#IATEFL 2014: The Sugata Mitra Debate

8 Apr

Well.  This one was controversial.  In some respects what Sugata Mitra said in his plenary on Saturday morning doesn’t even matter anymore, such was the debate it sparked and which still continues via facebook and twitter.

Mitra, it is clear, has his devotees and his detractors.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone receive a standing ovation in a talk that people actually walked out of half way through.  Do a Twitter Search for Sugata Mitra, and you’ll see what I mean.

So what did he actually say?  Well, if you know anything about him or his work, you’ll find that it actually wasn’t anything new – it was just a restatement of the research he’s done into self-directed online learning.  In a nutshell what he said was:

Kids in crap places don’t get good scores and this is because no-one likes to live in crap places, so the only teachers who stay in crap places are the ones who aren’t good enough to get jobs in good places.  Kids aren’t scared of computers and don’t worry very much about breaking other people’s stuff and if you leave a kid next to a computer for long enough they learn how to do things.  If you give them a challenge, they rise to it.  Therefore, do kids need teachers or can we just give them all computers?

I’m paraphrasing here obviously.  You might also begin to see why this provoked some strong reactions to an audience of educators.

I bumped into Mitra at Harrogate train station while we were both on our way home and I sat down and asked him about it.  This was not a formal interview, but he was nice enough to take the time and talk to me and answer a few questions:

I asked him why people had such extreme reactions to what he was proposing.  He said he thought it was because people saw it as the end of the teacher and that people thought he was saying there was no more need for them, and that they feared this outcome.  So in order to clarify this I asked him what he thought the role of the teacher would be and he said that this was what his research was focusing on now – where do the teachers take these new ideas.  He is experimenting, as he mentioned in the plenary, with a number of schools in the north east of England and some of the teachers are incorporating what he calls SOLES (Self Organised Learning Environment) into their curricular work, while others are using it extra-curricular.  It occurred to me at that point that it was better suited to content classes (e.g. physics / history) than language classes, but he said that language was the first thing to develop, even in native speakers who showed the same incremental increase as non-native speakers.

What I didn’t ask him, and should have done, was how that incremental increase was measured – was it only vocabulary or grammatical resource?  And I got the distinct impression that he sees no need for specialized language instruction.  I repeat that this is my interpretation, but in all his experiments the language development has been largely incidental and where language development was the focus (pronunciation) in one experiment, the kids performed well – but is this perhaps because pronunciation is not a creative aspect of language?  It is largely a question of the mechanics of speech and doesn’t require language, only mimicry.

It also, sounds terribly similar to Prabhu’s “Bangalore Project”, or the Procedural Syllabus, which Prabhu published in his 1987 book “Second Language Pedagogy” and which formed the basis of Task Based Learning.  I put this to Mitra who thought it might have some similarities but that he preferred to think of it a research based learning.

Or as Gavin Dudeney pointed out on facebook – webquests.

Watch it and decide for yourself – here’s the link to Sugata Mitra’s IATEFL Plenary video:  http://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2014/sessions/2014-04-05/plenary-sugata-mitra

Blogger-300x300-banner

Further Thoughts and reading on this:

The Donald Clark Plan B blog has some fairly harsh criticisms of Mitra’s methodology, research design and on the state of things now: http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=Mitra

Wiktor Kostrzewski presents a more balanced view of the positives that both students and teachers can take out of Mitra’s ideas here: http://www.16kinds.com/2014/04/05/1422/

And here’s Mitra’s TED talk here: http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_build_a_school_in_the_cloud

Finally, Graham Stanley has an extensive overview of the debate, and has managed to gather together a lot of differing viewpoints from various social media platforms – you should definitely read his take on it all: http://blog-efl.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/iatefl-harrogate-online-sugata-mitra.html

Update:  more voices added to the mix:

When Graham Stanley wrote the piece listed above, he hadn’t actually watched the plenary, he was more collating, analysing and assessing the different viewpoints other people expressed.  He has now watched it and gives us his take on what Sugata Mitra said here: http://blog-efl.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/iatefl-harrogate-online-sugata-mitra_7.html

Phillip Kerr looks at who’s doing what in Ed Tech and draws some interesting and unsettling links between some of the big players – including Sugata Mitra .  here: http://adaptivelearninginelt.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/edtech-and-neo-liberalism-fragment-of-a-network/

If you know of any others – please post them in the comments section!

