by Rhona Snelling
How do you feel about teaching lower levels (pre-A1, A1, A2)? Prepared and confident? I was neither of these when I taught my first lower-level class nearly 25 years ago. I was prepared, but inappropriately so, with an overly ambitious lesson plan supported by masses of photocopied worksheets. I was not confident, but I was intrigued and had a positive frame of mind. I vividly recalled the foreign language session from my CELTA and had experienced the need for immediate engagement, minimal superfluous language, a crystal-clear presentation of target language accompanied by gestures and drilling, a clean set up of the practice tasks, and plenty of encouragement and positive feedback.
What happened? I didn’t follow the lesson plan. I didn’t use a single worksheet. My lesson objectives were rapidly replaced with a Dogme-esque approach to meet the learners’ level and immediate needs. I loved teaching them. There was a natural camaraderie which I’ve found is true in many lower-level classes; that collective experience of grappling with a new skill and the ups and downs that accompany it.
Linguistic Theory
About 15 years later, I studied applied linguistics and found my classroom experiences consolidated by what we looked at on the course. There is much research relevant to lower levels, but, for the purposes of this article, I have selected a modest handful.
Krashen’s (1982) theory of Second Language Acquisition consists of five hypotheses: Acquisition–Learning (the distinction between naturally acquiring a language and making a conscious decision to learn one); Natural order (grammatical structures are acquired or learned in a predictable order from easier to complex); Monitor (self-monitoring language internally before it becomes output); Affective filter (the emotional or psychological variables in language learning); and Comprehensible input (the need for input to be at a suitable level). The final two hypotheses are particularly pertinent to lower levels, in my opinion.
The Affective filter hypothesis posits that the learning environment will enable or disable learning. A negative environment means a learner’s filter is ‘up’ (a bit like a protective wall) and the learner is emotionally removed from the environment and the learning. Conversely, a positive, welcoming environment brings a learner’s filter ‘down’ and allows them to participate safely in the lesson.
The Comprehensible input hypothesis proposes that input (e.g. your materials, your teacher talk) should be slightly more advanced than the learner’s current level in order to achieve progression. This can be represented as i + 1 (interlanguage + next stage). This is similar to Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which points to a sweet spot of learning just beyond a learner’s current competence but reachable and achievable with support from teachers, peers, or materials.
Sweller’s (1988) Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) reminds us of the limits of working memory and the potential burden of input. Lessons should not cognitively over-burden learners; lessons need to be pitched at an achievable level, i.e. presenting a suitable amount of new lexis (research suggests 6–10 items), a reading text or listening text of an appropriate length (300 words maximum or two minutes maximum for A2 learners), and a lesson flow that provides sufficient time for input, processing and practice). When the ‘load’ is appropriate, then this allows learners to transfer new input from their short-term memory into long-term memory more efficiently and easily. In short, it enables learning.
The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (Lado, 1957) relates to the similarities and differences between a learner’s first language (L1) and second language (L2), and how these impact learning the L2. For example, the shared Latin roots and Roman script of English and Spanish might mean a Spanish L1 speaker makes greater progress (and/or experiences fewer linguistic challenges) than a Korean L1 speaker.
Finally, stepping slightly away from linguistics and into organisational psychology, Dörnyei (2018) highlights the importance of group dynamics and cohesion in successful language learning. A cohesive class can be achieved through learning about each other, real-time interaction, cooperation, and working towards a common goal.
Theory to classroom
So how does the theory translate into practical classroom application? Let’s use the acronym ‘START’ to frame some useful techniques and approaches.
S for Syllabus, i.e. the content you plan to teach
- Identify the specific language and skills your learners need. And I mean, need. This is especially important if learners are, for example, displaced in a new country and need that country’s main language to communicate and survive.
- Sequence the language and skills across a number of lessons according to need and complexity, e.g. personal pronouns and simple short subject-verb-object sentences precede complex grammatical forms (Krashen’s Natural order hypothesis).
- Choose an appropriate amount of input for each lesson to offer progression (CLT and ZPD).
- Include plenty of learner–learner interaction to promote a cohesive group (Group dynamics).
T for Teacher-Talking-Time (TTT)
- Regulate not only how much you say but what you say by drafting a teacher ‘script’ alongside your lesson plan. This visualisation of the lesson develops awareness of your planned output (Krashen’s Comprehensible input hypothesis and CLT).
- Use gestures, mime, props, emojis, pictures, and other non-verbal aids whenever possible.
- Use L1 (for monolingual classes and if available to you) to offer reassurance and clarification, but avoid over-reliance and seek to increase use of the L2 as time progresses.
