Language Teacher Classroom Management Competencies: Evaluation and Recommendations

After identifying sets of CM skills for the checklist the table for classroom observation use was made where in the left column all the skills were enumerated and in the first row the following scale for evaluating the skills was presented:

· 0 - poor skill;

· 1 - needs improvement;

· 2 - adequate skill;

· 3 - excellent skill;

· not present.

`Poor skill' means that a trainee teacher who is observed cannot do what is required from him/her effectively. For example, they give instructions in a way that learners do not understand the task.

`Needs improvement' means that a trainee teacher can do what is required from him/her but often not effectively. For example, they give instructions in a way that learners sometimes understand them, but often they do not, or not all the learners in a class can understand the instructions.

`Adequate skill' means that a trainee teacher can do what is required from him/her quite effectively. For example, when they give instructions, most of the time the majority of learners understand them.

`Excellent skill' means that a trainee teacher can do what is required of him/her very effectively. For example, in case with giving instructions all the learners always understand what the teacher wants them to do.

`Not present' means that there was no opportunity at an observed lesson to demonstrate the skill. For example, the skill `dealing with unexpected problems' cannot always be evaluated because unexpected problems may not appear at the lesson.

The extract from the checklist is provided below. (The full version see in appendix 1).

To check how effective the table for CM skills evaluation is five trainee teachers were observed and their CM skills were evaluated. The evaluation was made by a researcher and either by a research advisor or by a supervisor of a trainee teacher.

Before the lesson all the trainee teachers filled in the background questionnaire where they were asked about their education, teaching experience and knowledge of classroom management (see appendix 3). All the participants were second year master's students majoring in teaching English as a foreign language in the Department of foreign languages of Higher school of economics. They were doing their internship teaching second year undergraduate students of the same department. It was revealed in the questionnaire that the majority of them had several years of teaching experience but they had one-to-one lessons (not groups what is important for developing classroom management skills) and on average they estimated their knowledge of classroom management as limited.

The evaluation of their CM skills took place at randomly chosen lessons of their internship. The researcher and the research advisor or a supervisor observed the lesson and completed the table by putting a tick in an appropriate square relying on their opinion. After the lesson the tables were compared to see if there were any differences in evaluation.

If the second observer was not the research advisor but a supervisor of a trainee teacher, brief instructions were given to them on how to complete the table and what each skill meant.

2.1.2. Test with case studies

The second suggested tool for evaluating CM skills is a test with case studies. Case study here means a description of a classroom situation for analysis. The test with case studies consists of multiple choice questions (both with only one correct answer and with several correct answers), open-ended questions and case studies. The questions were designed based on the advice given to teachers in the book `Classroom Management Techniques' by Jim Scrivener (2013). The theoretical background for creating case studies was taken from the same book as well as from the corresponding sections of the handbook `The Practice of English Language Teaching' by Jeremy Harmer (2007, pp. 137-174). In the test there are six case studies where the participants had to identify the problem and suggest a solution.

The example of a multiple choice question and a sample case study is provided below. (The full test see in appendix 2).

Question 1. Choose the best (only one) option.

Teacher's instructions should:

a.be entertaining

b.include lots of gestures

c.be concise (correct answer)

d.include all the steps of doing the task at once

Case study 1. Please, fill in the tables under each case with several words only.

(Identify the problem(s) in the case, write what can be done to solve it (them), and why it should be done).

Mrs Smith is a novice teacher of English. She works with primary school kids. During her teacher training course at university she learned that she should implement a set of rules at the beginning of the school year in order to avoid disruptive behaviour in the classroom. She typed all the rules that she wanted students to follow. She read these rules to the students and gave copies of the rules to all of them. However, students seem to have no respect for the rules. Now she has to spend an abundance of time on discipline issues, which makes her very unhappy.

Problem	Solution	Why is this solution effective?

The suggested answer is that the teacher should discuss the rules together with the students because they do not pay much attention to printed version of the rules. They may not even understand them.

To check the effectiveness of this evaluation tool an experiment was carried out. Two groups of participants took part in it. The first group consisted of nine second year undergraduate students of the department of foreign languages of Higher school of economics. The second group was represented by ten fourth year students of the same department. The reasons for such choice were the following. Students of the department of foreign languages can choose their specialisation (teaching, translation or intercultural communication) for the next two years at the end of the second year. Thus, the second year students did not have specialisation at the time of the experiment. It was supposed that they did not possess any knowledge of teaching and of classroom management in particular. The fourth year students whose specialisation was teaching, in contrast, were expected to have knowledge of methodology, though may be not the knowledge of classroom management.

