To cheat or not to cheat

lying-1562272_960_720Cheating is something we teachers don’t like to see. And if we’re lucky, it doesn’t happen. But, is it a question of luck or bad luck? Well, I’m convinced that cheating happens only if it is allowed or encouraged.

Who would want to allow (or even encourage) cheating, you may ask now. Lazy teachers, gullible teachers, lenient teachers, merciless teachers, crazy teachers?

I mean, as the desire to cheat is quite understandable, the teacher’s job is to create conditions in which students can’t cheat at all or even think of cheating. I’d like to stress the difference between can’t and not allowed to here. By can’t I mean that it’s virtually impossible.

I once saw an image of a classroom packed with students taking a test (allegedly taken in a Japanese school). These students had large pieces of paper attached to their temples so that they couldn’t copy from their neighbor’s test. This is not what I meant when I said conditions in which they can’t cheat. What I had in mind were humane conditions, such as two versions of the same test, students sitting in a way that it’s impossible to peek in someone else’s test, designing a test which is useless to copy because every student’s answer is unique (such as describe your last holiday in 120 words). 

On the other hand, it’s a good idea to show that you trust your students. The higher-stakes exam, the fewer cheating opportunities students should get, but with low-stakes testing, it’s ok to offer the forbidden fruit from the Garden of Eden from time to time.

For example, my students often peer correct their tests, which definitely offers some space for cheating. Strangely enough, throughout my career, I only caught someone red-handed once. This particular boy wanted to help his partner by adding a few correct answers during the correction stage, in exchange for his reciprocal lenience, of course. He forgot to change his handwriting and offered me some irrefutable evidence … Anyway, we had a chat and it’s never happened again in this or another class.

However, some other types of incidents have happened. The other day, for example, a very good student showed his test answers to a friend sitting behind him and she willingly copied them all. When I caught them, I was really angry with the student who had shown the answers, rather than with the girl who had copied them. Anyhow, she had to take another test while he was made to feel properly guilty. However, it was partially my fault; I had arranged the seating in a way that enabled cheating plus I was not paying attention during the exam so the students just took advantage. They are only kids after all.

I’d like to say that I’m really grateful for all these learning moments – the moments when the cheaters learn that cheating doesn’t pay and when I learn I have to be more attentive. One way or another, it’s good to ask yourself the following question: what makes your students cheat? Is it a desire to easily achieve something they don’t deserve? Is it a temptation they simply can’t resist? Or is it just a hopeless attempt to escape the unbearable load of responsibility?


Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Speaking intermezzos

classroom-824120_960_720I discovered a new way of approaching reading activities by breaking longer texts down into shorter units and intertwining speaking into reading.

In previous lessons, my 17-year-olds had discussed gender inequality, which, I think, is not an exactly light topic for a group of teenagers. I felt that at some point my students had lots of opinions to share but not enough vocabulary to do so.

I was lucky and I found a collection of suitable short texts on the topic (all in one handout). I estimated the language to be near the B2 level, which is slightly above my students’ current level of proficiency. Each text is followed by a couple of questions related to the topic. So a text about female equality in Hollywood is accompanied by questions such as How do you explain this gap in pay level? or What do you think should be done to reduce the salary gap?. I liked this because the questions didn’t just check comprehension but were a valuable follow-up to the reading.

Before the lesson, I placed the texts, which I had cut up, on desks around the classroom. Then I put students in pairs and got them to silently read the texts on the desk for about two minutes. When the time was up or when their heads were up, I told them to start discussing the questions. After some time (5 minutes?) I stopped them and asked each pair to move to another desk (with a new text). The procedure continued in the same vein. I went round the classroom and monitored.

dictionary-1619740_960_720When everybody had seen all the texts, I asked the students to go back to their seats (in a horseshoe). Then I gave each student a handout with all the texts on it. I asked them to highlight 3 vocab items (something they had to look up/ weren’t sure about) in each of the texts. Then we discussed the vocabulary as a whole class.

I asked them to circle one question they had found particularly interesting during the speaking stage. We discussed those together as a class. At this point, the students had a larger active vocabulary at their disposal than before.

