Placement Report
Placement at Prof. Merel Keijzer
Rhomé Busstra S2724987
MA Applied Linguistics 2018-2019 June 2019
Supervisor at the placement organisation: Prof. Merel Keijzer Placement supervising lecturer: Prof. Wander Lowie
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 2
1.1 Vidi project and PhD projects ... 2
2. Description of assignments and projects ... 4
2.1 Language intervention ... 4
2.2 Citizen science project ... 4
2.3 Description of tasks and important dates ... 5
3. Evaluation of learning goals ... 9
4. Reflection on the process and learning goals ... 12
References ... 15
Appendix A: PowerPoint presentation wetenschapsdate ... 16
Appendix B: Examples of language course PowerPoint slides ... 18
1. Introduction
During the second semester of Applied Linguistics, in addition to writing their thesis, students either do an internship or take another course. Initially I thought that I would rather take a course than commit to a placement at an organisation, but when I found out more information about potential placements, I quickly changed my mind. During a meeting with Hilde
Hacquebord, the placement coordinator, I heard that the Wetenschapswinkel of the Faculty of Arts was going to be involved in running a citizen science project related to Prof. Merel Keijzer’s Vidi project on bilingualism and ageing, and since I wrote my thesis last year on exactly this topic, I was greatly interested in a potential placement at the Wetenschapswinkel. During a meeting with Saskia Visser, the head of the Wetenschapswinkel, we discussed that I could certainly be involved in this, but it was not entirely clear yet if Saskia or Merel was going to be the placement provider. During the same time I applied for a student assistant position at Merel, but she then asked me to turn this position into an internship instead. I thought this was a fantastic idea, as this would not only allow me to be involved in the citizen science project, but would also present me with other interesting tasks and involve me in several other projects on bilingualism and ageing. I therefore happily agreed to this 5-month (February-June) placement at Prof. Merel Keijzer and was excited for what laid ahead. Below, I will provide a brief outline of the main Vidi project and some of its sub-components in which I was involved.
1.1 Vidi project and PhD projects
As the world’s population ages, healthy ageing becomes increasingly important. Because of this, researchers from widely varying backgrounds have started to create and develop
innovative ways in which older people can age in a healthy manner. Research has shown that being bilingual is one such way: people who speak more than one language have been shown to have access to cognitive reserve, which could delay the onset of neuro-degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s (Alladi et al., 2013). Prof. Merel Keijzer’s Vidi project aims to provide an insight into the effect of bilingualism on ageing by studying the nature of the bilingual advantage in old age, as well as how learning a language after the age of 65 could have a positive effect on cognition and (mental) well-being in elderly people (Keijzer, 2017).
Merel’s Vidi project, which has a duration of several years, involves a number of sub-projects which all contribute to a better understanding of the potential beneficial effect of learning a new skill, and particularly learning a new language, in older age. The two projects in which I was involved were both PhD projects which are still ongoing, the first of which is
carried out by Saskia Nijmeijer (Department of Neurosciences). The main objective of her study is to determine whether a bilingual experience in old age affects cognitive flexibility, which is operationalised by presenting older adults with a foreign language course (English as a foreign language). These older adults experience subjective, but not objective, cognitive decline. If being bilingual has protective effects, the learning of a new language could be used as a tool to promote healthy ageing, which would have important clinical applications.
Alongside the language intervention, two other conditions are also introduced which serve as control groups: a music intervention and a social (art) intervention.
Mara van der Ploeg, the other PhD student studying bilingualism and ageing, mostly concerns herself with investigating the implications and effectiveness of implicit and explicit language learning conditions, as well as older adults’ preferences for learning a new language. I was not involved in developing materials for the implicit and explicit language lessons, but instead focused on older adults’ previous language learning experiences. In order to find out more about this, a citizen science project was set up and a questionnaire was created. This project, which is primarily set up within Merel’s Vidi project, is also part of Mara’s PhD work.
In line with the projects described above, I was primarily involved in the citizen science project for Mara’s study and the language intervention for Saskia’s project. Below, I will describe the tasks corresponding to both projects.
2. Description of assignments and projects
2.1 Language intervention
For this project, I was mostly involved in the teaching of the English language course to older adults and administering the language pre-tests and post-tests. The primary teacher of the course was Albert Vazquez, as he is a native speaker of English, but considering he does not speak Dutch, it was decided that it would be good to have a secondary teacher who was proficient in Dutch. This set-up proved to be very effective; not only could we now give more individual attention to the students, but it also made the students feel more at ease considering they knew that they could always ask questions in Dutch whenever necessary. Albert
designed the entire course, but I very much enjoyed giving him some of my input as well and discussing with him how we could best teach this particular group of six students. I had some experience with designing a language course for older adults because of my thesis, which turned out to be very helpful for this project (some examples of slides used during the lessons can be found in Appendix B). In addition to the biweekly classes, students also worked on an online LOI English course. After each chapter they handed in their tasks, which I then graded and provided feedback to. There were several issues with LOI, especially at the start of the course, but after many emails and phone calls we were thankfully able to resolve them all. The pre- and post-measurements involved administering a verbal fluency task, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Task and an IELTS listening and speaking task. The pre-tests were mostly administered via an online service, but this turned out to be highly impractical and time-consuming. The post-tests, therefore, were administered face-to-face, which was a notably smoother process.
