Trainee See, Trainee Do?

After only a cursory glance online at initial teacher training courses, one recurring selling point immediately stands out: “Learn by doing!”  As one website succinctly put it,

[Because] CELTA training is based on experiential learning, or “learning by doing”, teaching practice (TP) is at the heart of the course.[1]

And who am I to argue?  As a CELTA trainer myself, I have witnessed firsthand the value of teaching practice and reflection.  Lately however, I have been pondering the experiential learning of the trainees, not when they are actually teaching, but when they are receiving input sessions from the trainers.

So ingrained in ELT is the value of experiential learning that, as trainers, we are constantly demonstrating activities, employing ELT classroom management strategies, and in general getting our trainees to ‘be the students’.  And I get this.  ELT trainers are first and foremost EFL teachers, so it is only natural that we transfer our skills.  But have we taken this too far?  I suspect that many of us, myself included, may have.  Accordingly, in an attempt to be more conscious of my own training practices, I have compiled a few factors for consideration on future teacher training courses:

Balance – When is ELT modelling most useful?

Right off the bat I suspect.  Thrown in at the deep end, new trainees with no teaching experience need something tangible to latch onto.[2]  At this stage, observing how the trainer gives instructions or elicits lexis can be invaluable and immediately applicable to teaching practice.  Certainly, it’s important that they consider the rationale for succinct instructions, but it’s even more important that they do it on their very first day.

As a training course progresses however, and the trainees have (one hopes) acquired some survival skills, the need to see their trainer task check instructions wanes.  In fact, once the trainees get the point, is there any reason to be doing this?

The trainees – Who benefits most from explicit ELT modelling?

Tied in with the previous consideration, it seems that trainers sometimes forget to suit their training methods to the participants.  Many courses stress the need to cater to individual learning styles/preferences, yet this mandate is not heeded by the trainers themselves!

Likewise, there are unquestionably significant differences between a pre-service course for new teachers, and a group of experienced teachers taking an in-service course or other form of continued professional development.  Considering that seasoned teachers already have extensive experience to draw upon, would they not be better served analyzing and reflecting, rather than being flooded with more demonstrations of activities?

Reflection – What is the point of experiential learning anyway?

Sometimes it seems we get caught up in the most obvious aspect of experiential learning – the experience.  And yet this is only one of the steps of the Experiential Learning Cycle.  According to David Kolb’s model (1984), there are in actuality four stages:

• Experience
• Critical Reflection
• Abstract Conceptualization
• Active experimentation

Thus, for our trainees, the experience stage could be both their own teaching practice and their experiences in the input sessions.  Likewise, the final active experimentation stage is also their teaching practice, where they can put into practice their newfound knowledge gained from feedback and reflection.

It is the other two stages, critical reflection and abstract conceptualization, which are sometimes given short thrift in our eagerness to always be moving forward to something new.  Describing these steps in his summation of Kolb’s theory, Kelly writes that,

[w]hereas in the Critical Reflection stage we ask questions about the experience in terms of previous experiences, in the Abstract Conceptualization stage, we try to find the answers. We make generalizations, draw conclusions and form hypotheses about the experience.[3]

To my mind, it is in reality this crucial process of self-questioning and answering which is at the core of a teacher’s formation.  While there are obviously benefits to be gained from accumulating teaching experience, these gains are multiplied exponentially when accompanied by serious reflection.  All too often I observe experienced teachers whose lessons are brimming with wonderful activities drawn from a variety of sources, and yet their lessons lack any coherence or logic.  In contrast to these activity-driven lessons, there is always a palpable difference when watching a teacher who has really considered why they are doing what they are doing.

[4]

Teacher training options – How can we usefully promote experiential learning during input?

When trying to capture the benefits of both experiential input and reflection in teacher training, three techniques spring to mind; all have long been mainstays of teacher education, and with good reason:

Loop input

Pioneered by Tessa Woodward (1986), in a 2003 article she describes it as “a specific type of experiential teacher training process that involves an alignment of the process and content of learning.”[5]  Examples of loop input could include doing a dictogloss (the process) about dictogloss (the content), a series of reading tasks (the process) about teaching reading lessons (the content), etc.

So how is this different from the usual workshop activities?  Well, the primary advantage lies in the fact that there is no need to separate content and process.  Not only does this save time, but different trainees can benefit more, either from doing the activity or from the input, depending upon their own learning preferences.  It is important to remember, however, that a post-task reflection stage is imperative in order to give trainees a chance to digest what they have just participated in.

