HOW TO SPEAK ENGLISH FLUENTLY?

How to Speak English Fluently

1.       Focus on actually conversing rather than just memorizing grammatical rules. To speak good English you need to focus on conversing!
2.         Also remember to LISTEN! Sometimes, you can begin to understand other people before actually being able to speak fluently yourself. Being able to understand others will help in forming conversation yourself.
3.       Another tip is to not translate each and every word or phrase that you hear. Don't be afraid to ask what these mean, by understanding these phrases you will be that much closer to fluency and on your way to being able to speak correct English.
4.       Many people are intimidated at first when they try to jump into conversation, but it is the only way to improve your fluency and speak fluent English.
5.       Doing research online and in your local library will help to strengthen your fluency, but nothing is better than getting out into the world and putting all you have learned to good use!

DAVID KOLB'S EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING THEORY:

Kolb - Learning Styles:

David Kolb published his learning styles model in 1984 from which he developed his learning style inventory.  Kolb's experiential learning theory works on two levels: a four stage cycle of learning and four separate learning styles.  Much of Kolb’s theory is concerned with the learner’s internal cognitive processes.

Kolb states that learning involves the acquisition of abstract concepts that can be applied flexibly in a range of situations.  In Kolb’s theory, the impetus for the development of new concepts is provided by new experiences.  In his own words, “Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience”.

The Experiential Learning Cycle:

Kolb's experiential learning style theory is typically represented by a four stage learning cycle in which the learner 'touches all the bases':

  

1.       Concrete Experience - (a new experience of situation is encountered, or a reinterpretation of existing experience).
2.     . Reflective Observation (of the new experience. Of particular importance are any inconsistencies between experience and understanding).
3.       Abstract Conceptualization (Reflection gives rise to a new idea, or a modification of an existing abstract concept).
4.       Active Experimentation (the learner applies them to the world around them to see what results).

Effective learning is seen when a person progresses through a cycle of four stages: of

•          having a concrete experience followed by
•     observation of and reflection on that experience which leads to
•     the formation of abstract concepts (analysis) and generalizations (conclusions) which are then
•     used to test hypothesis in future situations, resulting in new experiences.

Kolb views learning as an integrated process with each stage being mutually supportive of and feeding into the next. It is possible to enter the cycle at any stage and follow it through its logical sequence.  However, effective learning only occurs when a learner is able to execute all four stages of the model. Therefore, no one stage of the cycle is an effective as a learning procedure on its own.

Learning Styles:

Kolb's learning theory sets out four distinct learning styles, which are based on a four-stage learning cycle.  Kolb explains that different people naturally prefer a certain single different learning style. Various factors influence a person's preferred style.  For example, social environment, educational experiences, or the basic cognitive structure of the individual.  Whatever influences the choice of style, the learning style preference itself is actually the product of two pairs of variables, or two separate 'choices' that we make, which Kolb presented as lines of axis, each with 'conflicting' modes at either end.

A typical presentation of Kolb's two continuums is that the east-west axis is called the Processing Continuum (how we approach a task), and the north-south axis is called the Perception Continuum (our emotional response, or how we think or feel about it).

Kolb believed that we cannot perform both variables on a single axis at the same time (e.g. think and feel).  Our learning style is a product of these two choice decisions.  It's often easier to see the construction of Kolb's learning styles in terms of a two-by-two matrix. Each learning style represents a combination of two preferred styles. The diagram also highlights Kolb's terminology for the four learning styles; diverging, assimilating, and converging, accommodating:

	Doing (Active Experimentation - AE)	Watching (Reflective Observation - RO)
Feeling (Concrete Experience - CE)	Accommodating (CE/AE)	Diverging (CE/RO)
Thinking (Abstract Conceptualization - AC)	Converging (AC/AE)	Assimilating (AC/RO)

Learning Styles Descriptions:

Knowing a person's (and your own) learning style enables learning to be orientated according to the preferred method. That said, everyone responds to and needs the stimulus of all types of learning styles to one extent or another - it's a matter of using emphasis that fits best with the given situation and a person's learning style preferences.  Here are brief descriptions of the four Kolb learning styles:

1.      Diverging (feeling and watching - CE/RO):

These people are able to look at things from different perspectives. They are sensitive. They prefer to watch rather than do, tending to gather information and use imagination to solve problems. They are best at viewing concrete situations at several different viewpoints.

Kolb called this style 'diverging' because these people perform better in situations that require ideas-generation, for example, brainstorming. People with a diverging learning style have broad cultural interests and like to gather information. They are interested in people, tend to be imaginative and emotional, and tend to be strong in the arts. People with the diverging style prefer to work in groups, to listen with an open mind and to receive personal feedback.

