Introduction Choosing this specialism I teach a wide range of classes and age groups, using a wide range of books and other materials but like many teachers, I have always found teaching one-to-one more challenging and intensive than teaching a group – especially at first. This could be because “the one-toone teacher’s task is much more to respond to changes of mood and demands imposed by the student, rather than to act as manager and controller of the classroom” (Wilberg 1994: 6). Another possible explanation is “the teacher is always on.” One common comment is “When else would we spend ninety minutes talking constantly to one person?” (Meldrum and Clandfield 2012). Wilberg contradicts this idea when he says “Class teaching is essentially artificial; we do not spend much of our lives addressing and controlling groups! One-to-one is essentially natural, the basic unit of conversation. Its essence is lack of artifice” (1994: 1). If teaching one-to-one is natural, this should surely make it easier than teaching groups? I imagine the truth lies somewhere in between. In my opinion, neither scenario is particularly natural. Wilberg also says that one-to-one is “perhaps the oldest way people have chosen to learn a foreign language” (1994: iii). I believe this to be completely true. All these differences and difficulties were a major factor in my choice. The final reason for my choice of specialism is “one-to-one teaching offers the teacher both a considerable challenge and an unrivalled opportunity to accumulate observations on individual learning processes, needs and difficulties” (Wilberg 1994: i). Researching the subject One-to-one is often overlooked in ELT literature, and Meldrum and Clandfield even cite “the startling lack of published ELT material” (2012). For example, In Harmer’s ‘How to Teach English’ there are just two paragraphs covering the topic. He does give a positive “the teacher is able to tailor the lesson to an individual’s specific needs” (2007: 12-13). A valid point but is one-to-one just the same as teaching a group of one?
Wilberg obviously doesn’t think so when he writes that much conventional teacher training is devoted to class management issues such as organizing time, setting up group work and developing relationships within the group. I agree when he says these skills are not directly relevant to one-to-one teaching. It is incorrect to assume no group dynamics are involved, or that only a single relationship is involved in classroom activities. Instead one-to-one has a comparable and equally important set of skills (Wilberg 1994). The teacher still needs to control time and classroom management issues and the course notes from the International House World Organisation (IHWO) 1-2-1 course define no less than 12 teacher roles in the one-to-one classroom including ‘assessor, facilitator, investigator, participant, resource and tutor’ (Wilden 2006). Wilberg (1994) and I support this theory and it is obvious really, as the teacher does not only teach the student. An advantage mentioned by Kaye is “the learner can develop a real and productive relationship with the teacher” (2007). Not only this, the teacher can develop a real and productive relationship with the learner. I find most one-to-one students value thefriendship element of the classes, and I still have regular contact with some of my previous one-to-one students. “One teacher neatly described the teacher role as being ‘blurred’ between teacher, psychologist and friend” (Meldrum and Clandfield 2012). This sounds negative but I have rarely found it a disadvantage, as I think these elements give you the opportunity to build rapport and trust within the classroom. It gives the learner a need to use English and motivates them to use English for a real reason. Even a high-flying executive will probably need to discuss personal issues and small talk with their customers at a business lunch. I have also found most one-to-one learners appreciate the opportunity to share their professional knowledge with the teacher. Implications One-to-one is different to teaching groups because “there are no ‘tried and tested’ methods that guarantee success with every student, or with every teacher” (Wilberg 1994: 9). We need to be especially flexible in one-to-one, and Kaye writes “Be very flexible. You will need to be flexible over time, lesson and course aims, and material” (2007).