2.2 Citizen science project
At the start of my internship, the particulars of this project had yet to be determined. I was, therefore, part of multiple meetings during which it was decided how this project was going to be shaped. The aim of this citizen science project was to find out older adults’ preferences for and experience with learning a new language. For this purpose, a questionnaire was devised. Mara had made a rough set-up of the questionnaire, which I then put in an online format using Qualtrics. Before I became part of this project, it was decided by several people involved that secondary school students would administer this questionnaire to older adults, so that several age groups could get involved and make this an interesting and exciting project. After having discussed this with Anita Warmelink of the Scholierenacademie, we opted for the
“wetenschapsdate” format. A wetenschapsdate involves giving a workshop to students during which they learn more about the theoretical background of the project and partake in several activities related to the topic. Due to the nature of this project, it was decided that this wetenschapsdate would involve two sessions: the first lesson would be a seminar-style workshop during which we would teach the pupils about linguistic research and
questionnaires, whereas for the second part students would be asked to bring an older adult to school to administer the questionnaire. Mara, Anita, and I made a rough set-up of this lesson, but I then further developed it by writing a script for Mara and I and creating a PowerPoint presentation (see Appendix A for some examples of PowerPoint slides).
I was also part of the filming of a short informative and promotional video for this project, which I, as well as all others involved, very much enjoyed. This video can hopefully soon be found on the YouTube channel of the RUG. As part of the video, a secondary school student (played by a youthful-looking third-year student of English) interviewed one of Saskia’s language course participants using Mara’s questionnaire, which shows that being involved in several projects can result in helpful connections and wonderful opportunities for collaboration.
2.3 Description of tasks and important dates
Below, I will provide a more exact description of what my tasks were and when I performed them. I will mostly focus on the most important tasks and highlights, as the scope of this report does not allow for describing all tasks in too much detail.
January: preparation
Before the internship started, there was much that had to be arranged. I was involved in several meetings during which my tasks were discussed and outlined, but other meetings had also already been planned before my internship started in February. The purpose of these meetings was to plan and get off the ground the citizen science project as well as the language course, since dates had to be determined and classrooms had to be booked. From the start I knew that this internship would not mean spending exactly 13.33 hours per week on my tasks, but would rather consist of flexible hours and weeks during which I would spend sometimes eight, and sometimes 16 hours working on the projects. I was, therefore, very happy to start working on the internship before its official starting date, also not in the least because I did not have to write my thesis this year. In January, I also went back and forth with LOI to get
our log-in credentials for the online LOI campus. Moreover, I familiarised myself and Albert with the online environment using several extensive manuals provided by LOI. These were all written in Dutch, however, which meant that I had to translate some parts for Albert.
February: official start of the internship
In the first week of the internship, the lab which was set up for these projects and led by Merel, also started. This lab, the Bilingualism and Aging Lab (BALAB), consisted of
researchers, PhD students and MA and REMA students working on the topic of bilingualism across the lifespan. On 7 February, the first BALAB meeting took place. During this meeting, we introduced ourselves and our projects and Merel explained the functions of this lab. In February Albert and I also administered the language tests to some of the participants of the English course and I helped him create the lessons which would start in March. Due to the fact that the language course had not yet started, I worked a little less than 13 to 14 hours a week, but I knew that in the coming months I would amply make up for this. I also created a questionnaire in Qualtrics on the basis of questions which Mara had proposed. This proved to be an intricate and at times challenging process, as the nature of the questions did not always allow for straightforward question formats.
March: start of the language course
Due to technical difficulties, we were unable to test all participants on 26 February and had therefore scheduled another testing day in March. We tested nine people in total, of whom six would ultimately participate in the course. On 19 March, the first English class took place. This month I also started to grade the LOI assignments handed in by students and provided extensive feedback to their tasks. Albert and I had discussed beforehand how we would go about this, so I had a solid idea of what I had to focus on and be aware of. During the first lesson students indicated that not all of them had been able to access the online LOI
environment, so during the first class meeting Saskia was present to make an inventory of all the issues students had run into at home. I also started to write a so-called “Train the Trainer” manual for any subsequent teachers of the language course (see Appendix C), as Albert and I would probably not be continuing to teach the course after the end of our internship.
April: language course & wetenschapsdate
In April there were two more class meetings. Saskia had arranged coffee and tea, which turned out to be a great success, as it created a homely and familiar environment and helped the students to get to know each other better. Mara, Anita, and I also created a rough set-up for the wetenschapsdate and I continued to develop the lesson by deciding which information we would include and how we would exactly structure the lesson. I also made a PowerPoint presentation and a script for both Mara and I so that we would be able to teach the class in an effective and efficient way. Throughout March and April, I attended several meetings with Vincent and Saskia of the Wetenschapswinkel to discuss the citizen science project, during which Mara and Merel were naturally also present, as well as a number of other meetings with people involved in both projects. I also had extensive email conversations with several people at LOI, as our students had reported multiple issues with finding and handing in assignments. Thankfully, we were able to resolve all issues.
May: LOI, the first wetenschapsdate, & post-tests
Unfortunately, some more issues with LOI presented themselves, this time in relation to audio tasks. Due to technical difficulties Albert and I had not received the required notifications, which meant that we were unable to grade assignments. After many emails I figured out how to go about grading the tasks, which was very helpful. On 16 May, the filming of the
informative and promotional video for the citizen science project as described earlier took place, which I greatly enjoyed. In May I also finalised the wetenschapsdate and Mara and I gave the first wetenschapsdate-lesson on 22 May. The lesson took place at the Willem Lodewijk Gymnasium in Groningen in a Gymnasium-4 class. As this was the first time teaching the lesson, we did not know exactly what to expect and if our format would work. Inevitably we ran into some minor issues, so I made small changes to the lesson and made an inventory of all the things which we should take into account for the next wetenschapsdate. I also continued to work on the “Train the Trainer” manual for the language course. I should note that throughout the past months I also had many extensive email conversations with Mara and Saskia to ensure that I was on top of everything and to discuss any other tasks which I could do. Moreover, nearly every week a BALAB meeting took place during which all projects were discussed, which I found very interesting and loved hearing about.
