1

Sookmyung Women’s Univ.

M.A. Tesol

Park Hyun Young

Teaching Portfolio

2

�Introduction………………………………………..3

�Resume……………………………………………...4

�Teaching Philosophy……………………………..5

�Reference Letter………………………………….7

�Introduction………………………………………..8

�Teacher’s License………………………….……..9

�Mate Training…………………………….…….....10

�Certificate of SMU TESOL Record….………...11

�Education IT Specialist Training……………....12

�English Teachers Training at Sonoma Univ…13

Professional Document

Teaching Experiences

Personal Document

�Introduction…………………………………….….14

�GEP lesson plans of ‘Study Abroad’…………..18

�Sample materials and students’ work…………21

�Reflective journal ………………………….…..…23

�Feedback from students……………….………..27

�Action Research……………………….………….28

3

An English teacher can help students not only improve

their language skills but also broaden their views to see the

world. I think students will see, listen, and think more things

around them if they learn a new language. Personally, I’m

proud of myself to be an English teacher and want to share

my background on how I became a teacher, what I have

experienced so far and the basic beliefs of English

teaching. The key words which I keep in mind in teaching

English are communication, motivation, efforts and respect.

I included my resume and teaching philosophy as my

personal documents.

Personal Document

4

-Personal Document-

Park Hyun Young •508-1103 Geumgokdong, Bundang, Seongnam •(Tel.)010-4370-0718•phyenglish@hotmail.com

A current Middle school English teacher, who respects students, cooperates with other

teachers, counsel parents, and has enthusiasm for teaching English.

Teaching Experience Yongin Baekhyun Middle School 2009 –

present

Teach 1st and 2nd grade students English currently.

Have taught 3rd grade students English for 1 year.

Design afterschool English program and teach TEPS.

Teach low level students who have difficulties to follow the regular curriculum.

Jukjeon High School 2004

– 2008

Taught 1st grade English Writing, 2nd grade English Reading and Conversation, and 3rd

grade students English for Korean SAT.

Migeum Middle School 2003

Taught 1st grade students English.

Education and Qualification Master of TESOL(2009~Present); TESOL, Sookmyung Women’s University, Seoul

Bachelor of Education (2003) ; English Education, Chungang University, Seoul

Certificate of TESOL(2006); TESOL, Sookmyung Women’s University, Seoul

Certificate of SMU Mate Rater Training(2010), Sookmyung Women’s University, Seoul

Level 1 Teaching License of Gyeonggido(2006), Ajou University, Suwon

Technical Proficiency MS word, Excel, Power Point, Hangeul Word, Internet searching

Professional Activities Instructor for English Speaking Contest, Migeum Middle School(2003)

Leader of English Broadcasting Club, Jukjeon High School.(2004)

Member of English Ability Test Committee, Gyeonggi Education Department(2009)

Staff of Summer English Camp, Yongin(2009)

Member of Gyunggi English Teachers Association(2008~Present)

* References available all upon request.

I. Resume

5

-Personal Document-

One of my teaching philosophies is language teaching focusing on

the communication aspects of language learning. By getting a

chance to use the language, my experiences as an English learner

affected my teaching philosophy. By talking to foreigners outside

of the classroom, writing letters to foreign pen pals, and surviving

with English while traveling, I have become more interested in English. These are good

examples of how I was motivated to study English. Output means not just producing a

language but ability to use it as a tool of communication. In my class, I usually let my

students do something in English. In listening class, students make their own dialogue

and speak out in the end. I sometimes make students write their ideas related to reading

content in English in my reading class. I believe providing students with speaking and

writing activities helps them improve English.

My next principle is related to the motivation to learn English. I survey my

students about learning English in every first class. The biggest value I

intend to put is why they learn English. I think language is not the main

aim itself but the tool to use with. Therefore, I usually encourage my

students to think about what they want to be in the future and how English will be

benefit to succeed in that area. Then, I expect students’ attitude in class to become

more active and responsible when they learn English.

In addition, the important philosophy in my teaching lies in making constant efforts

to develop teaching materials and methods. I think teachers should be busy

with learning. By attending seminars, teachers’ training courses, doing

researches, teachers can find the best methodology that fits their own

classes. Language keeps changing in a real life and students’ learning styles

are various. Therefore, I need to keep up with those varieties. For example,

I have learned collaborative learning which is a student-centered method in

a teachers’ training course, and I could find out it made my class

atmosphere more active. However, there are still problems to be solved

such as assessment and class control. I need to keep searching for an

effective teaching method. One of the reasons why I decided to join the

TESOL program is to update my teaching skills. What I have to keep in mind

that I shouldn’t be afraid to adopt new method in my class.

Lastly, I respect my students and try to praise them as much as possible. Korean

English learners are afraid of making mistakes. They have stress on their English to be

II. Teaching Philosophy

6

perfect. I think that is the big obstacle to improve their English ability.

Even though students produce wrong sentences I praise their trial at

once before I correct them in an indirect way. When shy students read

their writing works slowly and quietly I encourage them to finish the

presentation and give them a big hand. I’m also interested in how to

make a reward effectively and powerfully. It shouldn’t be a purpose but it has a role to

students do their best in learning English.

Teaching needs efforts and I will open my mind to be flexible in every situation.

There is no correct one answer in education, but teachers keep trying to fid the

appropriate method to their students. Based on the experience of teaching, I will modify

and seek for the new methodology.

7

-Personal Document-

Park

III. Reference Letter

8

I am an English teacher but I keep learning English like a

student. It makes me have more confidence and skills in

teaching English and it leads me to be a better teacher. I

included teacher’s license, certificates of MATE training,

SMU TESOL, education IT specialist, and extended education

in Sonoma State University. These demonstrate how I have

been training myself to improve my teaching skills.