I think such an activity could be done with every longer text if it’s desirable. The teacher can break it down into passages and insert questions after each passage for students to discuss. I applied this method because I found the handout too long and dense; the fast finishers would soon have had nothing to do while the weaker students would have struggled for ages before they could get down to speaking. Throughout the activity, I felt that the students concentrated on reading much better due to the reasonable length of the texts and because the reading was interrupted by speaking. In other words, I found the speaking intermezzos natural and refreshing.



Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

SWOT Analysis



I’ve recently been asked to do a SWOT analysis as part of the action plan our school is currently working on. As such analyses are usually conducted in the field of business, I was a little confused as to why we should do something like this as a state school. Nevertheless, in the end, I found it quite useful as it gave me some food for thought.

SWOT Analysis is a way of summarizing the current state of a company and helping to devise a plan for the future. It is an acronym for strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Strengths and weaknesses are often internal, while opportunities and threats generally relate to external factors. For this reason, SWOT is sometimes called Internal-External Analysis.

SWOT Analysis can help you uncover opportunities which can later be exploited. And by understanding the weaknesses of your business, you can manage and eliminate some of the potential threats.

As part of the analysis, it’s helpful to ask a set of specific questions. I came across this template, which I adjusted to my needs by eliminating bits which are not relevant to my context (of an English teacher currently working in the State Sector of education).

Strengths: features which allow you to operate more effectively.  Identify skills and capabilities that you have. What can you do particularly well? What do you others consider to be your strengths? What resources do you have? Is your reputation strong?

Weaknesses: areas capable of improvement. Do other (types of) schools have better results/outcomes than you? What do you do poorly? What generates low test scores and bad learning outcomes? What processes and activities can you improve?

Opportunities: any interesting trends which you can take advantage of. Where can you apply your strengths? How are your students and their needs changing? How is technology changing your work? Are there new ways of delivering instruction?

Threats: external or internal and are anything which can adversely affect your work. Are students able to meet their needs with alternative ways of language acquisition/learning? Are students’ needs changing away from your instruction?  Is new technology making your teaching obsolete? Are teachers at your school satisfied? Is new way of acquisition/learning coming? Are the results and outcomes of learning lower than the average?

stock-photo-swot-swot-analysis-text-on-colorful-wooden-cubes-307033178When looking at the questions, it’s clear that this analysis doesn’t only relate to the strengths and weaknesses of one specific school, but it encompasses a much broader spectrum of the problems our current education systems face. By answering the questions, I’d probably speak on behalf of other educators here in the Czech Republic as well as many English teachers all around the word.

Here’s my train of thought: I’d like to believe that by understanding the weaknesses, you can eliminate the threats. One of the weaknesses is low test scores and insufficient learning outcomes: What generates low test scores and bad learning outcomes? Well, scores themselves are the problem, not what causes them. The culture of testing will always produce the low vs. high dichotomy. So asking what causes bad scores is somewhat irrelevant. After all, in our success-hungry environment, we need those who score low to distinguish the successful learners from the less successful ones. When we help our students improve the scores, the test will have to be made harder next time because we need to produce the winners and the losers, don’t we?

Are students able to meet their needs with alternative ways of language acquisition/learning? Are students’ needs changing away from your instruction? Yes, they are, but I wouldn’t see this as a threat. Our school is not a business and there are no real competitors out there. Our job is to help our students and wish them all the best no matter what. Anyway, it seems we language teachers are no longer capable to fully satisfying our students’ needs the way it worked in the past, so if they learn the language outside the classroom – through extensive reading, watching movies, listening to songs, using apps, traveling – we should be happy. So our biggest competitor is the autonomous learner, who, at the same time, is our partner and ally. The more autonomous the student, the less work we have but the more content we should feel as teachers.

Are there new ways of delivering instruction? Well, yes, there are (Dogme teaching, CLIL, TBL, to name a few that come to mind) but our hands are often tied by those who encourage us to do these SWOT analyses. We can’t change the way we deliver instruction before we change the way we are supposed to measure the outcomes.

How are your students and their needs changing? How is technology changing your work? Access to technology, I believe, is one of the biggest opportunities to be exploited. Technology enables learners to acquire L2 like never before. I’m not talking about high-tech, though. I don’t think it’s necessary for schools to invest in new technologies and buy expensive devices. It would suffice to learn how to exploit what they currently have at their disposal. But it is the qualified teacher whose job is to decide what technology to use and how, not the Apple Inc.

