Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MASARYK UNIVERSITY
Faculty of Education
THE LEXICAL APPROACH IN
STORY-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING
Diploma Thesis
Brno 2016
Alice Bolcková
MASARYK UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
Department of English language and literature
THE LEXICAL APPROACH IN
STORY-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING
Diploma thesis
Brno 2016
Supervisor: Author:
Mgr. Naděžda Vojtková Bc. Alice Bolcková
Bibliografický záznam
BOLCKOVÁ, Alice. The Lexical Approach in Story-based Language Teaching:
diplomová práce. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta pedagogická, Katedra
anglického jazyka a literatury, 2016. (96 l., 15 l. příl). Vedoucí diplomové práce Mgr.
Naděžda Vojtková.
Declaration
I hereby declare that I wrote this diploma thesis by myself and I used only the literature
which is mentioned in the bibliographical list.
Prohlašuji, že jsem diplomovou práci vypracovala samostatně, s použitím pouze
citovaných literárních pramenů, dalších informací a zdrojů v souladu s Disciplinárním
řádem pro studenty Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity a se zákonem č.
121/2000 Sb., o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o
změně některých zákonů (autorský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů.
Souhlasím, aby práce byla uložena na Masarykově univerzitě v Brně v knihovně
Pedagogické fakulty a zpřístupněna ke studijním účelům.
Brno, 21st March 2016 Alice Bolcková
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Naděžda Vojtková for her help, willingness,
patience and valuable advice through the whole work on my diploma thesis.
I would also like to thank all pupils who were willing to patiently cooperate and
participate in my research project.
Alice Bolcková
Abstract
The diploma thesis is called The Lexical Approach in Story-based Language Teaching,
and thus it will deal with a lexical method and stories in teaching children at primary
school. The aim of the work will be to explore how the lexical approach (as defined by
M. Lewis) can be implemented in the storybased English language teaching.
This thesis consists of the theoretical part which clarifies the basic terminology
concerning the lexical approach, teaching children and also the method of using stories
for ESL. The practical part is based on the storybook project carried out with children of
the primary school.
The hypothesis of this work is that children who are taught an English language within
stories accompanied by activities based on the lexical approach are able to acquire
discussed lexical items more easily and remember it for a longer time.
Anotace
Diplomová práce se nazývá Využití lexikální metody při cizojazyčné výuce založené na
příběhu. Zabývá se tak lexikální metodou a příběhy pro výuku dětí na základní škole.
Cílem práce je zjistit, jakým způsobem je možné zahrnout lexikální metodu (tak jak ji
definoval M. Lewis) do výuky anglického jazyka založené na příběhu.
Práce se skládá z teoretické části, která objasňuje základní terminologii týkající se
lexikální metody, výuky dětí a také metody využití příběhů pro výuku angličtiny jako
druhého jazyka. Praktická část je založena na projektu s knihou provedeném s dětmi ze
základní školy.
Hypotézou této práce je, že děti, které jsou vyučovány anglickému jazyku s pomocí
příběhů doprovázených aktivitami založenými na lexikální metodě, jsou schopné si
snadněji osvojit a déle pamatovat probíranou slovní zásobu.
Keywords
Lexikální metoda, slovní zásoba, příběh, čtení, kniha, aktivity
Klíčová slova
Lexical Approach, vocabulary, story, reading, a book, activities
Content 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 10
2. The theoretical part ............................................................................................................ 12
2.1 Teaching methods .......................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1 What is a teaching method? .................................................................................... 12
2.1.2 Method, approach and technique ............................................................................ 13
2.1.3 History of the teaching methods .............................................................................. 14
2.1.4 Work with the teaching methods ............................................................................. 15
2.2 The Lexical Approach ................................................................................................... 18
2.2.1 What is the Lexical Approach? ............................................................................... 18
2.2.2 Lexical items ........................................................................................................... 21
2.2.3 Principles of the Lexical Approach ......................................................................... 24
2.2.4 The role of L1 in the Lexical Approach .................................................................. 27
2.2.5 Implementing lexis in the class ............................................................................... 28
2.2.5 Activities and Exercises .......................................................................................... 33
2.2.6 Materials .................................................................................................................. 35
2.2.7 Grammar explanation and practice ......................................................................... 38
2.2.8 Responding to error ................................................................................................. 39
2.2.9 Summary ................................................................................................................. 41
2.3 The Lexical Approach used for a storybook project .................................................... 41
2.3.1 The importance of reading ...................................................................................... 42
2.3.2 L2 acquisition through reading ............................................................................... 43
2.4 Teaching English children ............................................................................................ 45
3 The practical part ................................................................................................................ 48
3.1 The aim of the research ................................................................................................. 48
3.2 The learners ................................................................................................................... 48
3.2.1 Characterization of the learners ............................................................................... 49
3.2.2 The pupils as English language learners ................................................................. 49
3.3 The book ........................................................................................................................ 50
3.3.1 The content of the book ........................................................................................... 50
3.3.2 The reasons for the book ......................................................................................... 51
3.4 Testing the progress ....................................................................................................... 51
3.5 Teaching plan ................................................................................................................ 52
3.6 Evaluation of the sources .............................................................................................. 69
3.6.1 Pedagogical journal ................................................................................................. 69
3.6.2 Output of the learners .............................................................................................. 70
3.6.3 Pre-test and post-test ............................................................................................... 72
4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 76
5 References ............................................................................................................................ 78
6 Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 82
10
1. Introduction
The human race has been attracted to stories for ages. One of the obvious
reasons for this fact is the amusing feature of the story. However, in addition to this,
there is something beyond the story itself that people took advantage of – they used
stories either as a tool for an explanation of many mysterious phenomena and everyday
activities or as a way for introduction of the moral. In other words, in the past stories
played quite an important role in people‟s lives, and also they served as a form of
entertainment.
Unfortunately, with the development of all the technical inventions, such as
televisions, radios, mobile phones, tablets, etc., and also with different people‟s
preferences, it is not true anymore. Nowadays most adults and children are interested
exclusively in these gadgets. I would dare to say that they are even getting addicted to
them. Therefore, books are becoming less and less interesting for them since there is no
movement, lack of colours and, what is more, it takes a lot of time to read them.
That is why children should be encouraged to read more. Fortunately, various
benefits of using stories for teaching English as a Second language (ESL) have been
proven, and thus teachers of English language have been using this method more and
more in the last few years.
This work was to a certain extent inspired by my bachelor thesis Using stories
in one-to-one teaching of children, for the focus of that thesis was the storybook method
together with one-to-one teaching. It was approached as a case study which investigated
whether a child (a girl) who is taught within this method reaches an improvement in
language areas such as vocabulary, speaking and grammar, and also whether this
method creates a positive attitude of the child towards reading in an English language.
As far as the results are concerned, the progress in vocabulary and grammar was not so
significant in comparison with the progress in the spontaneity connected to speaking.
With regard to the possibility to use the storybook method during one-to-one teaching,
the result is that it is feasible and it even worked very well since there was only one
pupil. Thus the entire teacher‟s attention could be paid only to the girl and her needs.
This diploma thesis will also deal with the method of using storybooks in a
classroom. However, this time the focus will be on the storybooks used simultaneously
with only one particular method – the Lexical Approach. This thesis tries to explore
11
how the Lexical Approach could be implemented in the English lessons which are based
on the storybook project. The hypothesis is that children who are taught an English
language within stories accompanied by activities based on the Lexical Approach are
able to acquire discussed lexical items more easily and remember them for a longer
time. The aim of this paper is also to explore whether it is feasible to teach a sequence
of five lessons based on the storybook project and activities typical of the Lexical
Approach.
The work consists of the theoretical part. This part includes three main
chapters. Firstly, it is a chapter dealing with teaching methods. Secondly, there is a
chapter which provides the theoretical background of principles of the Lexical
Approach. Thirdly, there is a chapter concerning primary teaching. And finally, there
are clarified some recommendations how teachers could interconnect the storybook
method with the Lexical Approach during their lessons.
Subsequently, the whole practical part is devoted to the storybook project
which is based on the principles of the Lexical Approach. The project was introduced to
children at one grammar school in Humpolec. This part also involves a teaching plan
consisting of five approximately forty-five-minute-long lesson plans. All activities in
the plan are based on the Lexical Approach and follow the plot of the chosen book.
They are supposed to encourage children to read more and also to enlarge their
vocabulary.
12
2. The theoretical part
The theoretical part consists of four main chapters. Firstly, it is a chapter called
Teaching methods. Secondly, there is a chapter dealing with The Lexical Approach.
Next chapter is dedicated to The Lexical Approach used for a storybook project, and the
final chapter is called Teaching English to children.
2.1 Teaching methods
This chapter is included in the work to provide the theoretical background
concerning brief introduction and classification of the teaching methods which are used
for teaching English language.
2.1.1 What is a teaching method?
The concept of method originates from a Greek word methodos which could be
translated as a way or procedure. Generally, it is any way which serves as a tool for
reaching our aims (Janíková, 2011, p. 166). From the didactical point of view, the
teaching methods could be understood as „ways of the intentional ordering of teachers‟
and pupils‟ activities heading towards set goals“ (Janíková, 2011, p. 166). According to
Josef Maňák, it is „an ordered system of teaching activities created by a teacher and
consequently carried on by pupils, which tries to reach set educational aims“ (2003, p.
23).
Lubomír Mojžíšek also states several definitions in his publication, for instance
by M. A. Danilov, O. Chlup, O. Kádner, G. A. Lindner or Z. Pešek (Mojžíšek, 1988).
Some of them differ less from each other, some differ more. However, they all preserve
the core. To sum up all the definitions and suggestions above, each of the above
mentioned authors presents slightly different definition. However, according to R.
Choděra, L. Ries, J. Mothejzíková, M. Hanzlíková and F. Malíř, all the authors agree on
the fact that a method is a certain way of an activity (2001, p. 66).
However, they immediately add that foreign language methods may be also
regarded from the narrower and wider point of view. From the narrower point of view,
the methods are considered to be „a specific way of a teacher and pupils‟ activities with
the help of which the pupils, under the tutelage of the teacher, are able to acquire
13
knowledge, skills and habits“. In my opinion, it is this explanation which I find most
exact, for it concretely expresses the heart. As for the wider point of view, a method is a
global and general approach to foreign language teaching, basic lingvodidactical
doctrine” (R. Choděra et al., 2001, p. 67).
2.1.2 Method, approach and technique
However, speaking about the methods, it is also necessary, apart from the term
method, clarify other two terms: approach and technique. R. Choděra, L. Ries, J.
Mothejzíková, M. Hanzlíková and F. Malíř state that these terms are rather authorial in
the Czech literature. Whereas abroad, the difference between them is much more
apparent (2001, p. 66).
For example, based on E. M. Anthony (1963, pp. 43-63), Marianne Celce-
Murcia distinguishes terms approach, method and technique in this exact order. It
implies that approach is the term standing on the top of an imaginary scale and
responds to the question „ what“ to teach. This term is followed by the term method
which is concerned with the question “how” to teach. Thus, on the one hand, this term is
much more concrete in comparison with the approach but, on the other hand, it is far
less concrete than technique which directly refers to a certain activity (2001, pp. 5-6).
There is also a theory by Jack C. Richards and Theodor S. Rodgers who, to a
certain extent, base their theory on the Anthon‟s and emphasise its future and
comprehensibility. However, on the other side, they miss there for example a mention
about the roles of a teacher and pupils or a mention about continuity between single
levels (1986, p. 16). And thus, the term method is at the first place in their view. This
term includes the term approach which provides us with a theory of the nature of
language and a theory of the nature of language learning. Afterwards, there is a term
design delimiting general and specific objectives of the method, learner roles, teacher
roles and the role of instructional materials. Finally, this theory involves the term
procedure including particular activities during a lesson - classroom techniques,
practices, and behaviour observed when the method is used (1986, p. 28). In other
words, the method is theoretically connected to the approach, the design is set from the
organization point of view and the procedure is realised practically (1986, p. 16).
14
2.1.3 History of the teaching methods
So far the teaching methods have undergone an apparent evolution. All
changes which have appeared reflected not only the historical-social conditions of
teaching and a type of a certain school, but also pupil‟s needs of those periods (Jack C.
Richards & Theodor S. Rodgers, 1986, p. 1).
In the past, the lecturing method and discussion were typical of the ancient
Greece (Socrates) (1991, p. 166). Next, there were so called oral methods (Jan Amos
Comenius) in the seventieth century which are subsequently followed by the natural
method emphasising imitating nature and the practical use instead of a mere analysis of
a language. The basic principles of this method are the following:
- preference of the imitation prior to rule learning;
- students repeat after a teacher;
- only basic vocabulary should be used at the beginning;
- let students practise with the help of reading and speaking;
- teach a language with the help of pictures for better understanding.
(Celce-Murcia, 2001, p. 4)
This inductive approach created by J. A. Comenius could be considered as
groundbreaking since it stresses practical learning and not learning of the analysis of the
language as it used to be before.
Unfortunately, not even this method, although being so successful, lasted long.
This method was quickly substituted by the Grammar-Translation Approach at the
beginning of the nineteenth century. This method advocated that memorising grammar
rules together with an endless list of new vocabulary is the most important and the most
beneficial for learning languages (Jack C. Richards &Theodor S. Rodgers, 1986, pp. 2-
3).
However, Francois Gouin did not agree with this idea, and thus he came up
with the Direct Method at the end of the nineteenth century. This method was very
similar to the method by Comenius, for it did not prefer an analysis but practicality
(Celce-Murcia, 2001, p. 4).
Afterwards, with the commencement of the new century, other methods
appeared – Reading Approach, Audiolingual Approach and Oral-Situational Approach
15
(Celce-Murcia, 2001, p. 5) which were, in my opinion, rather more detailed elaboration
of the Direct Method, since they are all based on the practical use (obviously, each
slightly in a different way: reading, listening, speaking), i.e. to understand and to be
understood. And thus they emphasise the communicative competence.
By the end of the twentieth century, other methods, the aim of which was to
take into consideration the individuality of each pupil, were developed. Those take into
account learning strategies of each pupil, his or her creativity, initiative and self-
realization (Skalková, 2007, p. 182). These methods should simply help pupils, who
will be „released“ from the compulsory education to the real life, to be able to cope with
its requirements and difficulties, and also to be able to live like a full-blown democratic
citizen. Among the above described methods belong the following: Cognitive,
Affective-Humanistic, Comprehension-Based and Communicative method (Celce-
Murcia, 2001, p. 5).
2.1.4 Work with the teaching methods
Having introduced the historical overview and development of the teaching
methods, now it is also worth mentioning facts presented by different authors
concerning the real use and application of the methods.
As it was described in the previous chapter, many methods and approaches
have been developed within the last few centuries. However, although trying hard to be
different and original, every time when one particular method was created, it was
usually accompanied and used simultaneously with the previous one.
Nowadays, there is a new step in using methods. It is so called postmethod era
which is not based on any specific method and whereby the lesson consists of several
activities but those are not connected to any particular method. On the one hand, there is
an advantage, since there is evidence that teachers think about their lessons and try to
include activities according to their students‟ needs and preferences. Unfortunately, on
the other hand, this way of using methods is often criticised by many scientists, for they
claim that the activities are not used critically (Vojtková, 2013, p. 1).
However, at the same time, many authors also criticise lessons which are based
exclusively on principles of one method. There are several reasons:
- it is not possible to find one suitable method which would fit everything;
16
- it is not possible to base the whole language course on one particular
method (other aspects such as students‟ needs, aims, expectations, cultural
background, etc. are necessary to take into account as well) ;
- use of one method does not reflect individual preferences, needs and
experience;
- many teachers say that they use one method but in fact they use and
interconnect various methods. (Vojtková, 2013, pp. 2-3)
These reasons above make sense and it is evident that they reflect real
experience. To provide an example, speaking about my teaching experience, I would
share this opinion, since preparing a lesson, I try to make it as various as possible not
only in order not to bore my students but also to train all four language skills. This
would be nearly impossible only with one method.