We should also be ready to change if we sense that things are not working out as we planned, our learner is not in the mood, or our methods don’t seem to be working. Flexibility could also be described as doing things in class which you might not normally do to keep the learner happy. For example, to help create a better atmosphere with a frightened beginner, I occasionally used my bad Czech in class, which helped reassure him and therefore lower his affective filter (Krashen & Terrel 1983). For these reasons, as well as having only one learner to focus on, a thorough needs analysis in one-to-one is especially important to establish needs, wants and lacks (Bowden 2006b). However, according to chatters on ELTchat.com “Students don’t always respond and it was noted that they don’t always know how to identify their needs.” They agreed “that needs analysis has to be ongoing and that needs and wants change during the course, sometimes in response to new approaches and materials introduced by the teacher, sometimes through a growing student awareness of possibilities” (Constantinides 2011). This hints again at teacher flexibility. As Wilberg (1994) states, and from experience, we can tailor the course to suit the individual’s learning style and all this without having to compromise for others in the class, but as highlighted above it is also important to be willing to change the plan. It is also crucial to create good rapport, in fact a comment on ELTchat.com states “The success or failure of the course can often depend on rapport” (Constantinides 2011). Finally, in my opinion, it is important to create a learner-centred learning environment (Thornbury 2006) and to learn what you can about the student to better adapt activities to suit their needs and interests, i.e. to create a negotiated, evolving syllabus. Needs Analysis and Commentary The learner Deleted – contained personal learner details. Identifying needs To identify Pepa’s needs, I designed a questionnaire (Appendix 3) which helped formulate further questions to ask in a later interview to get more information.
The first two sections of the questionnaire were to gain some basic information, such as name, age, job, education, needs, and wants. The third section was to find out about previous learning and experience. This is especially important because Pepa may be unaccustomed to communicative teaching methods due to his age. As Nunan says, “If teachers are planning to follow a non-traditional approach, they may need to negotiate with the learners and modify the syllabus to take account of learner perceptions about the nature of language and language learning” (Nunan 1988: 18). The final section was to find out what he most wants to improve. When discussing syllabus design, “Humanistic education is based on the belief that learners should have a say in what they should be learning and how they should learn it, and reflects the notion that education should be concerned with the development of autonomy in the learner” (Nunan 1988: 20). This idea reinforces the need to know what and how the learner wants to study. In my experience, a learner is more motivated if they feel they are in control of their learning. This also encourages them to be more autonomous. Diagnostic testing When discussing what information to get about a student’s language ability, Bowden writes “Everything” (2006b: 4). This implies how important a thorough diagnostic is. To assess Pepa’s level, I used the placement test from IH ILC Brno (UCLES 2001), which is suitable for all levels (Appendix 3). The test is a discrete item test including lexis, collocation and grammar with graded, multiple choice questions from easy to difficult. When used with a speaking and writing assessment, this test has proved to be reliable, quick and easy to mark, objective, and students are usually placed in the correct class. Bowden suggests getting samples of the student’s spoken and written language, possibly by recording them speaking and getting them to write a piece of connected text (2006a). The interview mentioned above in Identifying Needs also allowed me to assess Pepa’s speaking and listening skills. I felt this would give me enough information to assess his strengths, weaknesses, level and needs, without the stress of formal listening (See transcript, Appendix 4).
I gave Pepa the option of 3 short writing tasks to ensure he would find a topic to write about (Appendix 3). I think it is important to assess a written sample even if writing is not a course priority to help assess his level and learn something about him. For Pepa’s learner style, I used a VAK (Visual-Auditory-Kinaesthetic) test (Chislett and Chapman 2005) I have used with one-to-one students in the past (Appendix 3). I decided to adapt it because the language was likely to be difficult due to Pepa’s level. Using a published VAK test should be more reliable than creating my own because it was written by professionals and has been field tested. It will also have more face validity. Results and priorities Pepa scored 16 in the placement test making him elementary (Appendix 3). When speaking, he makes typical Czech mistakes (Millin 2011) and has a number of fossilized errors (Appendix 