Strategies for enhancing speaking skills in and beyond the classroom

Assessment criteria for 8s grades:

Accuracy	Word order; relevance of grammar forms; word formation.
Fluency	Pronunciation; spelling; speed of speaking; spontaneity of speech.
Vocabulary	Relevance of vocabulary; use of idioms, phrasal verbs, terms.
Consequence of ideas	Presentation of ideas; use of transitions; coherence; cohesion.
Relevance of the information	Presentation of appropriate information; keeping the topic.

8K initial results



This diagram presents the information about initial results of the quiz of pupils of 8K. As we can follow in the chart seven learners out of 15 could answered for at least 86% according to the criteria, described above. Five pupils were less successful and answered at least for 71%. Only two pupils answered for at least 55 % according to the assessment criteria.

8A initial results

As pie chart shows the five out of 18 participated learners could answer at least for 86% according to the criteria. Six learners could fulfill the questions for 71% as a minimal result for “4”. Two times less answered for at least 55%. And three learners failed test gaining less than 55%.

Assessment criteria students of Group №332

Fluency	Pronunciation; spelling; speed of speaking; spontaneity of speech..
Relevance of the information	Presentation of appropriate information; keeping the topic.
Vocabulary	Relevance of vocabulary; use of idioms, phrasal verbs, terms.
Consequence of ideas	Presentation of ideas; use of transitions; coherence; cohesion
Accuracy	Word order; relevance of grammar forms; word formation

There is another order of criteria, because as learners are more proficient in language there is no need to pay much attention to their accuracy.

Group 332 initial results

language foreign teaching english

As it is seen in pie chart five learners out of 11 got at least 86% according to the criteria. Three of the examiners achieved at least 71%. Two students had minimum 55% and one student could not fulfill minimum demand.

For the sakes of experiment we counted the average results of all the participants according to the following formula:

Where A - number of learners gained from 86% to 100%

B- number of learners gained from 71% to 85%

C- number of learners gained from 70% to 55%

D- number of learners gained less than 55%

TNL - total number of learners

Average indexes of initial quiz of grade8K.

Average indexes of initial quiz of grade 8A.

Average indexes of initial quiz of group 332

The following bar chart reflects the comparative analysis between three experimental groups. In spite of the fact that Group 332 has higher level of language knowledge, the average results have been counted according to the same formula since the degree of difficulty of questions in quizzes was done according to the level of all participants, we considered it to be relevant to compare the initial results of participants' background knowledge in one chart.



In order to work out our methods and techniques, at the data collection stage we analyzed the methods of permanent teachers at schools and university. Below the lesson plan from school #182 is examined. It should be mentioned that only activities were analyzed without looking through aims of the lesson.

Grade: 8A

School # 182

Theme: Lesson 4 Space exploration and us

Basic source: Fly High 8.

The main part of the lesson:

Warm up

“Have PP read the paragraph they wrote for homework. Then come to a conclusion if more people in the class believe or don't believe in UFOs.”

Procedure: oral questionnaire.

Comment: this activity is suitable as warm up, because it sets pupils to the lesson. Furthermore, it develops their logical and critical thinking. However, without modification, following bare instructions from the Course book “Fly High 8”, this activity appears boring for majority of learners and cannot attract all of them into process.

Activity 1a, 1b

Objective: to present and practice topic vocabulary PP look the words in the Wordlist and write their translation.

Comment: through this activity pupils are introduced with new topic and learn vocabulary with pronunciation. In general this activity is built accurately, but the quality of pronunciation in audio extract is not correct. Moreover, since the words are pronounced by local speakers, they cannot transfer peculiarities of pronunciation (intonation, tone, stress) and, consequently, pupils do learn pronounce correctly.

Activity 2a. Reading and listening text. Appendix.

Objectives: to prepare for the next activity; to give controlled practice in talking about space exploration PP could discuss the questions briefly in groups before you discuss them with the whole class. Do not tell PP if their answers are right or wrong - they will check their answers by reading the text in activity 2b. Suggestion: PP learnt the full name of NASA in Class 6 - you could remind them about that and about Helen Sharman, the British woman astronaut.

Comment: the content of the text is directed to enhance learners' outlook and to increase knowledge about space exploration around the world and in Uzbekistan particularly. The text was also supported by audio version, however, as we thought, the way of content presentation was boring and did not increase learners' interest.

