Graduation paper “Efficient ways in teaching writing in esl classesfor b1 level students”

The structure and description of the research. The present qualification work consists of four parts: introduction, the main part, conclusion and bibliography. Within the introduction part, there is given a brief description of our qualification work where we described its actuality, practical significance, and fields of amplification, and described the role of writing skills in learning English. The main part of the qualification work includes several items. There we discussed issues such as skill building and the process approach to writing, main techniques for getting started writing process and teaching writing techniques. In the second chapter (practice part) of main part we described different types writing activities and included worksheets for B1 level students. In the conclusion part our qualification work we tried to draw some results from the scientific investigations made within the main part of the qualification work. In bibliography part we mentioned more than 20 sources which were used while compiling the present work. It includes linguistic books and articles dealing with the theme, a number of used encyclopedias, textbooks and some internet sources.
CHAPTER 1 THEORETICAL ASSUMPTION OF THE THESIS ON TEACHING WRITING IN ESL CLASSROOMS

1. 
   CEFR requirements for B1 level in writing
   

It is known that The Common European Framework (CEFR)provides a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe. It describes in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn to do in order to use a language for communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively.Thedescriptionalsocoverstheculturalcontextinwhich language is set. The Framework also defines levels of proficiency which allow learners’ progress to be measured at each stage of learning and on a life-longbasis. CEFRis intended to overcome the barriers to communication among professionals working in the field of modern languages arising from the different educational systems in Europe. It provides the means for educational administrators, course designers, teachers, teacher trainers, examining bodies, etc., to reflect on their current practice, with a view to situating and coordinating their efforts and to ensuring that they meet the real needs of the learners for whom they are responsible. Byprovidingacommonbasisfortheexplicitdescriptionofobjectives, contentand methods,theFrameworkwillenhancethetransparencyofcourses,syllabusesandqualifications,thuspromotinginternationalco-operationinthefieldofmodernlanguages. Theprovisionofobjectivecriteriafordescribinglanguageproficiencywillfacilitatethe mutualrecognitionofqualificationsgainedindifferentlearningcontexts,andaccordinglywillaidEuropeanmobility.
OneoftheaimsoftheFrameworkistohelppartnerstodescribethelevelsofproficiency required by existing standards, tests and examinations in order to facilitatecomparisons between different system sofqualifications.ForthispurposetheDescriptiveSchemeand the Common Reference Levels have been developed. Between them they provide a con- ceptual grid which users can exploit to describe their system. Ideally a scale ofreference levels in a common framework should meet the following four criteria. Two relate to description issues, and two relate to measurement issues:
DescriptionIssues
Acommonframeworkscaleshouldbecontext-freeinordertoaccommodategeneral results from different specific contexts. That is to say that a common scale should not be produced specifically for, let us say, the school context and then applied to adults, or vice-versa. Yet at the same time the descriptors in a common Frameworkscaleneedtobecontext-relevant,relatabletoortranslatableintoeachand every relevant context – and appropriate for the function they are used for in that context. This means that the categories used to describe what learners can do in different contexts of use must be relatable to the target contexts of use of the different groups of learners within the overall target population.
Thedescriptionalsoneedstobebasedontheoriesoflanguagecompetence.Thisisdifficulttoachievebecausetheavailabletheoryandresearchisinadequatetoprovide abasisforsuchadescription.Nevertheless,thecategorizationanddescriptionneeds tobetheoreticallygrounded.Inaddition,whilstrelatingtotheory,thedescription mustalsoremainuser-friendly–accessibletopractitioners.Itshouldencouragethem tothinkfurtheraboutwhatcompetencemeansintheircontext.
MeasurementIssues
Thepointsonthescaleatwhichparticularactivitiesandcompetencesaresituated inacommonframeworkscaleshouldbeobjectivelydeterminedinthattheyarebased onatheoryofmeasurement.Thisisinordertoavoidsystematisingerrorthrough adoptingunfoundedconventionsand‘rulesofthumb’fromtheauthors,particular groupsofpractitionersorexistingscalesthatareconsulted.
Thenumberoflevelsadoptedshouldbeadequatetoshowprogressionindifferent sectors, but, in any particular context, should not exceed the number of levels betweenwhichpeoplearecapableofmakingreasonablyconsistentdistinctions.This maymeanadoptingdifferentsizesofscalestepfordifferentdimensions,ora
two-tier approach between broader (common, conventional) and narrower (local, pedagogic)levels.
Level B1 reflects on the Threshold Level specification for a visitor to a foreign country and is perhaps most categorized by two features. The first feature is the ability to maintain interaction and get across what you want to, in a range of contexts, for example:generallyfollowthemainpointsofextendeddiscussionaroundhim/her,provided speechisclearlyarticulatedinstandarddialect;giveorseekpersonalviewsandopinionsin aninformaldiscussionwithfriends;expressthemainpoin
the/shewantstomakecomprehensibly;exploitawiderangeofsimplelanguageflexiblytoexpressmuchofwhatheorshewants to;maintainaconversationordiscussionbutmaysometimesbedifficulttofollowwhentrying tosayexactlywhathe/shewouldliketo;keepgoingcomprehensibly,eventhoughpausingfor grammaticalandlexicalplanningandrepairisveryevident,especiallyinlongerstretchesof free production. The second feature is the ability to cope flexibly with problems in everydaylife,forexamplecopewithlessroutinesituationsonpublictransport;dealwith mostsituationslikelytoarisewhenmakingtravelarrangementsthroughanagentorwhen actuallytravelling;enterunpreparedintoconversationsonfamiliartopics;makeacomplaint; takesomeinitiativesinaninterview/consultation(e.g.tobringupanewsubject)butisvery dependentoninterviewerintheinteraction;asksomeonetoclarifyorelaboratewhattheyhave justsaid.The subsequent band seems to be a Strong Threshold (B1+). The same two main features continue to be present, with the addition of a number of descriptors which focus on the exchange of quantities of information, for example: take messages communicatingenquiries,explainingproblems;provideconcreteinformationrequiredinaninterview/consultation(e.g.describesymptomstoadoctor)butdoessowithlimitedprecision;explain whysomethingisaproblem;summariseandgivehisorheropinionaboutashortstory,article, talk,discussion,interview,ordocumentaryandanswerfurtherquestionsofdetail;carryouta preparedinterview,checkingandconfirminginformation,thoughhe/shemayoccasionallyhave toaskforrepetitioniftheotherperson’sresponseisrapidorextended;describehowtodosomething, giving detailed instructions; exchange accumulated factual information on familiar routineandnon-routinematterswithinhis/herfieldwithsomeconfidence.
In written production (writing)activitiesthelanguageuseraswriterproducesa written text which is received by a readership of one or morereaders.
Examples of writing activitiesinclude:
completingformsandquestionnaires;
writing articles for magazines, newspapers, newsletters,etc.;
producing posters fordisplay;
writingreports,memoranda,etc.;
makingnotesforfuturereference;
takingdownmessagesfromdictation,etc.;
creativeandimaginativewriting;
writingpersonalorbusinessletters,etc.
Illustrative scales are providedfor:
Overall writtenproduction;
Creativewriting;
Reportsandessays.