Another author Dick Allwright does not respect methods at all. For example,
being presented as absolutely different from one another, he does not see much
difference between certain methods. Also, he claims that methods have no tendency to
distinguish individual students; they rather perceive them as a group, which is wrong.
Furthermore, he believes that methods invisibly prevent teachers from being creative,
innovative, and also from reflecting their work, for the teachers are often busy learning
about the method itself (in Vojtková, 2013, p. 3).
Reaction of teachers who have to cope with such a situation is usually the
following. Firstly, they are taught many methods. And later on, when using the methods
and gaining experience, it is typical that they usually end up inferring their own results
and start using a mixture of different methods, which is basically the basis for the
previously mentioned postmethod era (Vojtková, 2013, p. 4).
The main principles of the postmethod era lie, as described by Kumaravadivelu
in its:
- specificity (each lesson is led by a teacher with his or her specific character,
education and experience, and the teacher teaches students with their
specific needs, aims and personalities);
- practicality (it means that teachers have some educational theories in their
minds, but their lessons are based on their own theories resulting from the
critical reflection of the educational ones);
17
- aptitude (it is talent and abilities of the teacher as well as the students).
(Kumaravadivelu, 2001, p. 538)
Based on these points, three frameworks were developed. Nowadays, they all
determine conditions which influence teaching process. There are several things which
they all have in common. First of all, it is the teacher and student centred aspect which
more, rather than the methods, enables to reflect teachers‟ and students‟ actual needs.
This aspect is, to a certain extent, associated with teacher‟ higher autonomy and the
consequent need of critical evaluation of the teaching process which follows from it
(Vojtková, 2013, pp. 4-5).
The frameworks were developed by Stern, Allwright1 and Kumaravadivelu.
Out of these three, I especially like the framework created by Kumaravadivelu (2006)
which is called „Macrostrategic framework“. It is based on certain microstrategies
created by teachers and reflecting their pedagogical, empirical and theoretical
background (macrostrategies) in connection with language teaching. Kumaravadivelu
presents ten macrostrategies which enable teachers to develop successfully their
microstrategies:
1) Maximal utilization of learning possibilities.
2) Mediation of a meaningful interaction.
3) Limitation of various misunderstandings.
4) Mediation of individual language discovery.
5) Reinforcement of consciousness about a language.
6) Accommodation of language input.
7) Integration of language skills.
8) Intensification of a student autonomy.
9) Accordance with a social context.
10) Raising cultural awareness. (in Vojtková, 2013, pp. 6-7).
Using the above stated points (macrostrategies), teachers should increase and
support their teaching success. Obviously, teachers‟ preferences differ and they also
1 For more information see Vojtková (2013). Nové trendy ve výuce cizích jazyků aneb jakou metodu vlastně používám?
18
should not forget to consider their students‟ needs. And thus each teacher approaches
their lessons in a different way creating their own (micro) strategies.
2.2 The Lexical Approach
This chapter dealing with the Lexical Approach strives to introduce the basis of
this approach, and also how this particular approach can be implemented in the English
language lessons. It means that the basic units, its principles, commonly used materials
and sources, typical activities and exercises will be discussed in this chapter.
2.2.1 What is the Lexical Approach?
This chapter could be introduced by the most crucial principle of this method:
„Language consists of grammaticalized lexis, not lexicalized grammar.“
(Michael Lewis2)
Grammar has been given priority for ages. Teachers have required their pupils
to know all grammar rules by heart and if they were not able to say the rules or use
them, it was considered as not knowing the language. D. A. Wilkins criticises this
grammatical syllabus claiming that such an approach cannot provide the motivation for
its learners, since it often lacks the real use. (in Brumfit & Johnson, 1979, pp. 82-83).
The same has applied to vocabulary as well. Pupils have been supposed to learn long
lists of single vocabulary items, often without being aware how to use the particular
words in sentences, since they have been, again, required to be able to say the words
only when they have been questioned. However, „knowing a vocabulary item … means
much more than simply memorising the word“ (Lewis & Hill, 1992, p. 99). Lewis,
similarly to Hill or Conzett (Lewis, 2000, p. 60, 83), also says that to „know“ a word
means much more than to know its meaning – it means knowing its grammar, i.e. the
patterns in which it is used (2000, p. 8). Michael Hoey also adds that to know a word
means being aware of its associations, grammatical characteristics, pronunciation,
phrases in which it occurs, etc. (Lewis, 2000, p. 230). All these points mentioned above
2 see Lewis (1993), p. vi
19
are exactly what a storybook can offer to its readers. There are no separated words but
different kinds of lexical items used in context and surrounded by co-text which make
meaning clearer, and thus the learning easier.
Wilkins, in connection with vocabulary learning, also mentions so called
situational syllabus which is focused on learners‟ needs, i.e. where and when he or she is
likely to communicate, which may seem to be much more useful than the former
syllabus. Nevertheless, nor this syllabus has been found satisfactory because of its
generality (in Brumfit & Johnson, 1979, pp. 84-85).
However, real life communication is not based on these procedures at all. It has
been proven that native speakers‟ output is not realised by separated words and sets of
grammar rules learnt by heart. As Lewis and Hill state „learning more and more
vocabulary items does not necessarily increase a person‟s fluency“ (1992, p. 99).
Therefore, there exists also notional syllabus which, answering the question what, is
primarily concerned with the content – lexical content (D. A. Wilkins, in Brumfit &
Johnson, 1979, pp. 84-85). Such a syllabus is considered to be highly appropriate for the
practical communication, even though items learnt with the help of it, could seem to be
quite complex, especially at the earlier stages. Nevertheless, teachers should try to resist
the temptation to explain the structure of the items and phrases, for the only thing which
the learners need to be familiarised with is the function (i.e. meaning or use) of it.
Considering young language learners, it is widely known that they are not interested in
each single item of a phrase or sentence at all; on the contrary, they are exclusively
interested in which situation it is possible to use it. The other information and analysis
could only cause confusion.
Similarly, Morgan Lewis is convinced that language should be kept in the form
in which it was found, without any analysis (Lewis, 2000, p. 19). Finally, Lewis and
Hill express an appeal for the teachers – they strongly believe that „teachers who
themselves learned foreign languages in a very strongly structuralist tradition must
avoid confusing their students by using structuralist explanations for functional
materials“ (Lewis & Hill, 1992, p. 99).
Hence it also corresponds with the fact, which was a few years later presented
by Lewis, that the key principle which encourages the fluency is primarily a quick
access to a vast stock of so called „chunks“ (1998, p. 15). Willis, like Hill (Lewis, 2000,
p. 47), calls these prefabricated chunks which create a part of the native speaker‟s
repertoire waiting for being used (1990, p. 73). And this is actually the basis of the
20
Lexical Approach for which the lexis is the crucial part carrying the meaning. Whereas
grammar merely provides a system for the creation of utterances (Lewis, 1998, p. 15).
However, Lewis, and Sinclair agrees with this statement (2000, p. 147), immediately
completes that vocabulary and grammar should not be entirely separated since it seems
to be unnatural (2000, p. 137). As Wilkins summarises, „information on the possible
content of utterances will be of greater practical value than grammatical information and
will be more complete than situational information“ (in Brumfit & Johnson, 1979, p.
90). This theory is very similar to so called „analytic strategy“ by Wilkins (1976, p. 2)
who also emphasises phrases presented as a whole (in Willis, 1990, p. 44). The
storybooks seem to be a very convenient tool for such an approach, for they provide
readers/learners with many chunks used in a real context. However, the important thing
is that it is not enough to present such a book, but even the accompanying activities
should avoid any structural analysis. To follow principles of the Lexical Approach,
these should only encourage chunk learning.
In one article, Scott Thornbury is also interested in Michael Lewis and his
Lexical Approach. Thornbury claims there that „the Lexical Approach does not have a
coherent learning theory“ (Modern English Teacher, Vol. 7, No. 4, para. 1), to which
Lewis does not object anything saying that:
The Lexical Approach never was an approach: it offered little guidance as to
how to specify syllabus objectives, and even its methodology was not much more than
an eclectic mix of procedures aimed mainly at raising learners‟ awareness about the
ubiquity of „chunks‟. (in Thornbury, 2010).
Richards and Rodgers (2001) agree with this statement and add that the Lexical
Approach „is still an idea in search of an approach and a methodology“ (p. 138).
There are many other linguists who support the idea of the grammaticalized
lexis as well. One of them is for instance David Wilkins who wrote: „Without grammar
little can be conveyed; without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed“ (Wilkins, in
Lewis, 1998, p. 16). The next one is John Sinclair declaring that „a lexical mistake often
causes misunderstanding, while a grammar mistake rarely does“ (Sinclair, in Lewis,
1998, p. 16). Similarly, Dave Willis (1990) presents the lexical syllabus the core of
which lies in the identification of the most common words and patterns in their most
natural environment. In addition to this, the lexical syllabus does not determine what
will be learned and in what order (pp. vi-viii). He is convinced that a word is superior to
a structure because „it is word meaning of which determines which structures are
21
grammatical and which are not“ (p. 27). Moreover, he perceives a description of
language from the word point of view as more comprehensible to learners (p. 27).
Finally, Hoey (1983) even considers the Lexical Approach as the most suitable start (in
Willis, 1990, p. 115).
It follows from all the points mentioned above that placing vocabulary above
grammar is not only an attempt to discover another new theory but it has its full sense
and practical utilization. Since, as it is noticeable, the core of the Lexical Approach
reflects, to a certain extent, principles of the mother tongue acquisition which is, without
any doubt, very successful. The reason for this is that it is highly natural, for there is not
any press or stress. It is true that the mother tongue acquisition is not entirely identical
with the second language learning, but why not to at least approximate to this process if
it so functioning.
2.2.2 Lexical items
Many linguists perceive language as consisting of grammar and vocabulary.
Michael Lewis does not share this idea and argues that „the Lexical Approach consists
of chunks which, when combined, produce continuous coherent text“ (1998, p. 7).
There exist four different types of these chunks: words, collocations, fixed expressions
and semi-fixed expressions. Besides, Lewis and Hill add one big advantage of learning
such phrases – it can encourage fluency even at a relatively early stage (1992, p. 98),
and thus teachers should encourage their learners to learn them.
All types of the lexical item are described in detail below.
2.2.2.1 Words Words are by far the most known and the largest category which can be found
even in the worse dictionaries. Words which can stand alone (e.g. STOP, Please) are
lexical items. Acquisition of as many words as possible represents a key task and aim
for each language learner. Otherwise a learner would not become a proficient user of a
certain language (Lewis, 1998, p. 21). Willis for example claims that „a focus on
words… seems to offer learners the potential to create structures for themselves. Word
forms are also easily recognisable and easily retrievable. This is not always the case
with structures“ (Willis, 1990, p. 23). Maybe, that is why many teachers prefer words
to structures – they simple think that learning structures, especially at early age, is far
22
more demanding. Unfortunately, mostly the opposite is true. If they are precisely
explained how and where to use a structure, young learners more easily grasp the
structure with a potential meaning (which may seem more difficult at first sight) rather
than a nothing saying word.
Speaking about words, Lewis and Hill also suggest that if one really wants to
teach individual words, he or she should at least try to present these in relationship or
„areas“ (e.g. synonyms, antonyms, complements, converse, hyponyms), rather than in
isolation (1992, p. 101). Regarding words, other subcategories should be taken into
consideration. These are contractions (e.g. don‟t), polywords (e.g. by the way), common
words (e.g. way) and de-lexicalised words (e.g. thing)3.
However, regardless being the most familiar, voluminous and used category, it
is rather the other three categories which provide the originality (Lewis, 1998, p. 8).
2.2.2.2 Collocations M. Lewis sees collocation as „the readily observable phenomenon whereby
certain words co-occur in natural text with greater than random frequency“ (1998, p. 8).
However, not all words which often collocate immediately become a collocation. In
other words, frequency does not equal quality, and thus the closeness and quality of
each relationship are what matters more (Lewis, 1998, p. 27). Collocations can be
divided on a scale from those which are fully fixed, through relatively fixed, to those
which are totally novel (1998, p. 8).
In addition to this, collocations are rather about words, not about ideas, and
thus learners should be taught collocations which really occur and not collocations
which only should occur, i.e. sentence I have just had a coffee is more likely to occur
than sentence I have just drunk coffee (Lewis, 1998, pp. 25-26).
Another feature typical of collocations is arbitrariness, which means that it is
not possible to generalise and predict the same behaviour of some words in different
context. So again, it is „this non-generalisability that clearly indicates that we meet and
store words in the prefabricated chunks upon which the Lexical Approach is based“
(Lewis, 1998, p. 26).
Unfortunately, the collocations are often omitted from the class since most
teachers keep asking whether there is any word their learners do not understand. Hence
3 For more detailed information see Lewis (1998), especially chapter 2 (pp. 21-25)
23
learners are automatically focused only on words (Lewis, 2000, p. 23). According to
Jimmie Hill, this approach is not the best one. He believes that those are such
collocations which should create the main part of lexis. He supports his conviction by
the following advantages: the lexicon is not arbitrary, predictability, the size of the
phrasal mental lexicon, the role of memory, fluency, complex ideas are often expressed
lexically, collocation makes thinking easier, pronunciation is integral and recognising
chunks is essential for acquisition4 (Lewis, 2000, pp. 47-56).
Morgan Lewis strongly recommends including collocations as well. He
believes that if one or two collocations are introduced and regularly re-used, acquisition
is increased. In the opposite case, it may take even years before learners come across
such collocations, which may result in useless delaying the process of deepening
understanding. Furthermore, he sees two significant advantages of knowing
collocations: firstly, „the more collocations learners have at their disposal, the less they
need to grammaticalise“, and secondly, collocations, in comparison with words, provide
learners with more communicative power (2000, p. 16, 24). But what is also crucial,
teachers should try to present mainly useful collocations, again without any grammar
analysis, to attract their students, and thus to increase the probability of the real learning
process (2000, pp. 12-14). In this case, reading their favourite books could be included
so that they would be in contact with such collocations.
George Woolard, unlike Jimmie Hill (in Lewis, 2000, p. 60) who advocates
different opinion, also points out that learners should be encouraged to develop their
knowledge of collocations independently of teachers. He mentions for example the
ability to notice certain patterns in a sentence, the use of dictionaries (either the
traditional or electronic or, preferably, the collocation ones which concentrate
exclusively on collocations, and thus provide much more examples or the use of lexical
notebooks (in Lewis, 2000, pp. 28-43).
2.2.2.3 Expressions Although this category can be divided into two subcategories, fully fixed
expressions and semi-fixed expressions, most of the information can be applied to both.
Expressions usually consist of at least two words to seven words at the most and some
of their parts (so called slots) can be substituted by different words. Yet it ought to be
44 For more details see Lewis (2000, pp. 53-56)
24
born in mind that the slots should be, from the point of view of the Lexical Approach,
filled by a probable, actual and more useful variant rather than by improbable option
which could cause confusion for many learners. Speaking about teaching expressions,
above all, it is highly beneficial to omit any kind of analysis concerning the expressions.
It is absolutely sufficient to present the particular expressions in a convenient context;
plus an equivalent in the learner‟s mother tongue may be mentioned (Lewis, 1998, pp.
33-40).
As it is seen, all of the three above described kinds of the lexical items are
necessary for language learning process, for all of them may contribute to deepen the
knowledge of the particular language. Nonetheless, from the practical point of view, the
collocations and expressions seem to be more valued, since they provide, to a certain
extent, „connections“ between the single lexical items, and thus they may make the
learning process quicker.
2.2.3 Principles of the Lexical Approach
As far as the principles of the Lexical Approach are concerned, those are
mostly inspired and based on the principles typical of the Communicative Approach.
The crucial principles according to Michael Lewis (1993) are the following:
- Language consists of grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar.
- The grammar/vocabulary dichotomy is invalid; much language consists of
multi-word „chunks“.