Professional Document

9

-Professional Document-

I. Teacher’s License

10

-Professional Document-

II. Mate Training

11

-Professional Document-

III. Certificate of SMU TESOL Record

12

-Professional Document-

IV. Education IT Specialist Training

13

-Professional Document-

V. English Teachers Training at Sonoma

14

Through the Practicum of the TESOL program, I could

practice designing lessons, organizing materials, managing

and analyzing the classes. These processes were done

interactively with MA students. This session demonstrates

how I have improved my teaching techniques and

classroom management skills. I included lesson plans about

‘study abroad’, class reflective journal, sample materials

and students’ works and feedback from GEP students.

Teaching Experiences

15

-Teaching Experiences-

Practicum 1

Group 1 (Mihyang, Kim, Hanna Lee, Hyunyoung Park)

Lesson Plan _ Week 5

1. Function : Descriptive writing

2. Topic : Study abroad

3. Objectives: Students should be able to write a paragraph with a topic sentence to

describe people, dormitory rooms, and campus in a university of a foreign country.

4. Assign little sisters of the teaching group to other 6 groups before the activity as follow:

- Eun Ji, Ha Neul → Turtle Sisters

- Hyun Min, Yieon →Chicken & Beer

- Da Eun, Ji Eun →Rainbow Lion

- Jeong Yoon →SoonDooboo Sky

- Ji Hye →Monami

- Eun I →SURFers

5. Class Procedure

Time/

Duration Activities Content Materials

Class

Structures/

Big

siblings’

Role

7:50~8:0

0

(10min)

Assignment Check-up

(Questions & Answers) Check-up

8:00~8:3

0

(30min)

<Lesson Introduction >

1. Lesson introduction ‘Campus life’ using PPT

2. Video clip: Danguk university http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDPMSDHJZr4

- Watching the video clip

- Remind Ss paragraph format (PPT)

<Describing My Dormitory >

-Each group get a picture of a dorm-room

and describe the room : DESCRIPTION

-The next group gets the description of a

dorm room from the previous group and

draws a picture of the dorm-room based on

the description. They also do peer-

- Ss

describ

e

picture

s of

dorm-

room

from

their

friend

who

study

- Internet

/ PPT

-pictures

of dorm-

rooms

-Pens

-Tape

-Stickers

Pair work

(2pairs in

each

group)/

Big

siblings-

take care

of two

different

writings at

the same

time

I. GEP lesson plans

More Dorm room-U tube Dorm Room! at Lipscomb University http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzYb-HqmTto

16

correction on the description: PEER

CORRETION (spelling, structure,

paragraphing )& DRAWING PICTURE

-Compare the original dorm-room pictures,

descriptions and Ss’ pictures � Display on

the wall & vote : can be done in break time

abroad

8:30~9:0

0

(30 min)

< Dorm Day>

-Place different pictures of dormitories on

the wall (before class)

-Get Ss have tour to watch different

dormitories

-After deciding their favorite dormitories,

Ss describe the dormitories and do

presentation.

Ss will

choose

the

best

dormito

ry for

them

and

their

best

friend

who

roomm

ate will

be. Ss

explain

how

their

chosen

dormito

ry

looks

like to

the

friend.

-pictures

of

different

places at

dormitori

es

-paper

for

writing

-tape

Group

work/

Big

siblings-

distribute

the part of

wring to Ss

(topic s,

supporting

Ss,

conclusion)

&

supervisin

g Ss’

writings

17

9:00~9:4

0 (40

min)

<Describing a classmate>

Warm Up:Presenting a topic

- Present the PPT slide to introduce the

topic.

Step I

- Have the class into pairs.

-Distribute worksheet and photo.

-Have students ask and answer questions

about the appearance of the person in her

picture in order to fill in the blanks. (10m)

Step II

- Have each pair write a paragraph to

describe their picture after choosing one of

the two pictures.(10m)

Step III

-Have each pair check their paragraph using

the “Revision Checklist” and revise it.

Step IV

-Have Ss exchange their writing and picture

with another pair.

-Have each pair rewrite other pair’s

paragraph with a different topic sentence

and supporting ideas

*Present the written paragraphs on the wall

and let them guess identify how different

other people’s writing is.(5m)

Diverse

Background

s of

University

Students:

Ss are

going to

describe

appearance

of

classmates

who have

ethnically

and

culturally

different

background

s.

-

Workshee

t -

Revision

Checklist

-PPT

Slides

-Pictures

Pair work/

Facilitators

9:40~9:5

0

(10min)

BREAK

9:50~10:

30

(40min)

<Campus Tour-Describing Campus>

-Give an example of campus tour script on

PPT

-Each group is given a campus map and

picture of buildings to make a campus tour

script

-Present the campus tour script

Ss look at

the

campus

map and

describe it

for the

campus

tour.

-

Worksheet

s

(Pictures

of the

buildings)

-Three

different

Group

work/

Facilitators

(Big

siblings let

students

describe 1

or 2

18

Campus

maps

-PPT

buildings

and put

together

using place

adverbs.)

< Wrap up>

1) Let students check writing assignment

and upload it on the GEP website.

Individual

Work

19

-Teaching Experiences-

-Pictures dorm rooms for describing-

-A picture drawn by a student-

II. Sample materials and students’ work

20

-Student’s work of describing dorm room-

-A picture for describing Houghton University campus-

21

-A sample Campus description-

-The student’s campus description-

22

-Teaching Experiences-

Park Hyunyoung

My group taught descriptive writing with the topic of study abroad. We focused on

writing in a paragraph form including topic sentence, supporting sentences, and

conclusion. The first activity was describing a dormitory room. Students could get to

know what and how to describe by watching a video clip to introduce a dormitory room.

After students in pairs described the room, they switch their papers with other groups.

Then, they drew a picture of a room based on the description. Even though some of the

descriptions were not enough to draw the room completely, it seemed that students

could understand the descriptive words well. When they compared it with the original

picture, students laughed at how different or similar they described. It took more time

than we planned, so we skipped the second activity, dorm fair. As students didn’t finish

the work, we couldn’t move on to the next step on time. We need to find a way to make

students start to write quickly. I think that’s because students should think and

brainstorm before writing a paragraph.