 

#IATEFL 2014: Together in Electric Dreams – Pondering the Future of EdTech

5 Apr

Gavin Dudeney’s talk took a quick look at the possible future of technology in ELT – pulling out a number of technologies and trends and asking the audience to think of them in terms of whether they represented a Strength, a Weakness, an Opportunity or a Threat.  Towards the end of the talk we then compared our ideas before he opened things up to the floor.

He mentioned the following areas:

  • Self study
  • Personal publishing
  • Disruption
  • Learning Analytics
  • The Digital Divide
  • Resusable Learning Objects
  • Teacher Collectives
  • PLNs, Connectivism and crowdsourcing
  • Digital Skills teaching
  • The Flipped Classroom
  • Wearable Technology
  • Multi-Sensory Computing
  • Internet Freedom
  • SOLES (Self Organised Learning Environments)

All of which are quite complex ideas, concepts and technologies that require a lot more time and exploration than was available in the talk – so Gavin ended up giving us quite a brief overview of what each one entailed.   If you want a bit more detail on what he said, be sure to check out the recording of his talk:

I was interested in his off the cuff claim that the Interactive whiteboard has already had it’s day – on reflection I think he’s probably right.  The IWB seems to be mostly used as a display function and really has only limited interactivity.  Why, when students can bring their own devices to the classroom and everyone can interact synchronously, do you even need an IWB?

I also appreciated the SWOT analysis approach that he took to the talk, because it did give us a framework for our discussion, and for some contexts it is possible to see these things strictly within this sort of framework.  But.  Imposing a framework like this is quite limiting in some respects and it would have been nice to be able to think about these things in more detail.  Not that there was much time for him to fit everything in.

Threat and Opportunity are, in this sort of context at least, two sides of the same coin.  Mostly I think that what all of this new technology represents is a threat to the established order – this is a natural evolutionary process and also represents an opportunity for the new way of things to get a foothold and become the established order for the next generation.  The key skills here for the individuals and organisations affected by these changes are flexibility, adaptability and agility.

Gavin Dudeney’s slides for this presentation are available to download via this link – they also contain clickable links which take you to further reading and additional websites with a broader overview of the topic areas discussed:

http://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2014/sites/iatefl/files/session/documents/pondering_the_future_of_edtech.ppt

 

You can watch his talk here:

If there are any problems with the video, just follow this link:

http://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2014/sessions/2014-04-02/together-electric-dreams-pondering-future-edtech

 

Blogger-300x300-banner

#IATEFL 2014 Talk: Chalk and Cheese – Equivalency Issues with IELTS and TOEFL

3 Apr

So this is the talk that I gave today – thanks to everyone who attended – I hope you enjoyed it!

For anyone who wasn’t there, here’s the blurb for this talk:

IELTS and TOEFL are widely used as equivalent determinants of English language ability by higher education institutions.  This talk reviews equivalency research and draws on a contrastive analysis of the two exams to suggest that the disparities between them mean we should avoid viewing them through the same lens, and questions using them for the same purpose.

And here are the slides from my presentation.  They should be available to download via slideshare if you can’t see them clearly:  some of the slides have quite a lot of data on them.  And I’ve just noticed that slideshare clearly doesn’t support the font I used and has replaced it with something quite different…

And here, in the second slideshare box below, is a pdf copy of my slide notes / a transcript of pretty much what I said, though it might not be exactly the same, the main substance should be there!

If you have any questions or would like to know more about this talk, feel free to contact me or leave a comment below!

Blogger-300x300-banner

 

 

#IATEFL First Impressions

1 Apr

It’s been an interesting day.  I’ve learnt a lot about things you should and shouldn’t do with regard to conferences.

One of the things you shouldn’t do is pack your suitcase literally as you’re walking out the door to get into the car and go to the train station.  I have no idea where my phone is – I hope that geeklet number two took a liking to it this morning and has carefully stowed it with the other toys.  But I can’t say for sure.