Is new technology making your teaching obsolete? I remember this issue was hotly debated after the plenary talk by Sugata Mitra at the IATEFL Harrogate conference a couple of years ago. As indicated in the previous paragraph, I don’t think technology can make teaching obsolete. Teachers should try to exploit the accessible and affordable technology to the full, keeping the basic principles of SLA research in mind. Someone ignorant of the way languages are learned can have the best technology at their disposal, but this doesn’t mean they will deliver good lessons. This applies to students themselves as well – if they have no idea how to self-study, they’ll only waste their precious time.

When writing up this post, it occurred to me that a SWOT analysis may also be conducted on a more personal level, as part of a teacher’s self-evaluation routine. Evaluating the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats individual teachers see in everyday teaching reality may provide useful information and valuable data for the education system as a whole. Well, it seems there’s some food for thought for another post.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Form vs. meaning

checklist-1919292_960_720I’ve recently caught myself doing something very strange while teaching; throughout the lesson, in my mind’s eye, I check if the activity we are doing is predominantly focused on meaning or is more towards the grammar end of the spectrum. In other words, I’m the observer of my own lesson and I mentally tick off boxes as it proceeds. I think the reason behind my somewhat obsessive behavior is my previous posts on teaching principles.

Over years I’ve noticed that young learners will do whatever you want them to do if it’s interesting enough and fun. So if you start analyzing grammar in a humorous way, for example, they will listen. And they may even remember something from your talk. Still, most of them will be the happiest once you leave the domain of grammar and let them chatter away freely.

In September, I got a new group of teenagers. Since then I’ve already had plenty of time and opportunities to notice some of their strengths as well as weaknesses. They are hardworking, enthusiastic, and cooperate very well with me and one another. They have a decent knowledge of grammar (probably because their instruction was predominantly grammar focused in the past), but they aren’t very confident in speaking. They do chatter away happily when in pairs or groups, but sharing ideas in front of the whole class is a bit of a problem, especially if it is to be a coherent monolog.

I feel my job now is to non-violently lead them from the grammar end of the spectrum towards the other end, so to speak. But I don’t think I can achieve this abruptly – by abandoning grammar totally, for example. This would probably make them feel very unsafe and frustrated.

So first, I usually provide them with some solid base they can build on – vocabulary as well grammar – and then we gradually leave the ‘safe ground’ and start focusing on meaning and free practice.

Last time we talked about quantifiers. Most of the students were already familiar with this topic from their previous courses so I gave them a simple handout (see below) and threw them in at the deep end. I made the handout myself so that I was absolutely sure that there was only one answer correct (I gathered that at this stage, coming across exceptions would probably cause confusion, which I really wanted to avoid). I asked the students to complete the gaps and to consider the incorrect alternatives as well. I thought that by being able to decide which answer is correct and why the others are not, they would be able to fully grasp the grammar.

Circle the correct answer. There’s only one correct answer for each sentence. 

  1. I’ve got ….. friends. (some_any_a little_much)
  2. Have you got …. pets? (some­­_any_a little­_much)
  3. There isn’t ….. milk in the fridge. (any_many_a few­_some)
  4. There are ….. supermarkets in the town. (any_ a few_a little_much)
  5. I’ve got …. money. (much_a little_many_a few)
  6. I had …. problems at school. (a little_a lot of_any_much)
  7. Why do you have so …. mess in your room?! (some_much_many_a few)
  8. It’s a boring town. There isn’t …. to do here. (many_some_much_a few)
  9. We have so …. great teachers at school! (much_a little_many_any)
  10. There are …. good night clubs. (a little_any_some_much)

Then I elicited the rules and put them on the board. At this stage, the students looked happy and content because they had something tangible to hold on tho. This was only the first stage, though. Knowing the rules doesn’t mean one can apply them in meaningful communication. On the screen, I projected the following statements.

  1. Few people like poetry.
  2. Many Czechs are fat.
  3. A lot of students in this class listen to classical music.
  4. Some people in the class are very good at sports.
  5. It’s better to have no brothers or sisters.
  6. Teenagers shouldn’t get any pocket money.
  7. Pupils should get little homework at school.
  8. There isn’t much to do here in Šternberk.
  9. A few people in the class love maths.
  10. There’s a little pollution here in Šternberk.