Work on the text.

Activity 2b

Objective: to practice reading to for specific information PP read the text and check their answers. Draw pupils attention to the Remember Box with conversion of adjectives into nouns.

Activity 2c

Objective: to practice reading for gist pupils read the text and give it a title.

Activity 2d

Objectives: to revise and practice noun +noun combinations; to extend pupils' topic vocabulary pupils find and write the words with 'space' in the text.

Comment: there are two goals of these activities: to check acquisition of the text and to work out new vocabulary and study process of conversion. These activities are well enough as linking activities and allow to check pupils' understanding of the text. As far as they are conducted in oral form, they also are good motivator to speak language.

Activity 3a

Objective: to prepare for the discussion in 3b pupils find and write reasons for/against space exploration to use in their mini-debate.

Activity 3b

Objective: to practice expressing opinions and giving reasons for them; to teach PP to reach consensus PP debate in groups. Tell them that the aim is not to win but to exchange ideas.

Comment: these activities are directed to engage pupils to speak English, to develop their reasoning and to increase the ability to express their opinion in debatable conditions. For the sakes of development of speaking skills, they are well-organized. However, due to the large number of pupils in class it is difficult to involve all of the learners into activities.

To conclude our analysis we would like to outline the following results:

Ш Lessons are created in a way to integrate all four skills at the same time, or at least three of them;

Ш Teacher rarely implements some modification or extra materials, preferring work with given activities and tasks;

Ш Audio supplementation of the Course book “Fly High 8” must be re-worked, because speaker makes elementary mistakes;

All in all, degree of success or failure totally depends on the teacher's methodology.

Below we present the analysis of the lesson plan for the Group 332 in order to have more objective attitude to the participants' background.



CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

IV.1 COMPARISON OF INITIAL QUIZ RESULTS WITH FINAL QUIZ RESULTS

In order to identify if we had some changes, either progressive or regressive, we taken the same quiz as at in beginning of the experiment. However , this time we had changed criteria, and topic. The topic was changed because of the curriculum demands. The content of the second quiz can be found in the Appendix of this very research paper. Below assessment criteria and results are presented. To make research more informative, we compared results in the following ways:

Ш Comparison between initial and final results of one the same group;

Ш Comparison between two experimental groups;

Ш Comparison of initial average results with final average results of all experimental groups.

Assessment criteria for 8s grades:

Accuracy	Word order; relevance of grammar forms; word formation.
Fluency	Pronunciation; spelling; speed of speaking; spontaneity of speech.
Vocabulary	Relevance of vocabulary; use of idioms, phrasal verbs, terms; use of non-academic words.
Consequence of ideas	Presentation of ideas; use of transitions; coherence; cohesion.
Relevance of the information	Presentation of appropriate information; keeping the topic.

8K final results



This diagram refers the information of results of the quiz, taken during last week of the experiment. At this period of time the number of students who successfully answered for at least 86% was nine. Learners, whose minimal score was 71%, were in number of four. Two pupils could answer for at least 55%, and only one did less than 55%.

8A final results



This pie chart shows the results of ultimate quiz taken on the last week of the experiment, and shows the distribution of learners according to their scores, gained during this quiz. So, six pupils were able to answer at least for 86% , seven could achieve minimal 71%. Three pupils got 55% at least, and two were under 55%.

Assessment criteria students of Group №332

Fluency	Pronunciation; spelling; speed of speaking; spontaneity of speech..
Relevance of the information	Presentation of appropriate information; keeping the topic.
Vocabulary	Relevance of vocabulary; use of idioms, phrasal verbs, terms; use of non-academic language.
Consequence of ideas	Presentation of ideas; use of transitions; coherence; cohesion
Accuracy	Word order; relevance of grammar forms; word formation

Group 332 final results

This diagram shows the results of ultimate test taken in group 332. The number of learners, who gained at least 86%, was more than half of the total quantity of students, it was eight. Two students could answer at least for 71&, and one was in the space between 55% and 70%. It was noteworthy that after experiment, there were no students who did not achieve at least 55%.

Average results of all groups were counted according to the same formula as in the first time.

Average indexes of final quiz of grade8K.