- A central element of language teaching is raising students‟ awareness of,
and developing their ability to „chunk“ language successfully.
- Although structural patterns are acknowledged as useful, lexical and
metaphorical pattering are accorded appropriate status.
- Collocation is integrated as an organising principle within syllabuses.
- Evidence from computational linguistics and discourse analysis influence
syllabus content and sequence.
- Language is recognised as a personal resource, not an abstract idealisation.
- Successful language is a wider concept than accurate language.
25
- The central metaphor of language is holistic – an organism; not atomistic –
a machine.
- The primacy of speech over writing is recognised; writing is acknowledged
as a secondary encodement, with a radically different grammar from that of
the spoken language.
- It is the co-textual rather than situational elements of context which are of
primary importance for language teaching.
- Grammar as structure is subordinate to lexis.
- Grammatical error is recognised as intrinsic to the learning process.
- Grammar as a receptive skill, involving the perception of similarity and
difference, is prioritised.
- Sub-sentential and supra-sentential grammatical ideas are given greater
emphasis, at the expense of earlier concentration on sentence grammar and
the verb phrase.
- Task and process, rather than exercise and product, are emphasised.
- Receptive skills, particularly listening, are given enhanced status.
- The Present-Practise-Produce paradigm is rejected, in favour of a paradigm
based on the Observe-Hypothesis-Experiment cycle. (pp.vi-vii)
Besides these above mentioned principles, Lewis (1993) suggests, from a
methodological point of view, another list of principles which is more practically
oriented and establishes how to treat the vocabulary, grammar, error or language skills
in a class:
Early emphasis on receptive skills, especially listening, is essential.
Lewis states that the piece of language which is produced by far the most often does not
come from us at the very beginning (considering especially young learners); hence the
learning process is rather based on receptive skills.
De-contextualised vocabulary learning is a fully legitimate strategy.
This statement stands for the conviction that all language learners should be made to
communicate as early as possible, regardless of any grammatical inaccuracy, which
requires acquisition of vocabulary often taken out of any meaningful context.
The role of grammar as a receptive skill must be recognised.
26
This statement highlights the fact that even “rules” generated by students ought to be
recognised as a significant contribution to the learning process.
The importance of contrast in language awareness must be recognised.
This principle emphasises that occasional comparison of English with students‟ own
language may be helpful.
Teachers should employ extensive, deitic language for receptive purposes.
It is suggested by this claim that Teacher Talking Time does not have to be shortened,
as it has been proposed for several years. The more important thing is what is said, and
it should be something concerning „Here-and-Now framework“ (Lewis, 1993, p.195).
Extensive writing should be delayed as long as possible.
Writing at the high level has been still considered to be matter of an educated minority
even in most developed countries. Therefore, it would be absurd to force language
learners to be able of this. And thus, it is fully sufficient to teach them for example to
label pictures or to write a note.
Non-linear recording formats are intrinsic to the Lexical Approach.
The core of the Lexical Approach is, as it was mentioned before, based on the
grammaticalised lexis, and as such, including recording formats is considered as a great
tool for acquisition of various collocations.
Reformulation should be the natural response to student error.
The reason for this requirement is that a student‟s oral contribution would seem to be
more valued in this way.
Teachers should always react primarily to the content of student language.
The Lexical Approach does not strive to claim that the grammatical inaccuracy does not
matter; it matters but only in cases if the content is not comprehensible. Otherwise, there
is no reason to correct each student‟s grammar mistake. Merely in case of
misunderstanding mistakes may be corrected.
Pedagogical chunking should be a frequent classroom activity.
Language learners should be taught so called chunks which can be later on analyzed
into bits. Not vice versa, i.e. at the beginning, learners should not be taught bits which
would be only later put together. (Lewis, 1993, pp. 194-195)
27
2.2.4 The role of L1 in the Lexical Approach
Whether to use L1 in a class or not has been discussed by many linguists and
teachers for many years. On the one hand, some are convinced that the use of the
mother tongue is appropriate for learners, since it enables them to compare an L1 with
L2. Others, on the other hand, believe that to use an L1 causes only confusion and
mistakes. This chapter will thus explore how the Lexical Approach approaches this
issue.
Although many disadvantages of direct translation, such as the previously
mentioned mistakes or inaccuracy, have been proved, the tendency to translate
word-for-word has been still very frequent among language learners, for which teachers
often feel quite guilty. But, according to Gairns and Redman, they (the teachers) would
not have to, since it can not only save time but teachers may also avoid confusing
explanation (1990, p. 75). However, Lewis and Hill do not agree with this statement
claiming that „the important thing is to develop in the students an understanding that
languages do not consist of „words“ with equivalents from one language to the other“
(1992, p. 98).
It is quite common, however, that often untrained learners relate a word from
the L2 to a word from the L1. The Lexical Approach, as well as Morgan Lewis (2000,
p. 16), does not condemn this idea at all. It only elaborates this technique and holds the
view that chunk-for-chunk translation is better, especially in case of idioms (both
traditional and the Fixed Expressions), collocations and expressions which use de-
lexicalised verbs or other words carrying little meaning. The only problem here is that it
is not entirely possible to translate chunk-for-chunk until one is able to identify the
individual chunks. Therefore, it is a teacher whose task is to teach his or her learners to
distinguish chunks5 (Lewis, 1998, pp. 60-64).
Teachers are thus supposed to pay attention to translation because of the
following facts: learners make use of L1 which can be both helpful and unhelpful (e.g.
interference), learners constantly compare L2 with L1 (in other words, they translate),
having a word is often not productive. Nevertheless, Lewis finally adds that „translation
is a form of consciousness-raising, which is a central technique in the Lexical
Approach“ (Lewis, 1998, pp. 64-65). In addition to this, despite being slightly sceptical
about including translation, Lewis recognises that the interference effects caused by the
5 More about this topic will be said later in this work in the chapter Exercises and Materials.
28
translation can also have positive effects on language learning, and thus teachers should
try to „raise learners‟ awareness of the effects, so helping them both to avoid the
unhelpful, and to benefit from helpful, parallels“ (1998, p. 65).
In conclusion, Michael Lewis suggests some basic rules for translation of
collocations. First of all, it is suitable to find the word class which is considered to be
the largest one – nouns. The key noun should be translated at the very beginning.
Secondly, the appropriate collocating verb and adjective should be found, which is not
usually so easy. Finally, a convenient adverb which collocates with any adjective or
verb must be found. Lewis adds that „once these lexical items are found, they must be
correctly grammaticalised, but, as we expect from a lexical perspective, the process
involves grammaticalising lexis, not lexicalising grammar“ (Lewis, 1998, p. 64).
However, the translation may be easily omitted entirely using other tools which
could help learners to get the meaning. Speaking about storybooks, there is context
which may help, or pictures (which are very appreciated especially by young learners)
may serve as another alternative.
2.2.5 Implementing lexis in the class
This chapter will concentrate on ways in which the lexis could be included to
the English lessons.
First of all, there is a list proposed by Lewis (1998) involving several questions
which should be considered by a teacher before entering a classroom:
1) Do you think your learners will learn most of their vocabulary in class or
outside?
2) How will you use valuable class time to make learning vocabulary less
daunting, more enjoyable and more efficient?
3) Will you concentrate on the quality or quantity of learners‟ lexicons?
4) What proportions of class time will you spend on vocabulary and grammar
respectively?
5) How will you decide which lexical items deserve special attention in class?
6) How will you encourage learners to use their dictionary to help build their
lexicon? What activities will you use to develop their dictionary skills?
29
7) How will you decide what items are worth recording in learners‟
notebooks?
8) Will you follow up what has been recorded in later lesson? How? (p. 45)
Based on the questions above, it is quite evident that it is not sufficient only to
be sure about a random topic which would, preferably, serve as a source of a big
number of new words. It is necessary to take into consideration not only what a teacher
is going to teach, but also how, when, the reason and purpose of the lesson, with what
materials, etc. (Lewis, 1998, pp. 44-45). In addition to this, Ruth Gairns and Stuart
Redman suggest following, more specific, items which should be also taken into
account: frequency, cultural factors, need, level and expediency (1990, pp. 58-64). What
is more, teacher‟s knowledge of the particular language as well as his or her knowledge
of teaching, learning and interpersonal skills are equally crucial (Lewis, 1998, pp. 44-
45).
With regard to the lesson content itself, that one should not be chosen on the
basis of the fact whether it is unknown for the learners, but it should be primarily
chosen on the basis of usefulness and last but not least, on the basis of preferences of the
learners. Ruth Gairns and Stuart Redman support this idea as well. They claim that
„items that are essential to an understanding of one field of interest may be quite
irrelevant to students who are not interested in that particular subject“, and thus they are
convinced that students should be given, definitely guided by their teacher, a bit more
responsibility and autonomy in lexical decision-making (1990, p. 55). They further
support their conviction saying that the advantage is dual: firstly, it increases learners‟
motivation, since they learn what they want, and secondly, learners do not feel
discriminated for not knowing what is useful (1990, p. 56-57).
Besides, speaking about the Lexical Approach, more time should be dedicated
to multi-word items. As for the amount of words the learners are supposed to master to
be able to communicate at a decent level, it is approximately two thousand words.
However, it is important to add that if students are not given enough time to learn and
practise so many items, they will never acquire those items properly. Therefore, the
Lexical Approach points out the importance of a good L1/L1 dictionaries and
subsequent dictionary-based activities (Lewis, 1998, pp. 45-47).
Apart from these suggestions, Lewis as well as Woolard or Hill (in Lewis,
2000, p. 43, 65) also propose „the concept of a Lexical Notebook“ (Lewis, 1998, p. 49)
30
instead of the traditionally used vocabulary book where only individual words are kept.
This kind of notebook should preferably include phrases, collocations and expressions
(not the individual words) and those ought to be organised according to some sections,
headings or topics (Lewis, 2000, p. 26) for better orientation. Definitely, as Conzett
states, not each word has to be involved in the notebook – only those which are found
useful by each learner (Lewis, 2000, p. 74). Also, the Lexical Approach points out that
the items should be recorded from L1 to L2 for the productive vocabulary, and vice
versa for the receptive one (1998, pp. 75-77). However, it is necessary to remind
learners that it is not sufficient only to record. Learning vocabulary is an ongoing
process and as such requires learners to „revisit and re-activate the significant
vocabulary“ (Lewis, 2000, p. 43). Especially young learners tend to forget, and also
they do not realise the necessity to learn regularly new lexical items. That is why
teachers who teach them should be thorough and revise with them as much as possible.
Next, as Lewis recommends (1998), it is necessary to devote the time to help
the learners develop their learning strategies concerning lexical items. Those strategies
include suggestions such as:
not being worried if not every word is understood during reading or listening;
not being worried about making mistakes – they are a part of the learning
process and simultaneously a sign of partial understanding;
not being afraid of making grammar mistakes, since they are usually caused
by the lack of vocabulary;
learning full expressions rather than single words;
thinking of other examples to a certain pattern when the pattern is recorded in
a notebook. (pp. 47-48)
Also, there does not have to be any reason to be afraid to introduce two similar words
(e.g. effect, affect) at the same time, unless they are taught de-contextualised. If the
teacher provides his or her learners with sufficiently clear context and examples, then
there is no reason to worry about consequent confusion.
Regarding how aspect mentioned above, the most important change for
teachers is to realise that the three-stage procedure consisting of presentation, practice
and production is not, according to Willis or Lewis, the most suitable one, since it only
31
encourages the learners to use controlled structures which have far from the real use
because the attention is primarily put on the form (Willis, 1990, pp.3-5; Lewis, 2000, p.
10). Nonetheless, some claim that this procedure is communicative in a way. One of
them is for example Littlewood (1981) who also developed a kind of sequence, parts of
which are called pre-communicative activities (standing for the presentation and
practice) and communicative activities (standing for the production), (in Willis, 1990, p.
5). However, for the Lexical Approach, Michael Lewis puts Observe-Hypothesis-
Experiment cycle above those mentioned before (1993, pp.vi-vii).
Furthermore, teachers should also realise that the „mere“ listening or noticing
from learners‟ side can be as fruitful, especially at the beginning, as speaking itself. As
Dave Willis (1990) explains, and Sarah Phillips (1993, p. 17) shares similar opinion as
well, learners:
„must also be given exposure to language relevant to the task they have
performed or are about to perform, and in particular they must be given the opportunity
to see how competent speakers and writers use the target language to achieve similar
outcomes“ (p. 63).
This is basically the core of TPR, which is a method used mainly with young
learners. Within this method, they are not forced to speak; they start speaking and using
the language only when they want to. Hence these kinds of participation should not be
regarded as a passive „doing nothing“. The only task which follows from this for
teachers is to be able to attract and, subsequently, hold learners‟ attention so that they
would be willing to listen to their teachers and learn from their speech items which they
would possibly be able to produce sometime in the future. Definitely, such talk does not
have to be either exaggeratedly simplified or analysed, for it would appear unnatural
(Lewis, 1998, pp. 49-51).
Another helpful tool for vocabulary acquisition is repetition. Although being
considered as annoying and boring, many researchers have come to the conclusion that
„repeating certain kinds of activities such as summarising a text orally one day and
again a few days later may be the most efficient way of improving learners‟ language“
(Lewis, 1998, p.51). The effect of this statement may be increased if a certain word
(multi-word lexical item) is met several times without any particular intention.
Therefore, it follows that the traditional learning lists of new words, which usually
appear in many textbooks and which have to be learnt by heart only for a test, does not
seem to be appropriate and useful. Instead, collocations and expressions should be learnt
32
and reused several times (Lewis, 1998, pp. 51-52). Gairns and Redman, apart from
recycling, also suggest frequency as the basis for the lexical item acquisition (1990,
p.88).
Lewis also mentions so called Noticing, which is a technique based on a
learner‟s unconscious noticing of language regularities such as „lexical chunks and
grammatical or phonological patterns“ (1998, p. 53). This sort of acquisition is actually
based on one of the previously mentioned principles – the Observe-Hypothesis-
Experiment cycle which, as Lewis continues, helps to „convert input into intake“ (1998,
p. 53).
And last but not least, it is the principle of pedagogical chunking which should
encourage the lexical awareness of the learners. Lewis, however, warns that teachers
should „not break language down too far in the false hope of simplifying; your efforts,
even if successful in the short term, are almost certainly counterproductive in terms of
long-term acquisition“ (2000, p. 133). Here also arises the problem whether the learners
are able to distinguish the chunks in a text or whether they can perceive it only as a
sequence of individual words. To help the learners to be capable of chunking, teachers
can try the following tips:
try to enable your learners to hear everything that is in a textbook at least
once;
even prose can be heard, so try to read at least part of it;
ask your learners to chunk a text they are given and then compare it within
several groups;
ask your learners to identify different kinds of chunks in a text. (Lewis,
1998, pp. 56-57)
It is strongly recommended to try these tips above, since being able to chunk is
very important. Not being able to chunk can cause misunderstanding either of a text
which is read or of a speech for any potential listeners (Lewis, 1998, p. 58).
Speaking about implementing lexis in a class, there is also another principle
according to which it is possible to introduce lexis. This principle includes ten aspects,
each dealing with different point of view from which the implementation of the lexis
can be approached. The aspects are the following: topic, situation, collocation, notion
33
(functional language, e.g. apology, requirement, wish, etc.), narration (making
sequences), metaphor (metaphor as a pattern), person (changing grammatical persons),
phonological chunking, keywords (especially de-lexicalised verbs) and grammar6.
Dave Willis, dealing with the lexical syllabus, adds to these principles the
necessity of organisation of exposure. The organisation is based on three stages. Firstly,
difficulty of the language the learners are supposed to learn should be gradually graded
so that the learners would not have to face some complexities at the very beginning, for
it could be demotivating for them. Secondly, the language should be carefully selected
and not only randomly chosen. It is preferable so that the chosen language would
consist of patterns which the learners are most likely to come across outside the
classroom. Thirdly the language ought to be itemised (Willis, 1990, p. iv).