I paired the students up and asked them to discuss the statements (agree-disagree). At this stage, in order to be able to complete the task, the students needed to understand the meaning of the sentences and the quantifiers themselves – not just how they work from a grammatical point of view. However, that was not the main goal; the main goal of this activity was to get students speaking. In some cases, they were forced to substitute the qualifiers, particularly if they wanted to disagree with a statement. The exercise was tailor-made to this particular group of students so I hoped they’d find it engaging. And they did. From my perspective, we had a lovely, meaningful, personalized discussion at the end of the lesson and I could happily tick off one of the boxes in my mind’s eye.

I’d like to add that with a different class, I might switch the order of the two activities and the timing would also be different. But with this class, I felt it would work best this way.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Teaching by principles


With some extra time on my hands, I’ve been re-reading a publication I once needed for my MA studies called Teaching by Principles by Douglas Brown (3rd edition), which, as the blurb states, offers a comprehensive survey of practical language teaching options.

In Chapter 4 of his book, Brown investigates 12 foundational teaching principles, or elements, which he considers to be at the core of language pedagogy. As I write, I’ll try to make occasional references to my previous post, i.e. to Ellis’s  Principles of Instructed Language Learning, because I’d like to see how much (if at all) these two systems overlap. And, as you read, you can determine the extent to which the principles are applied in your own teaching.

Cognitive principles: 

Principle 1: Automaticity

According to Brown, it is clear that small children learn languages without thinking about them – they learn them automatically. Thus overanalyzing an L2 and thinking too much about its forms is not the best way of learning it. To the contrary, this approach tends to impede the process of graduation to automaticity in an L2 classroom.

I associate this principle with Ellis’s Principle 4: Instruction needs to be predominantly directed at developing implicit knowledge of the L2 while not neglecting explicit knowledge. Implicit knowledge is procedural, is held unconsciously and develops naturally out of meaning-focused communication.

Principle 2: Meaningful learning

Brown maintains that rote-learning, i.e. taking in isolated bits and pieces of information that are not connected with existing cognitive structures, has little chance of creating long-term retention. Thus, when in the classroom, it is necessary to make meaningful associations between existing knowledge and new material.

As I see it, this is in compliance with Ellis’s Principle 2: Instruction needs to ensure that learners focus predominantly on meaning. I also see a connection with Principle 4 (see above). 

Principle 3: The anticipation of reward

Brown argues that human beings are universally driven to act by the anticipation of some sort of tangible or intangible reward. Thus an optimal degree of praise and encouragement or appropriate grades and scores are desirable.

Principle 4: Intrinsic motivation

However, the most powerful rewards are those that are intrinsically motivated within the learner. Brown adds that if all learners were intrinsically motivated to perform all classroom tasks, we might not even need teachers.

Principle 5: Strategic investment

Teaching methods, textbooks, and grammatical paradigms are no longer in the center of attention. It is the methods that the learner employs to internalize and to perform in the language that are important too. After all, successful mastery of L2 will be due to a learner’s own personal investment of time, effort, and attention to L2.

To my mind, principles 3, 4 and 5 to some extent overlap with Ellis’s Principle 9: Instruction needs to take account of individual differences in learners. 

Principle 6: Autonomy

Successful mastery of L2 will depend on learner’s autonomous ability to continue their journey to success beyond the classroom and the teacher.

This principle to a large extent links to Ellis’s Principle 6: Successful instructed language learning requires extensive L2 input. As I wrote in my previous post, it’s virtually impossible to provide L2 learners with a sufficient amount of input in the classroom so students’ autonomy seems to be the only way leading to ultimate success.

Socioaffective principles: 

Principle 7: Language ego

As human beings learn to use an L2, they also develop a new mode of thinking, feeling, and acting – a second identity. Their new ‘language ego’ can feel fragile, silly and sometimes humiliated when lacking words or suitable grammar structures. Thus it is necessary to overtly display a supportive attitude to your students.

I’d link this principle to Ellis’s Principle 5: Instruction needs to take into account the learner’s ‘built-in syllabus’. I personally try to achieve this by tolerating the learners’ temporary ‘flaws’ and by giving them plenty of opportunities to succeed. Also, there’s a  similarity to  Principle 9: Instruction needs to take account of individual differences in learners.