This leads me to the second thing you shouldn’t do with regard to conferences – involve toddlers in any way shape or form.  Getting from geek central to Harrogate has been a four day event in itself which had two main highlights:  geeklet number one refusing to sleep the night before we flew, resulting in geeklet number 1 and myself traipsing down to the hotel bar, which was then used as an impromptu obstacle course for approximately an hour and a half before geeklet number 1 announced that she was tired.  She duly fell asleep ten minutes before we had to get up.  The second main highlight was geeklet number two’s refusal to wear a seatbelt during the landing from the Gatwick to Newscastle portion of the trip and the stewards’ somewhat pointed announcement “Passengers are reminded that they should remain seated with their seatbelts fastened and that parents of small children should ensure their children do the same.”  As the parent of the only toddler out of their seat, screaming fit to burst and attempting to launch himself over the back of the chairs and charge the cockpit, I rather felt this may have been directed at us.  Stewards are reminded not to be such sarcastic sods and should ensure toddler valium is readily available in the event it is needed.

One of the things you should do is write your presentation well in advance.  I had hoped, of course, to get it done months ago, but here we are with the conference due to start tomorrow and as yet my talk remains unfinished.  I’m led to believe, through careful questioning, that I may not be the only one in this particular boat.  When I say “finished” what I mean is “written” – and I really shouldn’t be writing this post right now, I should be writing the presentation.   But it’s late so…

One of the other things you should do is put yourself about a bit.  This is my first IATEFL and while I know a lot of the people here, I only know them through social media connections, mostly being Twitter and Facebook.  I am however, fortunate to be good friends with the inestimable Andreas Grundtvig, who has this amazing technique of actually introducing himself and talking to people!  Whereas I tend to hover on the periphery thinking to myself “Is that so and so?  It looks a bit like them, but maybe it isn’t so perhaps I shouldn’t bother them.”  Andreas just says things like “Hi” and “I’m Andreas”.  This is a revelatory technique and one I hope to adopt in full force tomorrow.

Three things I learnt today:

(1)    Not to drop your laptop in front of 500 people queuing for a free lunch.

(2)    You can take the teacher out of the Young Learner classroom, but you can’t take the young learner classroom out of the teacher.  Carol Read’s welcoming comments this evening were a masterclass.  I think she could convince us all to go to war for her.  You know,  just in case TESOL invade or something.  You can watch an interview with her here: http://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2014/sessions/2014-04-01/interview-carol-read

(3)    Everyone here is genuinely trying to help.  I mean everyone really, really, really wants to make tefl better.  At least I think everyone I’ve met so far does.  Tomorrow of course, we get into the violent disagreements as to how….

Finally – it looks like the online portion of IATEFL 2014 is getting up and running – I think some of the sessions are going to start going up tomorrow, but check out the interviews with some of the key speakers that have already been done and posted on the website: http://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2014/interviews/all

Blogger-300x300-banner

 

Six Great Vocab Games

19 Mar

Here’s six online vocabulary games I’ve been using with my classes recently:

teflgeek word games

Test Your Vocab:  Not – strictly speaking – a game, this website seeks to measure the number of words you know and then tells you the size of your vocabulary.  If the learners are honest and don’t cheat, this could be a useful tool in helping them measure their progress, though presumably the more often they do it, the more familiar they’ll become with the test words.  And of course they could go off and research the test word corpus….  Play the game here: http://testyourvocab.com/ - and thanks to Dave C for the spot!

Free Rice:  matching words to definitions is the name of the game, but with Free Rice, every correct answer donates ten grains of rice to the World Food Program.  This one has been around for a while but is really good for broadening vocabulary out a bit as it’s based around matching synonyms.  Play the game here: http://freerice.com/ – and I think Neil told me about this, but it was a long time ago…

Root Words is an affixation based set of games that is great for First, Advanced and Proficiency students.  Either split the prefix or suffix from the rest of the word, or match them to their meanings (e.g. pre = before).  The use of terminology is a bit confusing (I understand something different by the term “root word”) and it seems aimed at native speakers, so do check the game out yourself before asking your classes to play!  The website has a lot of other vocabulary based games available, but I’ve not experiemented with any of the others yet.  Play the game here: http://www.vocabulary.co.il/root-words/

Knoword gives you the definition and asks you to type in the target word.  A really nice spin on the traditional meaning matching task – answer as many as you can before the time runs out!  Can be quite challenging – probably intermediate levels and above?  Play the game here: http://www.knoword.org/ - and thanks to Jenny for demonstrating it in her recent seminar!

