Wednesday, 30 October 2013

What does teaching "literary texts" mean in the new national curriculum?

So here we are, in limbo, with the previous national curriculum for modern languages "disapplied" as we wait for the next, really slim one to come into force in September 2014. Curious, that, isn't it? The national curriculum can be ignored by half of English secondary schools and the large majority of primaries, whilst in 2013-14 we don't even have one anyway. Will teachers survive this academic year without a national curriculum? It makes you wonder. In the meantime, Ofqual and the examination boards will use the new national curriculum to guide their next generation of exams, which is ultimately what teachers will focus on, as they always have done. So maybe we have a de facto national curriculum anyway. It all seems, as Jerry Seinfeld once put it, "a tad askew".

However, in short, teachers will need to be aware of what's in this new curriculum and to understand why course books will change their focus somewhat.

For secondary teachers, a significant new focus will be on "literary texts" - meaning stories, letters, poems and song, with, we are told, a greater focus on grammar and accuracy. Expect to see more of these in text books and examinations. Expect to see CPD courses with a focus on literary texts too - my Association for Language Learning (Yorkshire) information already has some in the coming weeks: "Fun with Grammar and Literacy Skills", "Literacy, languages and ICT" "Rigour, but not the O-Level way" - these course titles give a flavour.

Now, I have to say that I have for a long time felt there was a lack of narrative texts in course books. Too many dry articles relating to the GCSE topics, not enough story-telling, not enough human interest. So, in general, I would welcome a better balance of texts. However, the key thing will be how stimulating texts will be. Any target language input is good provided it is meaningful and interesting, or "compelling" as Stephen Krashen would put it. You can have boring literary texts and boring non-literary ones. What we need is material which is meaningful, interesting and suitable for exploitation in the classroom.

I spend a lot of time seeking out good texts for frenchteacher.net and there are two key criteria for texts: are they interesting and do they lend themselves to classroom exploitation? What can you do with them? Some pieces look great, but when you then think how you might use them, you run into a brick wall. Other texts can be mundane, but open themselves up to all kinds of linguistic activity.

The best texts achieve both those goals. "Literary" or narrative texts can be particularly good because, at the level of meaning, they often involve personal human experience and can stimulate the imagination, whilst, pedagogically speaking, they can be exploited in different ways. For a detailed list of means of exploiting texts see here. Tasks which fit particularly well with narrative or literary texts include: detailed question-answer techniques using past tenses, creative writing (e.g. writing summaries, changing the narrative point of view, writing alternative endings) and dialogue creation based on the text. Simple poems open up the possibility for enjoyable creative tasks such as designing calligrams (though, in general, poems, by their syntactic nature, are not the best source of input). Songs lend themselves to pleasurable close listening (gap fill, retranslation, matching etc). All of these tasks contribute to building up a student's internalised syntactic competence.

But we need to be careful here. We are in baby and bathwater territory. We do not want a return to O-level style texts which neglected practical, transactional language. We had good reasons for moving away from an over-emphasis on literary narrative. We do need to provide enough material to develop the ability to cope in everyday situations. We do still require plenty of input relating to intercultural understanding and everyday situational tasks. So what teachers should hope for is a sensible evolution in text books, not a revolution. Let us also hope for courses with an impressive array of creative teaching ideas, not the recent, rushed out exam board sponsored efforts which unimaginatively resemble GCSE assessments.

What really counts is that, whatever their style, our texts be stimulating and usable.

Monday, 28 October 2013

So where do you stand on the learning/acquisition continuum?

You can choose to look at approaches to second language learning in any number of ways, but it is common to view them as placed somewhere on a continuum:

learning    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acquisition

conscious  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unconscious

formal  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  natural

Fans of explicit grammar teaching, grammar-translation and structured skill practice would lean towards the left and fans of comprehension based work, with little explanation of rules and little rote learning, would lean to the right. If you believe that second language learning is fundamentally like child language acquisition you would be on the right. If you believe that older learners bring a good deal more to the game (knowledge of their first language, literacy, experience of learning techniques), you might lean to the left rather more.

In practice, most teachers find themselves somewhere along the line, maybe near the middle, acknowledging that there is some place for structured practice and explanation, just as there is clearly a need for large amounts of target language input with an emphasis on meaning.

The context of the learning is also significant. You could argue that in an immersion environment there is more room for natural acquisition, whereas in the traditional foreign language classroom, where you only get limited input each week, you need to take some short cuts and introduce more rote learning and explanation. Or could you argue the precise opposite? If you only have two or three contacts a week, should you maximise acquisition and sacrifice formal explanation and practice?