4). His speech is fluent and generally understandable but often with some effort from the listener. His pronunciation of sounds is generally good except for ‘θ’ and ‘i ː’ Taking overall account of the diagnostic results (Appendix 2), I placed Pepa as preintermediate. He is using New English File Intermediate with another teacher. However, according to his placement test result, this is too hard and may contribute to his listening difficulties. I was surprised he has experience with different teaching methods, but showed no preferences. While listening and speaking are his highest priority he also mentioned his need to be able to use grammar and vocabulary more accurately to understand people and be understood. According to his needs analysis questionnaire, he occasionally needs English for social conversation, answering the phone and reading articles or journals at work, but this is secondary to his main reason for lessons. He needs English most for communicating with English speaking friends and family members. He also wants to use English for travelling. It was clear from Pepa’s needs analysis and interview that writing is not a priority. The VAK test (Appendix 3) showed Pepa doesn’t have any particular learning style bias. He found some of the questions difficult to answer due to their nature, which could make it unreliable and lower its validity. He told me he remembers things best when he writes them down, therefore showing an awareness of how he learns best. However, I am unlikely to
completely restrict myself to activity types lending themselves to certain learning styles (or methodologies) because it may not allow Pepa to make the most of the learning process (Young 2000). According to the interview results and Pepa’s needs, the priorities are: 1)
Listening
2)
Speaking (including pronunciation, connected speech, etc)
3)
Grammar and vocabulary to aid the above
Course Proposal As Pepa seems flexible about the content of the course and mainly wants to learn English for communication and general English, I decided to base the course on Straightforward Pre-Intermediate (Kerr 2005) as from the interview I believe he may have used English File, and this is an alternative available at school. It suits his needs because it provides semiauthentic material, graded listening tasks and grammar practice on a number of general topics (e.g. family, neighbours, and school days) which should all be useful when speaking with his family and in other social situations. A grammar round-up and vocabulary list is conveniently located at the end of each unit for easy reference to help promote autonomy outside the classroom. A structural syllabus is something Czechs are familiar with from school and my experience, like Ur’s is that: “A set framework helps me to regulate and time my programme; and perhaps paradoxically, provides a firm jumping-off point for the creation of imaginative supplementary teaching ideas. Moreover, in my experience learners too prefer to have one; those classes which I have tried to teach on the basis of a selection from different sources have complained of a sense of a lack of purpose, and, interestingly, that they feel their learning is not taken seriously. It seems the possession of a coursebook may carry some prestige” (Ur 2011: 193).
Additionally, Pepa mentioned he is badly organized without a coursebook (Appendix 4). Learning aims and objectives The main aims of the course are to improve Pepa’s ability to communicate with his son-inlaw’s family members in a range of social situations and to be better able to communicate in English when travelling. To do this, I intend to focus mainly on pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, speaking and listening. This will also indirectly help him with speaking on the phone and in person at work. The VAK test proved inconclusive, but considering Pepa’s weakness with phrases in the placement test (test results: Appendix 2, test: Appendix 3), his lack of attention to details and his focus on communicating ‘the big picture’ (Thornbury 2006) during the interview, (e.g. I can spoke bad, and you understand me) I believe he is a holistic learner so noticing chunks of language could be particularly beneficial. Even if I am wrong, Lewis implies language is holistic, and therefore any learner can benefit from focussing on language as chunks (1993). Lewis believes introducing chunks and encouraging learners to identify and use them is a central part of language teaching (1993). Wilberg also notes the importance of making students aware of language forms and training them to identify and extract language for themselves (1994). It could also help Pepa listen more effectively and train him to listen for phrases, rather than words. Content, organisation and approach The twenty-hour course plan (Appendix 1) will form the start of an extensive course over a year. The coursebook will be followed quite closely with irrelevant content omitted and more relevant content extended, providing Pepa with a balance of language systems and skills, and used as a springboard to freer speaking activities and discussion. An eclectic approach, outlined below, will be used to draw the best from Pepa in each activity.