In addition, many vocabulary for descriptive writing, were given in reading

assignment, but some students who didn’t do the homework had difficulty to do the

second activity-describing classmates. It would be better if big siblings emphasize the

importance of doing reading assignment in advance. This activity was information gap

and it also led students to write in a paragraph form. By making students change the

topic sentence, they could notice supporting sentences should be changed as well.

The last part of the class was campus tour. It was designed to describe the

appearance, location, and function of the buildings on a campus map. Writing a sample

campus script was a burden even for me, so I was concerned it would be a huge task for

students as well. I gave each group a university campus map with brief explanation of

each building and the tour route was also given in advance to save the time. When one

III. Reflective Journal

23

of groups asked me to change the route, I thought it would have been better to let the

group decide the route next time. During the last activity, both students and siblings

looked very tired. They seemed to feel writing a campus tour script difficult so there

should have had more fun elements for the last activity of the class. One of big siblings

told me that the group size was bigger than usual and she couldn’t pay attention to help

every member fully. I think it could be helpful to make them pairs based on the writing

test results.

The overall activities for week 5 were quite burdensome to students. However, I

think it was good chance to practice how to write descriptive passage in a paragraph

form.

24

-Teaching Experiences-

There is a website for GEP students to use. They visited the website and wrote

anything they wanted to upload on the board. Each group had its own space to share

their ideas. They usually wrote about the daily things, study, job interview and the

reflective journals for the classes. It was a great tool for communication. I could read

their writings and replied. Students also could practice writing for authentic readers.

Here are some samples of my group from the website-

http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=30695&p=3&topicID=38146516&page=

5

IV. Feedback from students

25

26

27

28

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................... 29

Problems Identified ....................................................................................... 32

Possible Solutions .......................................................................................... 33

Treatment ...................................................................................................... 36

Appropriate lesson level for the students

Grouping of the class

Seating Arrangements

Findings ........................................................................................................ 38

Lesson plan at Moderate Mid level

Seating arrangement: Grouping & Pairing

MATE Test result progress

Conclusion and Implication .......................................................................... 41

References ..................................................................................................... 44

Appendix A .................................................................................................... 46

Initial Surveys and Interview for students

Appendix B .................................................................................................. - 1 -

Final Surveys and Interview for Big Siblings

Appendix C .................................................................................................... 48

STUDENT SURVEY

Action Research

29

The challenges of EFL teachers

in teaching mixed-language proficiency level classes

Graduate School of TESOL Practicum II

Yobien Yoon

Hyunyoung Park

Joohee Park

Introduction

This action research paper is conducted by three TESOL Master Program students –

Joohee Park, Hyunyoung Park and Yobien Yoon, while teaching undergraduate students in

General English Program (GEP) II course in the fall semester of 2010 at Sookmyung

Women’s University. The MA students are currently in-service and pre-service teachers.

The subjects who participated for this research are Sookmyung Women’s University

undergraduate GEP II students, with different majors, ages and language proficiency

levels. Most of them are Korean students but there are also three exchange students with

Chinese nationality. More detailed information on the classroom and course situations

are as follow:

The Practicum course of Sookmyung TESOL MA Program is one of two fifth

semester options that finalize the Master program. The focus of the Practicum course is

on developing and evaluating lesson plans based on the components and design features

of the Multi-media Assisted Test of English (MATE). Practicum I course revolves around

planning and teaching an undergraduate English course within the GEP (General English

Program). The MA students are broken down into groups of three or four and it is in

these groups that students both plan for their GEP course responsibilities and implement

the plans they have created. In addition to lesson planning and lecturing, the Practicum

students also function as group leaders for the groups of GEP students during the class

time and beyond. Their responsibilities as ‘Big Siblings’ are getting the GEP students to

perform the assigned tasks, making sure that they understand the instruction and giving

on-the-spot feedback to enhance their performance. Another challenge the group

leaders have, which is what this action research is based on, is dealing with the different

30

levels and personalities of the students within the group. Heterogeneous student groups

are created so that the students can learn from each other, but this also often demands

extra work on the part of the group leader to make sure that everybody is prepared,

engaged and is performing to the best of their abilities during the class (Van Vlack, 2010).

The ‘Big Siblings’ need to learn how to manage their ‘Little Sisters’ individual needs and

differences well and foster good relationships throughout the course in order to

accomplish the objectives.

GEP, the General English Program for Sookmyung Undergraduate students, meets

once a week from 7:50 to 10:30. For the most part, the class involves the students in a

variety of reading, writing, and presentation related activities focused on language forms

and functions that the students can use both in and out of class. The focus for GEP II

course is on the skills of writing and reading, but it is acknowledged that other skills will

necessarily be used in the classroom and as part of the course. Students, therefore,

expect much of the in-class interaction to be based on reading, speaking, and listening

skills which are based on such exposure and practice, undoubtedly to improve. The basic

philosophy underlying the course is that meaningful practice generated in an environment

of facilitative feedback is the most efficient way of developing communicative

competence. As a result, in this class, each student generates large amounts of language

which are closely monitored. Each student receives assistance and feedback on a

continual basis from their big siblings – the MA students. All of the students are a

member of nine groups that are formed by three to four GEP students with one MA

student as a group leader. Within each group there are students with different

backgrounds, majors, academic years, nationality and English proficiency levels.

Regardless of these differences, for each lesson they have to resolve same tasks given

with their classmates.

As Raj (2010) suggests in his study, a great number of classrooms consist of mixed

level groups of different students’ needs and language proficiencies. Roberts (2007) also

indicates that the students’ educational background in his/her first language can be

affected to consist of mixed level students in a class. Bell (1998) points out that students

in a mixed level class are separated by more than just their level of control of the English

31

language. She insists that teachers must consider the students' previous experience with

education, their country and culture of origin, their individual differences such as age,

intelligence and motivation, and their particular learning situations.