2.2.5 Activities and Exercises
This subchapter briefly introduces several basic types of activities and
exercises which are typical of the Lexical Approach. However, what is important to
mention here again is that neither all the following exercises nor the Lexical Approach
are something absolutely new and innovative. The Lexical Approach only approaches
teaching, and consequently exercises, from different point of view, and thus the aim (i.e.
vocabulary) is what differs.
Also Lewis distinguishes Activities and Exercises. The reason is that: firstly,
he finds Activities more cooperative, secondly, Activities have non-linguistic as well as
linguistic outcome, and thirdly they are usually used in the class (1998, p. 86). Gairns
and Redman also highlight activities stating that they, besides the points mentioned
above, support realism, authenticity, engagement, learners‟ self-reliance, and last but
not least they also help learners to „commit information to long term memory“ (1990, p.
90). Whereas Exercises fit rather for the individual work, they are usually paper-based,
they have only linguistic outcome, they are used for homework or reflective class (1998,
p. 86) and, as Willis completes, they „involve the production of language but not the use
of language“ (1990, p. 1)
Below there is a list of the most common Exercises:
6 For more details see Lewis: 1998 (pp. 67-75)
34
Identifying chunks (it is the crucial skill which helps to work with
dictionaries, to translate better, to avoid mistakes, and also it
encourages to record accurately in the notebooks).
Matching (matching parts of collocations and expressions).
Completing (the focus is lexical, it is extended by the double-gap
filling).
Categorising (learners are asked to sort certain items according to a
certain pattern).
Sequencing (learners are supposed to put several expressions into most
probable order).
Deleting (kind of exercise focused on deleting the Odd One Out).7
(Lewis, 1998, pp. 89-91)
Concerning Activities, those are designed to improve chunking skills. Lewis
(1998) suggests activities such as:
Underlying chunks (learners should be given also more difficult texts).
Putting items in the column (there should be at least three different
columns, e.g. noun-noun, verb-noun).
Finding parts of collocation.
Examining a word.
Word choice (learners have to choose from two confusing words, e.g.
say/tell, learn/borrow).
Headings (matching paragraphs with suitable headings).
Phrase matching (e.g. Spaghetti matching).
Recalling collocations (a teacher hides one column and learners have to
recall the hidden part).
Word dominoes.
Exploring a de-lexicalised word (by using sentences, e.g. just).
Happy families (learners asked to create a sentence, e.g. Do you have a
noun which follows play?).
7 For more details see Lewis: 1998 (pp. 86-107)
35
Kim’s game (show objects for a short time, afterwards learners have to
recall as much as possible).
Pause reading (a teachers reads a text, pauses and learners have to fill
in the pause by some items using RVR – Random Volunteered
Responses).
Correction reading (a teachers reads, learners listen carefully, when the
teacher reads it for the second time, he or she changes something and
the learners are supposed to guess what was changed).
Lexical chants.
Lexical drills.
Lexical crosswords.8 (pp. 108-141)
As it is noticeable from the above mentioned examples, neither the Exercises
nor the Activities represent a revolution in teaching. All of them are only slightly
modified to reflect the needs of the Lexical Approach – the lexis, and all of them may
be easily used with the storybooks and young learners. It is only on teachers to choose
the most appropriate ones for their learners but, as Lewis and Hill (1992, p. 81) or
Brumfit (1984) suggest, a balance should be guaranteed between the activities focused
on accuracy and the activities concentrated on fluency (in Willis, 1990, p. 6).
2.2.6 Materials
The following chapter will deal with quite well-known and common materials,
such as textbooks, dictionaries, real texts, etc. but within the Lexical Approach, with the
aim to explore how to work with them to achieve a benefit.
2.2.6.1 Dictionaries
A dictionary is the very first kind of material which, despite having a lot of
advantages, seems to be the most under-used resource for the language teaching.
Dictionaries are usually used only for looking up an unknown word. Nevertheless, they
may (should) be used for many other reasons, for instance grammatical information,
stress, collocations, examples or cultural information. In addition to this, nowadays,
8 For more details see Lewis: 1998 (pp. 108-141)
36
many new English/English dictionaries are published, and those appear to be very
user-friendly, therefore, teachers should strive to teach their learners to make such
dictionaries an inevitable part of the learning process (Lewis, 1993, pp. 180-181).
Speaking about reading, it is usually necessary to use the dictionary but many students
are not used to it, so the teachers should try to teach them this technique so that they
would be able to use it independently of them.
2.2.6.2 Grammar Reference and Practice Books
These, on the other hand, are considered as a very over-used resource is spite
of being rather impractical. As for the grammar reference books, they usually provide
only superficial information, and regarding the practice books, these often consist of
fill-in exercises which have usually nothing to do with real-life and natural examples.
(Lewis, 1993, pp. 181-182). However, concerning the practice books, together with
homework, Gairns and Redman do not regard their role to be so unimportant, saying
that „workbooks or practice books accompanying major course books can compensate
for restricted classroom time, and provide a source for lexical consolidation as well as
an opportunity for learners to acquire vocabulary relevant to their own personal needs“
(1990, p. 67). Nevertheless, those are primarily teachers who should try to provide their
students with a convenient example; the grammar and practice book are here only as an
additional source of information (Lewis, 1993, pp. 181-182).
2.2.6.3 Textbooks
Another highly frequently used material is a textbook. This kind of material
has been discussed for many years. Some claim that textbooks are a necessary part of
the language teaching since they provide programme, sequence, balance and authority.
Others believe that textbooks are merely a commercial move, and as such they created
them in a way which increases sales. It means that they are only attractive but do not
reflect needful and practical content and methodology (Lewis, 1993, p. 182).
Therefore, as Lewis proposes, the golden mean should be chosen. It means that
the textbook ought to be used during teaching; for it provides learners with something
(the programme) they can stick to if it is necessary, and also the textbooks usually
guarantee proper sequencing and balance. However, teachers should be willing to be
37
flexible to be able to combine textbook exercises with their own, as well as to be able to
accommodate the exercises according to their and their students‟ needs (1993, p. 182).
With regard to texts which are frequently included in the textbooks, these
should vary (short, long, easy, difficult, dialogue, prose, printed, on tape, etc.) so that
the learners have the opportunity to try out as much various texts as possible. Again, the
important point is that the learners are not supposed to understand each word, and that
they do not have to read the texts word-by-word (Lewis, 1993, p. 183).
Examples create another inseparable part of the textbooks. However, within the
Lexical Approach, far more examples would be needed, especially those dealing with
idioms and sentence heads (Lewis, 1993, pp. 183-184).
As it was mentioned in the previous chapter, Lewis also distinguishes between
Activities and Exercises. He finds Activities more useful in comparison with the
Exercises since they are more connected to the real-life situations (e.g. problem
solution, completion of a table, etc.). In addition to this, work with the Exercises much
more concentrates on accuracy, which discourages learners from trying out new
language, to take risk.
2.2.6.4 Real materials
The advantage of these materials is that they are much easily available than
before. It is common that students themselves have an access to the Internet full of
English songs, texts, videos, film, talk shows, etc. Even textbooks try to involve such
real materials to encourage students‟ motivation. However, they are usually accepted
with refusal by many students, for they are still approached as a text from a textbook
and as such they are automatically boring.
Fortunately, teachers have recognised the value of the real materials and so
they have been trying to use real materials in a class in the last few years. However, for
work with such materials they should keep in mind that to understand something is
much better and beneficial for long term acquisition than to understand everything.
Apart from this, teachers‟ task is to make their students interested in the particular
material. Thus both before and while activities are important. Finally, the point of real
material used within the Lexical Approach is to stick to its authenticity and put
emphasis on the content and communication (Lewis, 1993, pp. 186-187).
38
2.2.6.5 Recording formats
All the above mentioned types of materials should be considered merely as
additional sources for learners‟ language process in comparison with the following one
– a vocabulary notebook. This notebook should serve as a primary source of
information for each learner. Therefore, such a notebook should be a large
well- organised file with recorded material “digested” in a personal way (Lewis, 1993,
p. 187).
2.2.7 Grammar explanation and practice
Grammar introduced in the classroom usually meant explanation of rules by a
teacher and subsequent practice with the help of gap-filling exercises. Thus it has
become the least favourite part of a lesson for many students of a foreign language.
Rutherford (1987), like Prahbu (1987), challenges this approach and refers to this as
„accumulated entities“ (in Willis, 1990, p. 7). Widdowson (1978) shares similar
opinion, saying that knowing grammatical system does not guarantee an ability to use
the language and that a methodology concentrating exclusively on the form is
insufficient, for it enables learners to produce nothing else than grammatically correct
utterances (in Willis, 1990, p. 10).
The Lexical Approach also refuses this approach towards grammar, claiming
that „grammar lessons“ should be more student-centred so that student‟s awareness-
raising skill could be encouraged. In other words, „explanation must be replaced by
student-centred exploration“ (Lewis, 1993, p. 149; Lewis, 2000, p. 18). This means that
students divided into several small groups are given one particular language data and
are supposed to deduce their own language rules based on what they notice. What is
very important for this kind of activity is that each contribution should be regarded
useful and should be respected, otherwise the students would be discouraged and the
whole activity would lack its purpose. Provided that the students‟ ideas need correction,
the teacher can do this by suitable questions which will draw attention to items which
do not reflect the students‟ rules. Activities appropriate for this approach seem to be the
following: recognising, checking, sorting, comparing and matching (Lewis, 1993, pp.
149-154). However, speaking about young language learners, here raises a question
whether they would be able to „explore“ the rules. Moreover, it is also disputable
39
whether it is suitable to want them to do this, for as it was explained earlier, young
learners should not be exposed to „analysed language“.
As for the following language practice, this is, as well as the previous
„explanation“, based on awareness-raising receptive tasks, such as various jigsaws,
transformations, production of examples, oral practice, written practice, etc9.
Lewis concludes this topic with the following summary and says that grammar
practice must:
not violate the nature of language itself;
pay due respect to grammar as a receptive skill;
invariably contextualise (not only situationalise, it is situation and co-
text which are important) ;
be process- rather than product-orientated, with intermediate or long-
term objectives which recognise clearly the difference between meeting
and mastering grammatical features;
raise grammatical awareness, often by comparing correct and incorrect
form, or alternative „correct“ formulations;
respect the fact that language consists of grammaticalised lexis, and
therefore it should ensure that practices other than those exclusively
concentrated on the form of words (which will be few) involve the
expression of real meaning. They must at all times avoid the present
all-pervasive kind of grammar practise which is frequently based on
random lexicalisation. (1993, p 162).
2.2.8 Responding to error
This chapter could be introduced by two mottos of many students:
„The student who never said anything never made a mistake.“
„The student who never made a mistake never learned anything.“
(Lewis, 1993, p. 165)
It is important to bear in mind that making mistakes is natural and it simply
belongs to any kind of learning. It is almost impossible to reach a proficiency level
without any mistake. On the contrary, the process of learning foreign languages is
9 For more information see Lewis (1993): pp 156-162
40
connected with making many mistakes and to correct every one seems to be impossible.
In addition to this, „it is found meaningless and boring, and has little to do with the real
nature of language“ (Lewis & Hill, 1992, p. 81). Furthermore, it is time-consuming and
often without any positive result. Therefore, students should realise that the first above
mentioned motto represents no help for their learning and that it is rather a counter-
productive method (Lewis, 1993, p 168).
Unfortunately, those are teachers who unconsciously persuade their students
that mistakes are not acceptable. They tend to correct almost every mistake, and
consequently, the students are worried to experiment with the language. However, as
Willis says: „if they make mistakes by manipulating language to achieve the meaning
they want to achieve teachers should learn to recognise this as a sign of useful creativity
and ingenuity“ (Willis, in Lewis, 1993, p. 172). It is, thus, teachers‟ task to teach their
students that making mistakes is natural and as such should be also treated.
Jimmie Hill points out that a lack of so called „collocational competence“ may
also cause grammatical mistakes. The reason for this fact is that instead of using certain
collocations, which would help them to convey exactly what they want to, students are
forced to create much longer utterances because of not knowing the collocations (Lewis,
2000, p. 49).
The first way in which it is appropriate to deal with mistakes is reformulation.
The reformulation can be used for both written as well as spoken language. Within the
written language, the reformulation seems to be suitable for essay correction because
the teacher has the possibility to write some information about how the wrong part of a
text would be said by an efficient speaker. Regarding spoken language, the teacher can
help his or her students by natural reformulation of a sentence which was said
incorrectly, however, still reacting only on the content and not on the form.
The second way is feedback. When providing feedback within the Lexical
Approach, teachers should realise that the mistake is probably caused by a lexical lack.
Both the reformulation and feedback serve as positive ways which encourage long-term
acquisition, and thus should substitute normal, usually discouraging, correction (Lewis,
1993, pp. 175-179).
The final way in which is it is possible to approach the mistakes is that teachers
should realise „that many grammatical errors are caused by lexical deficiencies, and that
the best response to many of these errors at intermediate and advanced levels is to do
more lexical work in place of grammatical correction“ (Lewis, 2000, p. 17).
41
2.2.9 Summary
To summarise this topic, several points could be mentioned in connection with
the Lexical Approach.
The most fundamental idea characterising this approach is that language
consists of grammaticalised lexis, which means that the emphasis is put on the multi-
word chunks of different types. These should be, preferably, recorded in carefully
designed Notebooks kept by each individual, and subsequently, practised with the help
of various exercises, or better still activities.
However, grammar should not be entirely neglected. Although not having the
primary role in this case, teachers may include it in their lessons bearing in mind that it
is better to introduce it with the help of learners‟ exploration.
It is, therefore, teachers‟ task to gradually deepen and increase learners‟
chunking skills so that they would be aware of such chunks. Also, when introduced to a
new chunk, learners should be provided with the context which may help them to guess
the meaning. Since subsequent analysis could only cause confusion and inaccuracy of
translation.
Finally, unlike Michael Lewis, who considers this approach only as a little
change including emphasis on lexis, Jimmie Hill perceives the Lexical Approach more
than just this – according to him, it is a revolution (2000, p. 47).
2.3 The Lexical Approach used for a storybook project
The focus of my bachelor thesis was put on the storybook project together with
one-to-one teaching of children. Apart from the aim to improve speaking skills,
vocabulary and grammar of the learner, the activities included in the project were
without any specific limitation. However this time, the orientation of the project will be
exclusively on the Lexical Approach.
Therefore, having concentrated on the principles of the Lexical Approach, and
also on its implementation in the language lessons, this chapter focuses on the
implementation of the Lexical Approach in a storybook project. It means that this
chapter will try to explore whether there are any special rules and techniques how this
approach may be used for such a kind of a project.
42
2.3.1 The importance of reading
It is generally known that reading is very useful for all people. Not only is
reading a kind of relaxation but it may also help to enrich vocabulary or it is possible to
get to know some new information. Speaking about children, David Vale together with
Anne Feunteun also add that children from the age of three or four start „developing
their identity as readers“, and thus teachers and parents are obliged to support this
development (1995, p. 81). Moreover, they present other points which should be
considered in connection with reading:
- Reading is a quest for meaning which requires children to be active
participants in the construction of meaning.
- Readers learn about reading by reading. Children become readers by being
fully involved in books … and by getting joy and satisfaction from reading.
- Both independent and shared reading are vital for the development of
children as readers.
- An active involvement with literature is essential. Literature has a social
and emotional value that is a vital part of its role in the development of
children‟s language and literacy. (1995, p. 82)
It follows from the points above that the value of reading should not be
underestimated, since it may influence children development.
To encourage children to read, teachers may take advantage of so called
intensive or extensive reading. Intensive reading is reading for detailed information and
understanding of the particular text followed by comprehension questions. Whereas,
extensive reading is rather for pleasure. It does not require students to know all the
words and to know details. However, to be capable of the extensive reading, it is
necessary to undergo the practice in the intensive reading whereby one may get to know
a lot of new lexical items which, subsequently, facilitate the extensive reading. What is
also crucial to bear in mind, is that when any authentic text is used intensively, it could
become highly demotivating for the learners (Lewis & Hills, 1992, p. 109).