Discussion will provide a valuable part of the course and my plan is flexible to reflect this. Discussion is important because the “student provides the content, the input. The teacher provides the form, the language that meets the student´s communicative needs” (Wilberg 1994: 3). The form can be provided by directing correction at those errors impeding communication and addressing them using both delayed and immediate correction, and by reformulating or recasting Pepa’s language. The discussions will be extensions of coursebook content and will allow me to personalize the course by relating the topics to Pepa’s life. Discussion will help build Pepa’s confidence when speaking and listening and give him experience expressing opinions and talking about a range of topics in English. It will also fulfil most (if not all) criteria for effective learning outlined in Krashen’s Natural Approach. According to his hypotheses, I infer during discussion and conversation acquisition is taking place (in its natural order), the teacher is providing input above Pepa’s level (i+1), the affective filter is lowered, and Pepa may be monitoring language for accuracy (Krashen & Terrel 1983). Finally, discussion will help build rapport and trust in the classroom. The Straightforward series provides some very good listening practice, but is often long and the language is not fully exploited. I intend to adapt listening tasks to make them more rewarding and exploit the language much more as described below. Ridgeway states that “Practice is the most important thing. The more listening the better, and the sub skills will take care of themselves….” (2000: 183). While I agree with this point of view with younger learners or people who have had contact with English from a young age, I have seen many cases where this is not enough. This is particularly true when we consider that Czech is a syllable-timed language and has only 5 vowel phonemes (Millin 2011). I believe some learners simply do not know how to listen to English. White suggests during a typical listening procedure “not much time is spent listening” and “not much time is spent on analyzing what went wrong” (1998: 5), among other shortfalls. Field continues “a conventional listening comprehension lesson simply adds another text to
the learners’ experience. It does little or nothing to improve the effectiveness of their listening or to address their shortcomings as listeners” (1998: 111). To remedy these problems, we will focus on listening strategies at sound and word level, for connected speech, and use tapescripts to provide opportunities for Pepa to mine them for phrases and collocations. I will use dictation and dictogloss activities to help further develop Pepa’s listening skills. Integrated tasks will be employed, moving from listening to pronunciation, drilling and role-play. By making the tasks enjoyable, I hope to make them even more memorable to aid retention. I will use the one-to-one environment for reading aloud activities because “sooner or later students must face and overcome the problem of misleading spellings, and distinguish their image of a word as it is spelled, from their recollection of its sound. In reading aloud, the challenge is confronted head on” (Wilberg 1994: 133). To build Pepa’s range of vocabulary, we will create a word bank with any words, phrases and chunks of language he finds useful, interesting or difficult. “Research shows it takes from 10 to 20 repetitions to really make a word part of your vocabulary” (Sheppard 2012), so various classroom activities will be necessary to recycle vocabulary. An online version on Quizlet (a website where you can make flashcards) will allow him to test himself at home or at work. Institutional requirements and constraints We must consider room and teacher availability. Depending on the time of lessons the school may be quite busy. Pepa has requested me as his teacher, so the lessons must fit into my timetable. He would prefer lessons in the morning so there should not be a problem with my timetable or classrooms at school. The choice of coursebook is limited to what is available at my school.
Assessment
Monitoring progress Formative assessment will take place during each class, and each activity, including routine checking of homework and class work tasks. Allan says “As language teachers we assess all the time. We do it unconsciously in every class we teach” (2000: 4). This informal assessment could be described as observation. Hedge says “observationdriven assessment has the potential to provide the level of detail that the teacher, learner, or parent can use as a basis for constructive action” (2000: 389) such as providing extra support for difficult listening activities. Listening is a main aim and a ‘Post Listening Reflection’ form (Appendix 5) influenced by Harris and McCann (1994) will form a self-assessment aspect after each listening to help inform Pepa and me of his strengths and weaknesses and help me decide what learner strategies to include or what remedial action can be taken to help Pepa listen better. Extra listening activities planned in my syllabus may be omitted if he finds a listening easy. Unit tests from the Straightforward Teacher’s CD (Appendix 6) will be a useful resource to assess Pepa’s grasp of the grammar, vocabulary and functional language taught in the previous unit. The unit tests will be done as homework, and there will be no ‘pass’ grade to minimize any negative impact of testing and maximize class time for communicative tasks. If test scores are low, the plan can be modified to include extra support where Pepa requires more practice. Writing is not an aim on the course and will only be used for Pepa to practise the grammatical areas and chunks taught on the course. It will not be formally assessed. Assessing outcomes Summative assessment will take place at the end of each unit using a communication testusing one of the teacher’s book tasks (Appendix 7) and assessing it using a marking system incorporating Hedge’s ideas on assessing speaking tasks (2000) with those used in the Cambridge PET (2008) and FCE (2008) exams (Appendix 8).
