The Flipped Language Classroom: a case study

I’ve been pretty busy with my MA over the last few months, but have taken a sneaky couple of hours off essay writing to share this. 

In the not-so-distant past I was DoS in a private language school. I was asked to write a new set of syllabi, and the management team decided that these should follow the principles of the flipped classroom.

The students and the course package

Our students were mainly adult working people who were attending lessons in the evening. Courses were comprised of three elements: a group lesson for two hours once a week (60 hours an academic year); unlimited access to free group conversation with a fluent English speaker; and an online platform provided with the coursebook used in class.

Why change your syllabus?

These were our reasons, some of them will sound familiar:

  1. Our students expected to complete a whole CEFR level during in the short academic year which ran from October to May, while only coming to class once a week.
  2. EAQUALS accreditation requires that syllabi are mapped to the CEFR, our old syllabus was not.
  3. We had no scheme of work. If students missed lessons, it was difficult for the admin team to tell them what they needed to catch up on, ditto for late starters.
  4. Our old syllabi were heavily grammar or function focused. Skills were largely absent.
  5. End of module tests often assessed students on discrete language points that hadn’t been taught (because there was no scheme of work).
  6. Often the teachers didn’t have time to get to the practice part of the (usually PPP) lesson in the course book, or to use the teacher’s book activities. Being (in my opinion) the most useful and fun part of the lesson, and the only part that the students couldn’t do on their own, it was a mistake for them to be neglected.
  7. Students had commented that the group conversation element was not relevant to what they studied in class.

 

How we did it: getting rid of the grammar

As we were already offering a blended course, we decided to ‘flip’ the online platform content i.e. learners would use this to study and practise grammar points before coming to class.

I designed a scheme of work detailing the content of each lesson for each level. Explicit grammar presentation was removed completely. We instructed the teachers to refer students to the grammar reference part of their books and study it at home.

The productive practice (speaking) exercises for language systems in the course book became the main focus of each lesson, thus our syllabus became predominantly skills based. Teachers were encouraged to have students repeat tasks, and were given training on how to personalise and extend activities in different ways.

Although a scheme of work may sound prescriptive, we allowed for some flexibility to avoid the dreaded ‘teaching from the book’ syndrome and adapt lessons to students’ interests. In each module there was a Dogme-style lesson, when learners brought in their own texts. Another was simply ‘a YouTube video’. Teachers were given freedom in terms of content, but support with lesson planning and staging.

The group conversation element of their package was integrated with the syllabus, and used as practice for specific skills or language points, using the teacher’s book materials. Extensive reading was also encouraged by asking learners to borrow graded readers and discussing their reactions to the text.

 

Resistance- Teachers’ comments:

“It’s a lot. I think they’ll feel overwhelmed. I don’t think all of them will do their homework.”

 

“It’s very different from the education system they’re used to.”

 

“They might get used to it by module.”

 

“It’ll be a bumpy beginning.”

 

We had a pretty good idea that the teachers wouldn’t be happy about the changes. The biggest adjustment for them would be giving up their trusty PPP framework.  The students, too, would no doubt feel that a complete absence of grammar from the programme was too radical and destabilising. To counter this, the scheme of work included a ‘Grammar SOS’ session every 5 weeks. This was a 20 minute slot of lesson time dedicated to extra practice or clarification of grammar points. Students were asked to prepare questions for the teacher in advance of the lesson.

Flipping the grammar input also meant that things got tricky for the teachers if the students hadn’t studied at home. We encouraged them to soldier on with their lesson in this case, thus forcing the students (we hoped) to become more independent learners.

Assessment

The fact that the syllabus was (in part) a-posteriori, and not structural, meant that we could assess our students purely through skills. Unfortunately, this made marking (of the productive skills) more time consuming, and also more subjective. We had to produce our own set of assessment criteria and carry out standardisation, since the teachers would eventually be marking their students’ work.  

Outcomes

Implementing a flipped syllabus meant that there was much more onus on the learners to study independently. Some protested about this of course, but as we explained to them, this was the only way they would get the results they wanted in the time they had available (i.e by attending school only once a week).

After the predicted bumpy beginning, when we asked for student feedback it was 90% positive. Most students said that they didn’t mind studying the grammar at home, and that they understood and appreciated the methodology we were trying to deliver.

What do you think?

How would your students react if they had a flipped syllabus thrust upon them like this?

How would you react if you were told not to teach grammar?

Advertisements

Thoughts from Greece 2. Why do we need grammar?

