3. Put the following marks in front of the each method

Group: 416

Utkirboev Hayot

3. Put the following marks in front of the each method( pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, reading, writing, listening, speaking= P.G.V.R.W.L.S) Write the suitable level (of the students’ beginner, elementary, intermediate and advanced.) for each method.

№ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14	Methods	P.G.V.R.W.L.S.	Level
	Grammar translation method	Grammar	Elementary
	Audio-lingual method	Listening	Intermediate
	Audio-visual method	Listening,	Intermediate
	Direct method	Reading speaking	Beginner elementary
	Communicative language teaching method	Speaking pronunciation	Elementary
	Project-based method / approach	Vocabulary speaking	Intermediate and advanced
	Suggestopedy method	Grammar vocabulary	Elementary
	Silent way method	Reading	Intermediate
	Total Physical Response	Grammar vocabulary speaking	Beginner
	Immersion	Listening speaking	Beginner elementary
	Task-based language learning	Writing	Intermediate advanced
	Learning by teaching	Grammar	Elementary
	Jigsaw method	Grammar listening	Beginner elementary
	Situational method or Oral approach	Speaking vocabulary	Intermediate and advanced

4. Choose one of the methods and give your suggestions in 100 words about usage of it in teaching.
Jigsaw method

Our focus has been on confirming and also adapting jigsaw to be more effective, especially it is rather expensive time wise to have both the experts meet and then the heterogenous teams meet, team work eats up class time, so unless the activity involves course topics that are really critical/important and cross cutting or at least have extensive course topic coverage, then maybe it is less preferred. First, on end-of-unit exams, the experts score high on the area where they were an expert but not on the non-expert areas, you learn what you study most and then teach to someone. So everyone leaves with potential content holes (the less studied pieces of content). Second, about a fourth of student self-report that they dislike group work, and the data indicates that those are the students who tend to free load as much as possible, so not all students contributed or benefitted equally based on individual characteristics. The interdependence created does lead some individuals to be more willing to consider the needs of others, in our samples, about 20% will do this. Oh, these are college freshman in IST and sophomores in communications. Some heterogenous teams function rally well, most are average, but a few are dysfunctional in various ways. Students strongly tend to share common information pieces, and this is good and bad, in this case common information includes the headings and subheadings (text topic structure) of the course readings and also their underlying content misconceptions. Also the linearity of the course readings strongly influences the team discussion and the team artifacts.