Regarding these points of view, most language teachers teach mixed level classes in

some form or other, and various different types of mixed-level classrooms can be found

in any educational system. The real mixed-level classroom may be a combination of the

following types: combined classes of different year levels, classes of mixed proficiency

levels, and classes with some students who have studied the target language and some

who have not, native-speakers or learners with an extensive background in the target

language, and classes of mixed motivation levels (In About the Mixed-level Classroom,

2010). Based on the above-mentioned researchers’ description of mixed level classes, it

can be safely said that the GEP class that the TESOL MA students teach can be classified

as a class of ‘mixed-language proficiency levels’, and ‘mixed-motivation levels’. However,

we solely focus particularly only on the mixed-language proficiency level classroom

situation for this research.

To diagnose the language proficiency of the GEP students, the MATE test scores are

used identify their proficiency levels. The MATE writing test is a multi-media test

designed to generate the best possible writing performance from the test-takers by

engaging them in a variety of authentic, real-world writing tasks, and thus these writing

samples were used for a pre-set and stringent system of assessment. The MATE writing

test consists of four major levels with the fewer sub-levels. They are from the highest

proficiency of Expert (E), Commanding High (CH) and Commanding Low (CL), Moderate

High (MH), Moderate Mid (MM) and Moderate Low (ML), to the lowest proficiency of

Rudimentary (R). Throughout the semester, the GEP II class takes the MATE writing

test three times. First one is taken on the second week of the course, second with mid-

term exam and the last one with the final-exam at the end of the semester. The GEP II

students have to perform improvement over these series of MATE writing test and this will

be reflected on their final grades. Also, the test results are assumed to show how

effective the lessons and group activities performed by the MA students are and they will

also reflect the sufficiency of the treatment of this action research.

32

Problems Identified

With the above point of view, it is obvious that MA students are faced with the GEP class

with mixed language proficiency levels. Before dealing with the difficulties of teaching

mixed level classes, it is important to look at some of its advantages. The advantages

are from general mixed-level classes including both mixed language level and mixed-

motivation level classes.

The mixed group class enables students to develop their language proficiencies in

cooperative learning and they increase students’ self confidence and motivation by

intriguing each other to become better than where they are (Sydney, 2001). Also, it helps

students develop organizational skills and manage their learning. When students have

mixed levels of members in a group work, they are encouraged to learn and help each

other and are also allowed to work at their own pace. (ibid.)

However, there are some disadvantages found in the mixed level classrooms.

Generally all students have different learning styles and strategies, and they all learn at

different speeds. Thus, teachers are constantly faced with choices and risks between the

more advanced students at the risk of being bored of the lesson, or the lower level

students at risk of alienating by focusing on their more able peers (Myles, 2002). In

addition, teachers always have to deal with problems of students reacting to the topic

differently because their individual preferences are different. Firstly, some students may

find the topic boring and very difficult, whereas some may find it interesting or very easy.

Another problem is that some of the students find it difficult to speak in the target

language for many reasons. Other students, however, might like to express everything

they think or feel by using the new language. As a result, some students may take many

turns, while others do not speak for the entire lesson. Lastly, often usually the higher level

students finish the tasks before the other students do and they may misbehave while

waiting for the others to finish. The weaker students, on the other hand, cannot finish the

tasks as quickly as the strong ones and may lose their confidence. Consequently, mixed

abilities may result in classroom management problems (Deniz, 2005).

33

By taking the advantages and disadvantages of the mixed-level classroom situation

in to account, the research pays attention to the two following problems in the group

activities of GEP II classes. First, when either a teaching group or the group leaders teach

a lesson, students show different levels of comprehension from the same input provided,

depending on their language proficiency levels. This causes unbalanced processing of

group activity works. Secondly, there is a risk of both lower and higher language

proficiency level students’ participation and motivation to affect the counter higher and

lower level students in negative directions. Therefore, the research question for this

study withdrawn from above is:

“How do EFL teachers overcome the challenges they face in teaching mixed-language proficiency level

classes?”

Possible Solutions

As a possible solution for the identified problems, we discussed the following: First, a

teaching group needs to plan the lesson carefully considering the comprehension and

expected interaction of each level of students. They should implement the average

comprehension level of students into the activities in the lesson. Roberts (2007) argues

that instead of creating different lessons with different objectives for the different

proficiency levels, teachers can teach to the middle proficiency level of students and then

assign different, appropriately leveled tasks. In this respect, teaching multi level of GEP

class with proficiency level setting at MATE Moderate Mid (MM) level seems to be the best

solution for every level of students. Thus, for the GEP II class, the level of each lesson

should be set at MM level described in MATE Writing Test Rater Training Handbook (2010)

as follows: the student is 1) satisfactorily able to complete tasks showing no major

problems in using language to provide simple concrete information of a personal,

concrete nature; 2) able to use fairly complex sentences to offer simple explanation, and

3) give personal information, but some information might still be missing and the format

might be substandard. In addition, 4) able to write explaining personal matters, and 5)

show signs of being able to construct writing on less personal but there are gaps in their

ability to complete the demands of less personal tasks. Also the student 6) able to write

34

in most informal settings on some topics of personal interest and daily activities, but has

trouble with more formal topics. Lastly, the student might be 7) able to write to a limited

extent on non-personal issues and has some awareness of comparing and contrasting.

(MATE Writing Test Rater Training Handbook, 2010) Furthermore, it would be helpful to

inform students the intention of the level adjustment for better understanding of the lesson.

As Chris (2009) also suggests, the teacher should point out clearly that the class might be

too difficult or too easy for the weaker or stronger level students prior to the lessons.

Otherwise, students might become disruptive or discouraged.

