Search Results

‘Assessment is, indeed, the bridge between teaching and learning.’ Dylan William The importance of assessment is obvious, it is a process that gives us an insight into what our students know, understand and can do as a result of our teaching. It informs us teachers about what has been learnt, consolidated, where the gaps are and what needs to be re-taught in order to close these gaps. There is a significant research evidence to suggest that if formative assessment is successfully implemented, it has clear benefits for teaching and learning. It is built on the pioneering work of Paul Black and Dylan William (1998). When interviewed by TES (2013), Dylan William reflected that a better description for formative assessment is to call it ‘responsive teaching’. It is linked to the idea that teaching is adaptive to the learner’s needs.(Teaching Walkthrus) They reasoned that people often think about tests and exams, when the word ‘assessment’ is used. Formative assessment as well as retrieval practice does not include marks or grades. It does not compare students with one another. Black and William point out that it is a process which involves working with students, so that they know where they are in their learning, where they need to be and how they will get there. However, a caution is needed when conducting summative assessments (assessing what students have learnt using various forms of measurement) – as how a student does in one assessment doesn’t tell us necessarily how he/she will perform on another assessment in a term or years to come as too much will/can change in meantime. There is also the problem with estimating GCSE grades because the criteria will be different to that used in the final exam – for example in year 10, I will be unlikely to assess the entire GCSE content or all skills and as we know the grade boundaries shift every year. ‘Learning is an invisible process, teachers often have misconceptions about what pupils have actually come away with after a lesson.’ (Graham Nuthall: Hidden Lives of Learners) Assessment is designed to make the learning visible so that the teacher can respond to any gaps in knowledge and adapt the teaching for future lessons. It is important to think about: ‘ What is it that we want to assess?’ when designing assessments. It really is worth reviewing the summative assessments we use, often we use assessments provided by the course book we follow and there is nothing wrong with it, however they should be reviewed and possibly ‘personalised’ to fit the school context and approach. More and more schools are creating and designing their own assessments these days. We can’t assess everything that we have taught in our curriculum, so careful judgment about which parts/skills to assess and when is essential. The problem with summative assessment is also it’s validity (face validity, content validity, convergent validity and divergent validity) as Mark Enser raises in his book ‘Teach like nobody is watching’. On this post, I would like to concentrate on how I use formative assessment to inform my teaching. In his book ‘Embedded formative assessment’ Dylan William puts forward five strategies for teachers to embed formative assessment into their teaching successfully: Clarifying, sharing and understanding learning intentions and success criteria – discussing LO with students, modelling, SB/KO, worked examples, check lists, mark schemes/grids… Engineering effective classroom discussions, activities and tasks that elicit evidence of learning – use of ‘cold call’, posing a question before saying student’s name, use ‘no-opt-out’, providing ‘wait time’, retrieval practice, summaries, reasoning, ‘interpretive listening’… Providing feedback that moves forward – research has shown that comments only and not grades lead to the most improvement and motivation, giving one or two improvement points, providing students with enough time to respond; it should explain ‘how’ to improve not just ‘what’ and should be based on the success criteria. Activating learners as instructional resources for one another – collaborative learning – peer tutoring, group work, peer assessment, peer checklists (I will be starting to trial peer checklist from September), think, pair, share. I would also like to try ‘group revision’ – where students work in groups with each group member being given one question from a topic to answer to the rest of the group or it could be a Grammar point and students have to explain it to the rest of the group. Activating learners as the owners of their own learning – self-assessment, self-quizzing, metacognition, students being aware how they learnt and the strategies most useful for self-study (retrieval practice, spacing, interleaving, feedback, dual coding). Assessment is a concept that has often frustrated me; with all of the different things that we are expected to do as effective practitioners, it has been one area which at times felt that no matter at how many different approaches I have explored, I just couldn’t seem to find one that would have a real impact on the progress of my students. During the Lockdown period, like many of us, I had the time to reflect and review the assessment and marking policies that I have been exposed to and have been using in my 16 years of teaching. At the start of my teaching career there wasn’t much guidance on marking. Marking often resembled a flicking and ticking exercise – ticking each page and writing comments such as – ‘Great work!’, ‘Please, underline the title!’, ‘Don’t waste the space!’, ‘Glue in your sheets!’, ‘Finish this work!’… Spending lot of time on marking and assessing with minimal, if any impact on students’ progress! Then the new trend came in – ‘personalised marking’ – marking and assessing one piece of work, usually extended piece of writing at least twice a half term. I thought, surely this would reduce the amount of marking and have more impact on the progress of my students! Well, the reality was, I spent hours writing the same long/personalised feedback into different books, such as ‘use different tenses, use variety of connectives, extend you writing more’ and using rather vague level descriptors provided… However, this was adding no value to my students’ progress, was only complying with the school’s marking policy and has not reduced my work load what so ever! I am not even going to start talking about the ‘triple marking’, all of us had to go through and the endless data drops ‘assessing’ what grade or level my students were!!! For how I use feedback now, see the post here. I would like to make it clear, that this is not a criticism of my school leaders, but it results from an education culture in the U.K that over the years became (and in some schools still is) data and evidence of progress hungry. What does formative assessment look like in my classroom: Influenced by the work of Dylan William, Michael Chiles, Daisy Christodoulou and Research Ed guide on assessment, I apply a variety of strategies. Strategy 1: Retrieval Practice – I use various forms of retrieval tasks which can be focused on knowledge (vocabulary, chunks, Grammar) recall or skill based such as speaking or writing. As Karpicke points out, retrieval does not just assess learning; it also enhances it: ‘learning is altered by the act of retrieval itself’ (2012). Testing strengthens both the LTM (storage strength) and retrieval (retrieval strength) and makes ‘forgetting’ less likely to occur. Learning so becomes more durable, particularly when it is effortful and regularly spaced over the course of study. When students are retrieving, I circulate the classroom to check for the gaps in the knowledge. Is there anything I need to re-teach? I ask probing questions, especially when retrieving grammatical concepts to ensure understanding and deeper thinking. More on Retrieval, see my post here. Strategy 2: Questioning – I ask a lot of questions – everybody is expected to respond – no-opt-out – using cold calling, MWB and other TLAC techniques. More on effective questioning, please see this post here. Strategy 3: Multiple Choice Quizzes (MCQ) – Blake Howard’s work on this topic has been extremely useful. MCQs need to be carefully written and some of the points to consider when designing effective MCQs are: Answers must be similar so that students engage with all of the material – this then prevents learners from guessing and makes the correct answer obvious for those who know it. Answers must include the most common misconceptions (like the example below on past participles) There should be always the “don’t know” option, as it avoids guessing or hiding students’ gaps in knowledge if they guess correctly. For