Micro teaching

Having trainees teach mini-lessons or language points to their peers might seem a little stilted or unnatural, but in moderation it does have some unique advantages.  As with loop input, micro teaching allows for two simultaneous processes to take place. On the one hand, the trainee experiences semi-authentic teaching conditions and gains useful experiential practice.  At the same time, it is possible for the trainer or other trainees to interrupt the ‘lesson’ and give real-time feedback rather than the typical post-lesson variety.  As Thornbury points out,

The trainer’s role, as silent, impassive observer, noting every move, and delivering the feedback retrospectively, seems to run counter to what we now understand about skill acquisition. Cognitive learning theory has long recognised that feedback in ‘real operating conditions’—i.e. while you’re actually engaged in a task —is generally more powerful and more durable than feedback delivered after the event.[6]

Handled in a sensitive manner, this process allows for immediate reflection and a chance to reattempt parts of the lessons (something most teachers have wished they could do at one point or another).  As a result, all four of Kolb’s stages of experiential learning can in reality take place within a single session.

‘Anti-demos’

Taking a slightly different tack, another experiential training technique is to demonstrate what not to do.  At first glance this may not seem to differ from a good demo in many regards, but I would argue that there is an appreciable distinction.  In addition to horrible demos usually being both highly memorable and entertaining, they also necessarily stimulate a far greater degree of reflection.  While it is possible after a good demo for trainees to perhaps pick up what the trainer was doing, memorize the stages, or intuit the rationale, this is by no means a given.  Conversely, following a bad demo, trainees are compelled to analyze why it was a terrible experience and how it could have been improved.  Based upon previous post-course feedback, it seems that these lessons learned about what not to do often leave the most lasting impression.

Final thoughts

In the end, the degree to which a trainer wants to model ELT in their training sessions is a personal choice.  For most, this will continue to be a balancing act between behaviourist learning theory (demonstrating and repeating the ‘correct’ way of doing things) and cognitive learning theory (contemplating and reflecting upon the process).  And of course to a great extent, the approach adopted should depend on the preferences of the specific trainees.  Whatever the decision though, it does raise the question, posed here by Anthony Gaughan:

Is it really as easy as all that to make such a close correlation between learning a language and learning to teach, and teaching to teach? [7]

References

Davies, Clara.  Learning cycle image.  University of Leeds.  Last downloaded May 2012 from http://www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/ldu/sddu_multimedia/kolb/static_version.php

English Canada. Teacher Training: About CELTA.  Last downloaded May 2012 from www.englishcanada.org/teacher-training/index.php?topic=aboutcelta

Gaughan, Anthony.  2012.  Comments on Jemma Gardner’s blog: Lead by Example.  Unplugged Reflections.  Last downloaded May 2012 from

http://unpluggedreflections.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/lead-by-example/#comments

Kelly, Curtis.  David Kolb, The Theory of Experiential Learning and ESL. The Internet TESL Journal.  Last downloaded May 2012 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kelly-Experiential

Kurzweil, Joshua.  2007. Experiential Learning And Reflective Practice In Teacher Education. AYMAT Individual Thesis/ SMAT IPP Collection. Paper 5. Last downloaded May 2012 from http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/ipp_collection/5

Smith, M. K. 2001. David A. Kolb on experiential learning. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Last downloaded May 2012 from http://www.infed.org/b-explrn.htm

Thornbury, Scott.  2011.  P is for Practicum.  An A-Z of ELT.  Last downloaded May 2012 from http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/p-is-for-practicum

Woodward, Tessa.  Key Concepts in ELT: Loop Input ELT Journal Volume 57/3 July 2003 OUP.  Last downloaded May 2012 from: http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/3/301.full.pdf

---

[1] English Canada

[2] It can be argued that almost all new teachers already have experience in the language classroom, albeit as learners.  Although this previous experience is undoubtedly useful, it is highly improbable that many language learners are consciously analyzing their teachers’ pedagogical practices.

[3] Curtis 1997

[4] Davies 2012

[5] Woodward 2003:301

[6] Thornbury 2011 – It should be noted that Thornbury actually advocates this form of feedback during authentic teaching rather than as part of micro-teaching.

[7] Gaughan 2012

Tags: ELT, Experiential learning, Loop input, Reflection, Teacher Training

Up and running!