Secondly, group leaders (Big Siblings) should know their students carefully to assist

and draw more participation and evoke motivation in order to make them interact actively

within the group. More participation and motivation will lead to maximizing effective

language production. Based on the leader’s careful observation, the members can be

paired up by high and low language level students to help each other counteract

effectively within a group for activities. Valdez (2010) explains that teachers can also use

learners as resources by letting them share their knowledge and expertise with others in

the class. In addition, Couzens de Hinojosa (2010) supports Valdez’s opinion that pairing

weaker students with stronger students gives both students benefits. Stronger students

solidify their knowledge of English because they have to explain things to the weaker

students. In the same respect, weaker students benefit because they get things explained

to them in different ways. Also according to a CALPRO 1 (2010), on managing the

multilevel classroom, the grouping activities can be used strategically for effective

classroom management tool to provide efficient use of teacher and student time. During

the group works, students can assist each other, which enables teacher to work with

individuals or small groups that require personal help. With a concern about grouping

and lesson plan, it might be better to consider setting the lesson plan level to MM and

give each student additional works according to their proficiency and language skills. For

example, when a task of writing a paragraph is given, all group students brainstorm

1 CALPRO: California Adult Literacy Professional Development Project. It is to foster continuous program improvement

through a comprehensive, statewide approach to high-quality professional development for the full range of adult education and

literacy providers working in agencies funded by the California Department of Education.

35

together, then the lower proficiency level student can make an outline while the other

higher proficiency level student writes the rest of the paragraph. Roberts (2007) also

introduces writing activities that can be completed in pairs, in cross-ability groups, or as

a whole class. In these activities, the higher-level students who complete their tasks early

can work alongside the students who require additional support.

For more effective micro-management of the group, the group leader can also

adjust their classroom or group management strategy to maximize participation and

motivation of different language level students. First, readjusting their action zone

(Richards and Lockhart, 1996) by choosing a seat arrangement where the group leader

can reach each student most conveniently during the class can help group leaders to

reach each student more sufficiently. This includes not just the language level but also

student’s personality, physical condition, stress factors, needs for taking the course and

such, by consistent bonding through various communication channels. In GEP class,

every group has a big sibling to assist them throughout the lesson. Even though it is a

small group of 3 or 4, big siblings might miss a chance to interact with the group

members equally. Richards (1996) points out those students within the teacher’s action

zone usually get advantage of interaction and they are more likely to participate actively in

a lesson. Also it would be ideal if the group leader can set their role as a model for the

members of each group and demonstrate and facilitate the activities as a lesson proceeds.

After reviewing the result of the initial observation, further data collection was

required. We reviewed literatures of the researches on the same topic to find relevance

of the solutions and performed survey of group leaders twice to compare the results of

before and after the treatment. (Appendix A.) Individual interviews of the group leaders

followed to gather some more in-depth information of the groups. Also, the results of

the initial and final MATE test were compared to see the differences between the initial

and the final condition of students.

36

Treatment

Appropriate lesson level for the students

We select one lesson plan from the lessons that took place during the GEP II class of

2010 Fall semester and analyze its content based on the MATE MM level of language. The

lesson contents are evaluated based on MATE Writing Test Rater Training Handbook

(2010) standard to see whether they are suitable for the GEP students or not. Following

that, reading and writing assignments are evaluated to review if they are suitable for

students at the writing level of MM, keeping in mind that it could build up from Moderate

Low level to challenging as Moderate High for more effective result of the lesson.

Teachers are responsible for providing appropriate language input in class and

students’ exposure to English can be maximized when the input is adequate to them.

Thus, Krashen (1982)’s Input Hypothesis is one of the most important theories of second

language acquisition. The Input Hypothesis is about how learners acquire a second

language rather than learn. This acquisition moves from stage “i”, where “i” represents

current competence, to “i+1”, which is the next level. According to this hypothesis,

acquirements improve and progress when students receive second language ‘input’ that is

one step beyond their current stage of linguistic competence. This is done with the help

of context or extra-linguistic information. In other words, acquisition takes place when

students are exposed to enough comprehensible input that belongs to level “i+1”.

The main task of a teacher is to provide comprehensible input to the students as

much as possible, and it is crucial for their language acquisition because their language

acquisition device is activated when they are provided with comprehensible input. For ML

students, “i+1” level would be MM and for MM level students, one step above would be

MH. Therefore the language level set at MM but within the proficiency range of ML to MH

will be sufficient for GEP students to be challenging enough for their level.

Grouping of the class

The nine big siblings/group leaders of the GEP II class are surveyed twice in order to find

out more detailed information on their little sisters from a close observer’s point of view.

37

The questionnaires were formed in order to discover changes in the motivation,

comprehension and production performance of the students during the first half of the

course. They answered the survey based on their observation half way through the

course after the mid-term exam. The survey includes the following questions:

1. Do you feel that your little sisters are more motivated to participate in writing activities compared to

the beginning of the course?

A. Yes B. No

2. Do you think their comprehension has been improving?

A. Yes B. No

3. Do you think their production has been improving?

A. Yes B. Not really C. No

4. What do you think your siblings feel most difficult about in this class?

A. Vocabulary

B. Writing assignment

C. Reading assignment

D. Making an outline for a paragraph

E. Pair(group) activities

The second round of survey, similar to the first one was given to the big siblings/group

leaders again at the end of the course to see the changes.

1. After 14 weeks of GEP course, do you feel that your little sisters are more motivated and participate

more in writing English activities compared to the beginning of the course?

A. Yes B. No

2. After 14 weeks of GEP course, do you think their comprehension has been improving?

A. Yes B. No

3. After 14 weeks of GEP course, do you think their production has been improving?

A. Yes B. Not really C. No

3-1. Which part of writing skills did your siblings improve the most?

A. Structure B. Vocabulary C. Content

38

4. After 14 weeks of GEP course, what do you think your siblings feel most difficult in this

class?

A. Vocabulary

B. Writing assignment

C. Reading assignment

D. Making an outline for a paragraph

E. Doing pair(group) activities

5. Interview question: What did you observe in your group with different leveled students during

the group activities?