students to engage with all of the material don’t tell them how many options there are. Answers should assess only one element to avoid confusion They should also assess understanding Strategy 4: Think-Pair-Share – I use this for formatively assessing speaking practice – I pre-determine the pairs and whilst students are talking, I circulate the class and listen. Are there any common misconceptions I need to address? Strategy 5: Silent work – This strategy is used usually during the written production phase when students are asked to produce extended piece of writing or working on translation activity, still using formative assessment – I always model the task using my visualiser and provide appropriate scaffolding to those students who need it, so all of my learners can access the task. Whilst students are working I move around the classroom and try to read as much work as possible. This collection of ‘data’ provides me with the opportunity to give a personalised feedback or to stop the lesson if I notice common misconceptions and address them immediately. Concluding words: In terms of reflection on assessment – what and why I am assessing, the biggest take-away for me is to remember who am I assessing for! The purpose of assessment should be to increase and support the progress of my students and they should be the centre of all we as educators do, its aim shouldn’t be just to inform the school’s reporting system – SLT, governors and parents. #peerassessment #selfassessment #MCQ #summative #RetrievalPractice #assessment #formative #marking

With a clear link between professional development, the quality of teaching and pupil attainment, in many schools, professional development is in the forefront of their focus as school leaders are trying to make it more coherent, integrated and motivating for staff. Effective professional development has been defined as structured professional learning that results in changes in teacher practices and improvements in students learning outcomes. (EEF) The quality of teaching is a crucial factor in raising pupil attainment therefore effective professional development programmes should focus on helping teachers improve through evidence-based and evidence-informed professional development which explicitly focuses on improving classroom teaching. Meaningful professional development needs to use a clear theory of change, and it should have clearly defined outcomes for improving the quality of the teaching and outcomes for pupils. In terms of effective professional development, schools need to create a supportive professional environment based on trust, high professional standards, and culture of collaboration where the leadership provides support, time and resources needed for professional development. They also need to avoid unnecessary workload and use time effectively. As teachers’ experiences, expertise and stage in their career differs, it is important that this factor is considered as well, thus diagnosing teachers starting points and building on their existing skills and knowledge and adapting the approach based on the assessment information. Implementation of any new approach is an ongoing and sustained process not just an event. However, for it to be successful there are a few aspects that need to be considered. The implementation process is divided into 4 stages: explore – prepare – deliver – sustain. Explore This stage is pivotal as it involves defining the problem – a key priority that needs to be solved and identifying appropriate programme to implement it. This key priority should be amendable to change and needs to be supported by relevant and rigorous data collected from a variety of sources that is plausible and credible interpretation. After reviewing the collected and triangulated data, evidence-informed decisions need to be made, which are based on what has and hasn’t worked before. This should be evidenced within the school but also external evidence from schools with similar context and must be relevant to school’s values and beliefs as this will ultimately lead to adoption decision. Prepare Once an adoption decision has been made, the leadership need to prepare the school and its staff for implementation of the new strategy. They must develop a clear and logical implementation plan of the new strategy. They must develop a clear and logical implementation plan, assess the school’s readiness to deliver the implementation plan and make practical preparation for its use such as training staff and developing the necessary infrastructure. Delivery Delivery is a phase when the new programme is applied for the first time. First stage for the leader is to take a flexible and motivating leadership approach to support staff and to deal with the barriers and challenges that will emerge. Reinforcing the initial training with follow-on support via expert coaching, mentoring and peer support is crucial for teachers to feel confident to apply the practice in their classroom. Gathering implementation data during this phase also allows leaders to tailor and improve the approach. This stage comes to an end when most staff adopted the approach naturally and routinely. Sustain In the final stage of implementation, the focus moves onto sustaining this approach or practice. When implementation is successful and it reaches the sustain phase, schools should concentrate on consolidating the new programme and help all staff to use it effectively and confidently. To ensure the programme is sustained, school leaders should continuously acknowledge, support and reward good implementation practice use. Up scaling of the new practice should be treated as a new implementation process and the cycle then starts again. As described in DfE’s standards for Teacher Professional development (2016), professional development should: focus on improving and evaluating pupil outcomes be underpinned by robust evidence and expertise include collaboration and expert challenge be sustained over time be prioritised by school leadership My Academy and department context: At our Academy, and specifically, in our languages department, for the past year, the focus has been on implementing retrieval practice across the department furthermore leading to its implementation across the whole Academy. Part of my research lead role has been to research and investigate how this strategy can be effectively implemented and create an implementation plan for the department.  As I am at the moment completing the NPQLTD via https://www.llse.org.uk/, I have been using the course content and the resources to create a step by step plan. adapted from Bedlington Academy – Northumberland Our Academy and leadership values professional development and has ensured we have protected time on our timetable for coaching – 1 protected period per fortnight as well as two am sessions per week (15 mins each) for deliberate practice of our Academy and departmental ‘high fives’.  During this time an identified strategy (this could be based on a ‘culture walk’ or teacher’s self reflection) is discussed with individual teachers, i.e entry routine, live modelling, quizzing, say it better/say it aga, scaffolding etc. During the first short weekly session – the subject leader (me), models the strategy either in person or via pre-recorded video and the teachers act as students. During the second session, staff then actively practises the strategy themselves (deliberate practice) using the rest of the team as a ‘class’ until they feel confident to apply it in the classroom. The application of the strategy is then reviewed during the longer coaching session and tweaked, if necessary. this example is pre-recorded modelling – the voices are staff acting as students download here also available at: https://learninglinguist.co.uk/category/mfl-cpd-library/ In conclusion, a number of schools in the Research School Network are able to help schools develop an evidence-informed approach to professional development through a course called Leading Learning - a comprehensive overview of some of the most important research evidence in education, so that leaders can create a high impact professional development programme. For more details, contact: mailto:stuart.mathers@eefoundation.org.uk References: https://www.llse.org.uk/ – materials and resources https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/effective-professional-development https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/evidence-reviews/teacher-professional-development-characteristics https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/evidence-reviews https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/537031/160712_-_PD_Expert_Group_Guidance.pdf #CPD #Professionaldevelopment

