Trainees’ performance

The information to determine the trainees’ performance in this case study was collected from journal entries, observation reports and results of the language audit.

5.6.1 Journal entries

Upon reading the journals, eight out of nine trainees had indicated some apprehension about teaching the mentors who were already seen as the experts; however, this barrier dissipated as the interaction between the two groups increased. The collaborative practice between the trainees and their mentors developed into opportunities for mutual learning as they engaged in joint activities which included lesson planning, preparation of resources, rehearsal and teaching. As the trainees and the mentors participated in these activities, the perceived social distance that separated the trainees (or novices) from the mentors (or the experts) decreased as they both adopted the same role of learners. An informal conversation with one trainee confirmed these views, which were also shared by the other trainees in their journals, and transcribed below:

5.6.2 Observations and journal entries

Observations of the trainees’ teaching showed that they created opportunities to embed the target language into the topics of the lessons thus making meaningful links and promoting learning which was engaging, relevant and fun for the pupils. This is shown in the observations notes I gathered from lessons taught to a year three and a year six class, respectively:

Me: Tell me about one highlight…

MN: I think I was a bit worried about teaching my mentor Me: How did that change?

MN: She was keen to learn and showed an interest so that made things easier for me. Me: How was that easy?

MN: Well, I think that while the others only observed their mentors teach, I had the chance to teach her how to teach French to the kids. When we met after school, we all supported one another. We taught the mentors and they showed us how to develop our teaching.

Me: What did you gain from this experience?

MN: It was good to move from the observations at the beginning –which were obviously very important, to teach with my mentor together and then plan together and rehearse the lessons. I felt more confident.

Me: Was it a daunting experience to teach French in the end?

MN: no, not at all… it was because the way we worked with the lessons, planning and practising French that I think I developed my confidence.

139

5.6.2 Observations and journal entries

Observations of the trainees’ teaching showed that they created opportunities to embed the target language into the topics of the lessons thus making meaningful links and promoting learning which was engaging, relevant and fun for the pupils. This is shown in the observations notes I gathered from lessons taught to a year three and a year six class, respectively:

The nine trainees used both the core and foundation subjects to embed the teaching of the target language and the learning tasks they used showed an increasing awareness of the acquisition

Date: 3/10 Group: Year 3 Lesson: Numeracy

Topic: Mental arithmetic (French)

ML introduced numbers 0 – 10 in the target language using the interactive whiteboard. She provided a model for the children to repeat. Clapping was used for memorisation. Talk partners were used for practice. Game used to revisit pronunciation.

ML introduced number bonds in groups of 10 until 100. Modelling was followed by repetition. Talk partners used for practice.

ML introduced simple operations (+ - x /): children asked to read out problems and solve followed by mental arithmetic exercises.

Date: 28/10 Group: Year 3

Lesson: Humanities – History Topic: World War II (Theme) (French)

ML elicit today’s date in the target language by using a calendar on the interactive whiteboard. Recap on numbers and months followed by asking children questions about age, birthdays, numbers of people in their families, pets and school subjects.

ML showed a WWII photograph on the interactive whiteboard. Children were asked to focus on details (there was a calendar, a clock, a street sign). ML elicited children’s views by asking questions in L1. ML switched to L2 and asked questions: what day is it today? Where do I live? What’s the time?

Date: 20/10 Group: Year 6

Lesson: Physical Education (Spanish) Topic: Sports

JB and class teacher modelled a conversation in L2 (what’s the matter? I have a headache). Comprehension questions followed. JB introduced parts of the body using the class teacher to model and show (head, arms, legs, eyes, nose, mouth, etc.). In groups of three children practised the new language. JB introduced action words which the class teacher modelled in slow motion (walk, stroll, jog, run, jump, sit, stand up, stand still, relax). Group practice using actions. Total physical response followed. Game: ‘Pierre says…’

Date: 17/11 Group: Year 6

Lesson: Literacy (Spanish) Topic: Narrative language

JB presented a comic strip in L2 (daily routines). JB checked comprehension by asking questions in L1. Children used different clues in the pictures (such as time of the day, clothes, and characters in each frame). JB wrote time phrases on the board: In the morning; at 8 o’clock; at noon, etc. Then JB wrote action words (get up, have breakfast, go to school, etc.) using a different colour pen. Children repeated model after JB. Pair work for practice. JB read a story in L2 and children put the frames of the comic strip in the correct order. Children floated around tables to compare.