It's worth having this continuum in the back of your mind when planning lessons. Why are we doing this activity? How much language input is the class getting? Does the class need some formal explanation of rules here? Is this activity aimed at developing fluency or accuracy?

The fact is that we do not know for certain how second language learning works best. Furthermore, different students may have different preferred learning styles. If that is the case, then perhaps teachers are wise to hedge their bets and adopt an eclectic approach, adapting to some extent to the context and the class in front of them.

Thursday, 24 October 2013

Another online shopping task



Classes really enjoy these online shopping activities. I posted a while ago a grocery shopping task for younger learners. Here is one for intermediate students and build up their knowledge of household vocabulary. You could vary the activity by giving them the option of buying a few luxury items of their own choice.

A LA MAISON – VOCABULAIRE

Equipez votre maison le moins cher possible

Trouvez le site www.but.fr

Trouvez le produit le moins cher dans les catégories suivantes:


Produit
Modèle
Prix
Cuisinière à gaz


Congélateur armoire


Four micro-ondes


Lave-linge (frontal)


Lave-vaisselle


Sèche-linge


Réfrigérateur américain


Table basse


Lit pliant


Banquette lit (clic clac)


Téléviseur LCD


Téléviseur Plasma


Caméscope numérique


Chaîne hi fi micro


Ensemble home cinéma


Baladeur MP3


Radio réveil


Appareil photo numérique


Ordinateur portable


Imprimante


Navigateur GPS


Canapé d’angle


Buffet de cuisine


Meuble TV


Oreiller


Lampe



                        Total:

Wednesday, 23 October 2013

Creative speaking and writing prompts

This is a sheet I posted recently on frenchteacher.net. It would work well with a good advanced level class. You could do these at any time as a change from your usual topics.  

Creative speaking and writing prompts

1. Si vous pouviez changer une chose dans votre vie, cela serait quoi et pourquoi ? Est-ce que votre vie serait différente aujourd’hui ?
2. Quel est votre plus grand exploit dans la vie ? Pourquoi était-ce important ?
3. Si vous aviez un superpouvoir cela serait quoi ? Que feriez-vous avec ?
 4. Si les scientifiques découvraient qu’un astéroïde allait entrer en collision avec la terre dans un mois, que feriez-vous pendant ce temps ?
5. Si vous pouviez changer ou inventer une loi, ça serait quoi ? Comment cela changerait-il le monde ?
6. Qui est la personne la plus sage que vous ayez jamais rencontrée ? Pourquoi ?
7. Si vous étiez un personnage de dessin animé, vous seriez qui ? Pourquoi ?
8. Si on pouvait lire dans les pensées des autres, est-ce que le monde serait meilleur ? Pourquoi ?
9. Si vous pouviez émigrer dans un autre pays, où iriez-vous ? Pourquoi ?
10. Si vous pouviez parler à un animal, ce serait lequel ? Qu’est-ce qu’il dirait ?
11. Décrivez la plus grande déception de votre vie.
12. Si vous pouviez voyager dans le temps, à quelle époque iriez-vous ? Pourquoi ?
13. Quelle est la chose la plus remarquable qu’un membre de votre famille a faite.
14. Imaginez que vous étiez un extra-terrestre qui arrive sur Terre. Que penseriez-vous de la planète et ses habitants ?
15. Si vous aviez le choix d’être sourd ou aveugle, quel choix feriez-vous ? Pourquoi ?

Thursday, 17 October 2013

Marking

This blog has been fermenting for a little while now. I wanted to share with you my thoughts on marking. They may go against the current grain a touch, but see what you think.

Why mark? Here is a list of reasons which I deliberately put in order of importance.

1.  To check pupils have done the work
2.  To show pupils you care about their work
3.  To check that they have understood the work
4.  To show them where they have gone wrong and done well
5.  To build your personal relationship with the pupil
6.  To give them more detailed feedback

You will note that I have put feedback last. The caveat I would add is that this varies with the age of the learner. Detailed feedback makes more sense with advanced students.

Let me elaborate.

Points 1 and 2 are key. the most important thing about homework is that it is done and that it is done with care and attention. Improvement in language skills comes with practice. The more practice pupils do, the more confident they become. If they know you are going to read their work and assess it on a regular basis they are more likely to take it seriously and put the time in. If you only collect work in to mark twice a term you will quickly discover tatty exercise books and sloppy work.