Average indexes of final quiz of grade 8A.

Average indexes of final quiz of group 332

Comparing the results of final quiz of all three groups, we can observe that this time the Group 332 had primary positions. Such situation can be explained by the following reasons: a) students are more proficient in the field of accuracy and in difference with younger learners they do not have to pay much attention to it. Consequently, they have more time to extend their vocabulary either academic or non-academic; b) the quantity of learners: in University group s number of students is less than 12, which allows teacher to pay attention to each student. Furthermore, the length of the lesson is 80 minutes. In comparison to these facts, at schools number of learners is higher, and the lesson continues only 40-45 minutes. These factors crucially influence on the productivity of learning process.

To be more objective, below we compared average results of initial and final quizzes of each particular group.

Looking at the diagram we can find out that 8K grade and 8A had same increase during defined period of time. Both experimental groups improved their results approximately for 2.6, but in general 8K grade results were significantly higher than those at 8A grade. Observing changes at group 332, in comparison with initial average results this group could substantially increase its results from 80.8 to 92.7.

IV.2 WORKING WITH DATA ON INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS

To make our research more exact and particular in the following presented data we calculated the results of participants from 8A grade in terms of mean, mode, range, and standard deviation. The calculations of other experimental groups can be found in Appendix part.

Table 4 Results of initial quiz in presentation of mark assessment system.

№	Name	Question 1	Question 2	Question 3	Total (average)
1	Abdukahharova Risolat	5	5	5	5 (89%)
2	Alijanov Shohruh	2	2	2	2 (<50%)
3	Axatova Madina	2	3	2	3 (60%)
4	Ayupov Ilgiz	3	3	3	3 (66%)
5	Babakhanov Jahongir	3	2	2	2 (<50%)
6	Buriev Jahongir	2	2	3	2 (52%)
7	Garaeva Rozalina	4	4	3	4 (73%)
8	Dasova Valeria	4	4	4	4 (80%)
9	Zakirov Shohruh	4	5	5	5 (86%)
10	Yuldoshev Daler	4	3	4	4 (72%)
11	Kaysarov Samandar	3	2	3	3 (65%)
12	Makhkamova Charos	4	3	4	4 (71%)
13	Mamadalieva Gulasal	4	4	5	4(83%)
14	Mirakimova Malika	4 15	4	3	4(77%)
15	Mirakhmedova Kamila	5	5	5	5 (89%)
16	Mavlanov Abdurakhman	3	3	3	3 (60%)
17	Nishanova Navruza	5	5	4	5 (87%)
18	Norov Bekhruz	5	4	5	5 (88%)

For the first we counted mean. In a study, the mean is the average numerical value in a set of numerical values. The mean is calculated by adding up all of the values in the set and then dividing the sum by the number of values in the set. The formula for calculating the mean is as follows:

У Ч

Ч = ????

Н

In this formula, Ч is the mean, У X indicates add up of scores, and Н is the number of pupils.

X= (5+2+3+3+2+2+4+4+5+4+3+4+4+4+5+3+5+5):18= 3.7

The initial mean of the 8A grade is about 4, exactly 3.7. We did not make it 4, because we wanted to define each, even small, change in learning knowledge.

Now, we would like to count frequency distribution.

Table 5 Frequency index

Score value	2	3	4	5
Frequency	4	3	6	5

So, according to the table the lowest score is 2 (in accordance with percentage system this mean less than 55%), the highest mark is 5 (from 86% to 100%). The majority of pupils got 4 (from 71% to 85%) , so it means 4 was the most frequent score.

By the identification of frequency of distribution, we can distinguish mode of the study. The mode is simply the numerical value that occurs most frequently in a set of numerical values, and it is found by counting the number of times that each value in the set occurs. So, due to the data in Table 5, the mode was 4.

The next calculation we did was about range of the study. The range is the number of points between the highest and lowest scores in the set, plus 1. So, according to the data we had following:

(5-2)+1=4

The last calculation is dedicated to standard deviation. The standard deviation is the average of the differences of all of the scores from the mean.

The following formula is used to calculate the standard deviation for a set of scores:

У ( Ч - Ч ) ²

SD =

N

To calculate the standard deviation, begin inside the formula and work outward. First, subtract the mean from each score in the set. Then, square each of these values and add them up. Divide the total by the number of scores, and the square root of that total is the standard deviation.