Secondly, a self-assessment checklist will be used to assess Pepa’s feelings about the unit we have covered. I modified the checklist on the teacher’s CD for this (Appendix 9). Principles Ur defines a test as “an activity whose main purpose is to convey (usually to the tester) how well the testee knows or can do something. This is in contrast to practice, whose main purpose is sheer learning” (2011: 33) whereas “assessment is the more inclusive term: it refers to the general process of monitoring or keeping track of the learners’ progress” (Hedge 2000: 376). For this reason I have tried to use the word test sparingly. Hedge says “good tests provide the opportunity for learners to show how much they know as an indicator of their ability” (2000: 378). I feel a good test is one Pepa will believe in, giving it face validity. Czechs are used to discrete item tests and the unit test includes sections on grammar and vocabulary which were identified as course priorities, and functional language, which is also very useful to improve communication and therefore directly related to my course aims. This should ensure the tests have face and content validity because they cover the same material covered in the unit. By using the published tests from Straightforward I also hope to ensure reliability. Speaking assessment will be a criterion-referenced communication test with each criterion scored on a 1-5 scale. For these tests, I decided to use information gap type activities based on an example from Harris and McCann (1994: 43). The assessment provides an integrative test of listening and speaking similar to what Pepa is seeking to improve, giving it construct validity (Appendix 8). I included self-assessment features on the course because “self assessment can be a much more direct and efficient way of getting information than teacher assessment” (Harris and McCann 1994: 63). However, it must be used with other methods to be considered effective (Hughes 2003). Evaluation Evaluation differs from assessment because it is “concerned with evaluating the effectiveness of the overall course or programme, rather than the progress of the individual learners on it” (Thornbury 2006: 18).
To evaluate the course, it is important to obtain feedback from our learners. The school does this formally using a mid-year and end-of-year feedback form (Appendix 10) where Pepa can make any notes about things he (dis)likes without needing to discuss it openly with me. This will be used in the twenty-hour course. Sharp (1990:135) gives a number of reasons why this may be unreliable. In my opinion, the most important in a one-to-one context are: 1.
“The effect that asking students for their opinions may have on the relationship between teacher and student”
2.
“Students may not give an honest reply to questions”
3.
“Students may even feel that adverse comments may have some future negative effect on their grades”
I feel a more reliable way is to ask Pepa informally how he feels about different aspects of the course. After building a rapport, he should feel more comfortable giving me honest answers. Another method is to self-evaluate the lessons and material retrospectively to measure whether it is suitable for future use, although arguably no less subjective or unreliable than student feedback. The criteria below, listed in order of importance (for this course), can help do this: 1.
The learner enjoyed the lesson, was motivated.
2.
The student seemed to be learning the material well.
3.
The student was attentive all the time.
4.
The learner was engaging with the foreign language throughout.
5.
The language was used communicatively throughout.
6.
The learner was active all the time.
7.
The lesson went according to plan. (Ur 2011: 219)
An alternative way to evaluate a one-to-one course is to invite a third party to observe a lesson. In my opinion, this may be the only way to receive a truly unbiased view of a one-toone course.
Inviting a third party has obvious constraints. DoSs are busy and peers usually prefer to observe groups, so at best we can expect one observation to evaluate the course.
Conclusion The main principles discussed in one-to-one teaching in part one were rapport, flexibility,tailoring the course to the student’s needs and learner-centredness. I feel my course proposal manages to encompass all of these principles. The large amount of discussion and conversation planned into the syllabus, and extending activities for speaking will give plenty of opportunities to build rapport, trust and friendship during the course. This was discussed at length in part one and is so vital in one-to-one. This will help lower Pepa’s affective filter and allow him to learn to the best of his potential. By implementing a self-evaluation ‘Post Listening Form’ after listening activities, having a range of post listening activities available to help Pepa develop his listening skills, and allowing flexible time for activities shows how I have included flexibility into the course. The flexible nature of my syllabus further demonstrates this. It also shows how I have tried to tailor the course to Pepa’s needs. All of the above features contribute to the learner-centredness which is such an important part of one-to-one teaching. The willingness to further tailor the course according to Pepa’s performance in unit tests in class and creating a word bank of vocabulary which he considers important to learn are further examples of this. Benefits With the focus on communication and listening as well as extending Pepa’s vocabulary (including collocations and phrases) and grammatical accuracy I expect Pepa will become better able to communicate orally both more accurately and fluently with his family and friends. I also expect him to become more confident and therefore better able to survive in any situations where he is likely to need English, for example when travelling.