Lastly, we administered the language post-tests on 28 and 29 May. Unfortunately and incredibly frustratingly, due to a public transport strike I was unable to be there for the final lesson and the post-measurements on 28 May, which meant that Albert had to administer the
tests on his own for three participants, which he kindly did. In regard to the lesson, fortunately Merel was able to be present for the entire duration of the class.
June: wetenschapsdate part 2 & future plans
At the time of writing this report, the second part of the wetenschapsdate which Mara and I will do at the Willem Lodewijk Gymnasium is scheduled for 18 June. During this lesson, the students will bring along an older adult to school and administer the questionnaire. Due to the fact that the setting up of the citizen science project and the creating of the wetenschapsdate took a little longer than expected, Mara and I were only able to do a wetenschapsdate at one school, but we will likely go to several more schools next year. Of course my internship as well as my career as a student have come to an end, but I will most likely continue my current tasks as a research assistant. I am extremely excited about this and very thankful that I was given this opportunity.
3. Evaluation of learning goals
Seven learning goals were outlined in my placement contract, each of which I will discuss below.
Through the internship tasks, it is expected that by the end of the internship the intern: 1. Will have a solid understanding of the necessary steps in larger research projects on
the crossroads of cognitive neuroscience and linguistics.
Now that my internship has come to an end, I can say that there are many more steps involved in a project of this scope than I initially thought. Moreover, due to the large number of people involved, arranging and planning all the necessary aspects takes much more time than I had anticipated. Moreover, I learned that constant communication is highly important to ensure that all projects are running as smoothly as possible and that all people involved know what they have to do. Before the internship, I had of course communicated through multiple channels with e.g. fellow students and professors, but I have never sent as many emails as during this internship. I have also learned more about neuroscientific tests and about the details of a research procedure with more of a medical focus, which I greatly appreciate.
2. Will have successfully collaborated in a team of researchers and research assistants and understand what is needed in order to make such an interdisciplinary
collaboration work.
I am very grateful that part of this internship was being present and contributing to the
BALAB meetings, as they gave me insight into all ongoing projects and what everyone had to take into account to make progress in their work. The discussions which took place during these meetings provided me with valuable information and taught me to think creatively and come up with ideas for the language course and the citizen science project. I have also
realised that being part of a team of like-minded people works highly motivating and helps to keep one accountable.
3. Will have gained a solid working knowledge of the research field of cognitive aging, specifically in relation to second language learning and bilingualism.
On a practical level, being a secondary teacher of the language course gave me hands-on experience with teaching a foreign language to the elderly population. I have loved teaching our group of students, and now know that I greatly prefer teaching older adults over younger people. Moreover, administering the aforementioned language tests taught me many useful things, such as the fact that taking however much time each adult needs for every test is very important, and that this age group appreciates clear instruction, patience, and a laid-back approach during a somewhat nerve-racking experience like taking unfamiliar tests. On a more theoretical level, through reading multiple articles and through the discussions during the BALAB meetings I have gained knowledge on learning a language in older age and life-long bilingualism, which will undoubtedly prove to be very useful in my future professional life.
4. Will be an LOI accredited English as a foreign language teacher and have ample experience grading learners’ progress online.
At times the grading of the online LOI assignments was a steep learning curve, but having to figure out basic things such as the online environment and encountering technical difficulties helped me in understanding how online courses operate. Moreover, I now thoroughly
understand the most effective ways in which to give feedback to older adults, which is invaluable information. During one of the English classes I was told by one of our students that he greatly appreciated the extensive and clear feedback on his tasks, for which I was very grateful.
5. Will understand the needs for third age language learners
As my MA thesis also focused on learning a language at a later age, I had already acquired an understanding of the preferences for learning a language for this age group. Naturally, this internship only broadened this knowledge and gave me many additional insights and
experiences. The language course taught me that older adults are motivated to learn and need little encouragement to participate in in-class activities. Additionally, a slower pace of learning, much patience on behalf of the teachers, and a comfortable and safe environment (where tea and coffee are free-flowing) are all of the utmost importance for older adults. The
fact that all of our students regretted that the course had ended after three months shows that Albert and I hopefully managed to cater to their needs and were able to give them a pleasant foreign language learning experience.
6. Will understand the complexities involved in and having acquired the skills in setting up and coordinating a large science outreach project
Now that my internship has ended, I understand that setting up a project such as the citizen science project takes much longer than I thought or that all people involved would have liked. Communication with all parties involved can take much more time than expected, which in this case meant that meetings, classes, etc. were sometimes unfortunately delayed several weeks. However, the large number of people involved is also a strong point and allows for much useful input and many creative insights. Now that the first wetenschapsdate is complete the citizen science project is up and running, but it took four months to get to that point. I have learned that it is simply impossible to stick to a tight schedule with projects like this, because unforeseen circumstances will always interfere. Thankfully, however, I now have a solid understanding of the project and am excited to hopefully continue working on it next year.