Before the test the participants filled in the background questionnaire with questions about their education, experience and knowledge of classroom management (appendix 3). It was revealed that the second year students either did not have experience in teaching at all or had several days or weeks of practice. The majority of them taught one-to-one lessons and wrote that they did not know about the concept of classroom management at all or had little knowledge of it. The majority of fourth year students answered that they had one or several years of teaching one-to-one lessons and they had some knowledge of classroom management.

The experiment was divided into two stages. At the first stage the test with case studies was given to above mentioned groups of students. They had about twenty minutes time to complete it. There were four variants of the test. The tasks were the same in each one but the order of them was different. It was done to prevent the situation that the students did the first tasks better than the last ones or that they did not do the last tasks at all. After the test the fourth year students had several lessons of classroom management as a part of one of their teaching courses where the case studies were discussed.

At the second stage of the experiment a similar test was given to the same group of fourth year students after the discussion of case studies. The aim was to see if the test with case studies can be useful as an evaluation or teaching tool. The conditions for taking the test were the same as at the first stage of the experiment.

After that, the test was checked and the results were compared. The answers were assessed in the following way. For multiple choice questions with one possible answer students could get one point if the answer was correct and zero points if the answer was not correct. For multiple choice questions with several possible answers a point was given for each correct answer. The points were not taken away if some of the answers were incorrect. For open-ended questions students could receive a maximum of two points. One point was given if the answer was not full. Case studies were assessed in a similar way as open-ended questions. For identifying a correct problem and solution and providing a full answer a student could get two points. For incomplete answer only one point was possible.

The results were organised in three tables: second year students' test results, fourth year students' test results before the discussion of the test and after the discussion. The final results in each table were classified according to the topic of the question (There were three topics of questions and case studies: teacher language, maintaining discipline and error correction). The points for each topic were counted. Then the table with overall results was created where the results of the groups were presented by topics of the questions and case studies.

2.2 Results

2.2.1 CM skills observation checklist

After lesson observations points were given to trainee teachers by the researcher or the teacher (either the research advisor or the supervisor of a trainee teacher). Then the points were transferred to an overall table with results. In the left column of the table CM skills are enlisted. In the first row of the table the numbers of master's students (trainee teachers) are given. The marks of each skill of each student are written in one square with a slash. The first mark before the slash is the mark of the teacher, the second mark is the mark of the researcher. The table is provided below.

Table 3. The evaluation of master's students' CM skills

As it is seen from the table on average the difference between the marks given by different observers is not very significant. However, it is present and in some cases the gap between the marks is quite substantial. For example, when assessing timing activities the teacher put a three while the researcher put a one. This could happen because of different understanding what `timing activities' means and what can be considered as `excellent timing' or `poor timing'.

An interesting case is when the teacher put some mark but the researcher wrote `not present'. For example, the fourth student's `monitoring activities is assessed as `2/np'. Such situation may occur on the grounds that the teacher (in this example - the supervisor of the trainee teacher) observed several lessons of the trainee teacher and bore a more complete picture in mind about the abilities of their trainee teacher. In contrast, the researcher watched only one lesson and, consequently, could assess only what happened at that lesson. That is why the marks can differ.

2.2.2 Test with case studies

The test results of the second year students

As it was already mentioned the questions and case studies in the test were divided into three topics: teacher language (including giving instructions), maintaining discipline and error correction. The number of tasks on each topic was not equal in the tests. For this reason final results are estimated as a percentage.

The maximum number of points the group of students could receive for the tasks connected with teacher language is 60. Students got 26, i.e. 43%. For tasks on maintaining discipline a maximum was 76 points and students' result in this area was 39, i.e. 51% what is better than with tasks on teacher language. The worst performance was in error correction tasks: the overall result of students is 7 (39%) whereas the maximum is 18.

The difficulty in assessing lied in different test types given to students; consequently, the number of tasks on each topic was different in one group of students. That is why it was decided to count the results of each test type separately first, sum up final marks of each student on each topic and then summarise the results of two test types by topics.