To make our calculations clearer and easier for comprehension, we made some of them within the next table.

Table 6

№	Name	Score	Mean	Difference	Difference squared
1	Abdukahharova Risolat	5	4	1	1
2	Alijanov Shohruh	2	4	-2	4
3	Axatova Madina	3	4	-1	1
4	Ayupov Ilgiz	3	4	-1	1
5	Babakhanov Jahongir	3	4	-1	1
6	Buriev Jahongir	2	4	-2	4
7	Garaeva Rozalina	4	4	0	0
8	Dasova Valeria	4	4	0	0
9	Zakirov Shohruh	5	4	1	1
10	Yuldoshev Daler	4	4	0	0
11	Kaysarov Samandar	3	4	-1	1
12	Makhkamova Charos	4	4	0	0
13	Mamadalieva Gulasal	4	4	0	0
14	Mirakimova Malika	4 15	4	0	0
15	Mirakhmedova Kamila	5	4	1	1
16	Mavlanov Abdurakhman	3	4	-1	1
17	Nishanova Navruza	5	4	1	1
18	Norov Bekhruz	5	4	1	1

=v=v1=1

So, standard deviation for the initial quiz results was 1.

To develop results of our research below we presented the results of final quiz, calculating the same categories of study.

Table 7 Results of final quiz in presentation of mark assessment system.

№	Name	Question 1	Question 2	Question 3	Total (average)
1	Abdukahharova Risolat	5	5	5	5 (91%)
2	Alijanov Shohruh	2	2	2	2 (<50%)
3	Axatova Madina	4	4	3	4 (72%)
4	Ayupov Ilgiz	3	4	4	3 (71%)
5	Babakhanov Jahongir	3	3	2	3 (59%)
6	Buriev Jahongir	2	2	3	2 (52%)
7	Garaeva Rozalina	4	4	3	4 (73%)
8	Dasova Valeria	4	4	4	4 (80%)
9	Zakirov Shohruh	4	5	5	5 (86%)
10	Yuldoshev Daler	4	4	4	4 (78%)
11	Kaysarov Samandar	3	3	3	3 (69%)
12	Makhkamova Charos	4	3	4	4 (73%)
13	Mamadalieva Gulasal	4	5	5	5 (86%)
14	Mirakimova Malika	4 15	4	3	4(77%)
15	Mirakhmedova Kamila	5	5	5	5 (90%)
16	Mavlanov Abdurakhman	3	4	4	4 (60%)
17	Nishanova Navruza	5	5	5	5 (89%)
18	Norov Bekhruz	5	4	5	5 (88%)

Mean = (5+2+4+3+3+2+4+4+5+4+3+4+5+4+5+4+5+5):18= 4

Table 8 Frequency index

Score value	2	3	4	5
Frequency	2	3	7	6

Frequency distribution = 4

Mode was 4.

Range = 4

Table 9

№	Name	Score	Mean	Difference	Difference squared
1	Abdukahharova Risolat	5	4	1	1
2	Alijanov Shohruh	2	4	-2	4
3	Axatova Madina	4	4	0	0
4	Ayupov Ilgiz	3	4	-1	1
5	Babakhanov Jahongir	3	4	-1	1
6	Buriev Jahongir	2	4	-2	4
7	Garaeva Rozalina	4	4	0	0
8	Dasova Valeria	4	4	0	0
9	Zakirov Shohruh	5	4	1	1
10	Yuldoshev Daler	4	4	0	0
11	Kaysarov Samandar	3	4	-1	1
12	Makhkamova Charos	4	4	0	0
13	Mamadalieva Gulasal	5	4	1	1
14	Mirakimova Malika	4 15	4	0	0
15	Mirakhmedova Kamila	5	4	1	1
16	Mavlanov Abdurakhman	4	4	0	0
17	Nishanova Navruza	5	4	1	1
18	Norov Bekhruz	5	4	1	1

=v=v1.21=1.1

The following diagrams show the comparison of initial and final results of each learner.

Table 10. Comrarison of initial quiz results with final quiz results

As we can see in the diagram, 8A did not have significant success; however some of the learners increased their results in percentage assessment system, which can be followed in the Tables 4 and 7 for initial and final quizzes results respectively.