Point 3 is important for you as a teacher. You hopefully set work within the compass of students, not too easy, not too hard. You hope they don't make too many errors. If they do, it is likely the task was poorly set. If every pupil gets everything right, then it is at least possible that the work was too easy. Regular marking gives you the feedback on your teaching which you need.

Point 4 may be over-valued by many teachers. Corrections are useful, but in a sense, if there are errors, the damage is already done. The key thing is that the student has done the work and thought things through. As an aside, how much do you think you should correct? My answer to this is as follows: with the brightest pupils, be fussy and correct everything. Be hyper-critical with accuracy and range. This will encourage motivated pupils to do even better in future. It works! With weaker students, if they have produced something riddled with mistakes, then correct selectively, probably focusing on one important area such as verb errors. To smother a child's work in red (or green?) ink is discouraging and they are unlikely to go through every error carefully.

Point 5 is significant. In the hurly burly of lessons with 30 children it's not easy to find much one-to-one time. A well-chosen comment on a piece of work - a humorous remark, an acknowledgement of extra effort for example - unseen and unheard by others, can help you establish a personal relationship between you and the pupil. This can go a long way in the classroom.

Point 6 is flavour of the month, isn't it? Well, I would say that with most work done by younger pupils, detailed feedback of the kind "two stars and a wish" is probably over-kill. Very often a simple "well done" is enough, especially if they could not have done much more with the task. More detailed feedback may be worthwhile if there is a common pattern to errors: "take care over adjective endings - always go through them at the end"; "check every verb in future - is it in the right tense and does it have the right ending"; "in future try to add more detail to your work - use more adjectives and adverbs".

Advanced level work may need more detail too: "try to apply the rules on essay technique we went through - remember not to make key points in the introduction".

The point is this: your time is limited and you cannot write detailed feedback on all work unless you reduce its frequency. It is better for pupils to produce a lot, regularly, with less detailed feedback.

Should the feedback be in the target language. Sometimes, but a word or two in English will carry more psychological weight. Writing "cor!" or "amazing!" or "nice touch!" or "ouch!" in the margin will have a stronger re-inforcing effect than its equivalent in the target language. Remember that this is your chance to build a confidential rapport with the student. You will do that more effectively working in the mother tongue. With detailed feedback it must be clear too and using the target language may be confusing. Your comments in an exercise book are a tiny fraction of the comprehensible input your students get. Don't be obsessed with staying in TL all the time.

Red or green ink? Not an issue. Use any clear colour, but respect your school's policy.

Exercise books, lined paper or electronic work? I prefer exercise books for younger learners as you can easily check back on previous work to check for patterns of error or neatness. It's probably easier to catch up on missed work too. A-level students are used to lined paper and that's fine; you may be chasing them less for incomplete, rewritten or missing work. Electronically produced work is awkward to correct, but it is easy to write comments at the end of student blogs, for example. Many teachers report that errors are more numerous when work is typed. I agree.

What if work is totally inadequate? Don't pussy-foot on this; get them to do it again, maybe twice. They'll soon learn that you have high expectations and will most likely produce the goods in future.

Writing corrections? Probably a good idea, though I confess I usually neglected this. Why? Because I thought it was boring for them and preferred them to work on new things. How about giving them ten minutes every few eeks to go through old work and write corrections. It's a handy filler task.

Should I write grades on? Your department or school should have a policy on this. On balance I like grades and have written about this before. Make sure your pupils know what a grade means; e.g. A= among the best we see at this school. Free of error and, where relevant, with a good range of language. Grades are a handy shorthand for more detailed remarks. If you hear the argument that pupils only look at grades and then ignore comments, then the solution is to force them to spend three minutes reading through and writing corrections. I believe grades are often motivational. The best students hate dropping a little and weaker pupils are delighted when their grade goes up. Research suggests that grades may be less useful with less able children.

Be prepared to grade "tactically" too. A very quick student may be disappointed if you drop them to a B if their work is slightly less careful than usual. It is probable they will try extra hard next time. te converse applies. A weaker pupil may be delighted with a B and try harder next time.

Other codes, as well as grades, may be useful. V in the margin for verb, A for adjective etc. Or double underline major errors, single underline minor ones. Or how about just circling errors for students to correct themselves? This saves valuable time for you, but still shows students you have read their work carefully.

Should you show corrections on display work? Yes. You do not want inaccurate work on your wall. If a piece has too many errors, then the pupil can do it again.