The pre-test results of the fourth year students

In the pre-test for the fourth year students the topics of tasks were the same as for the second year students. However, the number of questions and case studies on each topic and, consequently, the number of points was different.

The students could get 40 points as a maximum for teacher language tasks. They got 17 what makes 43%. The highest mark for `maintaining discipline' was 120, students received a half of it, i.e. 60 points or 50%. It shows that they did better with discipline issues than with tasks on teacher language. The lowest mark was for questions and case studies on error correction - 3 out of 20, i.e. 15%.

The post-test results of the fourth year students

As with the previous tests the topics of the tasks in the post-test for the fourth year students were the same but the number of questions and case studies (and points) was not equal.

For tasks on teacher language it was possible to get 100 points. The real result of the students was 86, i.e. 86%. The maximum for `maintaining discipline' tasks was 40. The students received nearly a half of it - 21 points or 53%. For error correction questions and case studies they were given 13 out of 20 what is 65%. So, it is seen that the worst performance here is in `maintaining discipline' tasks while the highest results achieved in tackling tasks about teacher language.

The overall comparison of the test results

If the aforementioned results are compared, it can be noticed that the second year students test results and the pre-test results of the fourth year students in `teacher language' and `maintaining discipline are almost the same. However, the outcomes of the post-test in the same topics have risen. In case with `teacher language' it can be said that they soared.

In tasks about error correction fourth year students performed in the pre-test even worse than the second year students but in the post-test the results surged. The difference in such unexpected outcomes may be explained by unequal number of tasks in the test and by small number of participants. In general, though the results show gains in students' knowledge after the instruction which means they fulfill their purpose to assess, the validity of evaluation CM skills in this way needs to be checked with a different instrument. Nevertheless, it is seen that the discussion of such tests with students is quite helpful because the post-test results are higher than other results. So, the tasks may be used for teaching purposes, not only for evaluation.

The bar chart below summarises the results of the tests.

Figure 1. The comparison of CM test results

2.3 Discussion

This study focused on designing evaluation instruments for classroom management skills. An attempt was made to devise a checklist for evaluating CM skills and a test with case studies for the same purpose. It was supposed that these tools could be effective as they have been already used for similar studies (Beecher et al., 2017; Klein, 1998).

2.3.1 CM skills observation checklist

The checklist of CM skills was compiled on the basis of the analysis of the Cambridge framework (Cambridge English Language Assessment (a), 2018), FGOS for pedagogical qualification (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2015), FGOS for linguistics qualification (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2014), Teacher Profstandart (Ministerstvo truda i sotsialnoy zatshity Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2013) and the handbooks for teachers by Scrivener (2011) and Harmer (2007). Further, the checklist was tested by using it during lesson observations of trainee teachers doing their internship. Two observers put their marks in the table, then the marks were compared to see if there were any significant differences and to decide how effective it was to use such evaluation tool to assess CM skills.

The results demonstrated that sometimes there are considerable discrepancies between the marks. Moreover, the evaluation in such way proved to be quite subjective.

To eliminate these drawbacks the following recommendations could be suggested:

1. To give more extended explanations to the observers on how to use the evaluation table and what is meant by each skill there, or even a short booklet could be designed containing thorough explanations and examples. In the above mentioned experiment only brief descriptions of skills and the scale were given. It could be seen as a reason why the marks appeared to be different, sometimes substantially. The interpretation of the evaluation table could be provided in the form of a training workshop where all the details would be explained to avoid misunderstanding. The importance of training the observers was highlighted in some research papers. For example, Peter Sheal (1989) points out that the observers should be well-instructed to be able to evaluate what happens in the classroom effectively.

2. To develop a grid with comprehensive criteria for evaluation of each skill and with descriptors for each mark. This way also has its advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it saves time of the observers; they do not have to attend a workshop. On the other hand, it is often quite problematic to use detailed descriptors because there is too much information and it is hard to find desired information there what makes the quality of evaluation lower.

3. To validate the evaluation table it is effective to try it in a different context. For example, to evaluate lessons performed by trainee teachers at schools. By now the checklist was tested only in university environment. At schools classroom management problems will become more obvious because children start misbehaving if something goes wrong. Therefore, the lack of more competencies could be spotted.