Whack Attack lets you choose between English, Science or Maths options (good for the CLIL crowd!), you then choose from multiple choice questions be whacking the correctly coloured characters parading across the screen.  The English questions are mostly about the language (e.g. choose between metaphor, simile or idiom) and aimed at UK students rather than being about vocabulary per se.  Try it and see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ks3/games/whack/.  Thanks to Larry Ferlazzo for this one.

Only Connect is part vocabulary game, part general knowledge and part sheer torment that is based on a BBC gameshow.  I can just about manage one “wall” in every ten.  You get presented with sixteen words and you have to put them into the correct four categories.  There’s a screenshot below so you can see what I mean.  I think it depends on the individual, some of my students loved it and kept at it even though it was stupidly difficult – others got bored quite rapidly.  What I think would work quite well is that after the students have played it online and understand how it works, they can create their own versions using chopped up bits of paper and can then challenge each other.  This would be perfect for work with collocations, phrasal verbs or topic themed vocabulary revision.  You can try and play the original game here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lskhg/features/quiz.  And thanks again to Larry Ferlazzo.

Only Connect

Screenshot of the answers to an “Only Connect” wall.

Why Brain Gym is a load of rubbish

14 Mar

I can’t claim any credit for this – the original article is by the excellent debunker and Guardian journalist Ben Goldacre:

Banging your head repeatedly against the brick wall of teachers’ stupidity helps increase blood flow to your frontal lobes

February 16th, 2008 by Ben Goldacre in bad sciencebrain gym | 105 Comments »

Ben Goldacre
The Guardian,
Saturday February 16 2008

As time passes, largely against my will, I have become a student of nonsense. More importantly, I’ve become interested in why some forms of nonsense can lucratively persist, where others quietly fail. Brain Gym continues to produce more email than almost any other subject: usually it is from teachers, eager to defend the practice, but also from children, astonished at the sheer stupidity of what they are being taught.

*****

To read more, either click the title above or follow the link here:

http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/banging-your-head-repeatedly-against-the-brick-wall-of-teachers-stupidity-helps-to-co-ordinate-your-left-and-right-cerebral-hemispheres/

It’s well worth reading.  Thanks to Paul Read for the spot!

 

Tests, Tests and more Tests…

19 Feb

February seems to be all about tests.  All my classes have just done their mid-year grammar and vocabulary tests, my exam class students have just done a mock exam and are getting ready for the real thing in March, and already I’m preparing the next set of skills assessments for the continuous assessment programme.  Testing, it seems, is as inevitable as death or taxes.

Over on the Teaching English website, testing is one of the blogging themes this month and there is quite a range of posts on the topic:

My own post is called “To test or not to test – that is the question.”  In it, I look at the influence that tests have on education systems and the learning that students have to do in order to pass the tests, arguing that in many respects, the question of testing comes down to a battle between the system and the individual.

Ceri Jones offers an excellent example of negotiated assessment.  In “Assessment – negotiating exam formats“, she describes the experience of leading her learners to design their own assessment instruments, what would be tested and how, and reflects upon the success of the process.

Larry Ferlazzo looks at how to test your students and argues that test data should be used meaningfully, and that it shouldn’t just be a question of test and forget:  “Assessing English Language Learners.

NinaMK asks us to think about “Testing and Assessment” from the perspective of the pros and cons of asking students to assess themselves and each other – and gives a stark example of what can happen when it all goes wrong!  Meanwhile, JVL Narasimha Rao offers a personal insight into “Assessment of and for learning“, drawing on his own experiences within the Indian state sector.

Finally, Rachel Boyce argues for informal assessent. In “Testing and assessment – give your students a security blanket“, she suggests that a blend of informal and formal assessment is the best way to keep learners on track and engaged in measuring their progress.

***

What strikes me about the six posts, is the sheer range and purpose of testing that is discussed.  To go back to my own post for a moment, and to think about the whys and wherefores of testing, it occurs to me that those on both sides of the testing debate seem to mostly represent very black and white positions.  In testing, it seems, you are either for or against.