Seating Arrangements

Half way through the course, we requested siblings to pair up students with higher level

student and weaker level student during the class. The seat for a big sibling should be in

the center of the group so that he/she can look after of all the group members with eye-

contact possible distance. In addition, a big sibling was asked to sit closer to weaker level

students than higher level students because those students need more attention.

Findings

Lesson plan at Moderate Mid level

The lesson plan of week 11 for GEP class was chosen as a sample. It was analyzed

whether the lesson was designed for MM (in the range of ML to MH) level as a target or

not. (See the description of MATE writing levels above) The objectives of the lesson are

for students to learn to “be able to write an essay with a proper format and give their

Big

Sibling

High

St.

High

St.

Low

St.

Low

St.

High

Student

Low

St.

Big

Siblin

g

Low

St.

High

St.

39

opinion about fashion using various vocabularies”. These objectives are relevant to the

qualification of the SMU MATE standard of MM students of: ‘completing tasks in using

language to provide simple concrete information of a personal, concrete nature’ , ‘using

fairly complex sentences to offer simple explanation’ , and ‘being able to construct writing

on less personal tasks’.

The topic of the lesson is fashion, and the task of stating their opinions about

proper dress code in working places, is given. The language level required to complete

the task was evaluated to be appropriate because students in moderate mid level are

already able to write on some topics of personal interests. The activity of writing opinion

essay about dress code requires students to use various vocabularies to describe fashion

related terms. Furthermore, while writing the essay, each student in a group was given a

role so that they could participate in the activity according to their language level. For

example, a lower level student took a role as a designer who selects clothes on the

website, a moderate mid student wrote the outline, and a higher level student was

responsible for completing the whole essay.

Seating arrangement: Grouping & Pairing

The results of the two surveys, given to the big siblings after the mid-term and right

before the final exam show some changes in the direction of improvement. The first

question is if the big siblings felt that ‘the little sisters are more motivated and participate

more in activities’, after the midterm 7 of them answered ‘Yes’, while 2 of them answered

‘No’. However, for the final survey all 9 siblings answered ‘Yes’ to the same question.

The second question is if the big siblings thought the little siblings’ comprehensions have

improved. For the former survey, 6 answered ‘Yes’, and 3 answered ‘No’. However, for

the final survey all 9 siblings again answered ‘Yes’. The third question asked if the

language production of the little sisters have been improving or not. For the former

survey 7 answered ‘Yes’ and 2 answered ‘No’ but for the final, all 9 siblings answered

‘Yes’. The fourth question was found irrelevant to the topic so it was removed from the

analysis.

We also found out the information of groups from the interview of group leaders.

40

Most group leaders observed that each member of the group works as a team although

they have different language proficiency levels. They were very cooperative and helped

each other. Therefore, in view of these two survey results, it is quite likely that the seating

arrangement and strong-weak paring of students suggested by the researchers have been

effective in terms of participation and motivation improvement of the GEP students.

MATE Test result progress

Furthermore, to see the language proficiency changes of the GEP students during the

researching group’s treatment period, the MATE test results were compared as below:

Group &Leader Name Initial Final

Changes Score Level Score Level

English Master

(KMH)

KYY 35 Mod Mid 45 Mod High 10

PJE 55 Mod High 70 Comm 15

KJH 37 Mod Mid 54 Mod High 17

Dream Fighter

(LHN)

MJY 37 Mod Mid 50 Mod High 13

CEY 37 Mod Mid 55 Mod High 18

YHN 53 Mod High 64 Comm 11

Young Seniors

(PHY)

KHM 56 Mod High 61 Comm 5

CEJ 58 Mod High 65 Comm 7

PDE 24 Mod Low 46 Mod High 22

Turtle Sisters

(NJH)

BSH 54 Mod High

WYR 53 Mod High 66 Comm 13

Chicken & Beer

(YYB)

SJE 43 Mod Mid 44 Mod Mid 1

KYH 40 Mod Mid 54 Mod High 14

BJW 50 Mod High 63 Comm 13

Rainbow lions

(KHJ)

SMR 38 Mod Mid 46 Mod High 8

LSJ 34 Mod Mid 42 Mod Mid 8

41

SJI 35 Mod Mid 45 Mod High 10

Soondoobu Sky

(Draper)

LEJ 10 Rud 18 Mod Low 8

JYM 12 Rud 38 Mod Mid 26

JL 43 Mod Mid 42 Mod Mid -1

Monami

(LJO)

LGY 43 Mod Mid 42 Mod Mid -1

KSY 57 Mod High 62 Comm 5

WSH 40 Mod Mid 57 Mod High 17

JGE 27 Mod Low 43 Mod Mid 16

SURFers

(PJH)

OBY 35 Mod Mid 47 Mod High 12

KHS 66 Comm 69 Comm 3

DT 39 Mod Mid 64 Comm 25

From the results of the MATE test, it was found that out of 27 GEP students three

students (11%) have showed the improvement of over 21 in their test score results. Four

students (15%) showed improvement of 16 to 20 points; nine students (33%) showed

improvement of 10 to 15 points and eight students (30%) showed improvement of 1 to 9

points during the course. However, one student was not able to take the final exam and

there were two students (7%) who’s scores decreased by 1 point each. Nevertheless, it

is clear from these results and observations that the language proficiency of the 93% of

the GEP students have improved whether it be by little or by greater difference over the

period of time.

Conclusion and Implication

It is inevitable that almost every class may consist of mixed level students whether it be

the mixture of language proficiency, motivation, participation or any other factors of the

individual students in the class. However, for a language teacher it is not easy or

physically possible to consider and pay attention to every single student’s need by their

levels in the class. Based on the information collected in this research, focusing on to the

42

middle level of proficiency would be the only effective solution to solve this problem, at

least in the mixed-language proficiency level class. It would be even more effective for

students, if the teacher notifies the level of the lesson to be taught in the beginning of the

class, to assure what the students could expect from the language level about to be used

in class. In addition, selecting meaningful contents appropriate to the overall students and

adjusting seating arrangements to widen teacher’s action zone would be highly

recommended to overcome these difficulties in the mixed-level classes.