7. Will have become knowledgeable in translating scientific research to a larger public.
This learning goal mostly relates to the questionnaire, as I have come to realise that appropriately formulating questions is highly important to ensure the acquisition of useful data. The questionnaire which I created for my thesis had already partly trained me for this, so that experience came in incredibly useful for this internship. I am glad that I had the
opportunity to further develop this skill and that I now have an even better understanding of using questionnaires as a research tool. This internship has also taught me that recruiting participants should be given priority, that it can be a highly time-consuming process, and that it can be done in many different ways. Furthermore, the wetenschapsdate proved to be a good format to translate scientific research to younger people by letting them actually gather data, as well as teaching them more about the ins and outs of the field of applied linguistics.
4. Reflection on the process and learning goals
Overall, I absolutely loved doing this internship and am incredibly grateful to Merel for having given me this opportunity. I am a theoretical rather than a practical person, but I have come to realise that applying theoretical skills can be a rewarding experience. Moreover, because of my involvement in several projects, I have gained a better understanding of the ways in which applied linguistics as a science can function in society and can indeed be highly beneficial to forwarding the field of healthy ageing and in that way help the growing population of older adults. Before this internship I had little to no idea how I would put the skills acquired during this MA into practice, but I now see that this is certainly possible and even more interesting, fun, and valuable than I initially thought.
Before my internship started, Merel had compiled a document in which she described my tasks. These were my primary and secondary tasks:
Primary task:
1. Alongside the language intervention that forms part of this project, a citizen science project will run asking large cohorts of elderly in the Netherlands about their past language learning experiences as well as current needs and wishes. This results in a needs analysis of third age language learning in the Netherlands. The intern’s primary responsibility will be in the coordination of this citizen science project. Subtasks are:
a. Developing and pilot testing the questionnaire and putting this in an appropriate online format
b. Contacting various organizations (known partners such as HOVO, Biblionet, Lifelines) but also trying to reach new organizations and audiences for help distributing the questionnaires
c. Distribute and administer the online questionnaires and process and analyse its results
d. Conduct and coordinate a team who conduct follow-up interviews with a subsection (random or selected) of the questionnaire respondents
e. Produce a report detailing the outcomes of this project.
Secondary tasks:
1. Additional EFL teacher for the seniors that have been allocated to the language learning condition, alongside the main EFL teacher on this project. This task involves the following subtasks:
a. Becoming an LOI certified teacher (through LOI training)
b. Tracking the online progress of the learners through the LOI campus portal and marking assignments handed in by the learners online
c. Aid the primary EF: teacher in preparing the biweekly classes (materials and lesson plans) and documenting all these materials
d. Being present during roughly half of the classes themselves to aid learners’ understanding (help interpreting the English instructions), and teaching portions of the classes
e. Preparing and writing a ‘train the trainer’ manual on the basis of the LOI training and observations made in class, so that the project can be continued with a different team of research assistants in the future
2. Attending biweekly lab meetings of the Bilingualism and Aging Lab (BALAB) with other researchers, PhD students and MA and REMA students working on the topic of bilingualism across the lifespan
a. As part of these biweekly meetings, the intern is also expected to present the progress as part of the language learning for seniors classes
3. Attending and actively contributing to project meetings which take place once a month where all those involved in this project (from screening to the interventions) get
together. This presents an opportunity to also meet others involved in other facets of the study, such as the guitar or creative workshop teachers.
When I first saw this list I thought it was quite ambitious, but I knew that I wanted to try my utmost to meet most if not all of them. Now that I can look back on my internship, I can say that I have indeed met most of them, which I am very happy about. Due to the amount of time it took to set up the citizen science project, it has not been possible yet to analyse the
questionnaire results (task 1c), simply because no data has been collected yet. Consequently, task 1d and 1e have also not yet been completed. This means that the citizen science project is not yet at the stage that everyone involved had hoped it would be at, but this is not to say that insufficient work has been done on this project. As I have mentioned, all aspects of this project tended to take longer than expected. However, I greatly look forward to hopefully completing tasks 1c, 1d, and 1e next year, albeit not as part of this internship.
Regarding the secondary tasks, I am glad that I have completed all of them except for task 3 due to the fact that I believe that to my knowledge these meetings have not taken place. Tasks 1 and 2 I have completely met; indeed, the teaching of the language course and
attending the lab meetings took place exactly as described by Merel above. Due to illness and the OV strike I was unfortunately unable to attend two out of the six classes, which I deeply regretted, as being the secondary teacher was one of the highlights of my internship.
Thankfully, I will likely be continuing this role as part of my tasks next year, which I also await with great pleasure.
Overall, I can conclude that this internship was a great success. Not only did I enjoy it tremendously, I also acquired new competences and further developed skills which I already had. I loved assisting Mara and Saskia with their respective projects, and I look back on these collaborations as smooth, interesting, and fun processes. Moreover, I am incredibly grateful to Merel for giving me the opportunity to do this internship and for the more than ample time she took to answer any questions I had and to discuss my progress. I would also like to thank Wander, Mara, Saskia, Albert, and all others involved for a wonderful and informative five months.
References
Alladi, S., Bak, T. H., Duggirala, V., Shailaja, M., Kumar Shukla, A., Chaudhuri, J. R., & Kaul, S. (2013). Bilingualism delays age at onset of dementia, independent of education and immigration status. Neurology, 81(22), 1938–1944.
Appendix A: PowerPoint presentation wetenschapsdate
After Mara and I had introduced ourselves, the wetenschapsdate started off with me explaining the science of linguistics. I addressed what linguistics is not and I gave some examples of what linguists study.
We then told the students more about Mara’s study and explained its relevance. We also introduced questionnaires as a means to gather useful data.
When we had discussed some theoretical background, the students played two games in which they had to interview each other and play either the role of the interviewer or the elderly person. After these games, we reflected on what went wrong and explained some strategies they could use to extract concrete data out of all too elaborate answers.