However, and as with many things, it seems the reality is infinitely more nuanced than that.  These posts demonstrate that not only are there many different ways to test – there are also very clear philosophies of testing emerging.  But that, perhaps, is another post!

Happy Testing!

Image

When Language teachers do romance…

14 Feb

Teflgeek Valentines Day

Pronunciation matters people!   Happy Valentine’s Day.

The Learning Style Debate

10 Feb

I am sceptical about learning styles.  Much is made of them, CELTA and DELTA trainees are required to learn about them and to plan their lessons taking into account activities that cater to the visual, auditory or kinaesthetic sensibilities of their students, or at least to show evidence of having intended to….  Personally, I don’t doubt that people learn in different ways or have different preferences for processing information, but what I’m not sure about and have yet to see any evidence confirming, is whether changing my teaching to cater for these various styles actually has a positive effect.  Which is why I was very interested to read Katie Lepi’s “The Myth of Learning Styles” on the Edudemic blog, which presents the arguments against.  The fantastic infographic from her piece is reproduced below.

teflgeek learning styles

The original learning styles model came from the work of David Kolb, who, in the seventies, first posited his experiential learning cycle and the subsequent learning styles that could be discerned in it.  There then followed a five year argument in the journals as to the validity of his approach with many eminent academics pointing out there was no evidence for his claims.  These days, his ideas seem fairly mainstream though I suspect the way they are viewed academically depends on which field the academic concerned ploughs for a living.

In essence, Kolb borrows from earlier work by Lewin who posits a cycle :  Abstract Conceptualization – Active Experimentation – Concrete Experience – Reflective Observation and back again.  The learning process, it is argued, follows this cycle:  you have an idea, you try it out, you get your data and you decide whether it worked or not and what to do next.

Kolb then identifies four different learning styles, which rely on aspects of these cycles for their learning, where these aspects are divided into (a) how we do things and (b) how we think about things.

  • Divergers (Concrete Experience / Reflective Observation)
  • Assimilators (Abstract Conceptualization / Reflective Observation)
  • Convergers (Abstract Conceptualization / Active Experimentation)
  • Accommodators (Concrete Experience / Active Experimentation)

On a personal note – this seems somewhat unsatisfying to me and appears to unnecessarily bracket people in certain categories, surely these are better seen as learning skills that individuals can draw on at any given point, which are underwritten by the learning concepts described in the cycle?  I write this as someone who has clearly not read much of Kolb’s original writings….

Honey & Mumford, basing their work on that of Kolb, adapted these descriptions into, for want of a better term, “plain English”.

  • Activists are Accommodators
  • Reflectors are Divergers
  • Theorists are Assimilators
  • Pragmatists are Convergers

Activists are doers – they learn by experimenting and trying things out, often without considering the consequences.  They tend to have relatively short attention spans, quickly getting bored and moving on to the next thing.

Reflectors are watchers – they learn by observing the environment, gathering as much data as they can and then drawing their own conclusions.  They tend to be more cautious and to let other people make most of the running before making their own opinions known.

Theorists are thinkers – they learn by formulating a theory and then by integrating any data they have into that theory – either proving the theory or discarding it in favour of a replacement.  They prefer objective data and tend to take a logical approach to things – they can be quite rigid and dismissive of anything that doesn’t fit their theories.

Pragmatists are, unsurprisingly, practical.  They like to see what works and what doesn’t and are keen to try new ideas out and see what happens.  They love looking for new ideas to try out and tend to be more down to earth and problem solvers.

Where I think the idea of learning styles falls down slightly, is when it gets lumped together with the idea of multiple intelligences.  Jim Wingate’s 1996 articles for ETP contain a 49 item questionnaire that is intended to help teachers and learners identify which type of intelligence is dominant with them:  linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial (visual), musical, bodily – kinaesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal.  Wingate’s argument is that by identifying dominant types of intelligence in students and the classroom, the teacher can select activities which appeal to the learner’s intelligence type and therefore maximise the effectiveness of the input.

There are, in my view, some problems with this.

Firstly, an intelligence type is not the same thing as a learning style – the way you think and the types of activities you like to do may, or may not correspond with the way you learn, but the automatic association is for me at least, troubling.

