|
Dòng
|
Nội dung
|
|
1
|
Handwriting as a tool for learning in ELT / Ragnhild Elisabeth Lund.
// ELT journal. 2016, Vol. 70, No. 1. 2016.p. 48-56. This article discusses the role that handwriting can have when writing is used as a tool for learning in English language education. Nineteen Norwegian EFL teacher training students were interviewed in focus groups about their own practices and their thoughts about writing-to-learn activities. All the students said that they prefer to write by hand. They claimed that writing by hand is fundamentally different from writing on a keyboard, and that handwriting has much greater impact as a tool for learning. However, the students had not given much thought to the didactic implications of their own preferences, and issues related to the different technologies of writing are not dealt with in their own studies. The investigation suggests that more attention should be paid to the affordances of different technologies of writing and to handwriting as a tool for learning in ELT.
|
|
2
|
The experience of initial management training in ELT / Wayne Rimmer.
// ELT journal. 2016, Vol. 70, No. 1. 2016.p. 78-87. Management training in ELT organizations is often inadequate. New managers are in severe need of training, especially for tasks which are non-pedagogical, yet they operate in a milieu where there are few opportunities for support compared with colleagues in mainstream education. The purpose of this case study, a rare evidence-based contribution to discussions of ELT management, was to evaluate the experiences and perceptions of four new managers involved in an initial management training course in the private sector. Four main themes emerged from interviewing the new managers. First was appreciation (managers needing and valuing training); second, the transition from teaching (confidence in those skills which were transferable from the classroom); third, anxiety (the ability of training to reduce stress levels); and fourth, role confusion (a mismatch between different expectations of performance that was not resolved during training). In general, managers valued the training but felt some content areas more pertinent than others.
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|