2.3.2 Test with case studies

The test for evaluating classroom management skills of students was designed. It includes multiple choice and open-ended questions and case studies. Two groups of students completed the test three times: second year students did it once and fourth year students filled it in before and after the discussion of the tasks. All the questions and case studies were divided into three groups by topics: teacher language (including giving instructions), maintaining discipline and error correction. The performance of each group of students at each group of tasks were compared and analysed.

The results showed that in the first test the two groups demonstrated a relatively equal level of classroom management knowledge of two first topics. In the topic `error correction' the fourth year students even underperformed what could be caused by inaccuracies in test design. Though it was expected that fourth year students could at least guess better when solving teaching related problems because they were more knowledgeable in the area. Such unexpected outcomes could also be explained by different learner experience and analytical skills of the students.

After the discussion of the test with the participants the results improved. Thus, the conclusion could be drawn that the test with cases may be used as a teaching material because it showed its effectiveness for pedagogical purposes.

The following disadvantages of case studies were also revealed in the process of assessing tasks:

1. The case studies show a classroom situation only from one point of view. In contrast, in teaching practice different people may have different opinions on what is happening in the classroom. However, when a situation is described by a person, the readers already get a limited picture of events and are constrained in their analysis. Their speculation is determined by the way the situation is presented by the author. It could mean that case studies would not show objective results of classroom management knowledge and skills of the person who is doing them.

2. The assessment of the results is difficult because the answers are given in the open form. It is often unclear what to consider a satisfactory answer and what is not. This also adds an element of subjectivity to the process of evaluation of classroom management skills and makes the test with case studies not a very effective evaluation tool.

In conclusion it can be noted that the CM skills checklist needs certain improvements for more productive use and the test with case studies would be more useful for teaching rather than evaluating purposes. Further research could be conducted on making amendments to CM skills checklist and making the test more suitable for evaluation.

Conclusion

In this paper classroom management competencies of a language teacher have been subjected to analysis. It has been shown that CM competencies are described as an essential component of teacher professionalism in different standards, though they may not be presented explicitly there.

In this work the Cambridge framework and Russian professional standards for teachers - FGOS and Teacher Professional Standard - have been compared to identify the place of classroom management competencies there. It has been revealed that these skills are essential for teacher competence and are described in all the aforementioned standards, though in the Cambridge framework they are explained in greater detail.

On the basis of the analysis of the Cambridge framework and the standards (FGOS, Profstandart) the evaluation instruments - a checklist for lesson observation and a test with case studies have been designed and tried out. It has been found out that the checklist has certain limitations and can be improved. The evaluation of classroom management skills by means of the test appeared to be subjective. Thus, it was concluded that the test could be used for teaching rather than evaluating purposes.

Further research could be conducted in making amendments to the evaluation checklist and trial it in a different context. The test with case studies could be supplemented with the descriptions of the situations presented from different points of view to make it closer to real-life teaching and, consequently, more objective. Moreover, detailed criteria for the assessment of the tasks could be developed to reduce the amount of subjectivity.

References

1. BALEAP. (2008). Competency Framework for Teachers of English for Academic Purposes. Retrieved 9 May, 2019 from https://www.baleap.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/teap-competency-framework.pdf

2. Beecher, C.C., Abbott, M.I., Petersen, S. & Greenwood, C.R., (2017, September 2017). Using the Quality of Literacy Implementation Checklist to Improve Preschool Literacy Instruction, Early Childhood Education Journal, 45, 595-602. Retrieved May 9, 2019 from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0816-8

3. Cambridge Assessment. (2019). Who we are. Retrieved May 9, 2019 from https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/about-us/who-we-are/

4. Cambridge English Language Assessment. (2018). Cambridge English Teaching Framework. Competency Statements. Retrieved 9 May, 2019, from http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/172992-full-level-descriptors-cambridge-english-teaching-framework.pdf

5. Cambridge English Language Assessment (2018). How and why the Cambridge English Teaching Framework was developed. Retrieved 9 May, 2019, from https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/172991-categories-and-components-cambridge-english-teaching-framework.pdf

6. Cambridge English Language Assessment (2018). Framework components. Retrieved 9 May, 2019, from: https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/172991-categories-and-components-cambridge-english-teaching-framework.pdf

7. Cambridge English Assessment. (2019). Teaching qualifications. Retrieved May 9, 2019 from https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/teaching/