It’s all Greek to me!

dsc_0150

I’m sitting in a bar on a remote island. There are very few English-speaking people around (just what I was looking for) and I’m trying to ‘acquire’ more Greek. But it’s not really working. I decide to whip out my iPad and amuse everyone by reading out loud the bizarre selection of words that my app has sent me:
‘textile’
‘tzaziki’
‘elastic band’
‘button’
‘coal’
‘Yiannis Parios’ (He’s a Greek singer, my waiter tells me- old people like him)

Apart from the questionable utility of the vocabulary, I find that I’m puzzled by the change of form of some of the words in the sample sentences. The verb for ‘see’ is βλέπο or ‘vlepo’ so why doesn’t the sample sentence (‘she can’t see without her glasses’) contain any word that remotely resembles ‘vlepo’?? And if ‘nostimo’ means ‘delicious’, then why does ‘itano stimotato’ mean ‘that was delicious’?? Which bit means ‘that’? Why does the adjective change? Do adjectives have a past form in Greek? Although the guys in the bar are very friendly,  I think these questions may be a tad annoying. So I don’t ask. 

The Lexical Approach

I find that I want and need someone to give me the ‘rules’. This a surprise for me, because I’m a great advocate of Lewis’s Lexical Approach to teaching grammar. He suggests that grammatical ‘rules’ should emerge from samples of authentic written or spoken language, rather than be taught. I have to say that it’s not working for me in Greek. I guess this is probably because:

  • There aren’t enough contextualised samples of the same lexeme/chunk/verb.
  • There’s no teacher to direct my attention to the samples and encourage “noticing”.
  • There’s no teacher to ask leading focus questions to help me work out the patterns, such as ‘Is it singular or plural’, ‘Are we talking about the present or the past?’.
  • Greek’s bloody difficult- many of the Greeks I’ve met have told me I should give up!

Conclusions

We still need grammar! It seems to make the whole language learning process a lot faster, especially in the beginning, so not using it would be pretty silly. As a beginner you are impatient to make sense of the new language and join its parts together. I see grammar as a network that connects the pieces of what would otherwise be a confusing maelstrom of lexemes. Perhaps grammar teaching should/could be seen as a ‘stabiliser’ that can slowly be removed as a learner progresses?

We still need teachers! 🙂 Over time…eventually…I’d probably acquire Greek, but a teacher can direct my attention towards the useful stuff, like how to conjugate the verb ‘see’, and away from the useless stuff, like Yiannis Parios!

 

Authentic questions

 

I’m on my jollies in Greece at the moment, but keep thinking back to my lovely summer stint at Stafford House and these guys…

dsc_0011

One lesson, they became curious about my family, specifically my brother. Non grammatical questions came tumbling out like:
‘Where live your brother?’
‘He have wife?’
‘What he job?’

My reply was ‘OK guys, I’ll tell you, but first you make correct questions’. In pairs I got them to write them out, reminding them of the QASI syntax rule for present simple and inversion of subject and ‘has’ for ‘has got’, which we’d just studied.

After a while, we had a list of things to ask my unsuspecting brother, because now came the surprise. I got out my phone and recorded this message to my bro on WhatsApp: ‘Hi Ryan. My students want to ask you a few things.’

I had a few looks of shock at this point, so I reassured them they’d only ask one or two questions each and they’d have time to rehearse them first. I reminded them they’d be transforming them into the second person ‘you’, since they’d be talking to him directly.

The result was intense concentration on getting the pronunciation and form right. It was also a way to deal with their not-so-sneaky Whatsapp use during lessons. If you can’t beat them join them!

Unfortunately poor Ryan was at work and didn’t have time to even listen to the 20 odd voice messages we sent him, nevermind actually answer them! So in the end I did it on his behalf.

Shame… because I was curious to hear his answer to this one: “Is your sister a little bit crazy??”

An Olympic Crossword part 2

In my previous post I explained how I got the students to create a crossword for their peers about the Winter Olympics. They completed them in today’s lesson and here are the finished versions.

DSC_0021DSC_0022

 

As you can see, the mistakes in the questions and answers have been corrected. This was done by the students with very little prompting from me.

You may be wondering what the language value is of this exercise, and (quite rightly) thinking that ‘luge’ and ‘bobsleigh’ aren’t exactly useful words. I think what they got out of it linguistically was:

a) the use of the +ing form of the verb for activities

b) using relative clauses without studying tedious ‘rules’. At least for speakers of languages with Latin roots, the structures are pretty much common sense and don’t need a lot of teaching. They were able to correct ‘a person *which‘ when I pointed it out.

c) some useful vocabulary that can be used figuratively such as hurdle (as in a problem or obstacle), sweep (as in swept away)

d) the use of the passive (which they corrected without my help)

e) some lexical chunks in the questions such as third place, make a descent, sweep the floor, hold the Olympics, get closer to (something), a piece of music

f) the difference between city and country.

 

But it’s not perfect!

Having said all that, two of the students complained about doing it, saying it was boring and they weren’t interested in the Winter Olympics. Fair enough! I gave them some grammar exercises to do instead and they were quite happy after that.

 

Your feedback

What do you think? Useful/not useful?

Would you use it with your students?