Well, we’ve finally gotten our Dogme Pura Vida action research project up and running.  If you’d like to check out our progress or see summaries of any of the classes, plese visit the blog at puravidadogme.wordpress.com

Thank you to everybody who has helped, either through contributing ideas, providing the space (Rosa  at Pi Plus Academy), visiting our blogs, or attending the classes.  Most importantly, this project never would have even started without my friend and colleague, @ChrisOzog, whose energy and ideas made it all happen.

Also, since I’ll be writing pretty frequently for the other blog, there probably won’t be anything here over the next few months.  See you at puravidadogme.wordpress.com!

Tags: Action Research, Dogme, ELT

What happens when EFL teachers use facebook…

A quick warning, if you find the conversation below funny, you may have a serious EFL problem.

At first, I whited out all the names but then @ChrisOzog told me he wanted everyone to know that the H next to a picture of Hernan Cortes is in fact him.  This has given me the courage to admit that B is in fact me.  It feels so good to come clean…

Also, for the sake of accuracy, I should point out that I erased a few comments from other people saying things like ‘You’re all losers’ and ‘I hate you all’.

Feel free to continue the story, anonymously or not.

(Just click on the image twice to enlarge it.)

 

 

Tags: ELT, Funny, Joke

Developing Tolerance to Ambiguity

Perusing my twitter feed the other day, I saw that Willy Cardoso had written:

“Developing tolerance to ambiguity” should be an interesting ELT article, talk, book, whatever…

I couldn’t have agreed more and off I went, happily spending my morning trolling the internet, reading articles and avoiding doing any real work.

And, after reading a number of interesting articles and papers, I came to two conclusions:

1)      I believe/have always believed in the importance of tolerance for ambiguity (AT) when learning a language

2)      I do nothing to deliberatelyraise my own students’ AT

This seemed (and still seems) like a serious oversight on my part, so I thought I would write a short blog post to see if anyone has any useful suggestions.

But first a little background (to set the mood of course)…

What is ‘Tolerance for Ambiguity’ (AT)?

As I understand it, AT in general refers to an individual’s ability to accept ambiguity, lack of structure, complexity, insolubility, etc.  Relating this concept to language learning, we are talking about learners’ ability to deal with unknown language, partially understood information, or unfamiliar situations.  It is precisely in these situations that a learner who remains calm and employs useful strategies will best be able to communicate successfully.  This definition comes in large part from an excellent paper focussing on the correlation between AT and reading competency which can be found here: http://bit.ly/w5LOO9 (Erten and Topakaya 2009)

So what does it mean for language learning?

Well, you can judge for yourselves – take a look at a list of these characteristics of someone with high AT.  Would you say that these were characteristics of good language learners?

• Doesn’t worry about understanding every detail
• Doesn’t overly rely on rules
• Accepts that there isn’t always a solution to every problem
• Considers various, possibly contradictory options, without dismissing them
• Understands a situation despite incomplete schemata

Interestingly, the paper mentioned above suggested that too high a level of AT is also not a positive attribute, as it can lead to error fossilization.  This makes sense if you consider that high AT could indicate a lack of noticing and self-monitoring on the part of the student, especially of language accuracy.

If you’re interested, there are also a number of ‘Ambiguity scales’ available, complete with short quizzes to find out your own level of AT.  Check it out if you like at http://bit.ly/yj0uyj

Practical Ideas

I suppose the first question is really Can AT be taught? To be honest, I’m not sure, but I’m ready to find out.  My initial hunch would be that, while different people naturally have different levels of AT, it probably can be developed through learner training.  With that in mind, here are a few ideas that I feel lend themselves well to developing AT:

Using authentic texts

The paper mentioned earlier lists the following as possible causes of ambiguity:

• multiple meanings
• vagueness, incompleteness
• fragmentation
• probabilities
• lack of structure
• lack of information
• uncertainty
• inconsistencies and contradictions
• lack of clarity

I don’t know about you, but nothing produces these elements like authentic material, especially unscripted dialogue between native speakers!  Possible tasks could then include deducing meaning from context, inferring speaker attitude opinion, or any other task that isn’t focussing on specific information.

Humour

One genre that relies heavily on multiple meanings and implicit references is humour.  So why not use jokes as a means to understanding subtext and culture?  Apart from anything else, it’s an enjoyable way to engage learners while dealing with useful, and often neglected, elements of communication.

Songs (or poetry if you’re so inclined…)

I have to admit that I’ve rarely used poetry in my classes, but use songs with regularity.  Many songs are perfect in that they are deliberately obtuse and require interpretation on the part of the listener.