After having discussed some more theory on questionnaire questions, we showed the students this slide and asked them to put the
questions in order from best to worst. Of course, all questions are bad, which the students quite quickly picked up on.
After the slide above, we used this slide to explain why all questions were bad so that, in case they ever create a questionnaire themselves, they can avoid these frequently made mistakes.
We ended the lesson by showing the students some of the
questionnaire questions used for Mara’s project and explaining the rationale behind them. This is of course also the questionnaire the students will administer to older adults in the next part of the wetenschapsdate.
Appendix B: Examples of language course PowerPoint slides
One recurring part of each lesson was the discussion, which was always centred around the topic for that lesson. The questions were usually quite straightforward so that everyone would
understand them and would feel comfortable sharing their answers. At the start of each lesson, we took the students through some of the mistakes we noticed whilst grading the online LOI
assignments. However, we decided to take out this recap for future runs of the course and replace it with a more communicative exercise.
During every lesson we watched a video which related to that
lesson’s topic. Halfway through the video and at the end of the video students answered some questions on what they had watched and e.g. how they thought the video was going to end.
Each lesson we also did one activity of approximately 20 minutes. In the “Food” lesson, we let the students create a menu and come up with three starters, main courses, and desserts. They greatly enjoyed this activity and loved ordering off each other’s menus.
Alongside the activity described above, we provided the students with some useful phrases to order food in a restaurant. They then used these phrases during the activity. We adhered to the same structure for all activities; we always provided some further explanation and phrases and sentences corresponding with the lesson topic and activity.
Appendix C: Train the Trainer manual language course
English language course for older adults
Testing & teaching manual
This manual contains information on and guidelines for the language testing and English language course for older adults in the context of Saskia Nijmeijer’s PhD project. The first lesson series consisted of six classes which were designed and taught by MA Applied
Linguistics intern Albert Vazquez (L1 English speaker) with the help of another MA Applied Linguistics intern, Rhomé Busstra (L1 Dutch and L2 English speaker). Because this was the first series, there were some things which stood out to us and some matters which could be taken into account for any following testing sessions and lesson series. We hope that this manual helps subsequent teachers in teaching their students.
1. Pre- and post-testing
1.1 Location of test administration
Whereas it was decided that participants had to be tested via WebEx (an online meetings platform), this proved to be very challenging during both testing days. All nine participants were scheduled on one day (26 February), but on this day we managed to test only four of them due to technical difficulties. The remaining five participants were therefore re-scheduled for 5 March. Those who lived in Groningen came to the university and the other two were tested via WebEx and over the phone (again due to technical difficulties). Testing face-to-face proved to be far more efficient and easier than testing via WebEx, and it is highly
recommended if it is at all possible.
1.3 Duration of testing
Initially, 30 minutes were scheduled for each participant with a 15-minute break after every two participants, but this proved to be too little time. Due to the aforementioned technical difficulties, 45 minutes was oftentimes not enough. When testing face-to-face, however, 45 minutes was sufficient. Nine participants were tested in total, but three participants dropped out before the English classes started, which meant that the first cohort consisted of six students (four female, two male).
1.2 Tests administered
The language tests administered were the following: Verbal Fluency Task, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, IELTS Speaking Test, and IELTS Listening Test. A separate testing manual was created (Dutch and English versions available), which can be found on the Team Drive “Language course”. It should be noted that the Verbal Fluency Task and IELTS Speaking Test were recorded. These files can also be found on the Team Drive. This manual contains all the information necessary to test the participants.
1.2.1 Pre-Test
The Verbal Fluency Task was carried out in a relatively straightforward manner, as the instructions were provided in Dutch. There were three randomized phonemic letter pairings: FAS, PRW, or CFL. The participant was given one minute for each letter before moving on to the next test.
For the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, it was decided to start from the beginning (set 1) to boost learner motivation and confidence. However, due to the high number of cognates between English and Dutch, the participants performed rather well, some even completed all 19 sets. As a result, the starting set was changed to Set 3 or 4, depending on the participant’s performance on the Verbal Fluency Task.
The IELTS Speaking Task consisted of two parts: in part 1, participants had to answer a couple of questions in English, and in part 2, participants were given a text with instructions and had one minute to prepare a speech of two minutes long.
The IELTS Listening Task was conducted on the first day of class at the end of the lesson, as it would be a convenient way to gather all of the participants. There were two parts to the exam with a total of 20 questions.
Please refer to the Testing Protocol also located in the Team Drive for further information and instructions on how exactly to administer each test.
1.2.2 Post-Test
The post-test consisted of the same four tests; however, this time they were all administered face-to-face. The 3 participants who don’t live in Groningen were tested after class on the last lesson, and the other 3 who live in Groningen came in on following day to complete testing.
The IELTS Listening Task was administered at the end of the last class (Lesson 6). This also had two parts with a total of 20 questions. It should be noted that the files do not include instructions, and it would be best to read the instructions before each part. This way there is no confusion or unnecessary anxiety caused by the unfamiliarity of the test.
The Verbal Fluency Task was carried out in the same relatively straightforward manner in Dutch. Each participant was given a different set of the three randomized phonemic letter pairings: FAS, PRW, or CFL. The participant was given one minute to respond for each letter before moving on to the next test. All participant answers were written down and recorded with a phone as a backup.