43
2.3.2 L2 acquisition through reading
James Coady and Thomas Huckin (1997) in their book state that most of L1
vocabulary is learned through repeated exposition, preferably in different context. They
also claim that exactly the same process could be used for L2 acquisition as well using
the extensive reading (p. 225). This book also presents results of nine different studies
showing that working with illustrated books brings quick positive results, and
furthermore, that it leads to a long-term vocabulary acquisition (p. 228). As Lewis says
„language is not words and grammar; it is essentially lexical“ (1993, p. 196), and thus
teachers should strive to enable their learners to primarily acquire a lexical base
(possibly with the help of the extensive reading) so that the learners would,
consequently, learn the particular language successfully (Coady and Huckin, 1997, p.
235). Even Gairns and Redmen are convinced that written texts serve as the key sources
for meeting new vocabulary, which means that various texts should be used during
teaching. The main advantage is, as it was already mentioned by Coady and Huckin a
few lines above, that any kind of a text automatically provides its learner with the
desired context which also, possibly, makes the language learning more pleasant.
However, there are also disadvantages which make learning lexical items
through stories problematic. First of all, it is a length of the texts which may cause
„vocabulary overloading“. Secondly, the items from the texts are likely to be very
random so it may lack organisation. Thirdly, the lexis is usually of secondary use so the
learners could find it useless. And finally, such texts are not typically followed by post-
reading activities or exercises which would encourage learning (1990, p. 115).
2.3.4 Vocabulary teaching through stories
Many positive results were found out for vocabulary acquisition with the help
of a storybook and subsequent discussion (Eller et al., 1988; Elley, 1989; Sénechal,
1997; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2001). What is more, if the students were provided with
additional information about the particular vocabulary, they remembered the vocabulary
better and longer in comparison with those students who only heard the story. It follows
that children who can and are enabled to „work“ with new vocabulary after reading are
more likely to acquire the vocabulary better than those children who are not provided
with after-reading activities.
44
As far as the advantages of stories are concerned, most of them were
mentioned in my bachelor thesis10
. However, for the purpose of this work, only some of
them will be stated. One of them is, according to Gail Ellis and Jean Brewster (1991),
that vocabulary is one of the key skills (besides listening and speaking) which may be
easily learnt by means of stories. In addition to this, the fact that the stories are usually
repeated over and over again it can „allow certain language items to be acquired while
other are being overtly reinforced“ (p. 1). To increase the probability of learning some
vocabulary, they, as previously Lewis and Hill (1992), further suggest introducing new
words in groups within which they have something in common (p. 33). Another
advantage of the stories which is connected with the Lexical Approach is that of
recycling various language items which is also connected with the frequent repetition
(p. 2).
Another author Lyster (2007) proposes so called „counterbalanced instruction“
whereby the form and the content could be integrated and learnt together.
Cameron (2001) also points out the importance of reading and recycling of
words, since it helps lexical processing through given context (p. 81). She, like Jane
Conzett (Lewis, 2000, p. 72), also emphasises, especially for young learners, teaching
new words not in isolation but in meaningful contexts. Conzett also proposes that
teachers ought to try to „train their students to observe collocations in their reading“
(Lewis, 2000, 79) since they improve not only accuracy but also fluency (p. 80).
2.3.5 How to teach lexical items through stories
Michael Lewis presents following points which are crucial to keep in mind
when choosing a text for learners:
- Texts need to be chosen with their collocational content in mind.
- Learners need to be trained to search authentic material for key words,
usually nouns, and to notice the collocational feature of the co-text.
- Learners need to be taught the particular importance of medium-strength
lexical collocations and shown how to use the texts they meet, the
examples in conventional dictionaries, collocation dictionaries and
10 For more information see Gail Ellis and Jean Brewster (1991), pp. 1-3.
45
electronic resources as sources to enrich their own productive language.
(2000, p. 203)
Lewis and Hill recommend pre-activities which should catch students‟
attention. Typical activities before reading include:
- Introduction (a teacher gives a brief information about the content of the
text);
- Pre-questions (these are comprehensive questions to make students focus
on key ideas and words);
- Vocabulary (these are activities which serve for pre-teaching new words).
(1992, 107-108)
After these kinds of activities the first reading comes. It should be preferably
done by teachers themselves or on tape. Gradually, with other re-reading, the way the
text is read ought to be varied. Lewis and Hill suggest for instance asking another
student to continue, silent reading, making roles, dialogues, or reading with groups
(1992, pp. 110-111).
Afterwards, other activating tasks should be included during reading, including
easy questions not only to keep students attention but also to check understanding.
Apart from this, Lewis and Hill put emphasis on the „difficult words“ with which the
students may struggle. Those are not only long words, as many teachers incorrectly
expect. The difficult words are rather those pronunciation of which differs a lot from its
spelling, or words which look similar in their language but the meaning is different
(1992, pp. 112-113).
2.4 Teaching English children
Similarly to my bachelor thesis, this work also deals with teaching children.
Moreover, this diploma thesis as well as the bachelor thesis is concerned with children
from the age of nine to the age of twelve, since the group of children who are involved
in the story-based project, are also at this age.
46
Firstly, one important aspect which ought to be considered when teaching
children is their needs and abilities. As it was mentioned in the bachelor thesis, Joan
Dean suggests so called personalised learning which claims that every child‟s needs
should be taken into consideration (p. 1). Each pupil is different, and therefore teachers
should strive to dedicate some time to explore the uniqueness of everyone and,
consequently, to create a lesson based on these findings. In practice in connection with
the Lexical Approach, this may mean that teachers can choose materials including
lexical items reflecting not only their pupils‟ needs and language level but also their
interest for kinds of activities.
The bachelor thesis also included several lists of criteria by different authors,
such as Scott and Ytreberg who provided rather general points concerning typical
features of this age11
. Nevertheless, Scott and Ytreberg‟s emphasis of the significant
role of phrases should not be omitted. They say that phrases (e.g. I don‟t know, I‟m
sorry, I don‟t understand) are very useful and should be taught primarily as the phrases
and not as separate words, since, as they add, “children are only interested in what the
phrases are used for” (p. 17). Sarah Phillips is also convinced that young children learn
phrases holistically, and thus all structures, when presented to children, should be
repeated in different meaningful contexts, rather than analysed into bits (1993, p. 74).
These contexts may again be provided by the various storybook activities whereby the
pupils have chance to revise them meaningfully in different situations.
Next, Bange et al. (2005) suggests „learning by doing“ so that learners would
have the opportunity to develop their declarative knowledge. In other words, students
should be given a task or problem to solve and simultaneously being mentored by their
teacher until they are able to work independently. Such tasks usually serve as an
appropriate means to use real-life language (e.g. questions and answers concerning
advice, solution, sentences expressing agreement or disagreement, etc.) Michael Lewis
proposes, on the other hand, the procedural knowledge, for „every lexical item … has
its own individual grammar“ (2000, p. 157).
However, in view of the fact that this thesis is oriented especially to the Lexical
Approach, points by Susan Haliwell and Jayne Moon should be underlined. With regard
to Susan Haliwell, especially one statement is worth mentioning in connection with the
Lexical Approach. She says that „children are already good at interpreting meaning
11 For more details see Scott and Ytreberg (1993)
47
without necessarily understanding the individual words“ (p. 3), which corresponds with
the core of the Lexical Approach. Similarly, Jayne Moon presents that if children are
provided with pictures or other clues, they can very easily understand the meaning from
the situation, neglecting single words. They are able to pick up complete phrases, i.e.
chunks of language, from someone else (2000, p. 6).
48
3 The practical part
The practical part of this thesis is approached as action research which was first
described by Kurt Zadek Lewin (a German-American psychologist) in 1944. The key
aim of such research is to find a solution to a problem. Action research is, according to
Lewin, a cyclical process consisting of three steps: planning, action and results.
The first stage (planning) includes diagnosis of the problem and description of
the participants. This research will be carried out with pupils who attend one grammar
school in Humpolec (Gymnázium Dr. A. Hrdličky), and therefore in this case, firstly the
hypothesis and the aim of the work will be mentioned, secondly, the pupils included in
the research will be introduced, thirdly, there will be a description of the chosen book
and the teaching plan, and finally, means of testing the progress and the results will be
stated.
The second step (action) means realization of the teaching plan with the pupils.
The teaching plan will be complemented by my comments to each activity concerning
its course.
The final step (results) is connected to the evaluation of all gathered data, and
also suggestion of possible changes for the problem.
3.1 The aim of the research
This thesis tries to explore how the Lexical Approach could be implemented in
the English lesson which is based on the storybook project. Therefore, as it was stated in
the Introduction of the thesis, the aim of this research is to prove that
a) children who are taught an English language within stories accompanied by
activities based on the Lexical Approach are able to acquire discussed
lexical items more easily and remember them for a longer time
b) it is feasible to teach a sequence of five lessons based on the storybook
project and activities typical of the Lexical Approach
3.2 The learners
This subchapter deals with the learners‟ personal characterization; it also
approaches them from the point of view of English language learners. An anonymous
49
questionnaire (See attach. 1) was created, whereby all information needed was gathered
and used for description of the learners.
3.2.1 Characterization of the learners
The pupils with whom I cooperated attend grammar school in Humpolec
(Gymnázium dr. A. Hrdličky). They are sixth graders. There are twelve pupils in the
class (9 girls, 3 boys). All of them are at the age of twelve. Concerning their favourite
subject, they all mentioned English language. Besides the English language, some of
them also mentioned mathematics, physical education and geography. On the contrary,
they mostly find as the least favourite subject physics and history (some of them wrote
that the reason is that they are supposed to learn a lot of things by heart). As far as their
favourite topics are concerned, they prefer to speak about sport, their friends and, some
of them, about animals as well (the reason is, probably, that almost all pupils keep a
pet).
With regard to their personality traits, based on the questionnaire, my
observation of one lesson and talk with their English teacher, they are nice, active, quite
enthusiastic and willing to cooperate. Apart from this, I could also notice that especially
three of the girls are very talkative. However, concerning homework, they are not happy
about it. If they are supposed to bring it for next lesson, it is usual that they forget it.
When I told them about my diploma thesis and the book they seemed to be
very eager to work with the book - to read it and try the activities.
3.2.2 The pupils as English language learners
All the pupils started learning English at the third grade, which means that they
have been learning English for four years. As it is mentioned above, all of them like
English language. During these lessons they especially like various games, working
with pictures and words and activities based on movement. As for their favourite topics,
they appreciate when they discuss friends, sport, animals and other topics closely
connected to their lives. On the contrary, they do not like writing long texts and doing
grammar exercises.
Concerning reading, they mostly answered that they do not mind it, however,
provided that the particular text or story is not long and, speaking about English
50
language, it is comprehensible (they must understand most of the words). As for the
genre, they prefer adventurous stories (one pupil even wrote one exact title: The
adventures of Huck Finn), detective stories and girl‟s novels.
To describe their typical lesson, most of the time they use Project textbooks
and only from time to time they do some extra fun activities to encourage speaking but,
as the teacher mentions, she would like to include such activities more often to
demonstrate them the real use of the language, and thus to motivate them.
Unfortunately, they have English lessons only four times per week, which is not enough
according to her.
Based on the questionnaire and their English teacher‟ answers, the conclusion
may be that there are two main intelligences12
which prevail. It is the linguistic-verbal
and bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence. As regards the learning styles13
, the following two
should be mentioned: the visual and kinaesthetic one. And finally speaking about
learning strategies14
, all the pupils are probably cognitive learners.
3.3 The book
The following short subchapter will discuss the book with which the whole
project was realised. The title of the book is Click, Clack, Moo Cows That Type. It was
written in 2000 by Doreen Cronin and the illustrations were created by Betsy Lewin.
First of all, there will be a mention about the content of the book, and secondly, reasons
for the choice of this book will be stated.
3.3.1 The content of the book
This book is about farmer Brown who has a problem – his cows found an old
typewriter and learnt to type. It would not be such a serious problem but the cows let the
farmer several notes where they complained that it was cold in their barn. Therefore
they demanded electric blankets. The farmer did not want to provide them with the
blankets, for they are only cows. As a result, the cows went on strike. However then, the
12 Cherry, Kendra. “Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences.” 13 Clark, “Fleming VAKuous learning styles?”
13 Ellis and Brewster. Tell it again!.(especially chapter 4: Developing language-learning skills)
51
cows wrote that hens are cold too, and thus they wanted the blankets as well. But the
farmer refused to give them the blankets.
Afterwards, the animals suggested exchanging their typewriter for the electric
blankets. Farmer Brown finally agreed and gave them the blankets.
However, the next day he received a letter from ducks - they required a diving
board for their boring pond…
3.3.2 The reasons for the book
The first and the most important point for consideration was the topic. The
pupils adore adventurous stories and animal topic so I decided to work with this book,
since it interconnects both these items.
Furthermore, there are big letters and the text is quite short. Therefore I found
it appropriate because the pupils do not like long stories and I did not want to
discourage them. The whole story is also accompanied by big pictures so I considered it
to be suitable because the pupils like pictures.
Regarding the text from the linguistic point of view, this text is convenient for
the Lexical Approach, since it also contains many simple sentences, collocations,
expressions, phrases and words (e.g. Cows that type, He couldn‟t believe his eyes,
We‟re closed, No milk today, Impossible, etc.) which may be easily applicable and
learnt by means of the activities from the Lexical Approach.
3.4 Testing the progress
The aim of this research is to prove that
c) children who are taught an English language within stories accompanied by
activities based on the Lexical Approach are able to acquire discussed lexical items
more easily and remember it for a longer time
d) it is feasible to teach a sequence of five lessons based on the storybook project and
activities typical of the Lexical Approach
Similarly as in my bachelor thesis, I have decided to gain the data from the
three following sources, since I could verify in the work that they can enable me to
52
describe and analyse results sufficiently from all possible aspects, and also to a large
extent.
1) My pedagogical journal - in this journal I recorded in detail everything that I
was able to observe during our sessions (e.g. learners‟ answers, behaviour,
willingness, my comments, etc.)
2) The learners’ output – the output includes everything that they created during
our sessions or as their homework (e.g. description, vocabulary book, etc.)
3) Pre-test and post-test (The pre-test was performed separately before the
teaching plan and the post-test was carried out after the whole teaching plan.
Unlike the bachelor thesis where the tests included also oral part, in this case I
have decided only for the written part, for it would be highly demanding to
individually test orally all the learners. The written test (See attach. 26) consists
of four activities which should have discovered at least an approximate level of
their English in connection with the ability to use “chunks” (i.e. collocations,
expressions, phrases, etc.).
After the whole teaching procedure, results from each learner‟s pre-test and
pos-test were compared and analysed individually. Afterwards, the overall progress was
also stated and demonstrated by means of a chart (See attach. 27) for better illustration.
And last but not least, I also commented on their output.
3.5 Teaching plan
On the following page there is the five-lesson-long teaching plan which I
prepared and used with the learners. The plan consists only of five lessons, for I carried
out the research during my teaching practice, and thus I was allowed only few lessons to
teach it. Since this diploma thesis is focused on the Lexical Approach, all the tasks
reflect the core of the Lexical Approach. Thus, I tried to avoid the so called postmethod
era (see the Theoretical part, p. 15).
Each lesson includes information concerning the time, aims and materials.
Besides, there is also a comment to each activity which basically reflects notes from the
pedagogical journal and which should provide information about the fact how the
learners generally coped with the particular activity.
53
The reason for including the teaching plan in the Theoretical part and not as an
appendix is that the activities, typical of the Lexical Approach, are the main focus of
this thesis. The additional comments from the pedagogical journal are also the reason
why the teaching plan is included in the Theoretical part– it should be more well-
arranged in this way, since there do not have to be any links between the comments and
the activities.