The following bar chart reflects the information about comparative analysis of mean, mode, range, frequency distribution, and standard deviation of both initial and final quizzes results.



All in all, there were not some changes from the beginning to the end of the experiment, however, in percentage sense the progress was more obvious.

IV.3 ANSWERS TO THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In the previous chapter we have stated several questions, which we consider central throughout our research.

· How can speaking skills be developed among Uzbek and Russian speaking people taking into consideration their mentality and culture in Uzbekistan?

· How can we modify old techniques to make them appropriate to modern demands?

· How can learners of various levels be motivated to speak in and beyond classroom?

· Should teachers teach non-academic language within classroom?

· How can we integrate appropriate speaking skills with other skills and aspects?

· How can we improve and integrate both accuracy and fluency at the same time?

So, in the following paragraphs we would like to answer for each question one by one.

ь How can speaking skills be developed among Uzbek and Russian speaking people taking into consideration their mentality and culture in Uzbekistan?- After this very research work, we have learnt that teaching speaking skills requires are higher than those of other language skills, because it demands both knowledge of language itself and the ability to express ideas using it orally. The last point is difficult to achieve due to various reasons, which appear to be obstacles for learners;

ь How can we modify old techniques to make them appropriate to modern demands? - The integration of traditional methodology and modern is crucial question in all system of teaching in EFL system and in within Uzbekistan educational in particular. So, this question was very important to solve, and, as we consider, the best way to present methods of traditional methodology though modern equipment, or just choose material according to the needs and interests of learners;

ь How can learners of various levels be motivated to speak in and beyond classroom? -It is very crucial for teachers to create motivational atmosphere in the classroom. Certainly, there is wide range of various fruitful techniques in learning language system for each level and age of learners, for example, for adults the following activity can be provided: the popular sitcoms (in English language) with subtitles can be shown learners, and the last should repeat after actors;

ь Should teachers teach non-academic language within classroom? - We strongly believe that the educational system needs the implementation of non-academic language, because it makes language more natural and learners can use and understand “real” language. However, as results of our research have showed it is more suitable for learners with at least intermediate level. Due to this fact, this research paper is dedicated to development of further development of enhancing speaking skills in and beyond classroom;

ь How can we integrate appropriate speaking skills with other skills and aspects? - Language skills integration can be achieved through appropriate modifications and gradual increasing of degree of complexity;

ь How can we improve and integrate both accuracy and fluency at the same time?- Parallel development of fluency and accuracy demands permanent work on all three language aspect, due to this it is extremely crucial to work out such strategies, which will cover all of them, as an example we can take modified methods presented in this research paper.



CHAPTER V. FINAL REFLECTION

Basing on this research taken in school #6 Sergeli district, school # 182, and in UzSLWU allows us believe that further development and improving of techniques directed onto enhancing of speaking skills in and beyond the classroom is worth being investigated. Since, the importance of foreign language knowing is crucial factor nowadays; teachers and learners should pay more attention to development not only academic language, but also colloquial and informal language to improve learners' competence in language. Furthermore, implementation some slangs, jargons in educational system allows making speaking process less artificial, more natural. Additionally, study of this field of language carries increase of culture awareness of learners and extends their outlook.

As one of the outcomes we can consider that, because of this very research we have learnt that, apart from modern methods of teaching, teacher can successfully modify traditional methods according to the demands of time and implement them in integration with modern techniques.

All in all, the goals of the research have been achieved and necessary material for further working out of speaking skills teaching strategies has been gathered. Moreover, research has shown the weak points of school and university learners, which must be taken into consideration for the following profitable work of teachers and methodologists.



Reference List

1. Carter, R. (1987). Vocabulary: Applied Linguistic Perspectives. Hispania Journal, 1, 118-124.

2. Brown. D (2000), Principles of Language Learning and Teaching,San Francisco State University, pp. 145-147

3. Garcia,G. & Pearson, P.D. (1994). Assessment and diversity. In L. Darling-Hammond(Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 337-391). Washington, D.C.:American Education Research Association.

4. Goodman, Y.M. (1991). Informal methods of evaluation. In J. Flood, J.M. Jensen, D. Lapp. & J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English Language arts (pp. 502-509). New York: Macmillan.