“If challenge, explaining, modelling & questioning are the ingredients for learning, practice is the oven in which it is baked.” Allison/Tharby: Making every lesson count We often hear the saying: ‘Practice makes perfect!’ However, what is perfection? Does it even exist? If we are to consider it, I would argue that only ‘perfect’ practice makes ‘perfect ‘! I am more inclined to agree with: ‘Practice makes better and permanent.’ Practice is the learning journey from the first encounter with new language to its mastery for independent use. Without it, sounds and letters can be seen or heard, yet quickly forgotten, so practice is the route to retention. Practice is about meaningful processing of knowledge; it develops automatization and confidence. In other words, practice is a wide array of activities that are “engaged systematically, deliberately, with the goal of developing knowledge of and skills in second language” (DeKeyser, 2007). Meaningful practice is not mechanical, its aim is to bring together language that has been learnt over time for the purpose of meaningful communication. This can be achieved after a lot of meaningful and structured practice. If we consider that in their home language, children are exposed to more than 17,000 hours of exposure by the age of four (Roffwarg et al., 1066, cited in Collins & Muñoz, 2016), this is nowhere near possible to achieve in secondary foreign language classroom in England, where learners typically have around 450 hours over five years of language learning (NCELP, 2021). Understandably, due to the constrains of timetabled curriculum, when we see our students on average two or three times a week for 50-60 minutes, it is vital to make the most of the practice, firstly by identifying what our students need to practise and secondly, the best way they should do it. In the first instance, students profit from practising ‘comprehensible input’ (listening and reading) via structured tasks such as making phoneme-grapheme correspondences or connecting word or structure to its meaning / function, thus establishing knowledge receptively before they are expected to produce it productively through speaking and writing. Students need multiple encounters with new language in a variety of contexts to embed it in LTM – research suggests between 8-20 encounters for learning vocabulary (Schmitt, 2008). As far as I know, there is no conclusive consensus as to the optimum intervals between practice. However, it is clear that practice should be frequent enough to prevent forgetting, but spaced enough to create a certain degree of ‘struggle’ in recall – a ‘desirable difficulty’ (Bjork, 2016). This type of practice is often not sufficiently represented in the textbooks where more emphasis is put on comprehension tasks with the focus on understanding of the key words or ‘deducing’ the overall message from several cues. The other issue with many textbooks is that they often rush to produce the new language and don’t provide ample opportunities to practise decoding or parsing skills. The whole purpose of practice is to ensure that linguistic knowledge, structures, and forms are well embedded in LTM and can be recalled quickly and effortlessly, thus becoming automatic, to develop and deepen students’ receptive and productive skills as well as provide students with plethora of opportunities to interact in TL and reduce the rate of error. So, what types of practice can we use… In her book ‘Making good progress’ Daisy Christodoulou discusses the “knowing-doing gap” – the concept that our students know what they are supposed to do, yet don’t do it reliably. For example, in German, my students may know that after ‘weil’, the verb moves to the end of the sentence, yet only some of my students will do so consistently. The answer to this knowing-doing gap for Christodoulou lies in deliberate practice, specifically, the isolation and practice of the particular micro-skill. The small components of deliberate practice may look very different to the final skill. If the final skill was to write a high-level paragraph on a certain topic, we need to ensure that after the material has been broken down into small steps (Rosenshine), students have ample opportunities for deliberate practice of these components within lessons. This doesn’t mean that deliberate practice should be easy, on contrary it should be challenging. In the case of the above scenario, it could be its application within a variety of contexts not just a specific topic or even looking at other conjunctions with the same rule. Guiding student practice and monitoring their understanding is crucial. If we agree with the theory of ‘practice makes permanent’ rather than perfect (Lemov, Woolway & Yezzi, 2018) then the use of CFU, worked examples, guided practice are detrimental to our students’ learning. In some lessons, our students will be dependent on direct instruction, explanation and working with models, in some they will rely on heavy or light guidance using writing frames and worked examples and in other lessons they will work at the autonomy stage – hopefully, at this stage they will be manipulating the language for their own purposes in both written and spoken form. Strategies to support practice: Sentence Builders / KO – these allow us to place the core knowledge in one place, have potential to reduce CL and support RP and self-quizzing. Retrieval Practice (RP) – see a separate blog post on RP here. Micro skills – as mentioned above Overlearning – as per D. Willingham’s findings from cognitive science – ‘practice doesn’t make perfect’ (Practice makes perfect – But only if you practice beyond the point of perfection, 2004). In other words, for a new skill to become automatic or new knowledge to become long-lasting, sustained practice beyond the point of mastery is necessary (Maxwell, 2019). When designing and sequencing the curriculum, it is important to build in opportunities for students to overlearn. For example, if past tense has been explicitly taught and via deliberate practice mastered in the context of ‘travel and tourism’, return to it within a different context later on in the sequence to provide (‘real life’) opportunities to ‘overlearn’ the structures within this context. Skills-based practice – Listening / Speaking / Reading / Writing – I wrote separate blog posts on each skill, click on the links for more. The journey from dependency to autonomy will vary depending on the class and difficulty of the material. We are the judges as to making the decision whether our students had enough practice and are ready to move on. A caveat, as per the MFL Ofsted Review (2016), in the U.K. schools, at GCSE most students will be at the novice level with only the most proficient linguists being at the expert level! This might be even more challenging to achieve due to the upcoming changes within the new GCSE and creating even bigger gap transitioning to A-Level! References: James A Maxwell: Making every MFL lesson count (2019) Shaun Allison & Andy Tharby: Making every lesson count (2017) MFL Ofsted Review (2016) #deliberatepractice #guidedpractice #independentpractice

Recently, I have been looking more closely at the research analysing the ‘lexical approach’ of language teaching. Here are some key facts that have been summarised by Scott Thornbury (2019) in Learning language in chunks. Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series.