54
Teaching plan (Click, Clack, Moo: Cows That Type)
Time:
- total: approximately 45 min
- guessing (headline): 2 min
- guessing (cover): 2 min
- matching: 5 min
- kind of the story: 1 min
- order: 10 min
- reading: 10 min
- note: 10 min
- finishing reading + checking the order: 5 min
Materials:
- the book Cows
- pictures + pieces of paper with the words for matching
- stripes of paper with parts of the story
- pieces of paper for writing the notes
Aims:
- to learn new basic vocabulary from the story
- to learn correct pronunciation of the vocabulary
- to get to know basic chunks with the new vocabulary
- to introduce a new story
Lesson 1
1) Guessing (the headline)
I show them only the headline of the book (rest of the cover is covered with a
piece of paper) and they have to say what they think the story is about
(inspired by the activity Headings, see page 34).
55
Comment:
When I showed them the headline, they guessed that the story is about cows.
But they did not know the word type so that is maybe the reason why they had
not added anything else.
2) Guessing (the cover)
If they do not guess the content of the book at all, I will show them the whole
cover of the book to help them.
Comment:
After showing them the cover, they cried out words such as cows, chicken and
duck. I also asked them about the typewriter (whether they know what it is).
One of the pupils said “It is writing machine.” I said that they are very close
and that they would see in a minute if they had been right or not. I was also
glad that the pupil said this sentence; I could see that they at least sometimes
use the whole sentences and not only separate words.
3) Matching
The pupils are divided into four groups. Each group is given pictures with basic
and the most crucial characters and things from the story (See attach. 2), and
also pieces of paper with a sentence describing the particular picture (See
attach. 2). The task is to connect the pictures with appropriate sentences
(inspired by Matching, see page 34).
Comment:
Being it our first lesson, I let them divide themselves into four groups as they
wished. Neither of the groups had problems to match pictures with a farmer,
cow, hen, duck and the typewriter. However, all of them had difficulties with
the note and the type (they did not know how to translate it). So I showed
them again the book and one picture with a note and also a page where the
cows were typing to demonstrate the verb. Afterwards, they quickly corrected
the pairs. I intentionally gave them stripes with sentences (and not separate
words) so that they could get used to the chunks.
56
4) Kind of the story
Based on the previous activities they should guess the kind of the story (e.g.
funny, sad, adventurous, crazy, etc.)
Comment:
I asked: “What do you think, what kind of a story it is?” I repeated my
question but they still did not answer so I asked: “A sad story, funny, crazy,
detective?” Only after this they mostly answered: “Happy, crazy story.” I should
have probably used much easier question not to confuse them. The separate
words which served as options for the answer were helpful and they
immediately reacted and knew what I had wanted them to say.
5) Order of the story
The pupils are still in the same groups. Each group is given stripes of paper with
sentences (part of the story). Their task is to put the stripes (See attach. 3) into
the right order as they think it could be (they only predict the story). But the
last two sentences are given to them only after the first reading so that they
would not know the end before writing their letters (Farmer‟s answer), (inspired
by Sequencing, see page 33).
Comment:
One group (girls) was very quick and their order was correct too. They only
asked what furious means so I explained it. Another group (boys) had the right
order as well. However, the third group (girls) finished it only partially (they did
not know how to put together last five stripes. The last group (girls) was the
least successful group since they did not read the text at all, all the time they
tried to discover how to put the stripes together according to the cuts and
shapes – they did not manage to discover it. Since we were still at the “get-to-
know stage” I understood that they had the difficulties, for some of the lexical
items were very rare to meet. Despite this fact, they mostly managed to deduce
the meaning of the sentences.
6) Reading
We sit in a circle and I slowly read the story, but only until the moment when a
57
duck brings the suggestion (See attach. 4) to the farmer so that they could check
the right order.
Comment:
This was calming activity. Everybody was listening to my reading and it was
visible that they followed the story especially with the help of pictures. There
were probably many lexical items which they were not aware of but the context
and pictures helped them.
7) Farmer’s answer
Within the groups, they are supposed to write an answer to the suggestion.
They should imagine that they are the farmer and should write how they think
the farmer will react to the suggestion (inspired by Identifying chunks, see page
34).
Comment:
The first group (the girls) finished early. This group asked how to say sekyra so
I translated it for them. Otherwise they did not have any problem concerning
lexical items to compose the answer. Then the boys finished. They also asked
for translation of some words. The two last groups finished at the same time.
Although they did not know some vocabulary, it was pleasant that they already
remembered the new words and phrases from the book. They seemed to be
enjoying this activity. They laughed and came with interesting versions (See
attach. 5).
8) Finish reading
After writing the short notes/letters I continue reading. They listen and we
together compare they letters with the version from the story.
Comment:
I finished the story and then asked each group to read their notes/answers.
They all were really eager to read their answers. Their notes were not corrected
at all; the focus was to make them write a meaningful and coherent text.
58
9) Order
After finishing the story each group is given the last two stripes (See attach. 6)
to complete the whole story (to complete the right order), (inspired by
Sequencing, see page 34).
Comment:
Having finished and read the whole story, this task was very easy for each
group. So eventually each group put the stripes into the correct order. To check
the order, each group was asked to read their order. The hidden purpose of the
reading was also to practice the sentence structures and new lexical items. There
were four groups so all could hear the items four times.
Lesson 2
Time:
- total: approximately 45 min
- right word: 5 min
- questions: 5 min
- true X false: 5 min
- who said: 5 min
- meaning of words: 10 min
- description of a character: 15 min
Materials:
- the book Cows
- paper with True/False statements
- stripes of paper with words and explanation
Aims:
- to learn other vocabulary from the story
- to learn correct pronunciation of the vocabulary
- to revise previously discussed lexical items and chunks
- to practise speaking
- to practise chunks when answering a question
59
- to check understanding of the story
1) Say the right word
I read the story. When I pause the pupils are supposed to say a suitable word to
finish the sentence instead of me (inspired by Pause reading, see page 35).
Comment:
The most difficult thing about this activity was to understand the instructions.
The children were quite confused and did not know what I had wanted them to
do. Fortunately, I demonstrated few sentences and they understood. They
literally shouted the words and were very eager to be first. This activity served as
a reminder of the story and also as a practice of the lexical items used for
completing the chunks.
2) Questions
I ask them several questions (See attach. 7) concerning the story and they have
to answer them (preferably saying the whole sentence), (inspired by Lexical
drills, see page 35).
Comment:
They were not sure about questions 3 and 6. Otherwise they knew everything
(they used correctly the items). But, when answering, they did not use the whole
sentence every time. So I repeated their answer saying the whole sentence.
3) True X False
Each student is given several pieces of paper with statements about the story
(See attach. 8). Their task is to mark whether they are true of false (inspired by
Correction reading, see page 35).
Comment:
This activity was probably a bit more difficult for them, for none of them had all
answers correct. They were mostly confused by the third statement. The reason
is probably that the sentence was negative. The purpose of this activity was to
remind them of the story and also to practice correction reading.
60
4) Who said…
Each pupil is given a piece of paper with speech bubbles (See attach. 9). They
are supposed to write a matching name to each bubble depending on who or
what said the particular utterance (inspired by Identifying chunks, see page 34).
Comment:
There were no visible difficulties with this task. Only, it was possible to write
more answers for some bubbles, and therefore they were a bit confused.
Otherwise, concerning the lexical point of view, they did not ask for any help –
all was clear.
5) Explanation
Pupils are divided into four groups. Each group is given several words and also
explanation of these words (See attach. 10). Their task is to match each word
with a suitable explanation (inspired by Matching, see page 34).
Comment:
This task was very demanding for them. It took them a long time to match two
matching answers. They especially struggled with some words from the
explanation stripes. They were not sure at all so we finished it together after
several minutes. It is evident that they are not used to explaining meaning of
words - they only memorize them. The aim was to make them practice speaking
and using chunks.
6) Description
Pupils are in their groups. Each group chooses one character they like and try to
describe him or her (appearance, behavior, etc.), (inspired by Identifying chunks,
see page 34).
Comment:
This activity was another very popular one among the pupils. They wrote the
descriptions (See attach. 11) quite quickly and it was also noticeable that they
enjoyed writing it (for deeper analysis see page 71).
61
Lesson 3
Time:
- total: approximately 45 min
- pictures: 5 min
- missing information: 15 min
- matching notes: 10 min
- crossword: 10 min
- Chinese post: 5 min
Materials:
- the book Cows
- pictures from the book
- text A + text B
- paper with the crossword
Aims:
- to revise lexical items
- to practise speaking
- to practise listening
- to practise completing chunks
- to check understanding of the story
- to encourage cooperation skills
1) Pictures
Each pupil is given half of one of these pictures (See attach. 12) from the book.
Then they have to mingle, ask their classmates about their halves and find the
second half of the picture. It is a warm-up activity whereby pairs are made.
Comment:
They enjoyed this warm-up activity a lot. The reason is probably that they did
not have to actually create or do something difficult. In addition to this, they
smoothly recalled some basic information (content) about the book.
62
2) Information gap
The pupils are in the pairs (thanks to the previous activity). One pupil from the
pair is given Text A and the second one is given Text B (See attach. 13). Both
the texts are of the same content but they miss different words. The task of each
pair is to speak to each other and fill in the gaps (inspired by Completing, see
page 34).
Comment:
This activity was very difficult for them. Not only did not they know how to
translate their questions into English language, but they even did not know
how to ask in their mother tongue. They understood the individual words and
even some sentences but to create a question was demanding. So we again
finished it together. I tried to make them logically create Czech questions and
then they translated them. The reason for the failure was maybe again because
of the fact that they were not used to thinking about the language – they were
used to mere accepting the language structure as it was.
3) Notes
The pairs still work together. They are given beginnings and ends of Notes (See
attach. 14) from the story. The task is to match suitable beginning and end
(inspired by Finding parts of collocation, see page 34).
Comment:
This task was definitely much easier in comparison with the previous one. They
still worked in the pairs and helped each other a lot which is maybe why they
successfully matched the notes. They did not ask for translation so I did not ask
either because we were translating a lot during the previous activity. This was
practice of completing chunks.
4) Crossword
Each pupil is given a crossword (See attach. 15). He or she is supposed to fill in
the gap according to the meaning of the whole sentence (inspired by Lexical
crosswords, see page 35).
63
Comment:
They liked it a lot. I gave them a few minutes to work individually. And when I
noticed that they were stuck, we controlled it together. They were not sure about
some sentences or they suggested different answers which would have been
possible but would not have fitted into the boxes. Otherwise, all the words,
phrases or collocations were not difficult for them at all. They already knew
them very well; only in some cases the structure was less understandable for
them but I included them too so that they would think about the language.
5) Chinese post
Pupils are divided into two groups. They make two columns. The first two
pupils come to me, I tell them the message and they have to say it to another and
so on. Pupil at the end has to write the message down. Another two children
come to me and the whole process repeats again until all messages (See attach.
16) are sent (inspired by Identifying chunks, see page 34).
Comment:
They enjoyed this game a lot. They struggled with some “messages” mainly
because of the wrong pronunciation and probably the length (I told them
phrases) but they really tried to win the competition.
Lesson 4
Time:
- total: approximately 45 min
- retell the story: 10 min
- odd one out: 10 min
- human pairs: 15 min
- word snake: 5 min
- finish sentences: 5 min
Materials:
- the book Cows
64
- paper with Odd one out
- stripes of paper for Human pairs
- paper with Word snake
- paper with Finish sentences
Aims:
- to revise lexical items
- to practise chunking
- to practise thinking in “longer utterances” (not individual words)
- to learn new collocations
- to practise speaking
- to practise listening
- to check understanding of the story
1) Retell the story
We sit in a circle. I have a ball and say the first sentence of the story. Then I
throw it to somebody else and the person has to say another part of the story.
This repeats until the whole story is retold (inspired by Sequencing, see page
34).
Comment:
This retelling was quite difficult. They tended to retell the story using the Czech
language. They sometimes said some sentences or words in English but they
were very unsure and the sentences were not grammatically correct. But I did
not correct them. This activity was supposed to train the chunking, which was
fulfilled but in Czech. I helped them to create the sentences using the words they
had known.
2) Odd one out
Each pupil is given an exercise (See attach. 17) with several nouns. Each noun is
completed by several adjectives. However, one of the adjectives does not
collocate with the particular noun. The task is to find the adjective in each row
(inspired by Deleting, see page 34).
65
Comment:
I gave them few minutes and the dictionaries. Then we finished it together.
Some items were correct and some not. But it is hard to say whether they really
knew the answers or whether they only guessed since they were supposed only
to circle the answers.
3) Human pairs
Two pupils leave the classroom. The rest of the class makes pairs. Each pair
represents one character or thing from the story. Each pair has a name and also
motto (See attach. 18) whereby they represent themselves (e.g. hen: no eggs) if
they are called out by the players. The players have to find the pairs. The player
who scores more (gain more human pairs) is a winner (inspired by Identifying
chunks, see page 34).
Comment:
This was undoubtedly the most successful activity. They quickly understood the
instructions and during the whole activity they used only English. They kept
saying and asking in English only with minor grammatical mistakes. The reason
is probably the excitement about the game itself and also the easy sentence
structures which repeated all the time. Furthermore, they demanded the game
twice, even though it was time for a break.
4) Word snake
Each pupil is given a long row of letters (See attach. 19) without any gaps
between them. The pupils are supposed to find in the row meaningful sentences
(inspired by Identifying chunks, see page 34).
Comment:
This activity belongs to the easier ones. They managed to find almost all the
sentences. The only problem was that they sometimes found only individual
words and could not find the rest of the sentence. In my opinion, they kept
forgetting that they were supposed to find sentences and not separate words,
since when I pointed out there is something else they immediately found the rest.
This activity was again focused on the chunking, which was fulfilled partially.
66
5) Finish sentences
Pupils are given several sentences with no end (See attach. 20). Their task is to
finish each sentence (inspired by Completing, see page 34).
Comment:
Some sentences were easier and some were more difficult but they wrote
meaningful endings for each sentence (sometimes with grammatical mistakes). I
would say that the reason for high success was that they were actually allowed to
write whatever they wanted, and thus they wrote what they were able to.
Lesson 5
Time:
- total: approximately 45 min
- running dictation: 15 min
- dictionary: 10 min
- wrong statements: 5 min
- questions: 5 min
- vocabulary book: 10 min
Materials:
- the book Cows
- dictionaries
- paper with Running dictation
- paper for vocabulary book
Aims:
- to learn new collocations
- to revise lexical items
- to practise chunking
- to practise work with a dictionary
- to practise thinking in “longer utterances” (not individual words)
- to practise speaking
- to practise listening
67
- to repeat the story
1) Running dictation
Pupils are divided into groups of three children. One pupil writes, the other two
run to a place where a text (See attach. 21) is and try to remember as much as
possible so that they would be able to retell it to the “writer”. The only condition
is that only one pupil can be at the text, so the best situation is when one is
writing, the second one is dictating and the third one is reading the text (inspired
by Kim’s game, see page 35).
Comment:
I was told that they knew this activity so explanation of the instruction was much
easier for me. As for the results, each text included some mistakes (usually about
six mistakes) concerning spelling or they omitted a word entirely. But each
group managed to keep the meaning of the original text. They were again very
eager to remember and write the text (they are probably very competitive). This
activity was practice of chunking – they should have tried to remember some
part (chunks) which would have been comprehensible for them, which was, in
my opinion, fulfilled.
2) Dictionary
The pupils stay in the previous groups. Each group is given several nouns (See
attach. 22) and a dictionary with the help of which they should try to find as
many collocating adjectives or verbs as possible (inspired by Examining a word,
see page 34).
Comment:
This was the most difficult task from the whole teaching plan. They tried to find
some collocating words but without success. So we did this activity together
word by word. I told them to find the particular word and they tried to find some
collocating words. Then we checked it together with all groups. The reason
probably is that they are not used to it at all. They sometimes look up some
words in dictionaries but only for the translation. Much more practice would be
definitely needed.
