clip: Danguk university http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDPMSDHJZr4
- Watching the video clip
- Remind Ss paragraph format (PPT)
<Describing My Dormitory >
-Each group get a picture of a dorm-room
and describe the room : DESCRIPTION
-The next group gets the description of a
dorm room from the previous group and
draws a picture of the dorm-room based on
the description. They also do peer-
- Ss
describ
e
picture
s of
dorm-
room
from
their
friend
who
study
- Internet
/ PPT
-pictures
of dorm-
rooms
-Pens
-Tape
-Stickers
Pair work
(2pairs in
each
group)/
Big
siblings-
take care
of two
different
writings at
the same
time
I. GEP lesson plans
More Dorm room-U tube Dorm Room! at Lipscomb University http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzYb-HqmTto
16
correction on the description: PEER
CORRETION (spelling, structure,
paragraphing )& DRAWING PICTURE
-Compare the original dorm-room pictures,
descriptions and Ss’ pictures � Display on
the wall & vote : can be done in break time
abroad
8:30~9:0
0
(30 min)
< Dorm Day>
-Place different pictures of dormitories on
the wall (before class)
-Get Ss have tour to watch different
dormitories
-After deciding their favorite dormitories,
Ss describe the dormitories and do
presentation.
Ss will
choose
the
best
dormito
ry for
them
and
their
best
friend
who
roomm
ate will
be. Ss
explain
how
their
chosen
dormito
ry
looks
like to
the
friend.
-pictures
of
different
places at
dormitori
es
-paper
for
writing
-tape
Group
work/
Big
siblings-
distribute
the part of
wring to Ss
(topic s,
supporting
Ss,
conclusion)
&
supervisin
g Ss’
writings
17
9:00~9:4
0 (40
min)
<Describing a classmate>
Warm Up:Presenting a topic
- Present the PPT slide to introduce the
topic.
Step I
- Have the class into pairs.
-Distribute worksheet and photo.
-Have students ask and answer questions
about the appearance of the person in her
picture in order to fill in the blanks. (10m)
Step II
- Have each pair write a paragraph to
describe their picture after choosing one of
the two pictures.(10m)
Step III
-Have each pair check their paragraph using
the “Revision Checklist” and revise it.
Step IV
-Have Ss exchange their writing and picture
with another pair.
-Have each pair rewrite other pair’s
paragraph with a different topic sentence
and supporting ideas
*Present the written paragraphs on the wall
and let them guess identify how different
other people’s writing is.(5m)
Diverse
Background
s of
University
Students:
Ss are
going to
describe
appearance
of
classmates
who have
ethnically
and
culturally
different
background
s.
-
Workshee
t -
Revision
Checklist
-PPT
Slides
-Pictures
Pair work/
Facilitators
9:40~9:5
0
(10min)
BREAK
9:50~10:
30
(40min)
<Campus Tour-Describing Campus>
-Give an example of campus tour script on
PPT
-Each group is given a campus map and
picture of buildings to make a campus tour
script
-Present the campus tour script
Ss look at
the
campus
map and
describe it
for the
campus
tour.
-
Worksheet
s
(Pictures
of the
buildings)
-Three
different
Group
work/
Facilitators
(Big
siblings let
students
describe 1
or 2
18
Campus
maps
-PPT
buildings
and put
together
using place
adverbs.)
< Wrap up>
1) Let students check writing assignment
and upload it on the GEP website.
Individual
Work
19
-Teaching Experiences-
-Pictures dorm rooms for describing-
-A picture drawn by a student-
II. Sample materials and students’ work
22
-Teaching Experiences-
Park Hyunyoung
My group taught descriptive writing with the topic of study abroad. We focused on
writing in a paragraph form including topic sentence, supporting sentences, and
conclusion. The first activity was describing a dormitory room. Students could get to
know what and how to describe by watching a video clip to introduce a dormitory room.
After students in pairs described the room, they switch their papers with other groups.