Secondly, there is no evidence that it makes any difference.  The key article here is Pashler et al “Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence” which concludes “there is no adequate evidence to justify incorporating learning style assessments into educational practice”.  Their article goes on to cast doubt on the rigour of some of the studies which do show a correlation and points out that in general studies with a sound methodological base tend to contradict the idea of differentiated instruction for learning styles.

Thirdly, it presents a very black and white view of the way people learn.  A preference is just that, a preference.  I have a preference for tea over coffee and chicken over fish.  But I enjoy coffee and fish when I have them and will sometimes prefer them to the tea and chicken options.  Mackenzie (in Multiple Intelligences and Instructional Technology) makes the point that (a) Everyone has all the intelligences (b) you can strengthen an intelligence (c) any such survey is only ever going to be a snapshot of that particular moment and (d) the purpose of MI theory is to help people, not label them.

I don’t doubt that learning style questionnaires and multiple intelligence assessments can be useful tools in helping learners to be more aware of their cognitive processes and in identifying educational strategies they might find more enjoyable.  Equally, I think the single most valuable contribution learning style theory may have made is in pushing the concept of variety firmly into the classroom and I will continue to include as much variety in my lessons as they (or the learners) need.  But while my learners are multiple and they are intelligent – I just don’t think they don’t need me to cater to their style.

Postscript (added 11/02/14):

Russ Mayne, who blogs at the excellent and always readable “Evidence based EFL”, shared his own post on the credibility or lack thereof of learning styles theory.  His post, “Learner styles revisited: VAK-uous teaching“, is a very well argued deconstruction of learner style theory and he makes the point that it is also a bit of a sacred cow in EFL and while criticism of the idea is allowed, you aren’t allowed to discard it entirely.  It occurs to me in this context that just as a fact is merely a theory which hasn’t been disproved yet, an unproven theory is actually only a belief.  The problem with beliefs is that they tend to require you to invest your emotional and psychological selves and it is very difficult, having committed so much of yourself to an idea, to give that idea up; as negation of the belief equates in some respects to negation of the self.  But then, this is why we do research, right?  I look forward to seeing any confirmatory evidence for learning styles in due course.

References & Further Reading:

Mackenzie, Walter, 2005 “Multiple Intelligences and Instructional Technology”, ISTE Publications.

Mobbs, Richard “Honey & Mumford” retrieved from: http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/gradschool/training/eresources/teaching/theories/honey-mumford

Pashler et al, 2008, Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 3.:  retrieved from http://steinhardtapps.es.its.nyu.edu/create/courses/2174/reading/Pashler_et_al_PSPI_9_3.pdf

Wingate, Jim, 1996.  “Multiple Intelligences” English Teaching Professional:  retrieved from: http://www.ilkogretimkalbi.com/dokuman/ingilizce/English_Teaching_Professional-/multiple.pdf

 INFOGRAPHIC FROM EDUDEMIC: http://www.edudemic.com/the-myth-of-learning-styles/

Language Needs in Europe Survey

5 Feb

Northumbria University and King’s College London are running a survey to try and discover the language needs of young adults across Europe.
If you teach young adults (18-24 range), you can help by completing the survey – and there is a separate survey that the students themselves can take.
The following text was posted in the IATEFL Facebook group and gives more information on the project as well as the key links:

Northumbria University and King’s College London (both UK), supported by the British Council, are surveying student and teacher perceptions of the English language needs of young adults in Europe, and the implications of this for English language teaching.

This survey asks teachers their views about how and why young adults learn and use English, the kinds of English they want to speak, and what this might mean for English language teaching. In the survey, the term ‘young adult’ refers to 18-24 year olds.

The survey is therefore for all English language teachers working in Europe. It should take approximately 20 minutes to complete and answers are completely confidential. (Note: Although the focus is on young adult learners, aged between 18-24 years old, teachers working with learners of all ages are invited to participate. ‘English language teachers’ is a deliberately broad criteria for taking part in the project and includes, for example, those who teach EFL, ESL, ESOL, EIL, ESP, EAP and so on, those who both teach language and train teachers, who teach and manage etc.).

The survey is available online at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/youngadultsEnglishneedsEurope

For further information about the project, visit:

http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/sd/academic/sass/about/humanities/linguistics/linguisticsstaff/g_hall/englishlanguageneeds/?view=Standard

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,332 other followers