[pdf] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (For further reading, see references). Even though the paper refers in more detail to ELT there are also many parallels drawn to SLA which might be considered in context in our classrooms. Over 25 years ago Michael Lewis published ‘The Lexical Approach’ (Lewis, 1993), prompting a radical re-think of the way we view language and how we teach it. He argued that “language consists of chunks, which, when combined, produce continuous coherent text” (Lewis, 1997) By ‘chunks’ Lewis was referring to the following: collocations (to get a call, to do the shopping, give way …) fixed expressions ( all of a sudden, by the way …) formulaic utterances (I’ll get back to you later, I’m on my way…) sentence starters (I believe that, As far as I know…) verb patterns ( I hate to tell you…/I hate flying…) idioms and catchphrases  (under the weather, break a leg …) Lewis was not the first to relate to language in these terms, however, his contribution was to argue that language teaching needed to be reformed/revolutionised... (Lexical) chunks consist of more than one word, they are conventionalised, exhibit varying degrees of fixedness and idiomaticity and they are probably learned and processed as single items (‘holophrases’). There is growing evidence, i.e. from read-aloud studies (Ellis et al, 2008) that chunks are processed holistically, rather than as a sequence of individual words. A number of studies have established that there are many chunks that are as or more frequent than, the most frequent individual words (Shin & Nation, 2008). How could the learning of chunks profit language learning? The 3 main reasons that have been put forward for prioritising the learning of lexical chunks are: Fluency – facilitation of fluent processing. The possession of memorized store of ‘chunks’ allows more rapid processing, not only for the production of language but also for reception, since ‘it is easier to look up something from LT memory than compute it’ (Ellis et al., 2008). Some researchers noted that when chunks were used more confidently, they contributed more to the perception of fluency (Boers & Lindstromberg, 2009) Idiomaticity – ‘The use of chunks can help students to be perceived as idiomatic language users, disposing of a relatively impressive lexical richness and syntactic complexity’ (Boers & Lindstromberg, 2009), alluding to native-like proficiency. Language development – another strong argument in favour of a lexical approach is that ‘lexical phrases may also provide the raw material itself for language acquisition’ (Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1989). In other words, the phrases are first learned as unanalysed wholes. ‘The Lexical Approach claims that, far from language being the product of the application of rules, most language is acquired lexically, then “broken down” … after which it becomes available for re-assembly in potentially new combinations’ (Lewis, 1997). Ellis (1997) agrees: ‘Learning grammar involves abstracting regularities from the stock of known lexical phrases.’ Based on studies (mainly with young learners), Ellis & Shintani (2014) accept that ‘the prevailing view today is that learners unpack the parts that comprise a sequence and, in this way, discover L2 grammar. In other words, formulaic sequences serve as a kind of starter pack from which grammar is generated.’ Other researchers are less convinced, especially when it comes to literate adult learners who are inclined to unpack formulaic expressions for their words not syntax. (Wray, 2002). Scheffler (2015) concurs that, even if these ‘unpacking’ processes apply in L1 acquisition, the sheer enormity of the input exposure required to ‘extract’ a workable grammar is simply unfeasible in most L2 learning contexts’ (Thornbury, 2019). Swan (2006) argues that: ‘ Much of the language we produce is formulaic, certainly; but the rest has to be assembled in accordance with the grammatical patterns of language […]. If these patterns are not known, communication beyond the phrase-book level is not possible.’ How are chunks best learned and taught? In the summary mentioned above, these 4 groups are cited: 1. The phrasebook approach – the practical applications of the approach are: rote learning of formulaic expressions drilling shadowing – learner listens to extracts of authentic talk and ‘sub-vocalises’ at the same time jazz chants – for young learners, preselected chunks are embedded via chants and songs 2. The awareness-raising approach – Krashen (1985) Input Hypothesis – the necessity for high quantities of roughly-tuned input as a source of learning extensive reading and listening tasks ‘chunking’ of texts – identifying possible chunks listening to extracts of authentic speech and marking a transcript into tone units to identify likely chunks record-keeping and frequent review recycling chunks in learners’ own texts (spoken or written) 3. The analytic approach – while Boers & Lindstromberg (2009) agree that time should be devoted to raising awareness about the role of chunks, they are sceptical that learners will be able to identify them without an aid. Their research supports the view that directing learners’ attention to the compositional features of chunks can optimise their memorability. Their analytical approach comprises of: teach vocabulary in chunks select chunks for targeting, also based on collocational strength and teachability reveal non-arbitrary properties of chunks to make them more memorable complement to improve chances of retention, elaboration of meaning and form 4. The communicative approach – Gatbonton & Segalowitz (2005) propose approach called ACCESS, which incorporates stages of controlled practice of formulaic utterances, embedded within communicative tasks. In other words, presenting and practising short chunks of functional language, before learners partake in interactive tasks that require the repeated use of these chunks for communication. ‘The ultimate goal of ACCESS is to promote fluency and accuracy while retaining the benefits of the communicative approach. In ACCESS, this is accomplished by promoting the automatization of essential  speech segments in genuine communicative contexts’ (Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005). With the restriction of the language curriculum time currently available, as well as the attitudes to language learning in many U.K. schools (even though it seems to be improving due to the pressures of Ebacc), the Lexicogrammar approach advocated by G.Conti which teaches language via chunks using sentence builders foremost and focuses on explicit grammar application later on in its sequence, might be the better solution for many schools in terms of development of communicative skills, self-efficacy and motivation compared to the very didactic approach of NCELP, which might be more suitable for highly academic or advanced learners. Or indeed combining a variety of approaches based on our specific contexts; especially if we want our students to know more and remember more (Ofsted MFL review, 2016). Key takeaways Whatever strategy we might embrace, effective teaching should take into account the following: distinction whether we teach production (speaking/writing) as well as reception (listening/reading) the need to focus on meaning as well as form the importance of teaching vocabulary in context, not as isolated items the need to teach vocabulary deliberately, rather than just rely on incidental learning (Webb & Nation, 2017) providing learners with the autonomy about what they are learning – ‘the more one engages with a word (deeper processing), the more likely the word will be remembered for later use’ (Schmitt, 2000) the importance of forming associations with vocabulary items – schemata – to aid retention and support memory – LTM – recall the need for regular reviews – spaced and interleaved practice – retrieval practice development of metacognitive skills – learners setting their own targets and measuring their success against them, making decisions about what and how they learn vocabulary References: Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research, 71. London: Routledge Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (2005) Rethinking communicative language teaching: a focus on access to fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61 Lindstromberger, S., & Boers, F. (2008). Teaching chunks of language: from noticing to remembering. Helbling Languages. Selivan, L. (2018). Lexical grammar: Activities for teaching chunks and exploring patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press Scott Thornbury (2019) Learning language in chunks. Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series.[pdf] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. #chunking #lexicalapproach #vocabulary