Marking is the bane of a teacher's life, but language teachers can take some comfort in two things:

a)  It's a pleasure to mark really good work
b) You are not English or history teachers. Their marking really drains the brain and takes ages. We are just correcting error much of the time.

Please feel free to leave comments. Some of this was contentious.



Tuesday, 15 October 2013

Do children have a natural aptitude for second language learning?

Language teachers may be surprised by the title of this post, since, in my experience, it is self-evident that some students are much better at learning languages than others and this, I have always assumed, is down to something different within their brain which (I mention this in view of Dominic Cummings recent paper which referred to genetics) I assume has an inherited factor behind it.

The current vogue, encouraged by hypotheses such as Carol Dweck's mindsets, the claim that IQ is flexible and the idea that anyone can become skilled at an activity with 10 000 hours of practice, is that all children can achieve highly. I may be wrong, but in some educational circles, to suggest that some children are naturally more gifted than others has begun to sound like heresy.

A friend who knows much more about educational theory than me doubts that natural ability exists and would claim that competence derives from self-belief, motivation and practice.

I understand why one would want to value practice over natural ability (genetics?). To suggest that some children are limited in some respects, are for example "good with their hands", could lead teachers to lower their aspirations or direct pupils away from subjects they find harder.

I do not think this need be the case at all. I do believe some children are more musical, mathematical, creative, linguistically able, practical than others. I do believe we are born with different characteristics and my gut feeling is that natural ability probably trumps hard work in a school setting. No school student gets 10 000 hours to perfect their skills. Teachers do make a very significant difference, but even a very gifted teacher can only do so much with an averagely able student, however motivated they may be.

I have no expert knowledge nor any research to support this view, although the research by Professor Plomin referred to by Dominic Cummings, does claim that genes account for most of the academic success students enjoy.

In sum, students do vary, some are naturally gifted at languages, but this does not stop us having high expectations for all.

Tuesday, 8 October 2013

A word about national curriculum levels

The previous National Curriculum for England and Wales in Modern Foreign Languages is now"disapplied", as the DfE puts it. Academies and Free Schools may now do their own thing and maintained schools have a new, slimmed down curriculum with no level descriptors. My impression from forums and Twitter is that most schools are continuing to use their well established systems for tracking students which employ the existing levels. They have good reasons for doing this. The elaborate systems which schools have set up required an enormous amount of time and energy and they do, for all their unintended consequences, allow for adequate and quite detailed tracking.

But how accurate is the allocation of levels? When levels were first introduced departments were asked to keep marked portfolios of student work and exemplar materials were provided by the DfE to help schools get their levelling right. My departmnt did this carefully and we established a pretty good grasp of what levels meant. The assumption may have been made that this process led to comparable levelling from school to school and that in recent years the same attention was given to the process.

What subsequently occurred was this: as teachers became more familiar with levels (and later sub-levels) they would concoct tasks which enabled pupils to show they could produce work which corresponded to a certain level. "This is a Level 6 piece of work", you would hear. It thus became tempting to allocate a level to a student based on the production of a particular piece of work which may not have been characteristic of that student's typical performance. This process could even be used to motivate pupils. "If you do this, this and this, you will get a Level 6." (In the early days of levels my own department designed exam papers to fit level descriptors.)

The same process occurs later on when preparing pupils for GCSE controlled assessments. "If you include X, Y and Z, then you will get a grade A."

Sad to note that teachers have to resort to this strategy to motivate students. But teachers and students will always play the system they are given.

Here are the level descriptors for MFL Speaking:

Level 3

Pupils ask and answer simple questions and talk about their interests. They take part in brief prepared tasks, using visual or other clues to help them initiate and respond. They use short phrases to express personal responses. Although they use mainly memorised language, they occasionally substitute items of vocabulary to vary questions or statements.

Level 4

Pupils take part in simple conversations, supported by visual or other cues, and express their opinions. They begin to use their knowledge of grammar to adapt and substitute single words and phrases. Their pronunciation is generally accurate and they show some consistency in their intonation.

Level 5

Pupils give a short prepared talk that includes expressing their opinions. They take part
in short conversations, seeking and conveying information, opinions and reasons in simple terms. They refer to recent experiences or future plans, as well as everyday activities and interests. They vary their language and sometimes produce more extended responses. Although there may be some mistakes, pupils make themselves understood with little or no difficulty.


The descriptors in the other three skills reflect a similar level of complexity.