For the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, it was decided to start from the beginning (set 1) to boost learner motivation and confidence. However, due to the high amount of cognates between English and Dutch, the participants performed rather well, some even completed all 19 sets. As a result, the starting set was changed to Set 3 or 4, depending on the participant’s performance on the Verbal Fluency Task. On the first day of testing, participants started with
Set 1, while on the second day of testing, participants started with Set 4. Given that the PPVT can take much time and as such demotivate participants towards the end (usually fatigue sets in around set 10), it was decided that for subsequent tests the set with which to start for the post-test should be based on the performance on the baseline test.
For the IELTS Speaking Task, it was noted that the questions may have been above the participants’ comprehension level (e.g. words like “accomodation” and “childhood memory” posed problems). These participants were able to respond, quite fluently, that they didn’t understand the meaning of the word, that they finished the LOI course and confidently assured us that they had never encountered that word. It seemed like an unfair assessment to give the participants a score of 1 based solely on their inability to understand one word in the prompt. Nevertheless, if replicating the IELTS testing environment, translation or elicitation is not permitted. As a result, it was decided that we would keep the broad format of the IELTS tests, but would allow for some additional explanation whenever necessary. We decided that the listening and speaking tests should be explained in Dutch. Additionally, in regard to the listening test, teachers are allowed to point out to students that they should move on to subsequent questions if they missed a few. Regarding the speaking test, as a last resort the Dutch translation of words in the assignment may be given.
2. Lesson structure
During the first lesson, we administered the IELTS listening test as this was not possible to do during the testing days on 26 February and 5 March. Whereas during the aforementioned testing days participants were tested individually, all participants took the listening test at the same time.
All lessons were primarily taught by Albert; Rhomé was mostly there to help out whenever necessary or to answer questions in Dutch. This approach proved to be very effective and we would recommend having two teachers present during each class (of whom at least one should ideally be proficient in Dutch). For all lessons, a PowerPoint presentation (PPT) was created. All PPTs were in the same format to keep everything as consistent and clear as possible. We decided on one structure for all the lessons as this would be clearer for the students (as well as for the teachers). The duration of each activity is a rough estimate; this differed for each activity and for each lesson. Each lesson (six total) lasted roughly 90-105 minutes, depending on the length of the break, tiredness of the students, and duration of the final activities.
For subsequent runs of the course, it was decided to add another lesson at the very beginning which would serve as an introductory lesson. This one-hour session will address any practical matters as well as give the students the opportunity to ask questions and meet each other for the first time. The actual English teaching will not yet start during this class. The PPT of the first lesson will be adapted to no longer include the practicalities which we went over in the first lesson of the first course and will instead be presented to the students during this introductory class. Moreover, during this lesson the students will be told that English is the only language that is used in the classroom and that we ask of them to actively try to leave Dutch behind once they enter the room. When it is absolutely necessary Dutch
translations or brief explanations may of course be given. During breaks, students who wish to stay in the room should speak English and students who want to speak Dutch or ask any questions to the teachers in Dutch should do so outside the classroom. Lastly, the IELTS listening test will be administered during this introductory lesson rather than during the first official lesson.
1. Questions? (3-5 minutes)
The teacher briefly asked students if they had any questions. These could be questions about the LOI course or previously discussed material, but also on any other practical matters.
For most of the lessons, the students either did not have any questions or only had a couple minor ones; regardless, it was agreed to assign a space for the students to do so and give them a sense of autonomy.
2. Today’s agenda (1 minute)
To give the students an idea of the structure of the lesson, the teacher gave a short outline of that day’s programme by briefly listing the activities and the theme of that day.
3. Review (5-10 minutes)
Even though these lessons are separate from the online LOI training, we thought it would be a good idea to briefly go over some of the mistakes that stood out to us while grading their tasks on the LOI platform. That is, this review was tailored to the mistakes which we came across in the tasks that were handed in during the period between lessons. We did this in a quiz-like format and e.g. asked them “Which is the correct sentence?” out of three incorrect and one correct sentences or “What is it called when you go to a foreign country?” and gave them three incorrect and one correct spelling of “abroad”.
This could also be done as a Kahoot! quiz, but given the problems that arose during the Pre-Test, it was decided to avoid any unnecessary technology. If given time to train the students, this could be a fun alternative to a traditional multiple choice quiz.
Even though the approach to these lessons was to make them more communicative using Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), this activity was inspired by the Activation phase in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) to help students link new information to what they already know and as an additional source of input for vocabulary words.
For subsequent runs of the course, this part will most likely be taken out entirely and be replaced by a more communicative approach to answering any questions the students might have. As such, the first “Questions?” part of the lesson will probably have to be extended. During the introductory lesson which will also become a part of the next course, students should be told that, in case they come across any questions at home or would like some additional explanation, they should write down those questions and ask them during the “Questions?” segment of the next lesson. In this way, the recap/review will be more tailored towards the students and allow for more input on their behalf.
Potential alternatives: Instead of starting off with a multiple-choice review session, a
communicative activity could be done instead. Here is a list of suggestions and is by no means comprehensive:
- back to the board - charades
- pictionary
- folding stories (exquisite corpse) - songs
- group opinions - find someone who… - bingo
4. Activity (30 minutes)
After the review we started on the main topic for that lesson. So for e.g. the second lesson, the teacher started to explain family members by letting the students finish phrases such as “my mother’s father is my…”. After a brief plenary explanation, the students were usually asked to pair up and complete an activity. Any materials necessary to carry out the activities can be found on the Team Drive.
Activities per lesson
Lesson 1 (introductions): circle chat
Description: using a form with different questions on it, students got up and asked each set of questions to a different person (there were three versions of question forms). That way, everyone got the opportunity to talk to each other. Questions included e.g. “What did you study after high school?”, “Do you have children?”, and “Do you enjoy cooking?”.