5. Guba, E. G. ,& Lincoln, Y.S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefullnness of evaluation results though responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

6. Grauberg W.(1997), The elements of foreign language teaching, Multilingual methods LTD, pp. 201-203

7. Harmer J.(2007), The Practice of English Language Teaching, Personal Education Limited, pp. 76-88

8. Hu, Zhuanglin (2008). English Education Florilegium. Shanghai: Foreign Language Education and Research Press.

9. Nan, Jiang (2004). Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 416-432.

10. Nunan D. Teaching speaking . www.onestopenglish.com (the other ideas in inverted comma in this paragraph belong to the same author )

11. Oxford advanced learner's dictionary. Oxford university press. 7^th edition. 2006.

12. Rogova G.V.(1975), “Methods of teaching English”, «Просвещение», pp. 155-156

13. Richards, J.C. The_Language_Teaching_Matrix_C

14. Roth, M. (2001). Gestures: Their Role in Teaching and Learning. American Educational Research, 71, 365-392.

15. Wilkerson, L., & Gijselaers, W. H. Concluding comments. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice . - San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1996.

16. White, H. (1995). “`Creating problems' for PBL.” Available on-line at: http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/jan95-chem.html.

Bibliography

1. Karimov I.A. Высокая духовность - непобедимая сила, Toshkent: Ma'naviyat, 2008.

2. Karimov I.A. Свое будущее мы строим своими рукамиб Toshkent: Ma'naviyat, 2011.

3. Arikunto Suharsimi. ProsedurPenelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. - Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 1998.

4. Aron. A and Aron. E. N. Statistic for the Behavioral and Social Sciences: A brief course. London: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1977.

5. Brown. A and Dowling. P. Doing Research/Reading Research: A mode of Interrogation for Education. London: The Falmer Press. 1998.

6. Brown, James Dean. Understanding Research in Second Language Learning. United States of America: Cambridge University Press. 1988.

7. Fowle, C 2002 Vocabulary notebooks: implementation and outcomes.ELT Journal 56/4.

8. Frankenberg-Garcia, A 2005 Pedagogical uses of monolingual and parallel concordances. ELT Journal 59/3.Frankfurt, H 1988 Freedom of the will and the concept of a person.

9. In The Importance of What We Care About - Philosophical Essays Cambridge University Press.

10. Freebairn, 12000 The coursebook - future continuous or past? English Teaching Professional 15.

11. Fried-Booth, D 2002 Project Work 2nd edn Oxford University Press

12. Harmer, Jeremy. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman. 2001.

13. Harris, P. David. Testing English as a Second Language. USA: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1969.

14. Haycraft, John. An Introduction to English Language Teaching. London: Longman. 2002.

15. Kannan, and Towndrow, P 2002 On-line feedback. Modern English Teacher ll!

16. Karpinski, T 2003 The use of films as a stimulus to learn vocabulary. Modern English Teacher 12/1.

17. Kay, H and Dudley-Evans, T 1998 Genre: what teachers think. ELT Journal

18. Richards, Jack C and Theodore S.Rodgers. Approaches and Methods inLanguage Teaching: A Description and Analysis. United. States ofUnderhill, N.1987. Testing Spoken Language .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press America: Cambridge University Press. 1986.

19. Saleh, Mursid. Penelitian Pengajaran Bahasa. Semarang: IKIP Semarang Press. 2001.

20. Vallete, Rebecca. M. Modern Language Testing. USA: Harcourt Brace

21. Wright, A, Betteridge, D and Buckby, M 2006 Games for Language Learning 3rd edn Cambridge University Press.

22. Wright, T 1987 Roles of Teachers and Learners Oxford University Press.

23. Yu, M-C 2006 The effect of age on starting to learn English. Modern

24. Zulktif Altan, M 2001 The theory of multiple intelligences: what does it offer EFL teachers? Modern English Teacher 10

Internet resources

http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/spr96-bisc2.html.

http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/speaking/goalsspeak.htm

http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/speaking/stratspeak.htm

http://www.onestopenglissh.org

http://www.britishcouncil.org

http://www.teacherswsheets.org

http://www.teachenglish.org

http://www.fun4kids.com

http://www.apple4teachers.com

http://www.twirpx.com

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...