Integrating CEFR, Individualized Contents, and Intensive Instruction Approach in Developing and Using Speaking Materials for First Year English Teacher Trainees Chairil Anwar Korompot English Department Faculty of Languages and Literature (FBS) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UNM)

First things first: Acknowledgements TEFLIN Board 2014-2017 Organizing Committee, the 15th Asia TEFL International Conference 2017 & the 64th TEFLIN International Conference 2017 Dean, Faculty of Languages and Literature UNM Pre-Conference Organizing Committee, the 65th TEFLIN International Conference 2018 at UNM 2017-2018 PPT Research Grant Scheme, Kemristekdikti RI Students, English Language Education Program FBS UNM (Class of 2016)

About this presentation The tentative outcome of the 1st stage of a proposed 3-year study on developing basic English speaking materials to teach 1st year English language education undergraduate students at UNM. The outcome consists of: Rationale Syllabus Draft module(s) Lesson plans It’s a work in progress.

RATIONALE Background At UNM’s four-year U/G ELE Program, according to its 2015 Curriculum, students are taught courses which fall into 5 categories, one of these being English language skills development (L, S, R, W) Speaking skills are taught at 3 main levels applying 2 approaches (integrated skills & separated skills): basic (integrated) basic (separated) intermediate (separated) advanced (separated)

RATIONALE (CONT.) The Courses Sem. 1, Year 1: Intensive Integrated English Course (incl. listening, speaking, reading, and writing plus grammar and vocabulary) Sem. 2, Year 1: Basic Speaking Sem. 3, Year 2: Intermediate Speaking Sem. 4, Year 2: Advanced Speaking Plus… Sem. 5, Year 3: Interpersonal Communication (incl. English speaking skills)

RATIONALE (CONT.) Problems with the Current English Speaking Skills Courses Having taught Basic Speaking & Intermediate Speaking in 2015 and 2016, I identified at least four main problems: Lack of proficiency standards for each course; Lack of teaching materials relevant to EL teacher preparation; Lack of speaking materials with local/individualised contents; Lack of focus in the instructional approach (intensive vs. extensive).

RATIONALE (CONT.) Implications Each of the English speaking skills courses should have: proficiency standards materials geared to preparing future EL teachers materials with local contents, in addition to general ones focus in its instructional approach (intensive approach at lower levels; extensive approach at higher levels)

RATIONALE (CONT.) What the Reviewed Literature Suggests Proficiency standards: CEFR Language teaching materials with local/individualised/contextual contents Focus of the instructional approach: intensive vs. extensive approaches

RATIONALE (CONT.) What the Reviewed Literature Suggests Is Lacking (The Gaps) Lack of materials development research using CEFR as proficiency standards in the Indonesian context Lack of research in the spoken English skills development of EFL teachers/teacher-trainees Lack of research on English speaking materials developed with local/individualised contents at higher education level Lack of studies in intensive EL teaching approach, compared to the extensive approach

RATIONALE (CONT.) Key Terms/Concepts Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) Local/individualized contents Intensive (speaking) instruction approach (vs. extensive instruction approach) First year English teacher trainees

CEFR (Council of Europe, 2014) Level Attribute Description A1 Breakthrough or beginner Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce themselves and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people they know and things they have. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help. A2 Way stage or elementary Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of their background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.

CEFR (Council of Europe, 2014) Level Attribute Description B1 Threshold or intermediate Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise while travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics that are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans. B2 Vantage or upper intermediate Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in their field of specialization. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.

CEFR (Council of Europe, 2014) Level Attribute Description C1 Effective operational proficiency or advanced Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer clauses, and recognize implicit meaning. Can express ideas fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organizational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices. C2 Mastery or proficiency Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarize information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express themselves spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in the most complex situations.

Local/Individualized Contents (Based on Shin, Eslami & Chen, 2011) Inner circle cultural content still dominates the contents of most ELT textbooks (in outer & expanding circle countries) A sociocultural perspective: language use is open to negotiation and is context-dependent. The design and content of English-language teaching (ELT) textbooks should reflect the multiple perspectives inherent in EIL (incl. local/individualized contents) ELT materials should contain materials that students are personally, socially, and culturally familiar with.

Intensive (Speaking) Instruction Approach “Other regulation” approach (Thornbury 2005: 41-48) Awareness-raising Activities Using recordings & transcripts Focusing on selected language features Using live listening Using noticing-the-gap activities Appropriation Activities Practiced control Drilling & chants Writing tasks Reading aloud Assisted performance & scaffolding Dialogues Communicative tasks Task repetition

Extensive (Speaking) Instruction Approach “Self regulation” approach (Thornbury 2005: 41-48) The term used in the literature for the speaking skills development at advanced stages. An extension of the existing scholarship on the “extensive” ways of teaching EL skills (esp. Day & Bamford’s [1998] “extensive reading” Characterised by 10 principles developed out of the 10 principles of extensive reading (see next slide)

Extensive (Speaking) Instruction Approach “Self regulation” approach (Thornbury 2005: 41-48) ES Principles based on Day & Bamford’s (2002) ER Principles #1 Schedule daily time for ES work, allow additional talks via the internet. #2 Suggest lots of topics—related/not related to class themes. #3 The language produced by students must be at or below their level. #4 Always allow “free topic” talks. #5 Make activities ungraded. #6 Make activities required, but ungraded. #7 Allow students to produce independently (in a different room than the rest of the class) #8 Not silent, of course, but talks are individual (with post-talk feedback from teacher, but not other students. #9 Teachers create talks on the scheduled class topics for students to listen to and interact with. #10 Teachers do not grade but do provide positive feedback & encouragement.

First Year English Teacher Trainees Freshmen Undergraduate English Language Education program Indonesian context of TEFL teacher preparation

BASIC ENGLISH SYLLABUS LESSON DESCRIPTION 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE 2 Unit 1: Myself 3 Unit 2: My Family 4 Unit 3: My Relatives 5 Unit 4: My Friends 6 Unit 5: My Teachers 7 Unit 6: My Neighbours 8 Unit 7: My Hobbies and Interets 9 MID-SEMESTER TEST 10 Unit 8: “My Home” 11 Unit 9: “My School” 12 Unit 10: “My University” 13 Unit 11: “My Hometown/Village” 14 Unit 12: “My Place of Origin” 15 Unit 13: “My Country (Indonesia)” 16 FINAL SEMESTER TEST BASIC ENGLISH SYLLABUS

DRAFT MODULES Contents & Instructions: Getting Started (Look at the picture; Write down your ideas.) Q & A (Answer the following questions. Write your answers next to the question. Work on your own.) Talk to a Friend (With a classmate, ask and answer the above questions.) Talk to Other Friends (Interview two other classmates; ask them the above questions. Write their information in the chart below.) Talk to the Class (Introduce/Talk to the class about one of the two classmates you interviewed. Use he or she.) Task (Make a poster etc.)

DRAFT MODULES Samples: Unit 1: Myself Unit 13: “My Country”

LESSON PLAN Pre-Lesson: Class roll, Warm-Up, etc. During Lesson: Classroom Activities & Patterns of Interaction Getting Started (S/Ss; S/Ss  T) Q & A (S  T; S/Ss) Talk to a Friend (S   S) Talk to Other Friends (S   Ss) Talk to the Class (S  Ss/T) Task (S/Ss; S  T; T  S) Post Lesson: The 4 Rs (Recap, Reflect; Refine; Ready)

Thank you for your kind attention Thank you for your kind attention. We look forward to seeing you at next year’s TEFLIN International Conference at UNM