A is for (H)Appiness
- Promote a positive learning environment and a safe space in which learners feel confident and supported when experimenting with new language (Krashen’s Affective filter).
- Provide support for learners through your intervention (explaining and/or encouraging), classmates (working in groups), or materials (ensuring they are lower-level friendly) (Group dynamics and Krashen’s Comprehensible Input).
- Gauge how best to feed back on ‘errors’ and carry out corrections sensitively, clearly, and as soon as is practical.
R is for Repetition
- Provide opportunities for learners to revisit, recycle, and renew language in varied contexts (CLT).
- Include controlled practice and freer practice, different interaction types, and a variety of task types.
- Remember to include pronunciation work and drill new language with the aim of producing comprehensible sounds rather than a particular accent (Krashen’s Comprehensible input).
T is for Time
- Encourage out-of-class engagement by ‘flipping’ part of your lesson or suggesting graded readers (Krashen’s Affective filter).
- Embrace the use of authentic real-life sources such as memes, graphic novels, music, films, and social media.
- Develop relationships between learners, especially if you have many individual learners, through a WhatsApp group or informal zoom meet up (Group dynamics).
Classroom materials
With lower levels, it is often necessary to supplement or support your coursebook. This may be because it is not at the correct level for your learners or it may be that you want to provide more personalised and relevant practice opportunities. (As the author of many published coursebooks, I expect and hope that teachers will tailor the lessons to their learners and their own unique context) Personally, I view teaching and writing materials as two sides of the same coin. So, how can the theory and the START approach extend into writing materials?
1. Needs analysis
- Like ‘Syllabus’ above, ensure you have identified your learners’ needs and recognised their aims and immediate language needs.
2. Content
- Decide if you will meet your learners’ needs with your own ideas, adaptations to a coursebook or other material, authentic material, or material with some authentic qualities.
- Like the tips for minimising TTT above, incorporate visuals and pictures whenever possible to aid comprehension or replace superfluous words.
- Consider including L1 if necessary (and possible). For example, as a simple gloss for a few above-level words in a reading text or in an audio script (though I recommend checking any translations with a competent L1 speaker, such as a local teacher - there’s nothing worse than providing a translated gloss that is contextually inappropriate).
3. Structure
- Choose a ‘flow’ or lesson model, e.g. Test–Teach–Test, Task-based Learning or Presentation–Practice–Production. Or maybe dabble in Dogme and use no materials!
- Integrate different language skills, e.g. a reading task might include follow-up speaking or writing tasks that make use of the language presented in the reading.
- Use a variety of task types from controlled practice (e.g. matching, categorizing, gap-filling) to freer practice (e.g. semi-structured role plays, class mingles) in your materials.
- Write task instructions that are as short as possible, start with an imperative verb, and do not include words above the learner’s current competence, e.g. ‘Choose the correct words.’ not ‘Look at the gaps in the paragraph and then complete them with the best words.’
- Use an icon to accompany, or even replace, instructions like ‘Listen’ or ‘Speak’.
- Include an example to demonstrate the desired outcome.
4. Layout and presentation
- Organise the content clearly and logically by drawing a simple sketch of how the page will look. Try to include some ‘white space’, i.e. areas without text or images.
- Select a suitable font style and size.
- Use a heading as well as simple sub-headings (e.g. ‘Vocab’) for different sections in order to orientate learners to the content and its purpose.
- Number all the tasks, and all the items within each task, sequentially.
- Include write-on lines or a space for learners to write when appropriate. Ensure the space is sufficient for students to write, especially when creating materials for young learners or those with literacy needs.
A detailed depiction of these and other principles as well as many models of lower-level materials are available in How to write lower-level materials (ELT Teacher 2 Writer, 2024).
Conclusion
In conclusion, teaching lower-level learners presents both challenges and opportunities, requiring forethought, adaptability, and an understanding of linguistic theory. By embracing the theory and following the START approach, we can craft lessons and materials that are meaningful, useful and responsive to learners' needs.
References
Dörnyei, Z. (2018) Engaging language learners. IATEFL Conference, Brighton, UK
Krashen, S.D. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall.
Lado, R. (1957) Linguistics across Cultures: Applied Linguistics and Language Teachers. University of Michigan Press.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Author Biography
Rhona Snelling is a freelance ELT author, speaker and teacher. She qualified with International House and has extensive experience teaching in the UK, Europe, and New Zealand. She worked as an in-house editor at two international ELT publishers, and holds a Master's degree in Applied Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Her latest book is 'How to write lower-level materials'. www.rhonasnelling.com