Principle 8: Willingness to communicate

Successful learners are willing to communicate, which results in the generation of both output (from the learner) and input (to the learner).

What immediately comes to mind is Ellis’s Principle 7: Successful instructed language learning also requires opportunities for output. As you aren’t likely to get output from stressed students, for example, you should make sure that the learning conditions and atmosphere in the classroom are favorable to spontaneous communication. Brown’s Principle 8 may also relate to  Ellis’s Principle 8: The opportunity to interact in the L2 is central to developing L2 proficiency and Principle 9: Instruction needs to take account of individual differences in learners.

Principle 9: The language-culture connection

Whenever you teach a language, you also teach a complex system of cultural customs, values, and ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. This can be a source of valuable language input and a powerful tool for adjustment in new cultures. However, Brown advises us to be sensitive if some students appear discouraged.

Again, here I can sense a connection with Ellis’s Principle 6: Successful instructed language learning requires extensive L2 input. I’d add that culture is inherently present in any language and you can’t separate language from culture if you want to communicate in the target language successfully. I think I clearly demonstrated this in one of my previous posts, where I contrasted phrases ‘I’m good’ and ‘I’m fine’. 

Linguistic principles: 

Principle 10: The Native language effect

The native language of learners strongly influences the acquisition of the target language system. Brown advises teachers to regard errors as important windows to their underlying system and provide appropriate feedback on them. What also helps students to minimalize interference errors is thinking in the L2 instead of resorting to translation as they comprehend and produce language.

Here I see a connection with Ellis’s Principle 9: Instruction needs to take account of individual differences in learners. If you teach a mixed nationality class, you’ll probably have to treat diverse types of errors. I wrote about the native language effect here and here on my blog. 

Principle 11: Interlanguage

Just as children develop their native language in gradual, systematic stages, L2 learners, go through a systematic developmental process as they progress to full competence in L2. This means, for example, that at some point, a good deal of what an L2 learner says or comprehend may be logically correct, but from the point of view of the native speaker’s competence, it’s incorrect. Teachers should allow learners to progress through such systematic stages of acquisition. Also, when giving feedback, the teacher needs to distinguish between systematic interlanguage errors (these can be tolerated to some extent) and other errors.

Principle 11 seems to overlap with Ellis’s Principle 5: Instruction needs to take into account the learner’s ‘built-in syllabus’.  As a teacher, one can’t simply skip or hasten certain stages of the learner’s development, or eliminate systematic interlanguage errors completely. 

Principle 12: Communicative competence

Given that communicative competence is the goal of an L2 classroom, teachers should give attention to language use and not just usage, to fluency and not just accuracy. Give grammar some attention, but don’t neglect the other important components. Make sure that your students have opportunities to gain some fluency in English without having to be constantly wary of little mistakes.

This seems to encompass at leat five of Ellis’s principles: Principle 1: Instruction needs to ensure that learners develop both a rich repertoire of formulaic expressions and a rule-based competence, Principle 2: Instruction needs to ensure that learners focus predominantly on meaning, Principle 3: Instruction needs to ensure that learners also focus on form, Principle 4: Instruction needs to be predominantly directed at developing implicit knowledge of the L2 while not neglecting explicit knowledge and Principle 8: The opportunity to interact in the L2 is central to developing L2 proficiency.

Although the authors complement one another, Brown’s perspective seems to me more general and encompasses a slightly larger spectrum of (language) pedagogy. The connections I made between the two sets of principles were based solely on intuition and others may see it differently.



Posted in Education, Feedback, Grammar, Linguistic issues, Professional development, teaching principles, Uncategorized | 4 Comments

The Ten Commandments of Successful Language Instruction

stock-photo-child-with-rucksack-standing-on-a-stack-of-books-64626691Throughout 2016, I’ve read a lot about how much the current ELT practice flies in the face of SLA research findings. I usually dismiss these assumptions straight away – probably because personally, I’ve never felt too guilty as an ELT practitioner. I mean, I think I know something about the contribution of the SLA research to developments in TESOL over the last five decades, and I do my best not to be blind to it. Although in my teaching context, which I would describe as standardized education (meaning standardized level, pace, and path of learning), my hands are tied to a certain extent, I don’t despair.

