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

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 longerlasting (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:

 

Effective Are the following effective/enjoyable?

(Responses as %)

Enjoyable
1 2 3 1 2 3
76 15 09 Interpersonal and kinaesthetic supplementary input 77 14 09
74 14 12 Teacher-led input 70 17 13
1 = (Strongly) Agree | 2 = Neutral | 3 = (Strongly) Disagree

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.

 

Effective Are the following effective/enjoyable?

(Responses as %)

Enjoyable
1 2 3 1 2 3
73 17 10 Interpersonal and kinaesthetic supplementary input 76 15 09
72 18 10 Teacher-led input 66 19 15
1 = (Strongly) Agree | 2 = Neutral | 3 = (Strongly) Disagree

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.

 

Effective Are the following effective/enjoyable?

(Responses as %)

Enjoyable
1 2 3 1 2 3
75 16 09 Interpersonal and kinaesthetic supplementary input 76 16 08
74 18 08 Teacher-led input 67 20 13
1 = (Strongly) Agree | 2 = Neutral | 3 = (Strongly) Disagree

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.

 

Effective Are the following effective/enjoyable?

(Responses as %)

Enjoyable
1 2 3 1 2 3
69 19 12 Interpersonal and kinaesthetic supplementary input 70 18 12
69 19 12 Teacher-led input 63 20 17
1 = (Strongly) Agree | 2 = Neutral | 3 = (Strongly) Disagree

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:

 

  1. “I feel that I have learned a lot of knowledge”.

  2. “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”.

  3. “Tutor was effective in engaging our attention”. iv.“Improved use of English language tremendously”.

  4. “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

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

 

Listening                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50dHXiKnvg

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

 

Practice                

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
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
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
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
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

Effective Interpersonal and Kinaesthetic ActivitiesEnjoyable 
1 2 3 Are the following effective/enjoyable?

(Responses as %)

1 2
74 21 05 Working with classmates 80 12 08
59 23 18 Participating 60 28  12
71 21 08 Doing something instead of just listening 76 16 08

 

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
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
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
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
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
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

Effective Interpersonal and Kinaesthetic ActivitiesEnjoyable 
1 2 3 Are the following effective/enjoyable?

(Responses as %)

1 2
79 13 08 Working with classmates 80 12 08
84 08 08 Participating 80 12 08

 

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
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.

Leave a Reply