With all of the genres mentioned above, the specific tasks themselves will determine whether or not it promotes AT, but at the very least they provide teaching opportunities.

Looking back over my very short list, what strikes me as not being helpful for developing AT is controlled mechanical practice of carefully selected grammar structures.  In fact, an overreliance on a diet of coursebooks/explicit grammar practice might be partially to blame for long-standing students with low AT (for the record, I’m not totally anti-coursebook, but all things in moderation…)

So, if anyone has any comments, or better yet, other suggestions, I would love to hear them.

Tags: Ambiguity Tolerance, ELT, Learner Training

Board with Aims

I just came back from a surprisingly interesting workshop about using the whiteboard effectively.  While I never did learn how to write in a straight line while facing the class, there was an interesting discussion about whether or not teachers should write up the aims of their lessons on the board.

I have to say, I’m pretty vehemently against it for a number of reasons but maybe I’m overstating the case and should just relax.  Anyways, here are my reasons against pre-boarding lesson aims and stages, and I’d love to know what other teachers think, especially those who find the practice useful.

• Breathing space – I think most teachers would agree that lessons should be dynamic, have some degree of freedom/learner autonomy, and that lesson plans should be flexible (for many teachers this is putting it mildly!).  If this is the case, then why needlessly constrain yourself?  What happens if it’s more useful to spend longer on something at the start of class or to change the language focus?

• Student reactions at the start – The other day I walked into my Spanish class and saw that we were going to be looking at Part 2 of the Reading Paper for my DELE exam.  Great.  This definitely dampened my enthusiasm right off the bat, even though I know that it’s necessary practice.  Would it have hurt to have led into it gradually?  A little mystery isn’t such a bad thing after all…

• Student reactions at the end – Assuming you’re not a militant with a stopwatch and don’t quite make it to where you had expected, how are the students meant to feel?  They can see that there was something else planned and might well feel like they’re missing some crucial course content that never got covered (one of their grammar mcnuggets is missing from the box!).  I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to avoid that scenario if at all possible.

I suppose the argument is that some students like to know in advance what’s being covered in class as it helps to organize their own notes and study habits.  Fair enough, but isn’t it possible instead of writing up the lesson contents and aims at the start to write them after having completed the stages?  This way whatever you decide to focus on is fine and the learners still end up with a written record of what went on.

So teachers, what do you do and why?  And what should I tell my trainees?

Tags: Boardwork, ELT, Teacher Training

Random Spanish vocab at its finest

Here’s a serious linguistic test: take a look at my new Spanish vocab and try to guess what we’ve been studying in my weekly class (all bad translations are my own):

• Pezuña – a hoof

• El colmo de la chineazon n– ‘the pinnacle of being spoiled (pretty sure this is Costa Rica specific)

• De según como se mire – It depends how you look at it

• No es tanto que… sino que… – It’s not so much… as it is…

• Empedernido – something like ‘hard-line’ (adj.)

• Yo discrepo – I disagree (formal)

• Meter la cuchara – Get involved in somebody else’s business (another Ticoismo I think)

• Caballo de Troya – Trojan horse

If you guessed it was an exam prep class focusing on the environment and deforestation in Spain, then well done!

I guess what strikes me here, looking back at my notes, is that students really do learn what the want to learn and not what the teacher sets out to teach. Luckily in my case I take the class with my friend Chris who shares similar views on language learning and with my teacher Fernando who has been receptive to ideas regarding using emergent language.

In the past though, I’ve had classes were the teacher was insistent on presenting and practicing certain structures (usually involving the subjunctive!). In these cases I dutifully did what was asked of me, dropped out of the class, and then learnt some new vocab from my wife, the taxi driver, my bandmates, etc.

As normally happens, reflecting on my Spanish classes gets me to thinking about my own teaching practices and those of the staff here at the school. If I find the set material so dull, surely they do too? And while I know a number of the teachers are creative and open to emergent language and the students’ immediate needs, I’m also equally sure that there are a number of teachers who follow the coursebook from unit 1 to unit 12 without deviation. I shudder to think…

Tags: Dogme, Lexis, Spanish

Unplugged Action Reseach Group

I had always assumed that promotions were a good thing. You know – more money, more job freedom, more responsibility – all good stuff. And at the outset, my experiences matched my expectations. Starting as a full-time teacher, I then became a Cambridge Examiner, then a teacher training coordinator, and then a CELTA trainer. So far, so good.