The other day, I came across this article by Rod Ellis called Principles of Instructed Language Learning, in which he shares a set of generalizations which, he believes, might serve as the basis for language teacher education. When reading the text, I lit up. It’s not all that bad after all given the limitations I have to deal with on a daily basis, of which the lack of time is the worst of all shortcomings. I can conclude now that there’s not a single principle I would consciously ignore.

Principle 1: Instruction needs to ensure that learners develop both a rich repertoire of formulaic expressions and a rule-based competence. 

Although I don’t avoid the focus-on-forms approach, I believe that my instruction is not exclusively directed at developing rule-based competence through the systematic teaching of pre-selected structures. My students would probably confirm (with a slight sneer on their face) that I’m moderately obsessed with grammar and totally obsessed with formulaic chunks.

Principle 2: Instruction needs to ensure that learners focus predominantly on meaning. 

I’m well aware of the fact that to meet this principle, task-based approach to language teaching is one of the prerequisites. Also, it is important that instruction provides opportunities for learners to focus on semantic meaning (meanings of lexical items or of specific grammatical structures) as well as pragmatic meaning (the highly contextualized meanings that arise in acts of communication) and, as Ellis argues, it is pragmatic meaning that is crucial to language learning. Although I do try to incorporate communicative tasks into my lessons whenever possible, I’d say that TBL approach is something I still tend to circumvent. Why? It’s a question for another post.

Principle 3: Instruction needs to ensure that learners also focus on form. 

This, among other things, involves a response to the errors each learner makes. In my context, I often practice this through collected feedback, i.e. feedback I give a group of students on selected linguistic issues I spot in their writing/speaking. I like this approach as it’s individualized and emergent.

Principle 4: Instruction needs to be predominantly directed at developing implicit knowledge of the L2 while not neglecting explicit knowledge. 

Ellis argues that instruction needs to be directed at developing both implicit and explicit knowledge, giving priority to the former (because we don’t know how easily/if at all explicit knowledge can be converted into implicit knowledge). While the benefits of explicit knowledge are somewhat controversial, there is a consensus among researchers that learners need the opportunity to participate in communicative activities to develop implicit knowledge. Thus, communicative tasks need to play a central role in instruction directed at implicit knowledge. I can boldly claim that communicative activities have always been central to my classes. It was only recently when I started gravitating towards a slightly more focus-on-form approach as I was no longer comfortable with the zero grammar strategy.

Principle 5: Instruction needs to take into account the learner’s ‘built-in syllabus’. 

One way to do this is to ensure that learners are developmentally ready to acquire a specific target feature. Like the zero grammar approach, this is not very feasible in my teaching context. There is a national curriculum I need to follow plus I’m also required to assess my students formally. So I give those students who struggle with specific linguistic features other opportunities to succeed (little tasks, extra projects, etc.) since I know most of them will finally catch up on all the required skills and knowledge.

Principle 6: Successful instructed language learning requires extensive L2 input.

This is a real stumbling block. With three or four 45-minute lessons a week you’d have to be a magician if you wanted to help your students march out of the classroom with native-like proficiency.  So I assume it’s more about showing them how to make it on their own – about giving tips for online places to go, books to read, methods to apply, etc. Because if you are supposed to a) give them tasks, b) present lots of chunks of language and some grammar, c) provide opportunities for meaningful communication, then there’s not much time left for extensive input while in class. Fortunately, these days it is practically impossible to avoid English in everyday life so most students will probably manage quite well when left to their own devices.

Principle 7: Successful instructed language learning also requires opportunities for output.

While I’m somewhat concerned about the previous principle, I’m very confident about number 7 – simply because I know my students produce a lot of language in the classroom. As I said, my students come with bits and pieces they pick outside of school, which we can then work with and elaborate on.

Principle 8: The opportunity to interact in the L2 is central to developing L2 proficiency.

Ellis maintains that we can achieve this by a) creating contexts of language use where students have a reason to attend to language, b) providing opportunities for learners to use the language to express their own personal meanings, c) helping students to participate in language-related activities that are beyond their current level of proficiency and c) offering a full range of contexts that cater for a ‘full performance’ in the language. The last one is something I feel I need to focus on a bit more. I suspect that it is closely related to TBL, which, as stated above, I need to apply more in my teaching.

Principle 9: Instruction needs to take account of individual differences in learners.