2.      Assimilating (watching and thinking - AC/RO):

The Assimilating learning preference is for a concise, logical approach. Ideas and concepts are more important than people. These people require good clear explanation rather than practical opportunity. They excel at understanding wide-ranging information and organizing it in a clear logical format.

People with an assimilating learning style are less focused on people and more interested in ideas and abstract concepts.  People with this style are more attracted to logically sound theories than approaches based on practical value.

This learning style is important for effectiveness in information and science careers. In formal learning situations, people with this style prefer readings, lectures, exploring analytical models, and having time to think things through.

3.      Converging (doing and thinking - AC/AE):

People with a converging learning style can solve problems and will use their learning to find solutions to practical issues. They prefer technical tasks, and are less concerned with people and interpersonal aspects. People with a converging learning style are best at finding practical uses for ideas and theories. They can solve problems and make decisions by finding solutions to questions and problems.

People with a converging learning style are more attracted to technical tasks and problems than social or interpersonal issues. A converging learning style enables specialist and technology abilities. People with a converging style like to experiment with new ideas, to simulate, and to work with practical applications.

4.      Accommodating (doing and feeling - CE/AE):

The Accommodating learning style is 'hands-on', and relies on intuition rather than logic. These people use other people's analysis, and prefer to take a practical, experiential approach. They are attracted to new challenges and experiences, and to carrying out plans.

They commonly act on 'gut' instinct rather than logical analysis. People with an accommodating learning style will tend to rely on others for information than carry out their own analysis. This learning style is prevalent within the general population.

Educational Implications:

Both Kolb's learning stages and cycle could be used by teachers to critically evaluate the learning provision typically available to students, and to develop more appropriate learning opportunities.

Educators should ensure that activities are designed and carried out in ways that offer each learner the chance to engage in the manner that suits them best. Also, individuals can be helped to learn more effectively by the identification of their lesser preferred learning styles and the strengthening of these through the application of the experiential learning cycle.  Ideally, activities and material should be developed in ways that draw on abilities from each stage of the experiential learning cycle and take the students through the whole process in sequence.

Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle:

The most widely used learning theory is Kolb's experiential learning cycle. There are four stages starting with Concrete Experience.

Stage	Description	Activities to Help
Concrete Experience	Kolb's cycle starts with a concrete experience. In other words it begins with doing something in which the individual, team or organization are assigned a task. Key to learning therefore is active involvement. In Kolb's model one cannot learn by simply watching or reading about it, to learn effectively the individual, team or organization must actually do.	·         Ice breakers & energizers ·         team games problem solving discussion practical exercises, e.g. making a presentation debates
Reflective Observation	The second stage in the cycle is that of reflective observation. This means taking time-out from "doing" and stepping back from the task and reviewing what has been done and experienced. At this stage lots of questions are asked and communication channels are opened to others members of the team. Vocabulary is very important and is needed to verbalize and discuss with others.	·         Ask for observation write a short report on what took place give feedback to other participants quiet thinking time tea & coffee breaks completing learning logs or diaries
Abstract Conceptualization	Abstract Conceptualization is the process of making sense of what has happened and involves interpreting the events and understanding the relationships between them. At this stage the learner makes comparisons between what they have done, reflect upon and what they already know. They may draw upon theory from textbooks for framing and explaining events, models they are familiar with, ideas from colleagues, previous observations, or any other knowledge that they have developed.	·         Present models ·         give theories ·         give facts
Active Experimentation	The final stage of the learning cycle is when the learner considers how they are going to put what they have learnt into practice. Planning enables taking the new understanding and translates it into predictions as to what will happen next or what actions should be taken to refine or revise the way a task is to be handled. For learning to be useful most people need to place it in a context that is relevant to them. If one cannot see how the learning is useful to one's life then it is likely to be forgotten very quickly.	·         Give learners time to plan ·         use case studies use role play ask learners to use real problems

Teaching activities that support different aspects of the learning cycle:

Concrete Experience	Reflective Observation	Abstract Conceptualization	Active Experimentation
·         readings ·         examples ·         fieldwork ·         laboratories ·         problem sets ·         trigger films ·         observations ·         simulations/games ·         text reading	·         logs ·         journals ·         discussion ·         brainstorming ·         thought questions ·         rhetorical questions	·         lecture ·         papers ·         projects ·         analogies ·         model building	·         projects ·         fieldwork ·         homework ·         laboratory ·         case study ·         simulations

KNOWING & UNDERSTANDING VS DOING & TEACHING:

“Those that know do, those that understand teach.” – Aristotle

We can know something without understanding it. But what a difference it makes when we do understand; when the subject in hand isn’t something that we know a few facts about, but we have personal experience of what that feels like.