Until… I became the Director of Studies. Sure there was a raise and a lot of job freedom but at what cost? An unwanted shift in my relationship with new teachers, getting up early every morning, dealing with unhappy students/parents, and worst of all, no teaching! While I still get to do teacher training and the occasional substitution, I never have a class of my own. Theoretically I could assign myself a class, but it would have to be on top of my regular work load and without pay. I love teaching but really…

Thankfully, I’ve got the go ahead to start an Action Research Group next January as our school plans to move into a much larger, newer building. This group (another teacher’s idea) will consist of volunteer students who come twice a week for an hour and a half. There will be no coursebook or preset syllabus and anyone can join in. In a wonderfully unilateral decision, I’ve made myself the teacher although others are welcome to teach a class if they are interested in experimenting with different methodologies, activities, or are just interested in doing a little research. The idea is that we then have staff presentations were we can share our experiences. For my part I would love to experiment more with Dogme without the institutional constraints we usually have in place.

So… if anyone has any wonderful ideas they would like to have trialed, please leave a comment and I would be happy to incorporate them into my lessons. I’m sure I’ll be ‘borrowing’ many of the ideas I’ve read about on the blogosphere as well as ones from my colleagues. Also, if anyone has any suggestions for how to make this experiment a success, I’m all ears!

Tags: Action Research, Dogme, ELT

A Dogme Question

The other day I was participating in an excellent workshop by a colleague demonstrating how an unplugged lesson might go. Having initiated an entertaining and fruitful speaking activity, and having got the ‘students’ to board much of the dialogue, groups then decided what possible language points could be focused on to improve the range of the output.

The teachers came up with all kinds of ideas including question tags, question formation, slang for phone conversations, etc. The workshop then went on to demonstrate various possible practice activities, using the initial language/context, that didn’t require photocopies. We all went away happy and satisfied.

Then my usual internal cynicism and nay saying kicked in and I started to wonder about how this would have worked with certain colleagues I have observed numerous times over the last few years…

Colleague A: Only teaches lower levels and loves to correct errors, particularly ones were ‘rules’ can be taught. Every delayed feedback session invariably leads to an explanation of the difference between present perfect and past simple. Without fail.

Colleague B: Has been experimenting with TBL and Dogme but on a few occasions has perceived that students need exponents for expressing certainty, whether or not it was really relevant to what they were trying to say.

Both are able teachers and have been doing it a long time but always seem to perceive the same student needs. Hmm…

Thinking back to the workshop I then questioned my own choice of language point to work with (elision and substitution) and those of my peers. Would I ever have opted to focus on the language points they had chosen? Would they have ever considered mine? Maybe, but maybe not, and if not are the students any worse off?

All of this has led me to ask myself a few questions to which I have no answers:

• As a teacher, what can I do to make sure I don’t get stuck only helping students with the areas of language I’m most comfortable with?

• As an observer, how I can I help other teachers to expand the range of knowledge gaps that they pick up on?

• For teachers who are seriously restricted in terms of what they can notice (inexperienced/stuck in their ways), is a syllabus/coursebook such a bad idea? What if this is the only way that they will cover certain language points the students want and need to communicate effectively?

It could very well be that this is all just my own misunderstanding about some aspect of unplugged teaching, but any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Help me oh wise ELT gurus…

Tags: Dogme, ELT

If you say so…

I love new teachers-in-training. The enthusiasm, the motivation, the energy, the willingness to actually listen to me – it’s all good. And although I sometimes despair, I also love their creative use of ELT terminology.

With that in mind, I thought I would share a few of my favourite quotations from CELTA courses over the last four years, from lesson plans, self-evaluations, assignments, etc. This is in no way intended to be disparaging, but is a celebration of creative ELT language. If other trainers have any more hidden gems to add, please leave a comment.

From written assignments

• Here I give you the greatest opening sentence for a CELTA written assignment ever produced:

To begin, a special thanks to the learning style of adults.

Yeah! Give it up to our individual learning differences! Kinaesthesia rocks!

• And from an assignment analyzing the learners:

Mistakes are committed when using their receptive skills.

I tried imagining this then gave up.

From lesson plans

• After seeing an endless parade of personal aims focused on ‘giving clear instructions’ or ‘reducing TTT’, this following aim was like a breath of fresh air. A convoluted, incomprehensible breath of fresh air:

Have an overall plan to make an initial starting point for all other facets attached for teaching delivery system. Having trouble keeping up to get finished in time enough to deal with what I have created.