8. Cambridge English Language Assessment. (2015). TKT. Teaching knowledge test. Glossary 2015, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Craven Community College. (2012). Classroom observation checklist. Retrieved May 9, 2019 from http://cravencc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/CCC-classroom-observation-checklist-12-09.pdf

10. Dubois D. (1998). Competency-based HR Management, Oxford: Black Well Publishing.

11. Geis, G.L. (1984, March 1984). Checklisting, Journal of Instructional Development, 7, 2-9. Retrieved May 9, 2019 from https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905585

12. Gilbert, Thomas F. (1996). Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance, San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

13. Glasser, W. (2001). Choice theory in the classroom (revised edition), New York: Quill.

14. Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching, Fourth Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education/ Longman.

15. Klein, S.P. (1998, June 1998). Standards for Teacher Tests, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 123-138. Retrieved May 9, 2019 from https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008029010483

16. Kohn, A. (2000). The Schools Our Children Deserve: Moving Beyond Traditional Classrooms and "Tougher Standards", Boston: Mariner Books.

17. Lynch, M. (2016, November 2016). Understanding three classroom management theories. The Edvocate. Retrieved 9 May, 2019, from: https://www.theedadvocate.org/understanding-three-key-classroom-management-theories/

18. Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii. (2019). Federalnyye gosudarstvennyye obrazovatelnyye standarty [Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation. (2019). Federal state educational standards].Retrieved 9 May, 2019, from: https://fgos.ru/

19. Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii. (2014). Federalnyy gosudarstvennyy obrazovatelnyy standard vysshego obrazovaniya. Uroven vysshego obrazovaniya bakalavriat. Napravleniye podgotovki 45.03.02 Lingvistika [Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation. (2014). Federal state educational standard for higher education. The level of higher education bachelor. The field of study 45.03.02 Linguistics].Retrieved 9 May, 2019, from: https://fgos.ru/

20. Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii. (2015). Federalnyy gosudarstvennyy obrazovatelnyy standard vysshego obrazovaniya. Uroven vysshego obrazovaniya bakalavriat. Napravleniye podgotovki 44.03.01 Pedagogicheskoye obrazovaniye [Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation. (2015). Federal state educational standard for higher education. The level of higher education bachelor. The field of study 44.03.01 Pedagogical education].Retrieved 9 May, 2019, from: https://fgos.ru/

21. Ministerstvo truda i sotsialnoy zatshity Rossiyskoy Federatsii. (2013). Professionalnyy standard. Pedagog [Ministry of labour and social support of the Russian Federation. (2013). Professional standard. Teacher]. Retrieved 9 May, 2019, from: http://profstandart.rosmintrud.ru/obshchiy-informatsionnyy-blok/natsionalnyy-reestr-professionalnykh-standartov/reestr-professionalnykh-standartov/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=56367

22. MTSFER. (2018). Profstandard pedagogov utverzhdennyy Pravitelstvom v 2019 godu [Professional standard of a teacher approved by the government in 2019]. Retrieved 9 May, 2019, from: https://www.menobr.ru/article/65401-qqq-18-m1-profstandart-pedagoga

23. Nunan, D. (2010). Research Methods in Language Learning, New York: Cambridge University Press.

24. Scrivener, J. (2013). Classroom management techniques, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

25. Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning Teaching, a guidebook for English language teachers, Third Edition, Oxford: Macmillan Education.

26. Sheal, P. (1989). Classroom observation: training the observers, ELT Journal, 43/2, 92-105.

27. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior, New York, NY: MacMillan.

28. Ur, P. (1999). A Course in Language Teaching. Trainee book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

29. Velenchik, A. (2018, May 2018). Teaching with the Case Method, Starting Point: Teaching and Learning Economics. Retrieved May 9, 2019 from https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/cases/index.html

30. Wright, T. (2005). Classroom management in language education. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Appendix 1

Classroom Management Skills Evaluation Checklist

Appendix 2

Classroom Management Test

Part 1. Questions

Please, answer the following questions.

1. Choose the best (only one) option.

Teacher's instructions should:

a. be entertaining

b. include lots of gestures

c. be concise

d. include all the steps of doing the task at once

2. Choose three things that may worsen the quality of rapport in the classroom.

a.a teacher sees things only from the teacher's point of view;

b.a teacher sometimes leads unstructured talks at the lessons;

c.a teacher fakes happiness or pleasure;

d.a teacher uses sarcasm at the lessons;

e.a teacher is interested in students' lives;

f.a teacher treats each learner as an individual.