Evaluation: this activity worked well as a means to let the students get to know each other a little better. The activity was at the appropriate level, because all students understood the questions. It was also nice that this activity was performed standing up and walking around rather than whilst sitting down.
Lesson 2 (family): family tree
Description: three students received one half of a filled in family tree, and the three others received the other filled in half. Students worked together to fill in the tree and had to ask each other questions such as “Who is Sara? What does she do?” to find out the name of the family members and their occupation.
Evaluation: the students required much more explanation and help than we initially expected. Some of them did not understand the activity, which meant that some confusion arose. Others did understand it and helped out those who did not, but they mostly explained what they had to do in Dutch. Of course, both teachers also assisted the students whenever necessary. This activity emphasised the need for additional explanation and time to complete activities for this age group.
Lesson 3 (food): make a menu
Description: the students received an empty menu on which they had to fill in three different three-course meals and list the price and ingredients for each dish. They worked in groups of two and three as there were five students present during this class. When they had finished there was enough time left for one group to order off the other group’s menu, which they greatly enjoyed.
Evaluation: this was probably the students’ favourite activity. They enjoyed the creative aspect of it and came up with interesting dishes. Again this activity took a little longer than anticipated, but fortunately there was enough time to finish it. Students used online
dictionaries to look up ingredients and words they did not know, and in that way taught themselves some new words. This activity was quite straightforward, which probably contributed to the students’ enjoyment.
Lesson 4 (hobbies): the cycling holiday
Description: since the previous week’s activity was so successful, the lesson for this week was altered. The students were paired up and given a worksheet with a list of items to take with them on a cycling holiday. They were instructed that they will go on a two-week cycling holiday through Thailand and that the weather will be cold. Several students had indicated having gone on a similar holiday through Europe, linking the task to their prior experiences and allowing them to share their real-life stories. In this task, the students had to choose 6 kilograms of luggage to take with them. Together they had to discuss which items were essential and which were unnecessary. The worksheet also included a glossary of useful language for added scaffolding.
Evaluation: the students enjoyed discussing what they needed, even noticing that toiletries were not on the list and decided to include them, as hygiene is an important part of any trip. Some students had a preference for cameras, while others were content carrying a mobile phone to take pictures, which most students agreed would serve as an essential multi-purpose tool on the trip. Extra biking equipment varied, but most agreed it was important. Some chose not to bring bug spray because mosquitoes don’t bother them. Overall, the students were imaginative and their rationale for their choices were explained well. The students also enjoyed this task.
Lesson 5 (travel): Jeopardy
Description: this task is a good way to review previously learned information. The categories included family, food, geography, hobbies, and travel. Some questions included pictures, while others were sentences or definitions that the students had to recall. There was no new information presented. Some students were not familiar to the game, so it would be good to explain how it works. Students are put into teams, then they select category with a number to receive a question. If they answer correctly, they get the points; if not, they lose the points. This game seemed like a good way to review and add a competitive spin to the task, allowing them to see how much they remembered.
Evaluation: only three students showed up to class, so each student was his own team. They did get competitive, yet they also tried to help each other out by giving more clues. There were some answers that were on the tip of their tongue, and no time limit was set, so the
students didn’t feel any pressure to answer quickly. This could be adjusted depending on the level of difficulty of the questions. Some questions were too difficult and it was clear that students didn’t enjoy those. Overall, it was a nice change of pace, and the students enjoyed it. Link to game: https://jeopardylabs.com/play/2019-03-18-185
Lesson 6 (culture): BARNGA, or 5 tricks
Description: This is a silent game about culture. Students were grouped into two teams of 3 and handed instructions in Dutch and English. They were told to study the rules for 5 minutes with their teammates. Then, the team members were swapped and told to play in silence, using only gestures or pictures to communicate. No words were allowed to be exchanged. The trick is that the two teams receive different rules, replicating the experience one goes through with culture shock. This was followed up by a plenary discussion and revealed that they were playing the same game with different rules.
Evaluation: The students were clearly frustrated and did not really follow the no
communication rule, speaking in Dutch and trying to dominate the game, which is also an interesting result. One group didn’t have any issues and just followed suit, playing the game as the dealer was handing out the cards. This was also discussed how this is often a good strategy when present in another culture: observe others and follow their lead. The other group realized that something was wrong fairly early in the game, which lead to frustration and often a delay in playing the game. This was also discussed as a typical experience when abroad and things go wrong. All in all, while not as successful as the other games, the students seemed to enjoy the discussion at the end the most.
5. Break (10-15 minutes)
Depending on the time, we would have a break usually about halfway through the lesson. For each lesson tea and coffee was arranged, but note that this should be requested beforehand (this was done by Saskia).
6. Discussion (5-10 minutes)
This discussion, guided by some discussion questions (on the slide), would tie in with the activity done before the break. For the Family lesson, for instance, students were asked to tell us about their own family and answered questions such as “Do you live close to your
family?”. It should be noted that we kept this quite short, mostly due to the fact that the video activity (discussed below) would usually take up quite some time.
7. Video + questions (15-20 minutes)
For every lesson a video was chosen which fit the theme of that lesson. After we watched the video, students were asked some questions which appeared on a slide. If the video was
slightly longer, we would usually break it up into two parts and let the students answer several questions before we watched the second part. This lend itself nicely for questions such as “What do you think is going to happen next?”.
8. Story time (optional)
Initially Albert came up with the idea of letting the students give short presentations on the basis of a question. However, after two lessons in which we were unable to do this due to time constraints, we decided to only use this segment as a time filler whenever necessary. The initial idea was that students would take home a card with a question on it and prepare a short presentation for the next class, but as the new time filler activity we would ask students to answer the question on the spot.