Then, they drew a picture of a room based on the description. Even though some of the
descriptions were not enough to draw the room completely, it seemed that students
could understand the descriptive words well. When they compared it with the original
picture, students laughed at how different or similar they described. It took more time
than we planned, so we skipped the second activity, dorm fair. As students didn’t finish
the work, we couldn’t move on to the next step on time. We need to find a way to make
students start to write quickly. I think that’s because students should think and
brainstorm before writing a paragraph.
In addition, many vocabulary for descriptive writing, were given in reading
assignment, but some students who didn’t do the homework had difficulty to do the
second activity-describing classmates. It would be better if big siblings emphasize the
importance of doing reading assignment in advance. This activity was information gap
and it also led students to write in a paragraph form. By making students change the
topic sentence, they could notice supporting sentences should be changed as well.
The last part of the class was campus tour. It was designed to describe the
appearance, location, and function of the buildings on a campus map. Writing a sample
campus script was a burden even for me, so I was concerned it would be a huge task for
students as well. I gave each group a university campus map with brief explanation of
each building and the tour route was also given in advance to save the time. When one
III. Reflective Journal
23
of groups asked me to change the route, I thought it would have been better to let the
group decide the route next time. During the last activity, both students and siblings
looked very tired. They seemed to feel writing a campus tour script difficult so there
should have had more fun elements for the last activity of the class. One of big siblings
told me that the group size was bigger than usual and she couldn’t pay attention to help
every member fully. I think it could be helpful to make them pairs based on the writing
test results.
The overall activities for week 5 were quite burdensome to students. However, I
think it was good chance to practice how to write descriptive passage in a paragraph
form.
24
-Teaching Experiences-
There is a website for GEP students to use. They visited the website and wrote
anything they wanted to upload on the board. Each group had its own space to share
their ideas. They usually wrote about the daily things, study, job interview and the
reflective journals for the classes. It was a great tool for communication. I could read
their writings and replied. Students also could practice writing for authentic readers.
Here are some samples of my group from the website-
http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=30695&p=3&topicID=38146516&page=
5
IV. Feedback from students
28
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................... 29
Problems Identified ....................................................................................... 32
Possible Solutions .......................................................................................... 33
Treatment ...................................................................................................... 36
Appropriate lesson level for the students
Grouping of the class
Seating Arrangements
Findings ........................................................................................................ 38
Lesson plan at Moderate Mid level
Seating arrangement: Grouping & Pairing
MATE Test result progress
Conclusion and Implication .......................................................................... 41
References ..................................................................................................... 44
Appendix A .................................................................................................... 46
Initial Surveys and Interview for students
Appendix B .................................................................................................. - 1 -
Final Surveys and Interview for Big Siblings
Appendix C .................................................................................................... 48
STUDENT SURVEY
Action Research
29
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
30
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
31
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 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.
32
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, 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).
33
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 students’ 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:
“How do EFL teachers overcome the challenges they face in teaching mixed-language proficiency level
classes?”
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
34
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 leader’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 Valdez’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 CALPRO 1 (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.
35
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
student’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 teacher’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.
36
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.
37
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?
A. 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
38
4. After 14 weeks of GEP course, what do you think your siblings feel most difficult in this
class?
A. Vocabulary
B. Writing assignment
C. 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.
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
Big
Sibling
High
St.
High
St.
Low
St.
Low
St.
High
Student
Low
St.
Big
Siblin
g
Low
St.
High
St.
39
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.