It’s an interesting debate and one that gets to the heart of what makes training great.

Experience has shown that learners place a great value on the ‘knowledge’ of the trainer, whilst trainers themselves value ‘credibility’ more.

It’s an interesting difference of opinion. Some would say it is a difference built on semantics; surely in this instance knowledge & credibility are the same thing?  Or is the difference between knowledge & credibility the same as the difference between listening & hearing or knowing & understanding?

Technical knowledge of the subject (the facts, the figures, the process, the models etc.) is of enormous benefit when building your credibility with learners. But knowledge on its own isn’t enough; it’s the understanding of what it feels like that brings it to life.

It’s all those things – it’s knowledge plus experience that brings that understanding and with that understanding comes credibility and learning. Or as Aristotle put it so beautifully: “Those that know do, those that understand teach”.

We would be teachers, not just for knowledge but for wisdom. Education is not only about the knowledge children learn in the classroom, it is also about the ways they learn to use that knowledge. Teaching is an investment in the lives of children.

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach," - George Bernard Shaw

Popular wisdom has it that "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach," implying that people with real practical skills are out doing constructive things, while those who can't cut it in the "real world" find a less demanding refuge in teaching. This statement suggests that people who have failed or would be failures in the world outside of academia end up as teachers.

The origins of this quote and various permutations of it are unclear. An early quote of similar meaning comes from George Bernard Shaw.

In the Middle Ages, knowledge was viewed as God’s gift. Since it was God’s gift, it was seen as wrong to charge for it. As a result of this view, teachers at many institutions were not paid at all for their work. They had to rely on the gifts and charity of appreciative students.

The value of the work being done as well as the education level required to perform that work is reflected in the salary, yet teachers are still relatively low-paid compared to other jobs with similar educational requirements. Additionally, teaching is one of the few professions that require a higher education, yet people commonly suggest those who take that career path are deficient in some fashion.

Being a teacher requires more than a standard Bachelor’s Degree, but many people still view teaching as a profession for lazy or unskilled people. A favored chestnut among those who hold such views is the anecdotal story about the incompetence of teachers who teach topics related to professions in which they have never engaged.

Education is about equipping students with a broad base of knowledge they can draw on to become successful in the occupations they pursue.

It is up to the student to digest the information he receives and find an application for it in his life, not for the teacher teach him each individual step. Considering that each company and job demands a customized set of skills, this is certainly a more reasonable approach. Even similar jobs may require different approaches at different types of businesses.

If you feel teachers don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to the real world, then you’re missing the point of education. The point is not to memorize a sequence of steps to be regurgitated as needed at a future job. Teachers are there to help you learn how to be smart enough to figure out those steps on your own. 

WHY DO GIRLS DO BETTER ACADEMICALLY THAN BOYS?

Why are girls performing better at school than their male classmates?

1.    Girls read more than boys. Reading proficiency is the basis upon which all other learning is built. When boys don’t do well at reading, their performance in other school subjects suffers too. 

2.    Girls spend more time on homework. On average, girls spend five and a half hours per week doing homework while boys spend a little less than four and a half hours. Researchers suggest that doing homework set by teachers is linked to better performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science.

3.    Boys, it appears, spend more of their free time in the virtual world; they are 17% more likely to play collaborative online games than girls every day. They also use the internet more.

4.    Peer pressure plays a role. A lot of boys decide early on that they are just too cool for school which means they’re more likely to be rowdy in class. Teachers mark them down for this.

5.    Girls are more apt to plan ahead, set academic goals, and put effort into achieving those goals.

6.    The women's movement and feminism are well noted for the success that they have received in increasing moral, confidence, and expectations of women.

7.    Research by Sociologists and their discovery of female’s underachievement in the past has led to increased emphasis on equal opportunities in schools, colleges, and the workplace.

8.    Parents may assume boys are better at math and science so they might encourage girls to put more effort into their studies, which could lead to the slight advantage girls have in all courses, they wrote.

9.    Girls tend to study in order to understand the materials, whereas boys emphasize performance, which indicates a focus on the final grades.

What can be done to close this gap?

1.    Getting boys to do more homework and cut down on screen-time would help.

2.    Offering boys a chance to read non-fiction would help too: they’re keener on comics and newspapers.

3.    Abandoning gender stereotypes would benefit all students.

4.       In anonymous tests, boys perform better. In fact, the gender gap in reading drops by a third when teachers don’t know the gender of the pupil they are marking.