Nobody could claim to have come up with an ideal method of teaching MFL. Many modern languages classrooms may believe in communicative language teaching, a broad functional approach based on the recognition that students need to develop their ability to communicate in the target language and not just possess a passive knowledge of vocabulary, structures, and grammatical rules (Maxwell, 2019). However, there are some methods or approaches, if you like, which work better than others and they are often a combination of methods working in symbiosis in the classroom’s unique context as each classroom, department and school is different. My main goal as a teacher and linguist is to enable all my learners to experience success in language learning, to make learning a language accessible for all children and to build their confidence and self-efficacy. Over the years of my teaching, I came to realise that when my students claim whether they can or cannot ‘do’ German, they are really implying whether they can or cannot speak it. So, what is spontaneity and fluency? How do we define them? Fluency means speaking easily, naturally, reasonably quickly, without having to pause a lot. It is ‘the ability to link units of speech together with facility and without strain or inappropriate slowness or undue hesitation’ (Hedge, 2000). The speech of learners who are not fluent is characterised by ‘ frequent pauses, repetitions, and self-corrections’ (Hedge, 1993). Spontaneous speaking is unscripted speech which either initiates or responds to a speech. It is the learner’s ability to perform and respond to conversation without planning their responses or speech. To become a more fluent speaker is an important goal for a majority of language learners, so it is our role as teachers to enable our students to develop fluency and spontaneity in their speaking. How can we support our learners in developing their speaking fluency? The accuracy of the language can be affected as learners increase their fluency. Accuracy necessitates knowledge of ‘pronunciation, vocabulary, word formation, grammatical structure, sentence structure and linguistic semantics.’ (Hedge, 2000). These two often lie on opposing sides of the weighing scales: as one goes up the other goes down. I have observed that some of my learners who become increasingly more fluent in their speech are less accurate in their grammar as they pay more attention to the meaning instead of to perfectly grammatically accurate utterance/speech, thus increasing the speed of their speech and decreasing hesitation and pauses. I believe, we should encourage our students not to worry about making mistakes in circumstances where spontaneous and fluent speech is more important than grammatically perfect speech. We should manifest self-control when correcting our students during tasks that are created to promote speech fluency. We know that fluency improves when language knowledge becomes ‘automized’ (Thornbury, 1999), when the learner can produce the language without consciously thinking about it. The process has become automatic. One way we can support our students in this process, is to teach them ‘chunks’ (idiomatic phrases) of language, such as ‘ there is, on the other hand, in my opinion etc.’ – lexico-grammatical approach (Conti, 2019) where building blocks of language learning and communication are words and words combinations. These already ‘pre-made’ phrases are then stored in our brain as whole and can be retrieved relatively quickly and effortlessly thus reducing hesitation and increasing the speed and fluency of the speech. In our department, we use sentence builders to introduce new language. Our students learn pre-made chunks first, which they later, after a lot of deliberate practice and retrieval practice via EPI sequence (Conti), independently manipulate for their own output. Planning is crucial. Teaching and modelling of the chunks, automatic retrieval of lexical items, deliberate practice, LAM/RAM tasks planning. Being clear about the focus of the task: pronunciation, grammatical accuracy, syntax, fluency, spontaneity, complexity…? We use the same type of tasks repeatedly (task repetition). This is beneficial in two ways: it cuts down on time wasted in terms of giving instructions and explaining the tasks and it also improves fluency (Bygate, 2015, Conti, 2019). The speaking tasks are sequenced from planned and structured (scaffolded) to unplanned (spontaneous) speaking practice. It is important to create an environment where learners feel safe and secure, and which reduces the anxiety of speaking (Conti, 2019). The main focus of my teaching is to develop my students’ communicative functions to develop their fluency in speaking. My go to repetitive communicative tasks, I organise to develop greater fluency are: board games speed dating marketplace the 4, 3, 2 technique dice games picture talk – view post on Preparing students for their GCSE speaking exam round table – view post on Preparing students for their GCSE speaking exam oral presentations Shared resource. Adapted from G.Conti For more task ideas, see The Language Teacher Toolkit by S. Smith and G. Conti. To become fluent in another language as we know, demands a lot of time and practice. We can try and re-create purposeful ‘real life’ activities in our classroom, however, the switch to ‘real’ fluency and spontaneity, considering the restrictions of the classroom setting, resources, and teaching time available, is not so easy to achieve by the time our students reach their GCSE examination. Fluency often requires full immersion in the language which can be achieved by staying in the country of the TL for a prolonged period of time. From personal experience, it is possible to develop fluency if the learner has a regular (I would say, almost daily) contact to a native speaker, which provides opportunities to communicate only in the TL, watch TV in TL and read in TL. It requires a lot of self-discipline and motivation. For some of our students, this level of fluency might be difficult to achieve and reach during the 5 years of language learning in the U.K. educational system. We have to be realistic as to what is achievable within the walls of our classrooms! We are not bad teachers if some of our learners struggle with fluency! Spontaneous and natural response is often one word answer and not an extended paragraph talk! However, through our delivery, we can build students’ confidence and self-efficacy, foster love of language learning and prepare our students for their further language studies at the college and university or just simply facilitate their joy of being able to converse in another language, thus enabling them to discover different ways of life and become a well-rounded global citizen. As always, I would love to hear your views and opinions on the topic. References: G. Conti: Language Gym: https://gianfrancoconti.com/2019/11/19/on-fluency-and-spontaneity-beyond-practice-makes-perfect-in-fluency-building/ #fluency #speakingskills #speech #spontaneity

On this post I would like to concentrate on the Receptive processing phase of Dr Conti’s E.P.I methodology. After the introduction of the new language/sentence builder through intensive modelling and awareness raising stage the next stage in my delivery is the receptive processing phase of the sequence of lessons that I have planned for a unit. I would spend on this phase approximately 2 lessons, but depending on your classes this may vary. It involves a high intensity processing practice of enriched controlled input through receptive skills – listening and reading. I remain on this phase until I am satisfied that students’ receptive knowledge is firmly embedded. The aim of this stage is to practise, practise, practise the language without cognitive overload. Students will still use their MWB in this phase. In these unprecedented times, when schools across the country are not allowing students to use shared resources including MWB and if your students do not have their own MWB in the planner, you can always use a digital mini white board such as whiteboard.fi. You will have to create a class and share the code with your students. However, this requires students to have their own devices to join the class with their board to be then displayed on the main classroom screen. This might not be an option for many schools on tight budgets, so another cheap alternative would be to laminate a piece of paper which can serve as a MWB and can be shared within the year bubbles. So what activities could you use for this stage? Please note, that students can still refer to their Sentence Builder during this phase if needed and this is only a small fraction of the activities that can be used. However, these are the activities I, as someone who is still rather new to this methodology, feel pretty confident using now. Translations from L2 to L1 activities These could include faulty (bad), running, mad or delayed translations. Below is an example of year 8 ‘Faulty translation’, type of a task which I regularly use in my lessons. Students need to look at the text in L2 and compare it with the translation to L1 and try to find all of the mistakes. When I first started this activity, my students were rather confused as to why I would make mistakes in the translation, however once they have come to understand that it was done on purpose, this activity now often turns into quite a competition. On purpose I do not tell them how many mistakes there are, but give them a time limit to find as many as possible in the given time frame. One pen one dice translation – from L2 to L1. Students work in pairs, using only one pen and one dice. Students agree who will start with the pen first (it could be the youngest/oldest one) and can start translating