This is a problematic one, especially in a standardized teaching context, as discussed above. However, I can still do (and I think I do) a lot as a teacher: pair/group students up in a manner that fosters cooperation, find ways to motivate weaker/slower students (especially intrinsically) and find as many opportunities leading to success as possible.

Principle 10: In assessing learners’ L2 proficiency, it is important to examine free as well as controlled production

At times it seems that it’s much easier to assess controlled production. However, I’ve recently come across many poorly designed tests, which, for example, accept one correct answer for each question when there are more appropriate alternatives. One may argue that it opens some space for discussion, but I think that at the same time, it discredits the test itself. Assessing free practice is primarily about acknowledging the fact that the student managed to get the message across. In such a case, he or she always deserves a decent grade regardless of grammatical mistakes, for example.

What about your instruction? Is it based on solid research or folksy wisdom? 🙂

Posted in Education, Feedback, Grammar, Linguistic issues, Professional development, teaching principles | 5 Comments

An excerpt from a new (revolutionary) coursebook

Unit 1  – Meeting people

At the café


Hana Tichá, a non-native teacher of English, enters the room merrily: Hi, everybody! How are you?”

Mike Cattlin, a slightly older northern Brit (according to his own words), greets Hana enthusiastically, waving his hand: “Hi, Hana! I’m fine.” 

Michael Griffin, an American currently based in South Korea, looks up from his black coffee and smiles broadly: Hi, Hana. I’m good. Nice to see you again.”

Anthony Ash, a Brit from the north of England, turns to Michael, a little concerned: Oh, what’s the problem, Mike?”

Michael G.: Nothing. Why?” 

Anthony.: Well, I thought you meant life sucks cause you just said: ‘I’m good’.”

Hugh Dellar, also British, shakes his head: No, no. It’s a perfectly standard expression meaning ‘I’m fine’.” 

Joanna Tsiolakis, from sunny Greece, sips her café latte happily and nods in agreement: “Absolutely. A typical response.”

Bruno Leys, from the land of chocolate and lovely beer, adds confidently: Yeah! I can hear myself saying it a lot.” 

Katy Fagan, from the eastern US, reacts somewhat cautiously: Well, it actually sounds a tiny bit awkward to me when responding to a greeting, but …”

Michal Siegel, a former student of Hana, overhears the conversation on his way from the restroom. Being a keen linguist, he can’t help jumping in: “Excuse me, but as far as I know, ‘I’m good’ is being used when something, e. g. an accident, happens and the person is okay. Then he says ‘Don’t worry, I’m good!’ But to the question ‘How are you?’ he should say ‘I’m fine, thank you!'”

Hana: Wait, guys. It gets a little confusing now.  I’m an EFL teacher, you know. What am I supposed to tell my students? They want to know *the right* answers … 

Oh, look, that’s my former boss over there at the bar. I haven’t seen him for ages. Hi, Petr!” 

Petr: “Hi, Hana. How are you?” 

Hana: Erm….. I’m ……”

Marc Jones, a young Brit based in Japan, quickly whispers to Hana’s ear: It’s your *boss*. Not a *mate* of yours, right? So you should say: ‘I’m fine’.”  

Hana: I’m fine. And you, Petr?” 

Petr, slowly emptying his glass of vodka: I’m good. Kill me now!” 


Hana: Well, erm, I‘d better catch the waiter’s eye. I bet you’re all starving?”

…….. 60 minutes later


Hana: “Would you like anything else before I foot the bill?” 

Katy: I’m good. Thanks.” 

Mike C.: “No, thanks. I’m fine.” 

Peter Skillen, a fellow from Canada: No, thank you, I’m good.” 

Hana (to herself, somewhat desperately): Damn it! Do they really mean what they are saying? Or do they mean the opposite? How on earth should I know what these people are thinking?”  


Some of you probably know where this post came from. 🙂  I’d like to thank all my Facebook friends who kindly and patiently answered my questions regarding this linguistic issue. Their diverse responses inspired this article (which, of course, is not an excerpt from a new, revolutionary coursebook) and showed, once again, that English is evolving much faster than we realize. By the way, I hope I got all the nationalities right. If not, let me know.

An important note: My former boss, Petr, never drinks vodka and you can never come across him at a bar. 🙂




Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments