Varying Classroom Input to Cater for Different Learning Styles: A Case Study

Practice

Practice

Subscribe By Email

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

by Gareth Morgan

King Faisal Academy (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)

Keywords: Academic writing, Humanism, interpersonal learners, kinaesthetic learners, learner styles, left brain learners, Multiple Intelligences, right brain learners, syllabus design, Total Physical Response

Abstract

The paper’s focus is the preferred means of learning of students on an academic writing course at the National University of Singapore. The study’s findings come from a questionnaire completed by a cohort of 53 students which asked for responses to 22 prompts with regard to how effective and enjoyable the various means of the course input were. The results show that while some traditional teacher-led classroom activities cater to some students’ preferred means of learning, other means should feature more prominently on the syllabus, such as activities promoting student:student interaction.

Introduction

The Centre for English Language Communication (CELC) has the role of developing the English language skills of the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) undergraduate and postgraduate students for academic purposes. One such English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course, ES1102, aims to improve undergraduate students’ academic writing. Input is comprised of 2 two-hour sessions per week over a 12-week period. The majority of the classes are tutor-led instruction, which comprise 18 sessions, including testing and in-class essay writing. One-to-one consultations comprise a further 3 sessions, while students, in groups, presenting grammar points, account for another 3 sessions. The students on the course are those who obtain a ‘Band 2’ result, in the Qualifying English Test, which involves essay writing. In contrast, Band 1 students look at language at the sentence level, while Band 3 students are exempt from EAP courses.

ES1102 aims to equip students with academic literacy in order to cope with their academic studies. It adopts a reading-into-writing approach which uses readings as springboard texts for student writing, and provides opportunities for analysing and internalizing patterns of text organization. The main aims include the development of language skills in academic text comprehension as well as inferring intended authorial meaning, developing a thesis, offering evidence, recognizing others’ views, synthesising and integrating information into essays, and organizing and structuring essays, with an emphasis on grammatical accuracy, in order to explain and/or persuade. The learner outcomes are as follows:

Applying grammar items accurately in compound and complex sentences at the paragraph level
Applying cohesive devices
Applying formal academic lexis
Writing effective topic sentences with the provision of supporting evidence
Composing logically-organized and coherent academic essays
Revising, editing, and proof-reading language
Writing with the purpose of explaining or persuading
Summarising, synthesising, integrating and documenting source material

To help achieve these aims, the students are required to write three essays over the duration of the course after thematic input on globalization, which takes the form of newspaper and journal article and book extracts, is provided. The first essay takes the form of process writing, with a preliminary draft submitted for the lecturer to analyze and provide feedback before the submission of the second and final version. The second is written in class within a specific time frame in order to prepare the students for the third and final essay, which is written under examination conditions. Feedback is also provided on the second essay, with the students re-submitting an improved version, which highlights the benefits of process writing.

As well as the three essays, the syllabus in question involves groups presenting lectures on grammatical items on PowerPoint, and the correction of related errors inserted in an authentic text. The grammatical areas covered are articles, run on sentences and comma splices, sentence fragments, connectors, modals, nouns, parallel structures, prepositions, pronouns, word forms, subject/verb agreement, modal verbs, and verb forms.

Classroom input tends to focus on certain types of learners, namely the auditory and visual types, with the lecturer being the focus of attention. This is despite the retention rate of the information disseminated, while initially holding at 45% three to four days after a lecture, dropping to 24% after 8 weeks (Menges, 1988). This traditional linear lecturing style dominated by the teacher talking, or the students taking the role of the teacher, can prevent students from achieving their potential, as the global learner doesn’t enjoy the experience and disengages (Rose, 2000).

However, this linear style predominates despite Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences theory, as illustrated in Smith (1996, p.52-53), grouping abilities as: linguistic, visual, musical, logical/mathematical, bodily/feeling (kinaesthetic), interpersonal (contact with other people) and intrapersonal (understanding oneself). Gardner claims that individuals have all seven intelligences in various autonomous proportions, and Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer and Bjork (2008) agree, claiming that it is beneficial to cater for these abilities. Hainer (1990), in support of this belief, states that to be academically successful, it is imperative that input is accessible to all students with their various intelligences catered for, in order to avoid a mismatch between the learners’ intelligences and the learning experience provided (Reid, 1987; Smith, 1996). It also makes more efficient use of the time spent learning (Cohen 1984), and prevents a reduction in the potential benefits of instruction (Bialystok, 1985).

Method

Kinaesthetic input

Ellis (1995) claims that kinaesthetic intelligence can lead “…to better comprehension, production and enhanced motivation” (p.88), while Peacock (2001) advocates implementing Total Physical Response (TPR) activities as his research discovered that this was one of Hong Kong university students’ preferred means of learning.

On the course in question, I conducted two such activities with my three classes. The first involves students moving their arms in an agreed fashion according to set criteria, depending on whether a given word is a noun, verb or adjective, as illustrated below:

The same activity is then conducted regarding the countability of nouns. The second activity has the pictures of a process being distributed, with the students standing in order from the start of the process to the end, having negotiated the order with their peers. This is to provide practice of the passive voice, having analysed its use in a text; the passive being an essential grammatical feature of academic writing (Coxhead & Byrd, 2007). Making the input learner centred means students taking more responsibility, which results in more effective learning than in a classroom with a traditional lecture-based approach (Felder, 2011).

Interpersonal input

I also conducted interpersonal activities on the same course for learners who appreciate group work and can maximise their learning through interaction and cooperation, as Coan (1999) claims that this results in an improvement in implicit knowledge, as measured by performance during free production tasks. Furthermore, accuracy in the use of problematic grammatical features, such as articles, also improves (Ellis, 2002), and awareness of the forms becomes longer –lasting (Spada, 1997). Such an approach is utilized when the focus is on the use of relative clauses, a grammatical feature covered in order to improve coherence and cohesion in essay writing, whilst avoiding repetition. Keck (2006) also comments on the fact that mastering relative clauses means restructuring content to help avoid plagiarism, a valid concern on the course in question.

This is a humanistic student-centred, non-testing methodology balancing presentation and practice, using texts which contextualise problematic language features beyond the sentence level. There is also a balance between theory and practical application because “language learning does not occur as a result of the transmission of facts” (Cives-Enriques, 2003, p. 253). Therefore, activities are chosen to engage students cognitively and emotionally. For example, the previously mentioned lesson on relative clauses, based on Connolly (2007), asks students for their opinions on this newspaper article, as opposed to the setting of comprehension questions.

Contextualization

Having provided mental stimulation, the focus of the lesson on relative clauses then moves on to the logical analysis of the contextualised target structure in the unit’s authentic text. With contextualization, Fotos (1994) comments on it raising awareness, with learners becoming more cognizant of their communication post-input, which is essential for language acquisition. Ellis (1995, p. 88) agrees, stating that when learners attempt to comprehend the “targeted structure in the input” by “paying attention to linguistic features and meanings,” language intake occurs, while Nunan (1998) claims that correct grammatical choices can only be made with reference to the context and the purpose of the communication. Therefore, with reference to the previously mentioned lesson on relative clauses, the final input stage before the language is practiced involves the analysis of the target language with partner/s. Following this, the students are re-seated in order to confirm or reformulate the relevant grammatical rules before providing plenary feedback for discussion. See Appendix A for the lesson.

Bolitho, as cited in Tomlinson (2003, p. 422), claims that “The minefield of real texts”, which are authentic in nature, as well as providing a context for language analysis, should be used because of their capacity to promote informal learning:

In real communication…language hardly ever exists at single sentence level, and meaning can only be successfully decoded by understanding the complex web of patterns in written and spoken discourse…until learners are given the opportunity to grapple with these complexities, it is unlikely that they will emerge from their language courses prepared for the encounter with real language.

Batstone concurs saying that “larger stretches of discourse…which go beyond the single sentence” should be used, and using these, in tandem with affectively involving tasks, “will lead to greater motivation” (1996, p. 273), such as asking for responses to the input, which is relevant to the students’ lives. This provides exposure to the maximum amount of language, which, in turn, leads to natural acquisition (Mares, 2003).

Learning preferences

The focus of the study is the analysis of students’ preferred means of learning and to determine if our course input should take into consideration the participants’ learning preferences. Consequently, supplementary material, as previously exemplified, was provided in order to focus on the interpersonal and kinaesthetic means of learning, to ensure auditory and visual input featured less prominently.

Data collection

The findings are from a questionnaire completed by a cohort of 52 students from the three courses I taught, completed at the end of the ES1102 academic writing course in question, which asked for responses to 22 prompts on the Likert scale regarding how effective and enjoyable the course input was.

Participants

The students who completed the questionnaire in the final week of the course were from four faculties, with the majority from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Science, Engineering and Business were the other faculties represented. A range of languages and cultural backgrounds were also represented. Of the 5 nationalities, the majority were Singaporean, with students also from Vietnam, China, Malaysia and Indonesia. With regard to mother tongue, Chinese dialects predominated with the other languages being Bahasa, Tamil and Vietnamese, as well as a solitary native English speaker. The students were evenly divided with regard to sex, with there being slightly more females than males; 27 compared to 25.

Data analysis

The students responded to prompts on how effective and enjoyable the course activities were, with the respondents (strongly) agreeing, (strongly) disagreeing or taking a neutral standpoint with regard to a total of 22 prompts (see Appendix B). There was a focus on whether the input was enjoyable, because, as Cives-Enriques (2003) states, “if students of any discipline enjoy what they are doing, they will at least make the effort to learn” (p. 240), and, according to Tomlinson, Hill and Masuhara (2000), will devote “energy and attention to the learning process” (p. xi).

Results

Quantitative data

Interpersonal and kinaesthetic input is focussed on in order to determine the perceived effectiveness of these forms of supplementary input, and whether such material should be integrated into the syllabus in question. For ease of analysis, the Agree and Strongly Agree responses have been amalgamated, as have the Disagree and Strongly Disagreeresponses.

The students were receptive to the supplementary forms of input, though the responses were far more positive for the interpersonal activities than for the kinaesthetic activities. For example, 84% believed that Participating in lessons was Effective, followed closely by 83% for Working with classmates. The only activity which reached double figures for dissatisfaction was Walking around the classroom, at 17% for being Effective and 13% for being Enjoyable. With reference to “enjoying” the input, again, the figures revealed a high degree of satisfaction, peaking at 83% for both Working with classmates and Doing something instead of just listening. The percentages for the activities involving these two forms of input are shown in Table 1 below.

Effective (48 responses)			Are the following effective/enjoyable? (Responses as %)	Enjoyable (53 responses)
1	2	3		1	2	3
83	13	04	Working with classmates	83	11	06
84	10	06	Participating	79	15	06
79	12	09	Doing something instead of just listening	83	09	08
79	13	08	Working in pairs/small groups	79	13	08
77	15	08	Completing a given task with classmates	77	17	06
77	17	06	Problem solving	75	17	08
78	13	09	Participating in group work	72	21	07
65	29	06	Organizing paper	64	25	11
54	29	17	Walking around the classroom	70	17	13
77	19	04	Participating in discussions	77	17	06
71	22	07	Listening to classmates	73	17	10
69	25	06	Contributing ideas in group work	72	23	05
74.5	18	7.5	Average	71	20	09
1 = (Strongly) Agree \| 2 = Neutral \| 3 = (Strongly) Disagree

Table 1: Responses to the 12 prompts on interpersonal and kinaesthetic activities

Compared to the findings in Table 2, which has the results for teacher-led activities, it is clear from the data that interpersonal and kinaesthetic activities were perceived to be, on the whole, more effective and enjoyable than teacher-led instruction. On average, with regard to the former, 74.5% believed the input to be effective, with 71% coming to the conclusion that it was enjoyable. In comparison, for teacher-lead instruction, the respective totals were 71% and 67%

Effective (48 responses)			Are the following effective/enjoyable? (Responses as %)	Enjoyable (53 responses)
1	2	3		1	2	3
80	16	04	The lecturer explaining	74	11	15
66	17	17	Reading the lecturer’s notes	51	19	30
80	14	06	Listening to the lecturer	77	15	08
54	36	10	Working alone	43	38	19
75	16	09	Watching TV/videos	87	05	08
62	22	16	Listening to CDs etc	62	29	09
69	25	06	Reading material other than the lecture notes	64	23	13
80	10	10	Having time to think	87	05	08
66	25	09	Presenting	62	29	09
71	20	09	Taking notes	62	27	11
71	20	09	*Average*	67	20	13
1 = (Strongly) Agree \| 2 = Neutral \| 3 = (Strongly) Disagree

Table 2: Responses to the 10 prompts on teacher-led instruction

The data, which is provided in its entirety from Appendix C to Appendix H, has also been broken down into the following categories; faculty, gender, country of secondary education, mother tongue, and highest English qualification, with the results being equally impressive across the categories.

Results based on faculty

A large majority of the students were from Social Science, with 37 of the students in this faculty. The remaining 15 were from Science, Engineering and Business.

For Social Scientists, the percentages for the intrapersonal and kinaesthetic supplementary input were higher for being both Effective and Enjoyable than for the teacher-led input, as shown by the total percentages in Table 3. This is despite 88% regarding Having time to think as being Effective, and 86% regarding it as being Enjoyable, the highest percentages amongst all the statements. This can be partly explained as Reading the lecturers’ notes fared poorly with 29% not regarding this form of classroom input as being Enjoyable. Similarly, only slightly more than half of the respondents enjoyed Working alone, while, in contrast, there was much more positive feedback for the interpersonal input, such as Working with classmates (80%). A complete breakdown of the data is provided in Appendix C:

Table 3: Faculty of Social Science Responses

The effect of gender

Regarding gender, the students were equally divided, with there being 27 females and 25 males.

Female students were very positive with 96% stating that Working with classmates, and 92% claiming that Working in pairs / small groups and Participating in group work were effective. Consequently, negative responses were limited, with the most negative being for Reading the lecturers’ notes, though, even here, only 15% did not enjoy doing this.

The feedback from male students showed less of a preference for the interpersonal and kinaesthetic supplementary input, with teacher-centred input being regarded as Effective, such as The lecturer explaining, with Watching TV being the most enjoyed classroom activity. Having said that, overall, the averages did not favour Teacher-led input due to the negative feedback for other features of this methodology. The data is tabulated in Appendices D and E.

Effective			Female Responses Are the following effective/enjoyable? (Responses as %)	Enjoyable
1	2	3		1	2	3
82	13	05	Interpersonal and kinaesthetic supplementary input	76	17	07
76	19	05	Teacher-led input	74	18	08
Effective			Male Responses Are the following effective/enjoyable? (Responses as %)	Enjoyable
1	2	3		1	2	3
67	23	10	Interpersonal and kinaesthetic supplementary input	63	27	10
67	21	12	Teacher-led input	66	18	16
1 = (Strongly) Agree \| 2 = Neutral \| 3 = (Strongly) Disagree

Table 4: Responses According to Gender

The consequences of the students’ country of secondary education

Singapore was most students’ country of secondary education, with 40 receiving their preuniversity education on the island. China, Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia were the other countries represented.

Table 5: Responses from Singapore Secondary School Students

Though Interpersonal and kinaesthetic supplementary input and Teacher-led input for students who underwent secondary school in Singapore were similar with regard to their effectiveness, there was a notable difference in the feedback for how enjoyable the two forms of input were, with the former being found to be more popular. Teacher-ledinput was less popular with every activity, apart from Having time to think, being in double figures with regard to not being enjoyed.

Replies categorized by mother tongue

‘Chinese’ as a mother tongue dominated, with 45 respondents’ L1 being Mandarin or a

Chinese dialect. The other replies were led by Bahasa with 4 native speakers, with one reply each for Tamil, Vietnamese and, surprisingly, English. This is why the focus is on the native Chinese (dialect) speakers in the data analysis, which is provided in detail in Appendix G.

Table 6: Native Chinese Speakers’ Responses

For ‘Chinese’ speakers, the percentages for Effectiveness were extremely similar, though, again, the Interpersonal and kinaesthetic supplementary material was found to be more Enjoyable by this group of students. For example, 87% enjoyed Working with classmates, with the least enjoyable input being Reading the lecturers’ notes at 29%.

The effect of English qualifications

The highest English qualification for 50% of the undergraduates was ‘A’ level, with the other half being comprised of a preponderance of replies, some of which were vague, such as

Diploma, and n/a. Consequently, only the ‘A’ level replies have been analysed, comprising approximately half of the cohort, with a thorough breakdown of the responses provided in Appendix H.

Table 7: ‘A’ Level Students’ Responses

Students with English ‘A’ level responded similarly to ‘Chinese’ speakers. Participating, at 84%, was regarded as being the most effective activity, with the least enjoyed forms of input being Reading the lecturers notes (38%) and Working alone (27%).

Qualitative data

As well as quantitative data, qualitative data was also collected under the heading of

‘Comments’. Unfortunately, only 8 participants took the opportunity to provide feedback on the course, but, on the positive side, 5 of the students claimed to have benefitted from it, as shown below:

“I feel that I have learned a lot of knowledge”.
“I feel that this module is helpful in improving my English writing and communication skills and it’s totally worthwhile to select this module in the first semester of my first academic year in NUS in order to improve my English”.
“Tutor was effective in engaging our attention”. iv.“Improved use of English language tremendously”.
“The class has been very enjoyable and fun to attend”.

However, one student did express a desire for more focus on grammar, while another student lamented the fact that an improvement in her English was limited due to lexical issues:

“Vocabulary is the major problem prevent improvement of English”.

Discussion

The supplementary interpersonal and kinaesthetic activities which were included had extremely positive responses for being both effective and enjoyable, with interpersonal activities receiving the more favourable feedback by far. Consequently, I plan to continue with interpersonal activities due to the results of the feedback, and Mazur (2009)’s findings that spending class time on discussions and peer interactions, as well as giving students time to think, results in learning gains tripling. I shall also continue to implement kinaesthetic material, though not to the extent of interpersonal material, as Reid (1987) regards learning habits as not being intractable, with many individuals being able to modify theirs.

It should also be noted that excessive generalising of students should be avoided in order to overcome misconceptions and prevent stereotyping. Peacock (2001), for example, discovered that variables existed according to faculty and year of study, for instance. Prevention, he continues, can be achieved by providing a variety of forms of input to accommodate the various learning styles, which is another reason why I will continue to vary my classroom activities.

In conclusion, while certain features of the ES1102 course do focus on some respondents’ preferred means of learning, there needs to be more of a focus on interpersonal input, with kinaesthetic activities also featuring due to the various learner styles needing to be catered for as a consequence of people having all seven intelligences in various proportions (Gardner (1983), as cited in Scrivener (2005, p. 64)). According to Reid (1987), students who employ multiple learning styles achieve greater success with their language learning, and this can take place if the students are exposed to the various types. In contrast, failure to match the teacher’s teaching style to the students’ learning styles can lead to demotivation and frustration, and, unsurprisingly, has a negative effect on learning (Peacock, 2001).

The different types of learning styles should be borne in mind when developing syllabi in every context in order to avoid failing to improve students’ linguistic accuracy and complexity. Therefore, the lecturer should limit the amount of time spent being the focus of attention by limiting the amount of time spent lecturing, and instead, as illustrated, implement an approach ensuring students’ active participation and student:student interaction, as well as introducing cognitively and emotionally engaging tasks.

The next stage of the research involves repeating the process with another cohort, with the collection of more detailed qualitative data.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the course coordinators for allowing the survey to be conducted and for the ES1102 background information and course rationale, and Dr Deng Xudong and Soong Swee Kit, Alan for their guidance.

References

Batstone, R. (1996). Key concepts in ELT: Noticing. ELT Journal, 50(3), 273.

Bialystok, E. (1985). The compatibility of teaching and learning strategies. Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 255-261.

Bolitho, R. (2003). Materials for language awareness. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 422-425). London, United Kingdom: Continuum.

Cives-Enriques, R-M. (2003). Materials for adults: ‘I am no good at languages!’ – Inspiring and motivating L2 adult learners of beginner’s Spanish. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 239-255). London, United Kingdom: Continuum.

Coan, S. (Ed.) (1999). The best of intelligences activities from teacher created materials. Westminster, CA: Teacher Created Materials, Inc.

Cohen, A. (1984). Studying second-language learning strategies: How do we get the information? Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 101-112.

Connolly, K. (2007, August 3). Made in China: Swiss army knife suffers an identity crisis. The Guardian. Retrieved from The Guardian database.

Coxhead, A. & Byrd, P. (2007). Preparing writing teachers to teach the vocabulary and grammar of academic prose. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 129–147.

Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge?

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223–236.

Ellis, R. (1995) Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 88.

Felder, R.M. (2011). Hang in there! Dealing with student resistance to learner-centered teaching. Chemical Engineering Journal, 45(2), 131-132.

Fotos, S.S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness- raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: Theory of multiple intelligences. New York City, NY: Basic Books.

Hainer, E.V. (1990). Integrating learning styles and skills in the ESL classroom: An approach to lesson planning. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, 2 (Summer).

Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: a comparison of L1 and L2 writers: Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 261-277.

Mares, C. (2003). Writing a coursebook. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 130-140). London, United Kingdom: Continuum.

Mazur, E. (2009) Farewell, Lecture? Science, 323(50), 50-51.

Menges, R.J. (1988). Research on teaching and learning: The relevant and the redundant. Review of Higher Education, 11, 259-268.

Nunan, D. (1998). Teaching grammar in context. ELT Journal, 52(2), 101-108.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.

Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 01-20.

Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87-111.

Rose, C. (2000). Master it faster. London, United Kingdom: The Industrial Society.

Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning teaching. Oxford, United Kingdom: Macmillan Education.

Smith, A. (1996). Accelerated learning in the classroom. Stafford, Network Educational Press.

Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 29, 1– 15.

Tomlinson, B., Hill, D. & Masuhara, H. (2000).English for life. Singapore, Singapore: Times Media Private Limited.

Appendix A

Relative Clauses

Discuss the following with your partner

What do people think of when they think of Singapore and/or your country? How about Switzerland?
Do you buy copies/fakes/pirated goods? What? When? Where? How often? Why? Is it illegal?
What does your country import/export? If you had a choice, would you buy something made in your country, rather than a cheaper import?
What does ‘WTO’ mean to you?

Pre-listening: Discuss the following with your partner

What is a Swiss Army Knife?
Which jobs would find it useful?
What features does it have?
What (else) do you think of when you think of Switzerland?

Listening http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50dHXiKn –vg

Tell your partner what Craig Ferguson says about the above questions?

Reading http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2140969,00.html

Please read the article and answer questions 2 to 4 above. Compare your answers with your partner?

Post reading: Tell your partner your answers to the following:

Do you think it should be made in Switzerland?
Do you think it is a weapon? Do you think it is a work of art?
What do you think about this World Trade Organisation law?

Grammar: Relative Clauses – a guide

1. A soldier is a person	who that	kills or protects people for a living, depending on your point of view.
2. A Swiss Army Knife is an object	that which	is very handy.
3. The Swiss Guard are people	 that who whom	the Pope sees every day.
4. German-made chocolate is a product	 that	the Swiss don’t like.
	which
5. A lawyer is a person	whose	job is well-paid.
6. New York is a place	where	you can see many tourist attractions.
7. The Swiss Guard,	who	wear colourful uniforms, protect the Pope.
8. New York,	which	is in the USA, is named after the English city, York.

Can you work out when the zero (  ) pronouns can be used?
What do you notice about sentences 5 and 6?
What is the difference between sentences 7 and 8, and the first 6?

Defining Relative Clauses – The Rules

The relative pronoun can be the subject or object.

Subject	Object
People Who, that	People Who, that, whom, o, whose (can’t be omitted)
Things Which, that	Things Which, that, o where, when (can’t be omitted)
A verb follows the relative pronoun	A (pro)noun comes between the relative pronoun and the verb

Defining and Non-Defining Relative Clauses

Defining Clauses Non-defining Clauses

Giving essential information	Gives extra information
No commas	2 commas (or a comma and a full stop)
Who, which, where, whom, whose, that, o	Who, which, where, whom, whose
The relative pronoun as object of relative clause can be omitted	The relative pronoun cannot be omitted
Spoken and written	Written

Complete the prompts provided, and tell your partner the sentence without mentioning the words. Your partner, who has different words, will try and guess your words, while you guess his/hers. For example, ‘this is a person who tries to make people laugh’.



Student A

Germany

Swiss Army Knife

A surgeon

A USB stick

Taiwan

A nail file

An astronaut



Student B

The Museum of Modern Art

The WTO

A comedian

Muesli

China

A corkscrew

A pirate

Appendix B

A Questionnaire on Learning

Please complete the following:

Faculty
Mother Tongue
Country of Secondary Education
Male/Female
Highest English Qualification

Please complete the Response sections of the table by inserting a number between 1 and 3 in both the Effectiveand Enjoyable columns with regard to classroom based English language instruction, where:

1 = Strongly agree2 = Agree 3 = Neutral 4 = Disagree 5= Strongly disagree

Response: Effective	No.	Statement	Response: Enjoyable

	1	The lecturer explaining
	2	Working with classmates
	3	Participating
	4	Reading the lecturer’s notes
	5	Listening to the lecturer
	6	Doing something instead of just listening
	7	Working in pairs/small groups
	8	*Working alone
	9	Completing a given task with classmates
	10	Watching TV/videos
	11	Problem solving
	12	Listening to CDs etc
	13	Participatingin group work
	14	Reading material other than the lecture notes
	15	Organizing paper
	16	Having time to think
	17	Walking around the classroom
	18	Presenting
	19	Participating in discussions
	20	Taking notes
	21	Listening to classmates
	22	Contributing ideas in group work

Comments:

Feel free to continue your comments on the other side of the paper

Appendix C

Faculty of Social Science Responses

*Effective Interpersonal and Kinaesthetic ActivitiesEnjoyable*
1	2	3	*Are the following effective/enjoyable?* (Responses as %)	1	2	3
81	13	06	Working with classmates	80	11	09
84	10	06	Participating	75	16	09
80	10	10	Doing something instead of just listening	88	06	06
77	13	10	Working in pairs/small groups	78	11	11
80	10	10	Completing a given task with classmates	78	13	09
81	13	06	Problem solving	77	17	06
74	13	13	Participating in group work	70	19	11
71	19	10	Organizing paper	65	24	11
65	20	15	Walking around the classroom	76	11	13
84	10	06	Participating in discussions	75	16	09
77	17	06	Listening to classmates	84	05	11
68	27	05	Contributing ideas in group work	78	11	11
*1 = (Strongly) Agree 2 = Neutral 3 = (Strongly) Disagree*
*Effective Teacher-lead instruction Enjoyable*
1	2	3	*Are the following effective/enjoyable?* (Responses as %)	1	2	3
75	18	07	The lecturer explaining	70	14	16
69	15	16	Reading the lecturer’s notes	57	14	29
71	12	17	Listening to the lecturer	78	11	11
64	21	15	Working alone	54	32	14
70	18	12	Watching TV/videos	86	03	11
81	12	07	Listening to CDs etc	70	22	08
76	17	07	Reading material other than the lecture notes	70	19	11
88	–	12	Having time to think	86	03	11
69	19	12	Presenting	70	19	11
75	16	09	Taking notes	62	27	11
			*1 = (Strongly) Agree 2 = Neutral 3 = (Strongly) Disagree*

Appendix D

Responses According to Gender: Females

*Effective Interpersonal and Kinaesthetic ActivitiesEnjoyable*
1	2	3	*Are the following effective/enjoyable?* (Responses as %)	1	2	3
96	04	00	Working with classmates	89	07	04
83	13	04	Participating	82	11	07
82	09	09	Doing something instead of just listening	89	04	07
92	04	04	Working in pairs/small groups	85	11	04
82	09	09	Completing a given task with classmates	82	11	07
82	09	09	Problem solving	70	19	11
92	04	04	Participating in group work	85	11	04
70	26	04	Organizing paper	74	19	07
65	26	09	Walking around the classroom	74	15	11
79	17	04	Participating in discussions	86	07	07
79	17	04	Listening to classmates	81	15	04
79	17	04	Contributing ideas in group work	86	07	07
*1 = (Strongly) Agree 2 = Neutral 3 = (Strongly) Disagree*
*Effective Teacher-lead instruction Enjoyable*
1	2	3	*Are the following effective/enjoyable?* (Responses as %)	1	2	3
76	20	04	The lecturer explaining	74	15	11
74	22	04	Reading the lecturer’s notes	63	22	15
87	09	04	Listening to the lecturer	82	11	07
48	48	04	Working alone	48	45	07
70	22	08	Watching TV/videos	89	04	07
74	22	04	Listening to CDs etc	78	15	07
83	09	08	Reading material other than the lecture notes	78	11	11
87	09	04	Having time to think	92	04	04
74	22	04	Presenting	74	22	04
87	09	04	Taking notes	63	33	04
*1 = (Strongly) Agree 2 = Neutral 3 = (Strongly) Disagree*

Appendix E

Responses According to Gender: Males

71	17	12	Working in pairs/small groups	72	16	12
71	21	08	Completing a given task with classmates	72	24	04
78	17	05	Problem solving	76	16	08
71	17	12	Participating in group work	60	28	12
59	33	08	Organizing paper	48	36	16
50	29	21	Walking around the classroom	68	16	16
74	21	05	Participating in discussions	72	20	08
65	23	12	Listening to classmates	64	24	12
63	29	08	Contributing ideas in group work	56	36	08
*1 = (Strongly) Agree 2 = Neutral 3 = (Strongly) Disagree*
*Effective Teacher-lead instruction Enjoyable*
1	2	3	*Are the following effective/enjoyable?* (Responses as %)	1	2	3
88	08	04	The lecturer explaining	76	04	20
62	17	21	Reading the lecturer’s notes	36	20	44
83	13	04	Listening to the lecturer	76	16	08
54	17	29	Working alone	44	28	28
74	18	08	Watching TV/videos	84	08	08
50	29	21	Listening to CDs etc	52	36	12
59	37	04	Reading material other than the lecture notes	52	32	16
74	13	13	Having time to think	80	08	12
63	29	08	Presenting	52	32	16
60	29	11	Taking notes	60	20	20
*1 = (Strongly) Agree 2 = Neutral 3 = (Strongly) Disagree*

Appendix F

Singapore Secondary School Students’ Responses

*Effective Interpersonal and Kinaesthetic ActivitiesEnjoyable*
1	2	3	*Are the following effective/enjoyable?* (Responses as %)	1	2	3
83	12	05	Working with classmates	86	07	07
86	09	05	Participating	78	15	07
76	12	12	Doing something instead of just listening	87	03	10
76	12	12	Working in pairs/small groups	83	07	10
79	09	12	Completing a given task with classmates	78	15	07
75	16	09	Problem solving	73	20	07
72	14	14	Participating in group work	73	17	10
59	32	09	Organizing paper	61	24	15
59	25	16	Walking around the classroom	73	12	15
75	20	05	Participating in discussions	73	17	10
66	25	09	Listening to classmates	75	17	08
72	19	09	Contributing ideas in group work	75	20	05
*1 = (Strongly) Agree 2 = Neutral 3 = (Strongly) Disagree*
*Effective Teacher-lead instruction Enjoyable*
1	2	3	*Are the following effective/enjoyable?* (Responses as %)	1	2	3
78	17	05	The lecturer explaining	70	10	20
58	28	14	Reading the lecturer’s notes	45	20	35
83	12	05	Listening to the lecturer	78	12	10
53	31	16	Working alone	45	35	20
72	16	12	Watching TV/videos	83	07	10
64	20	16	Listening to CDs etc	60	28	12
72	23	05	Reading material other than the lecture notes	68	20	12
82	09	09	Having time to think	88	05	07
66	25	09	Presenting	65	23	12
69	20	11	Taking notes	55	33	12
			*1 = (Strongly) Agree 2 = Neutral 3 = (Strongly) Disagree*

Appendix G

Native Chinese Speakers’ Responses

*Effective Interpersonal and Kinaesthetic ActivitiesEnjoyable*
1	2	3	*Are the following effective/enjoyable?* (Responses as %)	1	2	3
83	10	07	Working with classmates	87	09	04
85	10	05	Participating	74	19	07
73	17	10	Doing something instead of just listening	80	11	09
83	07	10	Working in pairs/small groups	84	09	07
73	17	10	Completing a given task with classmates	73	20	07
86	07	07	Problem solving	74	19	07
78	12	10	Participating in group work	78	13	09
64	29	07	Organizing paper	60	29	11
58	27	15	Walking around the classroom	74	15	11
74	21	05	Participating in discussions	80	11	09
70	20	10	Listening to classmates	76	13	11
73	20	07	Contributing ideas in group work	73	20	07
*1 = (Strongly) Agree 2 = Neutral 3 = (Strongly) Disagree*
*Effective Teacher-lead instruction Enjoyable*
1	2	3	*Are the following effective/enjoyable?* (Responses as %)	1	2	3
83	12	05	The lecturer explaining	69	13	18
66	22	12	Reading the lecturer’s notes	51	20	29
85	10	05	Listening to the lecturer	76	15	09
49	36	15	Working alone	47	35	18
73	17	10	Watching TV/videos	87	04	09
66	22	12	Listening to CDs etc	64	25	11
71	22	07	Reading material other than the lecture notes	69	18	13
88	07	05	Having time to think	86	07	07
68	27	05	Presenting	64	29	07
72	21	07	Taking notes	58	31	11
*1 = (Strongly) Agree 2 = Neutral 3 = (Strongly) Disagree*

Appendix H

‘A’ Level Students’ Responses

74	13	13	Doing something instead of just listening	88	–	12
74	13	13	Working in pairs/small groups	80	08	12
74	13	13	Completing a given task with classmates	65	23	12
66	21	13	Problem solving	65	19	16
66	17	17	Participating in group work	65	27	08
50	37	13	Organizing paper	54	27	19
62	21	17	Walking around the classroom	68	16	16
71	21	08	Participating in discussions	65	23	12
62	30	08	Listening to classmates	65	23	12
70	17	13	Contributing ideas in group work	65	23	12
*1 = (Strongly) Agree 2 = Neutral 3 = (Strongly) Disagree*
*Effective Teacher-lead instruction Enjoyable*
1	2	3	*Are the following effective/enjoyable?* (Responses as %)	1	2	3
79	13	08	The lecturer explaining	65	19	16
58	21	21	Reading the lecturer’s notes	38	24	38
79	08	13	Listening to the lecturer	76	12	12
53	34	13	Working alone	38	35	27
75	17	08	Watching TV/videos	88	04	08
62	17	21	Listening to CDs etc	57	27	16
66	26	08	Reading material other than the lecture notes	65	23	12
79	08	13	Having time to think	84	4	12
59	33	08	Presenting	57	31	12
66	21	13	Taking notes	62	19	19

1 = (Strongly) Agree 2 = Neutral 3 = (Strongly) Disagree

About the author

Gareth Morgan has been teaching for over 20 years. He has taught in Turkey, England, Thailand, Vietnam, and Singapore. Currently, he is working in Saudi Arabia. As well as the topic covered, he is interested in materials development and pronunciation.

Effective

Are the following effective/enjoyable?

(Responses as %)

Enjoyable

Interpersonal and kinaesthetic supplementary input

Teacher-led input

1 = (Strongly) Agree | 2 = Neutral | 3 = (Strongly) Disagree