from L2 to L1. The other person must keep rolling the dice until they roll an agreed number for example a 6. When they roll 6, they must say “sechs” and swap the dice for the pen. Then they can start translating. The winner is the one who finishes first. If it is not possible to share a dice you could use an electronic dice such as one from teknologic. I roll the dice and students translate. Example of one pen one dice translation Delayed translation – from L2 to L1. Sentence is displayed, after 10 seconds it disappears and students have to translate it. If students are confident and working well or tell me ‘This is easy!’, I like to challenge them and I add another sentence so they see 2 or 3 short sentences or one extended one and they have to then erase the previous translations and translate the whole sequence. We use MWB for this as well. Most of my classes get really excited about this and I have done this challenge even with my bottom set with about 70% of them able to translate 2 sentences at once with a decent degree of accuracy. I strongly believe it is important to develop students’ memory capacity and this type of task will do that. Sentence puzzles – solving problems through thorough processing, using activities such as tangled translations or pyramid translations – L2 to L1 at this stage. Pyramid translations – working in groups of 3. One person is the referee with the answers, the other two students take it in turns to translate each sentence perfectly. If they make a mistake, the referee must tell them and the other partner can start translating from the start. The first person who translates the sentences perfectly is the winner. Example of pyramid translation You could even use Tangled translations but only do the section where students translate into L1 and  leave the section where they translate into L2 for the Structured Production  or Expansion phase. Example of tangled translation Narrow listening activities Spot the missing detail – explain to the class they are going to listen to a text in which some words have been left out. Provide a hand out with the missing words/write missing words on the board. There are no gaps to indicate where the omissions are. As the text is read out they can note the missing words on their MWB/on a sheet or in their exercise book. When I teach my two top sets I do not provide this as so far they were able to complete this task without the support. Example with missing detail Example with gaps filled Spot the nonsense – explain to the class they are going to listen to a text in which you have planted a nonsense information ‘At the weekend I walked to Germany.’ As you read the text students write on their MWB/a sheet ‘possible’ or ‘impossible’. Narrow reading activities Spot the difference – students are given this activity on paper – in our department we have introduced booklets to save us time on photocopying, cutting and gluing (some examples on my resource page). Students need to correct each text to match the English as well as identify which text matches exactly. Example of spot the difference Error – teacher reads out two sentences, one correct the other incorrect. The student has to chose which one is the correct one and write the number of the sentence on the MWB. Example of ‘Error’ Every piece of text is created so that it is ‘flooded’ with the same chunks and patterns over and over again thus ensuring 90-95% comprehensible input and scaffolding via Sentence Builder is available throughout. Conclusion There are many other activities that can be explored, for more reference you can read the ‘Breaking the sound barrier’ book written by Gianfranco Conti and Steve Smith or the Language Gym blog. If you are still not very confident or if you are fairly new to this approach like my school is, I personally would add new activities gradually so that the students but also the teacher don’t get too overwhelmed. From my personal experience you will get more confident with the activities as you trial them, you will also work out which activities work for your specific class profile and which don’t. Many can be also tweaked and adapted. We have been following the Conti approach for the past 8 weeks and we have observed that initially the transition between the tasks can be somewhat time consuming because we had to spend time explaining the new activities to our students, however now we have completed a sequence of lessons, this should not cause any issues when delivering the next topic. We also feel more confident in our delivery and can now start to explore some other activities to keep lessons varied and engaging. You might also consider as an individual or as a department to invest into the Sentence Builders books which provide a variety of ready made activities which can be photocopied and used in the class or as homework. #comprehensibleinput #narrowreading #teknologic #ReceptiveProcessing #whiteboard #EPI #translation #narrowlistening

In this post, I wanted to share the variety of activities promoting spontaneous speaking that I have been introduced to during my German Expert Mentor (GEM) training. GEMs are a part of the GIMAGINE project facilitated by the Goethe-Institut in cooperation with its partners of the National Consortium for Language Education. The National Consortium for Languages Education (NCLE) is a partnership of UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (IOE), the British Council and the Goethe-Institut. In accordance with GIMAGINE, NCLE Language Hubs (the Hub schools are to be announced shortly) are being set up to promote the quality of language teaching throughout England. NCLE aims to increase the uptake of language qualifications in English state schools. GIMAGINE promotes and supports the learning of German as a foreign language in the UK. The project centres around students, teachers and schools. Apart from the offering initiatives for professional advancement to German teachers, the project can fund learning German trough scholarship and provides schools with materials and teaching resources. (source: Goethe Institut website) All activities can be easily adapted or scaffolded and used at KS3 or even at KS2. With credits to Christiane Bolte-Constabiei. A to Z: ABC of Associations All students or a group of students have a worksheet with the alphabet listed. They are given time to find a word (diff. word groups) related to a topic for each letter. If the activity is carried out in groups, the alphabet can be divided among them. The words are then presented to the class. Advertisement Spot In the advertisement spot activity, students condense the most important content of a topic into an advertisement spot. American Debate Students are divided into two groups. One group is responsible for the pro-arguments, and the other group for the counterarguments. The students are given time to gather their arguments. Then, the actual debate takes place, and a discussion leader is designated. Each group appoints several debaters who sit across from each other at a table. The discussion leader opens the debate by giving one side the floor. For example, the pro-side starts with the person sitting to the right or left of the discussion leader. Under strict time constraints, they can present their arguments. Then, it’s the other group’s turn, the person from the opposing group sitting across. The discussion leader strictly enforces the time limits, interrupting each contribution after the agreed-upon time, typically ranging between 30 seconds and one minute. At the end of the first round, the process is reversed back to the starting point. Finally, a general plenary round or a vote can take place. Appointment Students receive a handout with pre-filled times and topics. They enter an appointment (name of a person) for each time slot. They proceed to their first appointment and discuss the displayed topic. After about 1 minute, a new topic is revealed, and they move on to the next appointment. This activity is also useful for activating prior knowledge. Autograph Hunt Students receive a worksheet with a task to find a person knowledgeable about specific topics. They move around the classroom and try to collect as many different signatures as possible on their sheet. Each person can sign only once per sheet, and this interaction encourages conversations among students. Brainstorming The teacher places a large 3 – 4 sheets of paper (e.g., A3) around the classroom. Students individually brainstorm associations related to the topic while walking around. Afterward, the sheets are discussed and further supplemented collectively. This activity adds dynamics to the lesson since students physically move around. Brainwriting