On this basis I would argue that it would be rare for a Y7 beginner pupil to get beyond Level 4 by the end of Y7. You could always teach a few examples of past or near future/future tense, but would these be characteristic of everyday classroom performance? We can get pupils to memorise a short talk to show extended response, but would this be typical of their conversational performance? Level 4 looks a better fit for even quite able pupils than Level 5. I wonder how many teachers give Level 5 to Y7 pupils.

One can easily see how "level inflation" might occur. As the SLT demand the highest standards and encourage competition between departments, so the pressure mounts to inflate levels and future targets.

The idea behind levels may have been commendable: an attempt to measure pupil performance objectively within and across schools. An attempt at criterion referencing, if you will. An attempt to allow parents to see how their children are doing with reference to national standards.

In reality, levels cannot be trusted, parents do not understand them and I doubt they have raised standards. I believe, on balance, Michael Gove was right to get rid of them.

Saturday, 5 October 2013

Handy guide to language teaching approaches

This post is from the Teachers' Guide of frenchteacher.net where you'll find plenty of other guides for MFL teachers.

The oral-situational approach
 
Originating in the 1920s and 1930s when linguists such as Harold Palmer and A.S Hornby took the direct method and from it developed a more scientific approach for teaching languages through an oral approach. It was well-established in Britain by the 1950s, although many teachers were still relying mainly on grammar-translation well beyond then. With the oral approach vocabulary is limited and based on frequency counts from the language being studied. Grammar is also selected and graded by difficulty and presented and practised principally through question and answer. It remains at the core of many courses which are structured primarily on the basis of structural complexity, beginning with the simplest and working through to the most complex.

In this approach, which became by the 1960s closely related to the situational approach (language presented in the context of real life situations, thus making it seem more relevant to learners), language is normally presented orally first, exploiting repetition, drilling and question-answer, then reinforced with reading and writing tasks. What results is a form of artificial classroom communication. Course books from this period made greater use of pictures as a basis for communication.

Grammatical rules and linguistic competence are induced through practice and with the aid of explanation. Nearly all teaching is done in the target language. Critics would say that this approach, whilst stressing the targte language, does not give sufficient emphasis to genuine communication so remains rather unmotivating.

The audio-lingual approach

Audiolingualism , a term first coined in 1964, took elements of the US army approach of the second world war, the post war oral approach emphasising drilling of grammatical structures and the insights of behaviourist learning theory. Dialogues and drills form the basis of this essentially oral method, so similarities with the British oral approach are apparent. Correct pronunciation, accuracy and mastery of structural patterns are stressed. Tape recordings and illustrations are used to support oral practice. A whole range of drilling types exist: repetition, replacement of one word by another, gap-filling, sentence transformation and so on. These practice techniques are commonplace today.

The emphasis is on acquisition through practice rather than analysis, although this may come after practice. Real communication takes a relatively small role, even less than with the Oral Approach. The linguistic theory underlying the method is that learning occurs through habit and repetition. The approach was well-suited to emerging technologies such as the language laboratory.

Critics would say that the approach was dull and repetitive, undervaluing real communication and the role of analysis.

The communicative approach

From the 1970s this was a reaction against the oral-situational and audio-lingual approaches which, with their stress on grammatical structure, neglected the functional and communicative value of language. In its weaker form it is not unlike the Oral Approach, but offers greater opportunities for genuine communication (information gaps, pair work, problem-solving games etc). In its stronger from it abandons grammatical structure and relies on the idea that language will be picked up just by communication. In this sense it sounds rather like a direct method.

Course books reflecting this approach will stress the functions of language (e.g. apologising, persuading, arguing, negotiating) at the expense of detailed grammatical practice or analysis. This approach maybe better suited to learners in a bilingual rather than school setting.

Critics would say that in some forms the communicative approach is too transactional and becomes glorified phrase book learning. They might also argue that the lack of focus on grammar and analysis is confusing to students.

In practice, most language teachers use a communicative approach in its most general sense, supported by explicit grammar teaching.

The natural/comprehensible input approach

Popular in the USA, advocated for many years by Stephen Krashen, this approach is based on the notion that the second language is acquired very much like one’s native tongue. What is required for progress is “comprehensible input”. If learners hear or read language they can understand, nature will take its course and competence will increase. By this approach it is even argued that focus on grammar and accuracy could hinder progress since it would be time taken away from the main goal of providing input. Focus on form, it is argued, can increase one's ability to monitor accuracy but will not aid acquisition.