3. What can a teacher do to make his language more understandable for lower level students? Write 3 (or more, if you can) continuations of the sentence “A teacher can…”

Example: …vary the speed of his/her speech.

1) …_______________________________________________________.

2) …_______________________________________________________.

3) …_______________________________________________________.

4) …

5) …

4. What would you do if some of your students frequently arrived late? Write the answer in one sentence.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Part 2. Case Studies

Please, fill in the tables under each case with several words only.

(Identify the problem(s) in the case, write what can be done to solve it (them), and why it should be done).

1. Mrs Smith is a novice teacher of English. She works with primary school kids. During her teacher training course at university she learned that she should implement a set of rules at the beginning of the school year in order to avoid disruptive behaviour in the classroom. She typed all the rules that she wanted students to follow. She read these rules to the students and gave copies of the rules to all of them. However, students seem to have no respect for the rules. Now she has to spend an abundance of time on discipline issues, which makes her very unhappy.

Problem	Solution	Why is this solution effective?

2. Mr Robinson is a novice teacher of English. He works with secondary school students. He is very busy. He finds time to write a brief plan of the lesson just before the lesson. However, when the lesson starts, he becomes uncertain about what exactly he should do, children start talking using their L1, the classroom is very buzzy, and he can't understand what is wrong and why they don't fulfill the requirements of school program.

Problem	Solution	Why is this solution effective?

3. Mrs Taylor is a novice teacher of English. She works with secondary school students. During her teacher training course at university she has learned that tasks should be easy enough so that students could get a sense of success to remain motivated. That is why she started to give her intermediate students easy tasks that they could accomplish very quickly. She supposed that students would be engaged and motivated because tasks are so easy. But students started getting bored and misbehaved.

Problem	Solution	Why is this solution effective?

4. Mr Walker is a novice teacher of English. He works with secondary school students. His students are usually engaged in classwork. Recently he has introduced a new grammar topic “Present Perfect”. Now they need to practice the rules they have just studied. Mr Walker's lesson on practicing is carefully planned and includes a lot of drilling activities to practice the topic “Present Perfect” throughout the whole lesson. However, 15 minutes from the start of the lesson students have started to misbehave.

Problem	Solution	Why is this solution effective?

5. Mrs Green is a novice teacher of English. She works with primary school children and has a rewarding system which involves that students getting points for good behaviour and losing points because of bad behaviour. At the beginning of the year Mrs Green imposed a rule that students lose 5 points if they haven't done their homework. Her student Mike rarely does the homework and has already lost many points. Her student Lilly always does her homework. Once Lilly came to the class without having done the homework because she was at her friend's birthday party. Mrs Green decided not to punish her because she is a good student. This led to the fact that Mike refused to do his homework at all.

Problem	Solution	Why is this solution effective?

6. Mr Harrison is a novice teacher of English. He works with teenagers. Once one of his elementary students said: “She don't dance tomorrow. She don't like dance.” (She won't dance tomorrow. She doesn't like dancing). Mr Harrison wanted to correct all mistakes that appeared in the sentence, and it took him a lot of time to explain why it was right to use “won't” instead of “don't” because they hadn't studied future tense.

Problem	Solution	Why is this solution effective?

Appendix 3

Background Questionnaire

Please, answer the following background questions:

1. You are:

a. a teacher

b. a student (bachelor/master), year_____

2. What maximum teaching experience have you got?

a. no experience

b. one month as an internship at university

c. several days (how many?____)

d. several months (how many?_____)

e. several years (how many?______)

3. (If you have no experience in teaching, omit this question) What kind of classes do you teach?

a. one-to-one classes

b. usually one-to-one classes but I have some experience teaching a group (at least two students)

c. usually I teach a group of students

4. Have you studied classroom management? (more than one answer is possible)

a. I have never heard about such concept

b. I have heard about the concept but never studied it in detail

c. I read books on this topic

d. It was a part of one of my teacher training courses

e. I completed a special course on classroom management

f. I use classroom management techniques that I have learned from courses or books in my daily practice

g. I use some classroom management techniques but I haven't studied them on purpose

Размещено на Allbest.ru