68
3) Wrong statements
I say several statements (See attach. 23). Some of them are true, some of them
false. If they are false, pupils should stand up and say the correct version
(inspired by Correction reading, see page 35).
Comment:
Since they like movement, they liked a lot this activity as well. The answers
were also easy for them, for they already knew the story very well.
4) Questions
I ask pupils several questions (See attach. 24) concerning the whole story. These
questions should serve as a summary of the whole story (inspired by Lexical
drill, see page 34).
Comment:
These questions were a bit more difficult, for they were rather hypothetical and
required expression of opinions. Nevertheless, they attempted to speak English
(which I appreciated because last time they tried less). Their answers contained
several grammatical mistakes but I did not correct them in order not to
discourage them to speak. As for the lexical point of view, they knew what they
wanted to say, they only struggled with the construction of the sentences.
5) Vocabulary book
We all together go through their vocabulary books (For examples see attach. 25)
and check what they wrote in them (inspired by Examining a word, see page 34).
Comment:
They mostly wrote the same lexical items in their books. However, they were
allowed to cooperate, to share their ideas with their peers and to use the
dictionaries. Their items and notes are not exhausting but it is evident that they
tried to write something down (for more detailed analysis see page 71-72).
69
3.6 Evaluation of the sources
Having carried out the project, I will analyse the data from the three sources in
order to explore whether there is some progress in connection with the Lexical
Approach.
3.6.1 Pedagogical journal
The pedagogical journal includes all my comments which were written during
each lesson with the children. The comments contain information about the children‟s
behaviour, attitude to each activity, and also how they coped with the activities. The
teaching plan consisted of five forty-five-minute lessons. However, the plan eventually
took six lessons, for some activities required more time and I did not want to interrupt
them only to stick to the time schedule. I believed that the children would have been
stressed because of the hurry.
To summarize the comments, there were activities the children liked and
enjoyed very much (e.g. order of the story, writing notes, description of characters,
Chinese post, human pairs or running dictation). As for the Human pairs, they even
required to play it again, even though the lesson was over. This was very rewarding,
since they seemed to be very interested in it. The reason why they preferred the above
mentioned activities may be that those were the easier ones, rather game-oriented. They
did not have to try hard to cope with the activities. These tasks were also connected with
competing, which could also have increased the popularity.
On the contrary, some of the activities were not accepted with such an
enthusiasm. Those were mostly the activities requiring working with a dictionary, such
as Odd one out or Finding collocations. This is also probably the reason for the
unpopularity, for in these cases they were required to work with a dictionary and, what
is more, to work individually. To be honest, I had not asked the English teacher whether
they are used to working and looking up words in a dictionary so I was really afraid
how these activities would be perceived. As I recorded in the teaching plan, especially
the second activity (Find collocations) was quite demanding for them, since they
genuinely had to find some collocating words; they could not only guess or tick some
options.
70
However, there were also activities which were very easy for them (e.g. guess
the headline/cover, matching pictures with sentences, true/false, who said or word
snake). It was an intention to make certain activities easier, for those mostly served as
warm-up activities at the beginning of the lessons. Those were supposed to help the
pupils to get in mood of the story, which, I believe, was accomplished - the pupils
seemed to recall gradually the story and some lexical items.
As it is possible to notice, the area of tasks which were popular and easy for
them quite corresponds to their learning styles (visual and kinaesthetic) and kind of
intelligence (linguistic-verbal and bodily-kinaesthetic) because they mostly preferred
activities connected to work with words/written language (writing notes), pictures
(matching) and a movement (human pairs, running dictation). Obviously, the teaching
plan was intentionally compiled mainly from these sorts of activities to attract the
children. However, on the other hand, other various types of tasks (e.g. finding
collocations) were included as well not only to explore how they would approach them
but also to focus on all four language skills.
Generally, despite not being so much interested in certain tasks, they seemed to
like the book and its plot (although they found it quite crazy and improbable). They
willingly cooperated every time. In addition to this, every time at the beginning of each
lesson, they told me that they were looking forward to it. However, one of the reasons
was, as they added, that they were glad that they did not have to work with their
common textbooks.
3.6.2 Output of the learners
Everything that the children had to create or write (e.g. farmer‟ notes, character
description and vocabulary book) is considered to be their output.
As far as the farmer’s notes are concerned, the children worked in four groups
and within them they were supposed to react on the Cows‟ note where the Cows suggest
exchanging the typewriter for the electric blankets. As you can see (See attach. 5) all
four notes are original, for each of them suggests something different.
The first note (See attach. 5a) differs most, since it is basically a question and
not suggestion. I asked the group why they wrote this and they replied that the cows
would have to answer again and then they would see how they would decide. As for the
71
language and grammar, this was probably the least successful note. But they tried and
drew a picture there, which was not done by any other group.
The second note (See attach. 5b) is better from the grammatical point of view.
Also this group took advantage of a dictionary which I had brought for them and found
there probably the word oven.
The third group consisted of three boys. That is maybe the reason why they
mentioned killing in their note (See attach. 5c). I liked this one because it was witty and
also because of the fact that they used “furious” in saying goodbye.
The last note (See attach. 5d) was, in my opinion, the best and the most
thorough one. In spite of containing some grammatical and spelling mistakes, it is long
and it also contains quite advanced vocabulary (which they found in the dictionary).
With regard to the second output, children worked again in groups of four and
their task was to choose one character from the story and describe it. Two groups chose
the character of Farmer Brown and the other two groups decided for the Cows.
The first group describing Farmer Brown wrote a very nice description (See
attach. 11a) including basic facts. The description contains some grammatical and
spelling mistakes (e.g. had instead of hat) but yet it is comprehensible. They used full
simple sentences and one of them was even compound sentence.
The second group which selected Farmer Brown also wrote a very neat
description (See attach. 11b) consisting of four simple sentences.
The third group described one Cow (See attach. 11c). From the grammatical
point of view, this is the best work since it does not contain any grammatical mistakes.
The last group wrote the most creative “description”. I used the quotation
marks since, as it is noticeable (See attach. 11d), in fact it was rather a short story. As
the title “Cow Řeřízka” indicates, the content is slightly morbid. However, as for the
lexical point of view, they used very nice sentences and there is also evidence that they
strived to include interesting phrases. Moreover, this group took advantage of the
dictionary which they were allowed to use.
Regarding the last output, each child was supposed to create his or her
vocabulary book (For examples see attach. 25). It was a continuous task during which
the children were asked to write down lexical items they liked together with example
sentences. However, taking into account their age and inexperience with this kind of
work, I wrote one lexical item as an example and then at the end of each lesson I wrote
several lexical items which we discussed during the particular lesson on the board and
72
appropriated the children five minutes to choose items which they were fond of. They
were allowed to write whatever they wanted; the only condition was to write it in
phrases and with examples they found useful. As you can see, they tried to follow my
pattern. Although pupils sitting together probably let inspire each other, each
vocabulary book is slightly different. I also appreciated that, apart from my help, they
used the storybook as well as the dictionaries available.
3.6.3 Pre-test and post-test
The test was created by myself since a) I wanted to try to create such a test
which concentrates on this method and b) I needed to accommodate the level of the test
to the pupils‟ language level. The test was inspired by the exercises and activities which
are typical of the Lexical Approach (see for example Lewis, M. c1997; Lewis, M., &
Hill, J. 1992; Lewis, M. (Ed.). 2000). There are four tasks and each of them deals with
the chunks from different point of view. When I presented the test to the pupils I
explained each task to them because some instructions (especially the first one –
Chunking) could have been quite confusing. The results are demonstrated in the chart
(See attach. 27).
The first task (Chunking the text) was oriented on the pupils‟ ability to chunk
the text. They were allowed to chunk it as they felt it should have been, but the final
chunks should have been meaningful and should have demonstrated what they
understood by the chunking. The variety of possible results which follows from the
instructions is also the reason why this task is not included in the chart.
Within the second task, the pupils were supposed to finish the sentences using
some meaningful chunks which would correspond to the beginning of the sentence.
The similar task appeared within the third task as well (filling the dialogues).
The pupils were supposed to demonstrate their ability to interconnect certain chunks by
means of other chunks.
The last task (matching) was probably the easiest one. They were supposed to
match beginnings and endings according to the meaning.
The pre-test was carried out before the whole teaching plan. After six lessons
the children were given the post-test. Both the tests (See attach. 26) are intentionally the
same in order to make the analysis and comparison as exact as possible. Below there are
results of each pupil and also final evaluation.
73
As far as the first task is concerned, most of the pupils chunked both the tests
in more or less the same way. Only some of them (4 pupils) chunked it differently in the
pre-test and the post-test. Those may have been either influenced by this research and
the activities from the teaching plan, or they may have only changed their mind
regardless of the teaching plan. Based on this task, it is thus not possible to say whether
the teaching plan helped them to understand what the core of chunking is.
In the pre-test as well as in the post-test pupil one divided the text into
sentences. With regard to the finishing sentences, in both the tests the pupil finished
both. However, in the pre-test there was one grammatical mistake (incorrect present
continuous). In the post-test, everything was correct grammatically as well as lexically.
As for the dialogue, unlike the post-test, the pupil did not fill in the whole conversation
in the pre-test. But every time it made sense and it was correct. The last task was correct
in both tests.
The second pupil made the vertical lines between sentences in a way which
somehow meant other parts of the day. The pupil made this in both the tests but on
slightly different places. As for the second task, the pupil finished both sentences in
both the tests but the first sentence contained grammatical mistakes. The third and the
forth tasks were correct in both the tests.
Pupil number three made only one line in the middle of the pre-test. But in the
post-test, the pupil made three lines probably according to the phases of the day.
Concerning the second task, this pupil finished the sentences very well using long
meaningful and grammatically correct sentences in both the tests. The same repeated in
the dialogue which was also meaningfully finished without any grammatical mistakes.
The last exercise was correct in both the tests.
Pupil four made one line exactly on the same place (probably as his or her
partner Pupil 3). But regarding the post-test, the pupil made lines between sentences.
This pupil also created nice endings for the sentences in both the tests. The dialogue and
the matching were correct too in both cases.
Pupil five divided the text according to the meaning (parts of the day). As for
the sentences, this pupil finished both but the second one missed tense accordance in the
pre-test. In the post-test both the sentences were correct. The dialogue was partially
correct in the pre-test, but in the post-test it was correct. The last task was correct too in
both the tests.
74
The sixth pupil divided it according to the parts of the day in the pre-test; in the
post-test the pupil made the same. This pupil finished the sentences correctly in both the
tests. As for the dialogue, the pre-test included one spelling mistake but the post-test
was alright. The matching exercise was correct in both the tests.
Pupil seven made the lines between each sentence in both the texts. The
finishing was grammatically correct in the pre-test but the second sentence did not make
sense. In the post-test the endings were correct. Concerning the dialogue and the
matching, these were correct in both the tests.
Pupil eight divided the text into three parts in the pre-test and into four parts in
the post-test. Regarding the sentences, he or she finished only the first sentence in the
pre-test, but in the post-test both the sentences were finished and even grammatically
and lexically correct. As for the dialogue, there was a sentence which did not
correspond to the tense. However, as for the post-test, it was better and correct. The last
task was correct in both the tests.
Pupil nine made somewhere lines between phrases and somewhere between
sentences in the pre-test. In the post-test the lines were based on the phases of the day.
The finishing was alright in both the tests. The dialogue contained some spelling
mistakes in the pre-test. The post-test dialogue was without any mistakes. The matching
was correct in both the tests.
Pupil ten also divided the text according to the parts of the day in both the
texts. With regard to the finishing, the first sentence was correct but the second one was
grammatically incorrect. In the post-test these sentences were both correct. Speaking
about the dialogue and the matching, these were correct in both the tests.
Pupil eleven made the lines between sentences. He or she did the same in both
the tests. The finishing was also correct in both the tests. Regarding the dialogue, there
was one sentence which did not correspond to the tense but it was improved in the
second test. The matching exercise was correct in both the tests.
Pupil twelve approached the dividing from the sentence point of view in both
the tests. As far as the finishing is concerned, this pupil probably cooperated with pupil
eleven, since their answers are identical in both the tests. As for the dialogue, this
contained many grammatical mistakes in the pre-test, but there were only few spelling
mistakes in the post-test. The matching contained two mistakes in the pre-test but there
was no mistake in the post-test.
75
As it is noticeable (See the chart, attachment 27), in most cases there was a
slight change for the better (number 1 in the green column) but in some cases there was
no change (number 0 in the green column). Out of the four tasks the last one (matching)
was probably the easiest one for them, for only one pupil made mistakes in it (pupil
number twelve in the last orange column). On the contrary, the more difficult tasks were
the second (finish sentences) and the third (the dialogue) one. From the point of view of
the Lexical Approach, their outcomes were correct. Those were only the grammatical
(e.g. wrong form of present continuous/past simple, etc.) or spelling (e.g. wan‟t, footbol,
etc.) mistakes which prevented them from expressing themselves properly.
It thus follows from the results above that there is no significant change or
progress concerning the ability to chunk.
76
4 Conclusion
The topic of this diploma thesis was using storybooks and the Lexical
Approach for teaching children.
The theoretical part consisted of four main chapters (methods, the Lexical
Approach, using storybooks, teaching young learners). Despite dealing with different
topics, some ideas from all of them were continuously interconnected in order to notice
certain links. The information subsequently served as a basis for creating the activities
in the teaching plan.
The teaching plan held the main part of the practical part. The plan contained
activities based on the Lexical Approach (e.g. identifying chunks, matching,
sequencing, completing, deleting, finding parts of collocations, word choice or phrase
matching). Besides, there was also information concerning the learners; not only from
the point of view of their personal characteristic, but also from the learning point of
view (what kind of language learners they are). Based on this piece of information the
storybook was selected. Apart from this, there was also a mention regarding the reasons
for such a choice and content of the book. Finally, there was an analysis of the data.
As far as the aim of this thesis is concerned, it is dual. Firstly, to prove that
children who are taught an English language within stories accompanied by activities
based on the lexical approach are able to acquire discussed lexical items more easily and
remember it for a longer time, and secondly, to prove that it is feasible to teach a
sequence of five lessons based on the storybook project and activities typical of the
Lexical Approach.
To sum up the results, with regard to the lexical items learnt with the help of
the Lexical Approach, the result is visible. However, in my view, certain doubts and
comments should be stated. Definitely, on the one hand, there are signs of learning the
lexical items from the storybook. The story enabled the children to acquire the items
very easily and quickly. However, speaking about the span of time during which they
would remember the items, it is not possible to unequivocally answer. This research was
based only on five (but eventually on six) lessons, but more lessons would be probably
needed to gain provable results.
As for the storybooks used simultaneously with the Lexical Approach, this
work has proven that it is possible to teach such a sequence of lessons. No problem,
which would cause any impossibility to continue or which would make the children
77
annoyed, did not appear during the lessons. On the contrary, the children were eager and
willing to cooperate for the whole time. In my opinion, the reason for this may be that
the Lexical Approach, although being considered as a separate approach, uses various
types of activities encouraging development of all four language skills (definitely under
one condition – to maintain and follow the idea of chunks). Therefore, the tasks vary a
lot, and thus learners are provided with many different impulses which hopefully ensure
the entertainment.
In conclusion, in spite of being limited by number of lessons when I was
allowed to teach the plan, and thus not having the possibility to gain more provable data
and results, I consider this research to be satisfactory. It provided me with the possibility
to experience what it is to teach a lesson based on principles only of one particular
method. Based on my experience, a teacher has to take into consideration especially
pupils‟ language level, age and interest, otherwise any lesson may immediately become
boring for the pupils. Concerning the advantage of working with one method is the fact
that a teacher is not confused by a big choice of possible activities – he or she is
partially limited and it is helpful in this case. However, on the other hand, this limitation
may sometimes seem to be disadvantage since one cannot choose from many activities.