Moreover, teaching mixed-level class needs to be aware of the interests and

motivation of both higher level students and lower level students in order to facilitate their

willingness and motivation to learn English. In this regard, pairing is one of the effective

methods to improve both level students by drawing synergy effect from each other. For

example, higher level students can help lower students with lessons; and vice versa, the

lower level students may enhance self-esteem for higher level students as well.

Nevertheless, it should not over see that there are some limitations to this action

research. First, the research does not deal other factors affecting the improvement of

students’ language proficiency but only focuses on the mixed-level features. Second,

only one sample lesson was selected to analyze the appropriateness of the lesson level

even though the other lessons for the GEP class have been designed differently from the

sample lesson. In addition, it would be more precise analysis if more sample lesson plans

designed for for MM level were found. The result of analysis also needs to apply for the

next lessons to adjust MM level. Lastly, the treatment application period was not long

enough out of fourteen lessons to collect significant result or findings for solution.

To conclude, there are no certain set rules for successful teaching, thus continuing

studies on the subject would be necessary and highly recommended in the future. They

may include more factors such as student’s personal background information such as

personality, motivation, age, culture and origin. Apart from teachers’ effort of dealing

with mixed-level classes, it will be necessary to provide more teachers’ training to help

teachers in dealing these mixed-level classes. It is also crucial for teachers to be updated

with new methodologies introduced and approved by other studies and researches and be

prepared to adapt them into their classroom practices. For teachers to be flexible to

43

revise their practices and imply new pedagogical findings are important attitude to

improve their ever changing teaching environments.

44

References

About the mixed-level classroom. Retrieved November 12, 2010, from the World Wide

Web: http://activity-resources.jpf-sydney.org/ar/multi/intro.htm (Unpublished)

Bell, J. S. (1998). Teaching multilevel classes in ESL. Carlsbad, CA : Dominie Press.

Couzens de Hinojosa, S. (2010). Teaching Mixed Level Classes. Retrieved November 11,

2010, from the World Wide Web: http://tefltips.blogspot.com/2008/06/teaching-

mixed-level-classes.html. (Unpublished)

Dunn, W. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (1998).Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and

Krashen’s “i+1”: Incommensurable constructs: incommensurable theories. Language

Learning.

Hus H.-W. (2009). Helping less proficient children in mixed-level classrooms; A study of

TEYL teacher strategies used. Language at the University of Essex (Lang UE) 2008

Proceedings (2009). 52-66

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.

Managing the mixed-levelinstructional classroom: instructional strategies in the multi-level,

multi-subject classroom. California Adult Literacy Professional Development Project.

Retrieved November 11, 2010, from http://www.calpro-online.org/training/multi.html.

(Unpublished)

MATE Management Committee. (2010). MATE writing test rater training handbook. Seoul,

Korea: Sookmyung Women’s University MATE Management Committee.

Myles, J. (2002). Classroom focus: Japan using high level students as teaching

assistants in a mixed ability classroom. TESL-EJ, 6 (1) Retrieved November 11, 2010,

from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume6/ej21/ej21cf1/ (unpublished)

Raj, A. (2010). Teaching English in large multi-level classrooms. Retrieved November 16,

2010, from the World Wide Web: http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/forum-

topic/teaching-english-large-multi-level-multi-lingual-classroom (unpublished)

Richards, J.C. & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms.

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Roberts, M. (2007). Teaching in the multilevel classroom. Retrieved November 11, 2010,

from the World Wide Web: http://www.pearsonlongman.com (unpublished)

45

Valdez, M.G. (2010). How learners’ needs affect syllabus design. Retrieved November 11,

2010, from the World Wide Web: http://eca.state.gov/forum/vols/vol37/no1/p30.htm

(unpublished)

van Vlack, S. (2010). Issues in EFL. Spring 2010 Issues in EFL,8 (1) 163-187.

46

Appendix A

Initial Surveys and Interview for students

1. Do you feel more comfortable when you are interacting with similar language level member(s)?

A. Yes B. No

2. Is this GEPII class lesson difficult for you to follow?

A. Yes B. No

3. Do you feel that you want to study English harder through this class?

A. Yes

B. Not really

C. No

We asked the following questions to the group leaders:

1. What are the difficulties or conveniences in running different language level students in one group?

2. How do the higher language level students react to activities below their language level?

3. How do the lower language level students react to activities above their language level?

4. To overcome the difficulties from dealing with different language level students in one group, what

have you done so far? Please state some examples.

5. Do you think it is effective to pair up a higher level student with a lower level student?

The changes we could make for the above problem is by forming the groups with similar language level

members and by giving assignments according to their group levels.

Appendix B

Final Surveys and Interview for Big Siblings

1. After 14 weeks of GEP course, especially for the intensive writing classes, do you feel that your little

sisters are more motivated and participate more in writing English activities compared to the

beginning of the course?

A. Yes B. No

2. After 14 weeks of GEP course, especially for the intensive writing classes, do you think their

comprehension has been improving?

A. Yes B. No

3. After 14 weeks of GEP course, especially for the intensive writing classes, do you think their

production has been improving?

A. Yes B. Not really C. No

3-1. Which part of writing skills of your siblings improve the most?

A. Structure B. Vocabulary C. Content

4. After 14 weeks of GEP course, especially for the intensive writing classes, what do you think your

siblings feel most difficult in this class?

A. Vocabulary B. Writing assignment

4. Reading assignment D. Making an outline for a paragraph

F. Doing pair(group) activities

5. Please comment any special observation on your sibling during GEP writing class.

Appendix C

STUDENT SURVEY

Major (전공): Year (학년): Age (나이): ____

안녕하세요 밴블랙 교수님의 GEP 학생여러분! 저희는 보다 효과적이고 만족스러운 수업을 준비하기 위하여, 여러

분들의 요구조사를 실시하고자 합니다. 다음의 질문에 솔직하고 성실한 답변을 부탁드립니다. 조사결과는 수업활동

과 자료를 구성하는 데에만 참고할 것입니다.