9. Motivation questionnaire (3 minutes)
For research purposes, students were asked to fill in a short motivation questionnaire (in Dutch) which contained questions on how motivated they still were to learn English. This was done either at the end of the lesson or during the break. This motivation questionnaire can be found on the Team Drive of this language course.
3. Things to consider
1. If any subsequent lesson series are taught by a teacher who is unfamiliar with the Dutch education system or the Dutch teaching style, it could be important to keep in mind that Dutch students (regardless of age) are used to a rather direct teaching style and tend to prefer this over a more ambiguous or diplomatic style (which is often applied in e.g. Asian cultures). Students know they make mistakes, and would like to have them corrected immediately so that they feel like they are learning and are less likely to make the same mistake again. Our initial approach was to just let the students talk as much as possible without explicitly
correcting their mistakes and to expose them to a large amount of (spoken) input, but we were explicitly asked to give more direct feedback and to e.g. correct their mispronunciations. Having said that, however, not all students were receptive to the corrections that took place.
2. Unlike many college-aged students, older adults tend to arrive to class at least 10 minutes early. It is therefore a good idea to get to the classroom at least 20 minutes early to start setting up the PPT and to e.g. ensure that the computer, projector, and speakers are working.
3. We initially assumed that the students would want to chat and drink some more coffee after class, but they usually had other obligations and immediately left. This meant that we could also leave quite quickly after class, after we had shut down the computer, etc. Please do remember to return the key to the porter.
4. At the start of the course, one student suggested creating a WhatsApp group chat in which everyone could ask questions they might have while working on the LOI course at home. She then set this up and also invited us to join the chat. If students do not suggest this themselves, it is advised to ask the students if they would like to have this chat because it also contributes to the students feeling more comfortable and familiar with each other. In addition, since they are completing the same activities, oftentimes other students will be experiencing the same misunderstandings or technical difficulties, so it is nice to have a community to turn to for reassurance.
5. Even though we tried to make the course as communicative as possible, it would still be good to include even more communicative exercises and games. Now that the review/recap has been taken out, there should be some additional time to carry out other activities alongside the activities that are already part of the lessons. A list with ideas for additional activities can be found at the end of this manual. Moreover, providing explicit instruction should be kept at a minimum; the focus of this course is on developing speaking proficiency. Some explicit instruction can of course be useful when students ask for it.
6. The first group consisted of six students, meaning that it was a rather small group. Now that we have taught the course to this group, we feel like six students is the minimum of students required to teach the course to. Ideally, the group should consist of 8-10 students, with a maximum of 12 students.
4. Grading LOI assignments
4.1 Taaklijst
Before the students started the online LOI course, we received several extensive teacher manuals from LOI (all in Dutch; there are no English versions available). We read through them, but it should be said that most of it is not directly applicable or necessary for the current purposes. When logging in to the online environment, only the tab “Taaklijst” is actually necessary. The Taaklijst contains all submissions sent in by students. There were some problems with this, however, because teachers are supposed to receive a notification email whenever a task has been handed in, but we did not receive these emails initially and were unaware of the already handed in assignments. After LOI had been contacted we did receive the notification emails, but it seemed that there was a delay between when tasks were handed in and when we received the emails. It could therefore be good to regularly check the
Taaklijst. Moreover, it should be noted that we did not receive the same notifications. That is, we both had a separate LOI account, and it appeared that some tasks were handed in to Albert, whereas others were sent to Rhomé.
4.2 Feedback
When a handed in assignment is opened, there are multiple ways of giving feedback. Most assignments consisted of translated sentences (Dutch > English). When a sentence contained a mistake, we chose to highlight it in bold, and then write either the correct word/form directly after the sentence or give a short explanation why their sentence was incorrect in red. The screenshots below show some examples of feedback given to a task. We chose to give
feedback in English, but translated some more advanced words just to be sure that the student understood the feedback. Sometimes students had written a question in the assignment, which was then of course also answered. We answered these questions either in English or in Dutch, depending on the language which the student had used. Tasks usually contained 4-6
assignments, and each separate assignment received a grade from 1-10 (with the inclusion of grades like 6.5, 8.5). Moreover, we also highlighted the strengths of the assignment and encouraged the students by writing short remarks such as “Good job!” and “Well done!”. When tasks contained many mistakes, we gave students to option to re-do the task and hand it
in again, which were then also graded again. Sometimes students handed in incomplete tasks (e.g. had only completed one or two out of the five assignments which the task consisted of), so of course we then also allowed them to hand it in again. In regard to the time spent grading one task, this highly depended on the number of mistakes made. Sometimes grading a task only takes five minutes, whereas other tasks take 30 to 45 minutes to grade.
4.3 Questions
Apart from sending in completed tasks, students also have the option to ask questions. We also received notification emails when a question was asked, and it appeared in our Taaklijst. Answering questions is very straightforward, but it is good to keep in mind that students often ask questions in Dutch simply because they do not yet have the proficiency to do so in
English.
4.4 Audio tasks
Students also have the option to hand in audio tasks through LOI, but not all students managed to figure out how to do this. Moreover, it is rather difficult to grade these
assignments. Initially we did not get notifications for these assignments and they did not show up in our Taaklijst, but after having contacted LOI we received access to these tasks. The tasks allow for giving auditory feedback and as such serve as pronunciation training, so they can be a useful addition to the otherwise mostly written online course.
Albert Vazquez Rhomé Busstra