RT called out an action for children to identify and show. Focus on pronunciation.

140

of the L2 subject knowledge through the use of strategies. This awareness was also identified in the journals where the trainees discussed with confidence about how they articulated and managed the strategies used to gain an understanding of their own learning. The following entry was representative of the trainees’ perceptions:

JB’s entry above provides a good example of reflection and self-regulation of learning which occurred as the trainee became engaged in a process of inquiry, showing ownership of the learning process. JB was able to identify, by means of reflection, how language strategies enabled her to learn by drawing on her L1 experience, discussing the processes she used in order to achieve understanding.

Observations of the lessons taught by the trainees showed that they actively incorporated the theoretical principles of the revised SBI approach as summarised in section 2.14 on page 66. Examples of this are provided in the table below:

Reflective journal (JB) Entry: 16/12

I found it interesting to think about those ideas or concepts that I already have as a speaker of English and how they could be used to understand another language. I can see the point of using these techniques for getting the gist of a text. I can refer to the format of a text and then, from my previous knowledge, I can concentrate on features such as headings and graphics, and accordingly build my understanding progressively. Whilst doing so, I am mentally building hypotheses which I will confirm as I progress in my understanding of the text by finding evidence. If the evidence is not so easy to find, I then may have to use some guessing or prediction to work out what the text is about; the important thing, however, is that I remain focused on building the meaning of the text and linking it with my previous knowledge.

141

Table 18 Examples of the trainees' use of a revised SBI approach when teaching

Revised SBI principles Example Language purpose/function

Exploring learners’ interests and needs

‘You are about to complete the writing part of the task. It might be a good idea to discuss with your partner how you are going to go about doing because…’

Articulating pupils’ needs

Contextualising language learning and making it meaningful

‘By following the instructions, you will improve your speaking skills in French, get very good grades when you go to

secondary school and you will feel really confident when talking to a French person…’

Motivating to take action

Using and elaborating on prior learning

‘So, what did you do last week when you had a very similar exercise to complete? What writing strategies did you use then? Jog your memory with your partner and come up with at least three strategies that you used’.

Eliciting existing knowledge

Focusing on learning outcomes and self-regulation

‘Fantastic…you’ve

mentioned… those strategies can be very, very helpful’ ‘Ah! Be careful… I don’t think this is a right strategy for this type of task. Can anyone give me the reasons why not?’

Giving positive and corrective feedback

Enabling collaboration by discussing what learners already know and by peer scaffolding

‘Let’s have a look at the strategies we can apply to work out this listening task. Look at the list on the board. You’ll find some that you have already mentioned. With your partner try to find a

combination of strategies, for example, listening to the tone of voice and guessing whether the speaker is happy or sad’.

Raising awareness of a wide range of strategies

Developing autonomy by encouraging learners to reflect on their learning developing shared cognition

‘Which of the strategies in the list do you think you can use in other school subjects? Check the list with your partner and try to think of a situation where your identification of a strategy will allow you to learn better’.

Raising awareness of opportunities for strategy transfer

‘Can anybody tell me if there is

a way to make this particular topic more enjoyable applying all the strategies you know so far?’

Encouraging a strategic approach to learning

142

5.6.3 Language audit

Table 19 shows three different levels of attainment in the language audit which was administered at the end of the study and the number of trainees who achieved them in the skills of reading (R), writing (W), listening (L) and speaking (S). So for instance, out of nine trainees two achieved level A1 for reading and two trainees achieved level A2 for writing. It was interesting to note that out of the four language skills, reading scored the highest with two trainees achieving level B1. A possible explanation for this result may be attributed to the considerable amount of reading materials that the trainees were presented with during the course of the current study.

Table 19 Trainees' performance in language audit in case study two

Level Description R W L S

A1

Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce himself/herself and others and ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows, and the things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.

2 7 5 6

A2

Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.

5 2 3 2

B1

Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise when travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple, connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.

2 0 1 1