• Some of my all time favourite collocations come from the trainees stage aims and procedure. Here are just a few classics:

Drill the concept
Repeat after me ‘The present simple is used for routine actions’, ‘The present simple is used for routine actions’

Drill for fluency
I suppose they could have meant drilling language chunks in order to increase automaticity thereby leading to greater fluency – but I somehow doubt it…

Setting the concept
The little past continuous was walking along, when suddenly the big bad past simple pounced!

Discuss for accuracy
I really wish I could do this in Spanish.

Identify meaning through sound
Listen?

Listen in pairs
Hey, what did I say about listening alone? This is an interactive class!

Vigorous mouth postures
No comment.

Checking

• I love a crazy task check, and these are just a few of my favourites:

Will you read alone?

While holding up an article: Are you going to listen to the text?

• There have been some classic CCQ’s as well but my all-time favourite had to be this check for the word ‘exhausted’:

Is she happy?

I couldn’t help but giggle when a student quipped that it depends on why she’s exhausted.

And finally…

Something off of a self-evaluation that I think we can all relate to:

This lesson was like an out of body experience watching myself suck.

Could you have said it any better?

Tags: CELTA, ELT, Funny, Teacher Training

Here’s a blog post about task checking.

Now are you going to read this blog post or lick the screen?

If you’re anything like me, I doubt you bothered to deign this question with an answer.  And yet, this is exactly the type of task check/instruction check question (ICQ) that I often hear when observing teachers.  Some of my other all-time favourites include:

Are you going to listen alone or in pairs?

Now I want you to tell your partner about your weekend.  Are you going to speak?

Please listen and fill in the gaps.  Where are you going to write your answers?

And of course, the classic:

Do you understand?

The list goes on…

So why does this happen?  Most of the teachers I observe are intelligent, capable educators with good people skills, and yet they often admittedly have serious issues when checking tasks.  Having spoken to many new and experienced teachers, it seems that they frequently feel that they have only two options:

1) Ask obvious ICQs, feel silly, patronize the students

2) Don’t ask ICQs, hope for the best

Everyone I’ve spoken to also seems to agree that making sure students understand the instructions is important, especially at lower levels where there is more chance of a communication breakdown.  So I thought maybe I’d look at a few viable options that have worked for me, to help clarify my own thoughts on the topic, and maybe help out anyone else having similar issues.

When is instruction checking appropriate?

First it is important to recognize that obsessive instruction checking is a real teaching disorder.  Luckily there is a simple remedy: remember that your students are intelligent adults.  If something is patently obvious even without spoken instructions, there is no need to check it!  After all, it is the language the learners have trouble with, not simple concepts like what to do with a gap-fill or which skill involves using a pencil.

On the other hand, some tasks are more complicated and might require an ICQ if they include

• multiple stages
• different roles for different students
• necessarily tricky language in the instructions
• things that it is critical that students do/don’t do (e.g. not look at each other’s paper during and info gap activity)

Regularly, it is possible to anticipate when ICQs are likely to be needed during the planning stage, assuming you’re into planning activities beforehand.  And of course, if after giving instructions a sea of puzzled faces are staring up at you, it might not be a bad idea either!

What are some alternatives to ICQs?

Naturally, ICQs should not be thought of as the only, or even the most effective way to make sure learners understand a task.  In fact, the majority of the time, I feel the following typical ways of checking understanding are just as valid and often more comfortable for the teacher and learners:

1)   Do the first question/activity/example as a class

2)   Get students to demonstrate the activity (possibly with teacher guidance)

3)   Elicit the instructions from the students

After all, if the learners can show you or tell you what they need to do, chances are they understand!  Also, don’t worry if not everyone understands absolutely everything – it might just be that they weren’t paying attention.  Usually a little monitoring after setting the task can take care of the rest.

One more thought…

Sometimes it does seem to me that a more hard-line approach to checking everything is preached on teacher training courses.  While it may work for some, it also appears that many other teachers are turned off from the practice of ICQs altogether.  Maybe with a bit more reflection about when and where to ask ICQs in the first place, more teachers could find a comfortable balance between the linguistic needs of the students as language learners and the affective needs of the students (and teacher!) as people.

Do you know what I mean? Ok? Is that clear?  Innit?  Get my drift? Know what I’m sayin?  Right?

Tags: ELT, Instruction Checking, Task Checking, Teacher Training