40
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 group’s treatment period, the MATE test results were compared as below:
Group &Leader Name Initial Final
Changes Score Level Score Level
English Master
(KMH)
KYY 35 Mod Mid 45 Mod High 10
PJE 55 Mod High 70 Comm 15
KJH 37 Mod Mid 54 Mod High 17
Dream Fighter
(LHN)
MJY 37 Mod Mid 50 Mod High 13
CEY 37 Mod Mid 55 Mod High 18
YHN 53 Mod High 64 Comm 11
Young Seniors
(PHY)
KHM 56 Mod High 61 Comm 5
CEJ 58 Mod High 65 Comm 7
PDE 24 Mod Low 46 Mod High 22
Turtle Sisters
(NJH)
BSH 54 Mod High
WYR 53 Mod High 66 Comm 13
Chicken & Beer
(YYB)
SJE 43 Mod Mid 44 Mod Mid 1
KYH 40 Mod Mid 54 Mod High 14
BJW 50 Mod High 63 Comm 13
Rainbow lions
(KHJ)
SMR 38 Mod Mid 46 Mod High 8
LSJ 34 Mod Mid 42 Mod Mid 8
41
SJI 35 Mod Mid 45 Mod High 10
Soondoobu Sky
(Draper)
LEJ 10 Rud 18 Mod Low 8
JYM 12 Rud 38 Mod Mid 26
JL 43 Mod Mid 42 Mod Mid -1
Monami
(LJO)
LGY 43 Mod Mid 42 Mod Mid -1
KSY 57 Mod High 62 Comm 5
WSH 40 Mod Mid 57 Mod High 17
JGE 27 Mod Low 43 Mod Mid 16
SURFers
(PJH)
OBY 35 Mod Mid 47 Mod High 12
KHS 66 Comm 69 Comm 3
DT 39 Mod Mid 64 Comm 25
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%) who’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 student’s need by their
levels in the class. Based on the information collected in this research, focusing on to the
42
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 teacher’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 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 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
43
revise their practices and imply new pedagogical findings are important attitude to
improve their ever changing teaching environments.
44
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.tesl-ej.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-level-multi-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)
45
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.
46
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
4. Reading assignment D. Making an outline for a paragraph
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, 여러
분들의 요구조사를 실시하고자 합니다. 다음의 질문에 솔직하고 성실한 답변을 부탁드립니다. 조사결과는 수업활동
과 자료를 구성하는 데에만 참고할 것입니다.
1. 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)
2. 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) How long? (기간)
Living abroad (해외체류경험) Where? (장소) How long ?(기간)
Having foreign friends (외국인친구와의교제) Describe (설명):
Other experience (기타경험):
3. What do you do with English? Where? 영어를 어디서 주로 어떤 용도로 사용합니까? (해당란에
표시하고 설명)
( ) studying where/ what/why
( ) chatting where /how
( ) working (아르바이트) where/how
( ) meeting people where/how
( ) club activity where/what/how
Others
4. How many hours do you use English per week? 일주일에 몇 시간 정도 영어를 사용 하십니까?
( ) never ( ) less than 3 hours ( ) 3 - 6 hours ( ) 6 - 9 hours ( ) more than 10 hours
5. Have you ever taken any standardized exams? Indicate which one(s) and the approximate score
received. 정규시험을 보신 적이 있다면, 점수를 적어주세요.
MATE TOEIC TOEFL TEPS IELTS SEPT Other test: ( )
Score: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
6. 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 수
업 내용을 간단히 써주세요.
__________________________________________________________________________
Reading: Yes No (circle one) If yes, what did you learn? 읽기 수업에 참여한 적이 있다면 수업
내용을 간단히 써주세요.
__________________________________________________________________________
Writing: Yes No (circle one) If yes, what did you learn? 쓰기 수업에 참여한 적이 있다면 수업
내용을 간단히 써주세요.
__________________________________________________________________________
7. 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: ___________________________
8. What are your plans for the future? What job would you like? 졸업후의 계획은 무엇입니까? 어떤
직업을 갖고 싶습니까?
__________________________________________________________________________
9. 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 ( ) Grammar ( ) Reading ( ) Pronunciation ( )
Speaking ( ) Listening ( ) Writing ( ) 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 ( ) pronunciation drills
( ) role play/skits(역할극) ( ) using audio tapes ( ) vocabulary activities
( ) watching videos or movie clips ( ) discussions ( ) using Internet materials
( ) story writing ( ) writing poetry ( ) writing email
( ) writing essay ( ) writing a resume ( ) writing business documents
( ) others
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.