Limitations The proposal is limited by the fact that Pepa only wants one lesson with me per week, and he is only willing to spend about twenty minutes per week on homework. Another limitation is that the content is largely dictated by the coursebook, although I feel the benefits of the coursebook outweigh this limitation as previously discussed in part three. Due to the nature of my syllabus, which I am willing to adapt as the course progresses to better cater for Pepa’s emerging needs, I hope any other limitations which arise can be addressed. Bibliography Allan, D. (2000) Distinctions and Dichotomies: Testing and Assessment in ELT. FELT Newsletter Spring 2000, 4-7. (Originally published April ETP Issue 11, 1999). Bowden, C. (2006a) International House 1-2-1 Methodology Course. Trainees Notes.Module 2C- Analysis II: Level testing – assessing linguistic needs. International House World Organisation. Bowden, C. (2006b) International House 1-2-1 Methodology Course. Trainers Notes.Module 2C- Analysis II: Level testing – assessing linguistic needs. International House World Organisation. Chislett, V and Chapman, A (2005) VAK Learning Styles Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Retrieved 4 September, 2012, from:http://www.businessballs.com/freepdfmaterials/vak_learning_styles_questio nnaire.pdf Constantinides, M (2011). How do you approach teaching one-to-one lessons? Share strategies, tips, techniques #ELTCHAT summary 16/02/2011. Retrieved 26June, 2012, from: http://eltchat.com/2011/02/18/how-do-you-approach-teaching-one-to-onelessons-share-strategies-tips-techniques-eltchat-summary-16022011/ Field, J. (1998) Skills and Strategies: Towards a New Methodology for Listening. ELT Journal April 1998, 52/2: 110-118
Harmer, J (2007) How to teach English (New Edition). Pearson Longman. Harris, M. & McCann, P. (1994) Assessment. Heinemann Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hughes, A. (2003) Testing for Language Teachers (Second Edition). Cambridge University Press. Kaye, P. (2007) Teachingenglish.org.uk. Teaching one-to-one. Retrieved 20 June, 2012, from: http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/teaching-one-one Krashen, S & Terrel, T. (1983) The Natural Approach. Pergamon. Lewis, M. (1993) The Lexical Approach. Heinle. Meldrum, N. & Clandfield, L. Onestopenglish. One-to-one: Methodology – Advantages and Disadvantages for Teachers. Retrieved 22 June, 2012, from:http://www.onestopenglish.com/business/teaching-approaches/teachingone-to-one/methodology/one-to-one-methodology-advantages-anddisadvantages-for-teachers/144656.article Millin, S. (2011) Pronunciation problems for Czech speakers of English. Retrieved 19 August, 2012, from: http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/pronunciationproblems-for-czech-speakers-of-english/ Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ridgeway, T. (2000) Listening Strategies- I beg your pardon? ELT Journal April 2000, 54/2: 179-185 Sharp, A. (1990) Staff/student participation in course evaluation: a procedure for improving course design. ELT Journal April 1990, 44/2: 132-137. Sheppard Software (2012) The Ten Best Vocabulary Learning Tips. Retrieved 18 July, 2012, from: http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/vocabulary_tips.htm
Thornbury, S. (2006) An A-Z of ELT. Macmillan Publishers Limited. UCLES (2001) Quick Placement Test. Oxford University Press. University of Cambridge ESOL. (2008) FCE Handbook for teachers for examinations from December 2008. University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations. University of Cambridge ESOL. (2008) PET Handbook for teachers. University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations. Ur, P. (2011) A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, G. (1998) Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilberg, P. (1994). One to One, A Teacher´s Handbook. London: Heinle. Wilden, S. (2006) International House 1-2-1 Methodology Course. Trainees Notes. Module 4A Roles of teachers and learners. International House World Organisation. Young, J. (2000). Comment: Who needs analysis? ELT Journal 54/1: 72-74. Coursebook Jones, M. & Kerr, P. (2005) Straightforward Pre-Intermediate Workbook. Macmillan Publishers Limited. Kerr, P. (2005) Straightforward Pre-Intermediate Student’s Book. Macmillan Publishers Limited. Scrivener, J. (2005) Straightforward Pre-Intermediate Teacher’s Book. Macmillan Publishers Limited.