In addition to this experience, I realised that the “chunks” do not have to mean
and require only advanced level of English, but that it may be easily used with young
language learners as well. I also hope that this project served as a pre-teaching project,
and thus I will be able to try the same sometime in the future when I become an
independent English teacher.
78
5 References
Anthony, E. M. (1963). Approach, Method, and Technique. ELT Journal (2): 43–63.
Bange, P. (with Carol, R., & Griggs, P.) (2005). L’apprentissage d’une langue
étrangère : cognition etinteraction, Paris: L‟Harmattan.
Brewster, J., Ellis, G., & Girard, D. (1992). The primary English teacher's guide.
London: Penguin Books.
Brumfit, C. J., & Johnson, K. (Eds.). (1987). The communicative approach to
language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners, Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Boston:
Heinle.
Cherry, K. (2015, August 5). “Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences.” About.com
Psychology. Retrieved from:
< http://psychology.about.com/od/educationalpsychology/ss/multiple-intell.htm >.
Choděra, R. (2001). Didaktika cizích jazyků na přelomu staletí. 1. vyd. Rudná u Prahy:
Editpress.
Ellis, G. & Brewster, J. (1991). The storytelling handbook: a guide for primary teachers
of English. London: Penguin Books.
Elley, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research
Quarterly. 24(2).
Gairns, R., & Redman, S. (1990). Working with words: a guide to teaching and
learning vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holden, S. (1991). Teaching children. Hong Kong: Modern English Publications.
Islam, K., & Timmis, I. (2003). Lexical Approach 1 - What does the lexical approach
look like?, British Council: Teaching English. Retrieved from:
http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/lexical-approach-1-what-does-lexical-
approach-look.
James, C., & Huckin, T. (1997). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: a rationale
for pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from:
https://books.google.cz/books?hl=cs&lr=&id=_g0eSfesA-
0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA225&dq=lexical+approach+with+storybooks&ots=Bej5ND-
RpZ&sig=ng6mwA4A7f8PeLDYPFxEzPxszzw#v=onepage&q&f=false
Janíková, V. (2011). Výuka cizích jazyků. Vyd. 1. Praha: Grada.
79
Kavaliauskienë, G., & Janulevièienë, V. (2001). Using the Lexical Approach for the
Acquisition of ESP Vocabulary. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(3). Retrieved from:
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kavaliauskiene-LA.html
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. J Soc, 2(4), 34-46. Retrieved
from:
http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/Courses/ILT/ILT0003/ActionResearchandMinortyProb
lems.pdf
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: the state of ELT and a way forward. Hove:
Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (c1997). Implementing the lexical approach: puttin theory into practice.
Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (Ed.). (2000). Teaching collocation: further developments in the lexical
approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M., & Hill, J. (1992). Practical techniques for language teaching. Hove:
Language Teaching Publications.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Maňák, J., & Švec, V. (2003). Výukové metody. Brno: Paido.
Mojžíšek, L. (1988). Vyučovací metody. Vyd. 3. Praha: SPN.
McCarthy, M. (2001). Issues in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Moon, J. (2000). Children learning English. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Oxford Dictionaries: Language matters. (2015). Oxford University Press. Retrieved
from: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
Phillips, S. (1993). Young learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prahbu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rhalmi, M. (2009, September 29). My English Page: Reflections On New Teaching
Horizons!. The Lexical Approach. Retrieved from:
http://www.myenglishpages.com/blog/lexical-approach/
80
Richards, C. J., & Rodgers, S. T. (1991). Approaches and methods in language
teaching: a description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, C. J., & Rodgers, S. T. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching
(2nd edition). Cambridge University Press.
Scott, W. A., & Ytreberg, L. H. (1991). Teaching English to children. Harlow:
Longman.
Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2001). Storybook reading and parent teaching: Link to
language and literacy development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Skalková, J. (2007). Obecná didaktika: vyučovací proces, učivo a jeho výběr, metody,
organizační formy vyučování. 2. Praha: Grada.
Stevick, W., E. (1989). Teaching and learning languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Thornbury, S. (2010, September 5). An A-Z of ELT: L is for (Michael) Lewis. Blog at
WordPress.com. Retrieved from: https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/l-is-
for-michael-lewis/
Vale, D., & Feunteun, A. (1995). Teaching children English: a training course for
teachers of English to children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vojtková, N. (2013). Nové trendy ve výuce cizích jazyků aneb jakou metodu vlastně
používám? Educoland: Pedagogická fakulta Masarykovy university. Retrieved from:
http://educoland.muni.cz/anglicky-jazyk-a-literatura/novinky-z-oboru/nove-trendy-ve-
vyuce-cizich-jazyku-aneb-jakou-metodu-vlastne-pouzivam/
Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus: a new approach to language teaching. London:
Collins ELT.
IMAGES
1) The cow
Smékal, L. (1999-2015). Kytara.cz – Nejen kytary, akordy a ladička. Retrieved from:
http://www.kytara.cz/web/milka/
2) The duck
Lifestyle: How stuff works. How to draw a duck in 4 steps. Retrieved from:
http://lifestyle.howstuffworks.com/crafts/drawing/how-to-draw-a-duck.htm
3) The hen
Smart Kit: School games & puzzle (2012). Match brain teaser with a hen. Retrieved
from: http://www.smart-kit.com/s583/math-brain-teaser-with-a-hen/
81
4) The farmer
Martin, P. (2015). Ferrebeekeeper. Retrieved from:
https://ferrebeekeeper.wordpress.com/tag/cartoon/
5) The typewriter
Slunečnice.cz: Programy rychle a zadarmo (1998-2015). LibreOffice. Retrieved from:
http://www.slunecnice.cz/tipy/jak-vybavit-novy-pocitac-programy-zcela-zdarma-3/
6) The note
Pd4pic.com (2015). Retrieved from: http://www.pd4pic.com/education-note-paper-
pen-pencil-office-cartoon.html
82
6 Appendices
Appendix 1
Mini questionnaire
1) How old are you?
2) Do you have any pets?
3) Do you have any brother or sister?
4) Which colour is your favourite?
5) Which subject at school do you like?
6) Which subject at school do you hate?
7) What topics do you like discussing?
8) What activities during English lessons are your favourite?
9) What do you think you are good at?
10) What do you think needs improvement?
11) What do you like in your free time?
12) What is boring for you?
13) Do you like reading? If yes, write what do you like?
Appendix 2
The sentences:
- This is a COW.
- It is a HEN.
- It‟s a DUCK.
- This is a TYPEWRITER.
- You can TYPE with a typewriter.
- You can leave a NOTE.
The pictures:
83
Appendix 3
- Farmer Brown has a problem.
- His cows type all the time.
- Firstly caws wanted electric blankets.
- Then hens wanted electric blankets too.
- No milk! No eggs!
- Brown was really furious.
- No electric blankets!
- We will exchange our typewriter for electric blankets.
Appendix 4
84
Appendix 5
a) b)
c) d)
Appendix 6
- Done! It is deal!
- But the ducks then wanted a diving board.
Appendix 7
- What was the name of the farmer?
- What did the cows use for writing?
- Why did the cows demand the electric blanket?
- Which other animals did require the electric blanket too?)
- Was farmer Brown willing to give them the electric blanket?
- Which animal was a neutral party?
- Did Brown give them the electric blanket in the end?
85
- Which animal wanted a diving board?
Appendix 8
- The farmer was glad that his cows can type.
- The cows wanted electric pillows.
- The farmer did not want to give the cows the blankets.
- The hens decided to go on strike.
- A dog was a neutral party.
- The ducks demanded a diving board.
Appendix 9
Appendix 10
- TYPE write with the help of a typewriter
- TYPEWRITER an invention for writing
- FURIOUS our mood when we are angry
- BARN place where domestic animals sleep
- BLANKET a think with which we can cover
- STRIKE an event when someone demands something
- NOTE a short message
- BUSY a state when we are not free because have to do
something
- IMPATIENT a state when we want something a lot but we have to
wait for a long time
- PARTY a group which we belong to
- MEETING an event when many people meet to discuss
Moo! Moo!
We‟d like some
electric blankets.
No way!
No eggs!
How can I run a
farm with no milk
and no eggs?
I demand milk and
eggs.
We will exchange
our typewriter for
electric blankets.
The pond is quite boring. Cows that type! No milk
today?
86
something
- GATHER to meet
- SNOOP to spy, to listen/watch secretly
- EXCHANGE to give somebody something instead of something
different
- DEAL agreement between two or more people
- DIVING BOARD a board for jumping into water
Appendix 11
a)
b)
c)
d)
87
Appendix 12
Appendix 13
Text A
……………………………. has a problem. His cows like …………….. He
……………………….. his ears! …………….. that type?! The cows wrote: “The barn
is …………. We‟d like some electric blankets.” The cows found the old
………………………... “No way!” said ………………. Brown. So the cows
…………….. on strike: “………. milk today.” But hens want the
………………………………… too. They left a new note on the …………..: “No
eggs!” Farmer Brown was furious: “I …………………. milk and eggs!” Duck was a
88
The barn is very
cold at night.
………………………, so he brought the ultimatum to the cows. The cows
…………….. an emergency meeting. Finally they wrote: We will …………………….
our typewriter for electric blankets.” This was a good deal for the farmer. However, the
ducks took the typewriter and demanded a ………………………………..
Text B
Farmer Brown has a …………………... His …………….. like to type. He couldn‟t
believe his …………….! Cows that type?! The cows wrote: “The ……………. is cold.
We‟d like some …………………………………….” The cows ………………… the
old typewriter. “No ………….!” said farmer Brown. So the cows went
…………………: “No milk today.” But ………………. want the electric blankets too.
They ……………. a new note on the barn: “No eggs!” Farmer Brown was
………………: “I demand milk and eggs!” Duck was a neutral party, so he brought the
……………………… to the cows. The cows held an ……………………….. meeting.
Finally they wrote: We will exchange our ……………………… for electric blankets.”
This was a good ……………… for the farmer. However, the ducks took the typewriter
and ………………………. a diving board.
Appendix 14
Appendix 15
1) The cows wanted ______ blankets.
2) They left a _______ on the barn door.
3) The animals _______ on strike.
4) Farmer Brown couldn‟t believe his ______
5) The barn was very cold at _______
6) Farmer _______ the cows busy at work.
7) Brown ______ mild and eggs.
8) Duck brought the _______.
9) Duck was a _______ party.
10) Farmer said: “No _______! No electric blankets!”
11) The duck say the _______ is quite boring.
12) The cows found an old ________.
We‟d like some
electric blankets.
Sorry. We‟re
closed.
No milk
today.
The hens are
cold too.
They‟d like
electric blankets.
There will be no
electric blankets.
I demand
milk and
eggs.
We will
exchange our
typewirter for
electriv blankets.
Leave them
outsider the barn
door.
The pond is quite
boring.
We‟d like a
diving board.
89
Appendix 16
The lexical items: click clack moo, No milk today, No electric blankets, cows went on
strike, the hens are cold too, farmer Brown was furious, How can I run a farm, I demand
milk and eggs, duck was a neutral party, this was a good deal, the pond is quite boring
Appendix 17
Odd one out
1) Strike: post, go on, throw, put
2) Note: illness, leave, make, sick
3) Party: political, get, neutral, visiting
4) Ultimatum: accept, bring, issue, give
5) Meeting: arrange, hold, call, put
6) Deal: big, great, make, refuse
90
Appendix 18
HENS: No eggs!
COWS: No milk!
FARMER: No electric blankets!
DUCKS: The pond is quite boring.
BARN: It‟s cold at night.
TYPEWRITER: Cows that type?!
Appendix 19
KLAYCOWSTHATTYPESESWEARECLOSEDMILKNOEGGSTHEYFOUNDANO
LDTYPEWRITERINTHEBARNEVYPRLAYANIMALSGATHEREDTOHOLDANE
MERGENCYMEETINGNOWAYITWASAGOODDEALERISGOTTYPEWRITEROR
BLANKETSDUCKWASANEUTRALPARTYSOHEBROUGHTTHEULTIMATUMFI
NSQAHEDEMANSMILKHEWASREALLYFURIOUSPOUZYCANDUCKWERSTA
LLONSTRIKETHEYLEFTMANYNOTESONABARN
Appendix 20
Finish these sentences…
1) Animals go…
2) The barn was…
3) Farmer Brown was furious because…
4) Cows are able to use…
5) The problem is…
6) Hens demanded…
Appendix 21
Once upon a time there was farmer Brown who ran a farm. He kept cows, hens and
ducks. He liked his animals but once… a note appeared on the barn door: “We want
electric blankets! Sincerely, your Cows” Farmer could not believe his eyes. Cows that
type! Impossible! Later even the ducks wanted the blankets too. They left another note:
“No eggs!” Brown was furious: “Whoever heard of such a thing?!” And so he decided
to write a note too: “How can I run a farm without milk and eggs? I want you to give me
milk and eggs!” Later on cows decided to exchange the typewriter for the blankets. It
was a good deal. However, the ducks kept the typewriter and demanded a diving
board…
91
Appendix 22
Find collocating adjectives and verbs
1) answer –
2) door –
3) eggs –
4) work –
Appendix 23
1) Farmer Brown runs a firm.
2) Hen was a neutral party.
3) Cows wanted electric blankets.
4) Hens wanted electricity.
5) Ducks also wrote on the typewriter.
6) Cows found the typewriter in the garden.
7) Farmer Brown was did not care about their demands. They were only animals.
8) All animals went on strike.
9) Cows held an emergency meeting.
10) Cows also wanted a diving board.
Appendix 24
- Do you think Brown acted suitably?
- How would you act?
- Who do you think was right, the farmer or the cow? Why?
- Do you think it would be great if animals could speak as people can?
92
Appendix 25
93
94
Appendix 26
One day of David
I usually get up at 6 o‟clock in the morning. I hate it because it is so early! But I have to
because I commute to school. Afterwards, I get dressed, go to the toilet and then to the
bathroom where I clean my teeth. I try to have breakfast but I am sometimes short of
time so I eat when I come to school. After that I go to the bus station. Fortunately, I‟m
never late! At the bus station I meet my friend Brian. He lives in the same village. Our
school starts at 8 o‟clock. We have subjects like Mathematics, History, English
language, Geography, Physical education, Civics, etc. My favourite subjects are
Physical education and Geography. Brian‟s favourite subject is English language.
________________________________________________________
1) Chunk the text above as you think it could be (e.g. phrases, sentences,
paragraphs, etc.). Make vertical lines between the chunks.
2) Finish the following sentences:
a) Sorry, but I cannot help you because…
……………………………………………………………………………………….
95
b) The party was great but…
………………………………………………………………………………………….
3) Complete this dialogue:
Hi, Jack!
- …………………………………….!
…………………………………………………………………………………?
- I‟m sorry, but I won‟t be at home tomorrow. But what about Sunday?
…………………………………………………………………
- OK, see you on Sunday! Bye!
………………………………………!
4) Match start with a suitable end of each sentence:
a) In most soap operas there love with Stuart.
b) I don‟t want to catch a cold so is a love triangle.
c) Kate is deeply in accepted among people.
d) This fact is widely I will rather get dressed.
Appendix 27
Pre/Post-test:
1 = better result in comparison with the second result
2 = worse result in comparison with the second result
Task
Pupil Pre-test Po-test Pre-test Po-test Pre-test Po-testPre-test
Suma
Po-test
suma
Final
results
1 2 1 2 1 1 1 5 3 1
2 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 0
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 0
5 2 1 2 1 1 1 5 3 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 0
7 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1
8 2 1 2 1 1 1 5 3 1
9 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 3 1
10 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1
11 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 3 1
12 1 1 2 2 2 1 5 4 1
2 3 4
96
Pre/Post-test Suma:
- the numbers in the first column demonstrate count of the Pre-test
- the numbers in the second column demonstrate count of the Post-test
- the difference between the count of the Pre-test and Post-test demonstrates
extent of the change
-
Final results
- the number in the last column demonstrates the change of the results from
the Pre-test and Post-test
- 0 = no change
- 1 = improvement
- 2 = deterioration