1. Which word below best describes your personality in general?

당신의 성격은 어느쪽에 가깝습니까? 가깝다고 생각하는 번호에 체크해주십시오.

Introverted -----1----------------2----------------3----------------4----------------5-------� Extroverted

(내성적) 매우내성적 내성적인편 중간 외향적인편 매우외향적 (외향적)

2. Briefly describe your English learning experience. 자신의 영어학습 경험을 적어주세요.

In school (학교교육) How long? (기간)

Private tutoring (과외) How long? (기간)

Studying English in a language institute (영어학원경험) How long? (기간)

Living abroad (해외체류경험) Where? (장소) How long ?(기간)

Having foreign friends (외국인친구와의교제) Describe (설명):

Other experience (기타경험):

3. What do you do with English? Where? 영어를 어디서 주로 어떤 용도로 사용합니까? (해당란에

표시하고 설명)

( ) studying where/ what/why

( ) chatting where /how

( ) working (아르바이트) where/how

( ) meeting people where/how

( ) club activity where/what/how

Others

4. How many hours do you use English per week? 일주일에 몇 시간 정도 영어를 사용 하십니까?

( ) never ( ) less than 3 hours ( ) 3 - 6 hours ( ) 6 - 9 hours ( ) more than 10 hours

5. Have you ever taken any standardized exams? Indicate which one(s) and the approximate score

received. 정규시험을 보신 적이 있다면, 점수를 적어주세요.

MATE TOEIC TOEFL TEPS IELTS SEPT Other test: ( )

Score: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

( )

6. Have you ever studied English? If you have, what kinds of skills have you studied? 영어회화

수업을 받아보신 적이 있습니까?

Listening: Yes No (circle one) If yes, what did you learn? 듣기 수업을 참여한 적이 있다면 수업

내용을 간단히 써주세요.

__________________________________________________________________________

Speaking: Yes No (circle one) If yes, what did you learn? 말하기 수업에 참여한 적이 있다면 수

업 내용을 간단히 써주세요.

__________________________________________________________________________

Reading: Yes No (circle one) If yes, what did you learn? 읽기 수업에 참여한 적이 있다면 수업

내용을 간단히 써주세요.

__________________________________________________________________________

Writing: Yes No (circle one) If yes, what did you learn? 쓰기 수업에 참여한 적이 있다면 수업

내용을 간단히 써주세요.

__________________________________________________________________________

7. Which of these have you done in English? (Check all that apply) 다음 중 어떤 것을 영어로

해보셨나요? (해당 사항을 모두 체크해 주세요.)

Debating ___ Presentations ___ Role Play ___ Interviews ___ Narration ___

Online chatting ___ Writing Essays____ Writing Email_____

Other: ___________________________

8. What are your plans for the future? What job would you like? 졸업후의 계획은 무엇입니까? 어떤

직업을 갖고 싶습니까?

__________________________________________________________________________

9. Why are you learning English? Please, list three reasons. 영어를 배우는 이유를 세가지 써주세요.

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

10. What parts of English do you have the most confidence in? Rank the following in order (1=most

confidence, 8=least confidence) 어떤 영어 영역에 가장 자신이 있습니까? 자신 있는 순서대로

(1=가장 자신있음, 8=가장 자신없음).

Vocabulary ( ) Grammar ( ) Reading ( ) Pronunciation ( )

Speaking ( ) Listening ( ) Writing ( ) Test preparation ( )

11. What expectations do you have in the GEP class this semester? 이번 학기 GEP 수업에 기대하는 것은

무엇입니까? 구체적으로 생각해서 적어주세요.

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

12. What are the things that you would like to do in this GEP class? GEP 수업에서 특별히 했으면

하는 것을 고르세요. 여러 개 골라도 좋습니다.

( ) grammar practice ( ) games/fun activities ( ) pronunciation drills

( ) role play/skits(역할극) ( ) using audio tapes ( ) vocabulary activities

( ) watching videos or movie clips ( ) discussions ( ) using Internet materials

( ) story writing ( ) writing poetry ( ) writing email

( ) writing essay ( ) writing a resume ( ) writing business documents

( ) others

13. What kinds of topics are you interested in? (order of importance) 관심 있는 주제를 골라보세요.

(좋아하는 순서대로)

language learning ( ), study abroad ( ), jobs & career ( ), campus life ( ), travel ( ),

celebrities ( ), shopping ( ), leisure activities ( ), food(cooking) ( ), fashion ( ), friends ( ),

dating/relationships ( ), family ( ), sports ( ), holidays ( ), social issues ( ), games ( ),

technology ( ), movies ( ), cartoons ( ), art ( ), music ( ), others

14. Is English your friend or enemy? 영어는 당신의 친구입니까, 적입니까?

Friend -----1----------------2----------------3----------------4----------------5-------� Enemy

15. I think I am good at English. 나는 영어를 잘한다고 생각한다.

(1=정말 그렇다, 5=전혀 그렇지 않다.)

1 (strongly agree)------2-------------3--------------4-----------5 (strongly disagree)

16. How would you rate your English reading proficiency? 당신의 영어 독해 능력이 정도라고

생각하시나요? (e.g. rudimentary 하, moderate 중, commanding 상)

_____________________________________________________

17. How would you rate your current English speaking proficiency? 당신의 영어 회화 실력이

어느정도라고 생각하시나요? (e.g. rudimentary 하, moderate 중, commanding 상)

18. How would you rate your current English writing proficiency? 당신의 영어 쓰기 실력이

어느정도라고 생각하시나요? (e.g. rudimentary 하, moderate 중, commanding 상)

_____________________________________________________

19. Do you have any concerns about this class?

이 수업 담당 선생님께 하고 싶은 말, 수업에 대한 어떤 고민거리가 있으면 적어주세요.