The main focus with this approach would be on listening and reading for meaning, with relatively less emphasis on pattern practice and grammatical accuracy. AIMLANG and TPRS conform loosely to this approach and have many supporters, especially in North America.

This natural approach is not unlike the Direct Method as espoused at the turn of the twentieth century. In practice it is likely that teachers using a natural, “comprehension” approach have much in common with those who use a communicative or oral approach.

Grammar-translation

This was the approach used in most schools up to the 1950s and beyond. It is based on no linguistic theory, but evolved from approaches used in the teaching of Latin. The second language is viewed as a system to be gradually mastered, from the simple to the complex, by analysis and translation.
Similarities and differences between the first and second language are stressed. The written language is prioritised and there is little or no emphasis on speaking and listening.

The aim is to build up a strong grammatical and reading knowledge of the second language. There is little attempt to get learners to internalise structures for oral use. It is approach which some learners find satisfying and used in small doses it may supplement other methods, especially if the emphasis needs to be on accuracy. Students who learned by this approach often report that they are unable to cope with spoken language.

Conclusions

The twentieth century saw rapid developments in linguistic and learning theory. Each new approach to second language reflected the thinking of the time. No one method is best. There is no panacea method. Learners have varying strengths and preferences, settings vary (young pupil, older pupil, adult learner, business person, overseas student).

Today, in most settings, it is likely that an eclectic approach will be used, with the best elements of all the above methods. At the very least we safely say that for progress to be made a good deal of the target language needs to be heard, read and used. Focus on structure and accuracy usually assists progress and students like to have an understanding of how the language works.

Further reading:

Approaches and methods in Language Teaching. Jack C. Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers, Cambridge, 2001 (second edition)

Tuesday, 1 October 2013

My top 40 intermediate French errors

An interesting conundrum for language teachers: do you expose students to incorrect forms of language to help them be more accurate? Or does this just reinforce error? If you believe the former, then you might want to print this off for your class.

I am really not sure! What do you think?

Here are 40 common mistakes I have come across over the years in written work. They are commonly made by students and, in a few cases, even by native speakers.

Version incorrecte                                                              Version correcte

Je suis visité                                                                          J’ai visité
Je suis quinze ans                                                                  J'ai dix ans
J'ai intelligent                                                                         Je suis intelligent
J’ai resté                                                                               Je suis resté
J’ai retourné                                                                         Je suis retourné(e)
J’ai tombé                                                                            Je suis tombé(e)
J’été                                                                                     J’étais/J’ai été
Je joue le football                                                                  Je joue au football (sport)
Je joue le piano                                                                     Je joue du piano (musique)
J’ai joué depuis 5 ans                                                            Je joue depuis 5 ans
Je suis allé en France pour une semaine                                 Je suis allé(e)...PENDANT...
en Paris                                                                                à Paris
sur le 15 mai                                                                         le 15 mai
de le 10 juin a le 20 juin                                                        du 10 juin au 20 juin
beacoup des                                                                         beaucoup de
un kilo des pommes                                                              un kilo de pommes
une vielle ville                                                                        une vieille ville
interresant                                                                             intéressant
dans le nord d’Angleterre                                                     dans le nord de l’Angleterre
Je mange le pain et les cereals                                              du pain et des céréales
un programme sur la télé                                                      une émission à la télé
elle est seize ans                                                                  elle a seize ans
les yeux bleu et les chevaux brun                                          yeux bleus, cheveux bruns
Je départ                                                                             Je pars
à cinq heure                                                                         à cinq heures
J’arrivé                                                                                J’arrive (NO ACCENT)
mon passe-temps favouri                                                     mon passe-temps favori
Je préféré                                                                            Je préfère
des autres amis                                                                    d’autres amis
J’ecoute à la radio                                                               J’écoute la radio
Je pense que il est intelligent                                                 Je pense qu’il est intelligent
a cinq heures et demi                                                           à cinq heures et demie
J’allé a l’ecole                                                                     Je vais à l’école
à cote de                                                                             à côté de
J’ai cassé ma jambe                                                            Je me suis cassé la jambe
Je peux aider vous?                                                            Je peux vous aider?
J’acheté un cadeau                                                             J’ai acheté (or: J’achète)
Je ne suis allé pas                                                               Je ne suis pas allé
à ma maison                                                                       à la maison (chez moi)
j’ai recontré                                                                        j’ai rencontré

This is a sheet from frenchteacher.net.