In brainwriting, students collaboratively work to generate a broad range of perspectives on a question or statement formulated by the teacher. The goal is to collect as many ideas as possible on a topic creatively and subsequently reduce them to the central ones during the decision-making process. Students form pairs and receive a written question or statement. Each student individually notes as many answers or thoughts as possible. The ideas are then compared with the partner’s contributions. The pair agrees on a common answer or thought, and the first pair to do so receives a sheet to document their answer or thought. The sheet is passed on to the next pair, who compares their contributions to the answer on the sheet. If the answer differs, they write it down as well. If the answers on the sheet match those of the group, thoughts from the pair can be used, as long as both partners agree. The sheet is passed on again, and once all pairs have documented their answers/thoughts on a sheet, they are presented to the class. Catch the Word Students form groups of three and position themselves so that they cannot see each other’s post-it notes. The teacher sticks a post-it note on the back of each student. The students move around, trying to keep their word on the post-it note hidden for as long as possible. They have to move cleverly to achieve this. Once all groups have read each other’s words, they can remove them. This activity is suitable for playfully revising vocabulary and topics. Class Walk Students move around the classroom and talk with one another – topics or prompts can be displayed on the board. They then move on to the next person and continue the conversation. Activity is timed (2-3 mins). Experience Snake Students line up according to a prompt, answering questions from the teacher. The line has a starting point (much) and an endpoint (little). Prompts may include: “Line up according to your height,” “Line up according to your birth month,” or “Line up according to the distance from your home to the school.” Expert Interview Students simulate an expert conversation or expert interview. One student acts as the expert, but there can also be two experts. Other students interview the expert. Questions can be pre-prepared and support given where appropriate. Expert Panel / Talk Round Students form a semi-circle to create an expert panel. For example, two proponents and two opponents of a thesis (i.e., advantages/disadvantages of…) can participate, along with a moderator. Empty chairs can also be set up for audience members who wish to join the round. The moderator opens the round, allowing each participant to make a brief statement. The moderator ensures that the discussion remains on topic, everyone gets a chance to speak, and keeps track of time. The audience summarizes the most crucial points after the discussion. Fishbowl In this method, a group discusses in the middle of the classroom while the other students observe and provide feedback on their discussion behaviour afterward. Only the group in the middle can discuss and speak. There is a discussion leader and an empty chair, allowing uninvolved students to spontaneously join the discussion and then leave the circle. Four Corner Discussion In the classroom, posters with discussion topics are placed in each corner. Students rotate and discuss the topics one by one. Hierarchy on Pyramid The students agree on priorities (topics) to be tackled and write them down in the form of a pyramid. They are then practised according to the priority using any activities mentioned. Hot Seat The teacher places an empty chair in the classroom, making it the focal point. Students who have a question approach the chair, ask their question, and then return to their original seat. The person who has an answer to the question also approaches the “hot” chair. Once they finish answering, they return to their seat. Another person can add to the answer and approach the chair. I, too! Each student receives ten game tokens, candies, or similar objects. The first student shares something they can do/have done (e.g., water skiing). Everyone who has done the same thing puts a token or candy on the table. The second student then shares something they can do/have done (e.g., acted in a movie). Again, everyone who has done the same puts a token on the table. The game continues until all tokens/candies are used. Image Evaluation The students bring a personal photo or a photo from the internet that reflects their mood and describes/talk about it. Island Evaluation Students receive A3 paper and imagine it as the “sea of possibilities.” Each student draws an island on the paper, occupying about half of the sheet. They draw a dashed line around the island, symbolizing the unsettled swampy land. The three areas created are then filled with content: a) The island: Secure knowledge from the topic, which should be able to do without help b) The swampy land: Knowledge/grammatical aspects they are aware of but not fully confident to use. c) The surrounding sea: Knowledge they are completely unsure about, needs to be re-taught. Jeopardy Students recall their prior knowledge to connect it to new input during the next phase. This activity is also suitable for unconsciously testing students’ knowledge at the end of the lesson or unit of work. Students are divided into 2-3 equally sized groups. Each group receives a buzzer. The teacher, acting as the quizmaster, selects a category/topic or lets students choose one (questions are graded by difficulty) and reads the corresponding question. Students can consult within their groups and agree on an answer. The group that buzzes first gets the chance to answer first. If their answer matches the model solution, they earn the points corresponding to the question’s value (e.g., 50, 100, 150, 200). If the answer is incorrect, they receive no points. In case of doubt, the quizmaster decides whether the answer is right or wrong. The game ends after the last question is answered, and the points from each team are tallied. The team with the most points wins. Laying Eggs A group activity based on the idea from Bernd Weidenmann, Active Training, p.61. Two positions are announced, written on each half of the board. Students decide on a position and go to the corresponding side of the board. Each group writes sentences for their position on post-it notes and sticks them under each other on the chosen half of the board. The halves are presented, and if there are any questions, the authors can answer them. Now the “laying eggs” begins. The groups add comments/sentences/phrases to the right and left of the other group’s sides on different colour post-its. The halves are presented again. In the end, the students position themselves in between. This creates a lively picture of opinions. Learning Poster Students in groups jot down the most important aspects of a topic or unit on posters. Mind Map The students complete a digital or analogue mind map. This way, ideas, arguments, and content can be collected and clustered. My Right Place The students form a circle and hold their phrases/sentences clearly visible in front of them. There is an empty space to the right of the teacher, where no person stands. The teacher starts by saying in TL ‘My right, right place is empty, that’s where I wish for (sentence in TL).’ Then the student who holds the chosen sentence in their hand must quickly run to the empty place. If the sentence is present more than once, the faster person decides, and the other person returns to their original place. This activity continues for a few minutes. The goal is to activate the long-term learning. One-Word Flashlight The teacher asks students to think of a word/phrase/sentence to describe how they felt about the lesson, or the topic taught. After a brief reflection period, each student shares a word/sentence representing their current opinion. The statements are made in turn, but the teacher and other students do not comment on them. Paired Reading The students intensively familiarize themselves with the statements of a text. The teacher forms partner groups. The students read the text, divided into sections, to each other. In the first step, both partners read the text individually. In the second step, they take turns reading it to each other. While one reads, the other sets the text aside and listens attentively. Then, he/she reproduces what they heard as accurately as possible. The person who read checks if everything is correct. Then the roles are reversed. The students proceed with the next sections in the same way. Paired Reflection At the end of the lesson, the students sit opposite each other in pairs and identify an A and a B. While A reports on the most important lesson content, B listens silently. After A’s presentation, the roles are reversed, and B reports for about 2 minutes. Potentially, the teacher can offer the possibility for the respective partners to question each other. Finally, the teacher answers open questions that have arisen during the pair reflection among the students (C4U). Pantomime The teacher distributes different topics/words to individual students or groups. The students or groups present them pantomimically – without speaking – to others. The other students guess. Photo and Object The teacher brings various photos or objects. Students choose one that represents something about themselves or relates to the topic discussed. Students then introduce themselves, for example, in a circle, sharing what their photo or object represents. Other students can guess what the photo or object has to do with the person or the topic. Pictograms Students work on a topic/text and visualize the most important aspects as pictograms or pictures on a poster. They then present their topic to others using the visualizations. Picture Cards or The Group Knows In this activity, students receive a worksheet with a specific question. Each student has a different question. They move around the room, questioning other students about their assigned question and noting the answers on their worksheets. Then, in pairs, students work together using the collected knowledge (e.g., creating learning posters, summarizing the important points, visualizing the information, etc.). Placard or Poster Discussion The teacher notes questions from a topic on empty placards distributed in the room. The students move from placard to placard, answering the question and writing down their own question for the next group. On a signal from the teacher, the groups move to the next placard, answer the new question as well as the question from the previous group, and add another question. The activity ends when all groups have dealt with all questions. Afterwards, the students should have time to read all placards again. Finally, any remaining questions are clarified in plenary. Placemat Students sit together in pairs or groups. Each pair/group receives a large sheet of paper and divides the sheet so that each student has their own field in front of them and a field in the middle remains free for group results. The method has three phases: Phase 1: Thinking: The students write down their ideas in individual fields. Phase 2: Exchanging: The individual ideas are exchanged and compared. The sheet can be rotated clockwise in the group, so that all group members have seen and understood the other ideas in the end. The students can then confirm, improve or revise their own results and discuss problems in order to develop more variety of language. This result is entered in the central field in the middle. Phase 3: Presenting: The students present their group results to the class. They can refer back to the records in the middle field of the sheet. Quick Consultation In the quick consultation, the pair or group collectively answers specific questions. Each question is written on a sheet, leaving space below for ideas and answers. Students have a short time to note their responses on the sheets, which are then presented afterward. Quiz Questions To work on a topic or as a part of revision, the students receive different topics in working groups. They develop quiz questions about their topic that the others have to answer. Reading Tree Students receive a sheet with a tree. They write the theme on the trunk and what they already know about the theme on the roots. Then they receive an input text, where they write the global content on the thicker branches and the details on the smaller branches. Reciprocal Learning A text divided into sections is read in groups of four. All students read the first section quietly. Each student assumes a specific role, and the roles rotate clockwise for the subsequent sections. Students support their understanding by asking questions about the text, clarifying difficult parts, providing partial summaries, or expressing expectations regarding the text, etc. The roles can vary. Running Dictation In a running dictation, a text is divided into individual sections and placed in different locations around the room by the teacher. The task for the students is to go to each section in a predetermined order, memorize it, and then return to their seats to write down the text segment. Running Sentences Running sentences can be used to work on lesson/topic content. The teacher distributes different sentences on post-its/cards to all students. These sentences should reflect central aspects of the topic and be complete in themselves. The students have 3-4 minutes to move around the room and read or recite their sentences to as many other students as possible, also trying to remember the sentences of others. Afterwards, the students return the sentences to the teacher, and in workgroups, they try to note down as many as possible. Snowball Initially, students collect words/sentences/discussion points, etc. in pairs. Then, the pairs join with another partner group and agree on common words/sentences, etc. Another group of four is added, and the large group must once again agree on words/sentences, etc. Finally, they record them, for example, on a poster, Mind map, etc. Speaking with Pictures Pictures with different motifs serve as a stimulus for a speaking practice. Students choose a card, and in a carousel, they speak about the topic based on the picture. This approach works well for students who are hesitant to openly share their opinions. Speech Chain The teacher formulates a question that is formulated in such a general way that many different answers to the question are possible. Now one student starts answering the question and passes the question on to another student. The teacher does not interrupt the course of answers. Only after a previously set time, the teacher ends the speech chain and summarizes the answers. Speed Dating The students line up in two rows so that each student always has a counterpart with whom they can talk. The teacher asks a question/presents a topic, and the students discuss it with the new partner under a specific time requirement. On an acoustic signal from the teacher, the activity stops, and the right row moves one person further. Now the teacher asks a new question or the same question for which the students exchange with their new partner. Start and end of each question are signalled by an acoustic signal from the teacher. Table Tennis The students sit face to face in pairs. The teacher specifies a topic that has already been taught. The pairs decide (e.g., by rock/paper/scissors) who serves first in the table tennis game. The starting player says a word related to the given topic. The “opponent” counters with another word as quickly as possible because this game is about speed. If one of them hesitates, no longer knows a word, or says one that has already been said, the other person has won a point. Talking Walls Different walls in the classroom are attached with questions from a topic, possibly supplemented by pictures or quotes on the topic. The students answer questions or describe/talk about pictures. They formulate their answer to each question on a post-it and attach it. When all groups have answered the questions, the teacher presents the answers attached and discusses them. Treasure Chest The ‘treasure chest’ can be used as a repetition task at the end of a lesson or as an introduction to the new lesson. In a cardboard box, presented empty at the beginning, new words/phrases are collected throughout the lesson and stored in this chest. The students are given empty post-its and have to think about which new words or phrases they have learned. They throw them into the chest. The next lesson or at the end of the lesson, one student draws a post-it, and the students must translate the word/phrase. This can also be done as pantomime. Whirl Groups In Whirl or Expert Groups, students first discuss a topic in different small groups or pairs, each pair/group having a specific sub-topic. This makes each student an expert in that particular sub-topic. Then, one student from each expert pair/group forms a new pair/group with experts from other sub-topics and shares their acquired knowledge. Downloadable copy here More ideas click on the link here References: German Expert Mentor (GEM) training, 17th – 21st July, 2023, Goethe Institut, London: Source: Christiane Bolte-Costabiei, Stefan Häring, and Dr. Annegret Schmidjell https://www.goethe.de/ins/gb/en/spr/drm.html #speakingskills