Search results for 'tag:Difference between tag:Present tenses' matching tags 'Difference between' and 'Present tenses'

use of video at class-ideas

linguaprof — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:12:44 GMT

Hi! This is something I wrote for our teachers in Romania, I am sure many of you will find these ideas/tricks useful. I have a huge experience with using videos at class and I think it is esential for effective&interesting classes.

Use of video

Advantages
- more interesting and varied classes
- more "authentic" speaking exercises
- more opportunities for students to speak
- possibility for the tired teacher to take a short rest while
students watching the video-but don't use it as a simple "time
filler"!
- intensive "production" speaking exercises
- videos can be used for both accuracy and fluency type of
exercises

Watching 3-5 minutes, then:
- students asking each other questions-open and closed
- the teacher asking the students questions-open and closed
- the teacher saying sentences about the video which are not
true, the students have to correct him/her
- the students have to say true/ untrue sentences about the
video
- the teacher starts a sentence about the video, the students
have to complete the sentence giving true or untrue information.
- students might be asked to continue the story- they can
write the continuation down, or say it directly, depending on their
level

- depending on the students' level and speaking skills the
teacher can direct the activities- for example students will ask
questions only with Do they haveâ¦?, or Are thereâ¦? Or say sentences
with There areâ¦., in this way " Production" speaking exercises with
a video can be used teach a specific grammar structure. Don't forget
that interrogative mood is more difficult for your students, so for
the beginning ask them to say questions starting with the same
structure.

If you are tired, you can let your students note down things about
the video while watching it for 6-7 minutes, and then tell you what
they have just seen.

"Stop and go "exercises- these can be used in an extremely intensive
way to teach speaking. The exercises can be the same as at point 1,
but the teacher uses "frozen" pictures. In a 3-4 minute video, we
can find at least 50-60 suggestive images that can
be "authentically" used to provoke speaking.
We can stop the video repeatedly in the middle of a sentence,
students can be asked to continue it somehow.
We can ask students to predict what is going to happen in the next
moments- present tenses can be used too, not only future, so the
lack of appropriate grammar usage is not a problem.

Using DVDs with English subtitles
These can be used mostly with pre-intermediate and upper students.
The students can watch a 4-6 minutes video, with subtitles, then
- teacher can stop the DVD time by time, and analyze the
sentence that you heard and which can be seen on the screen). As we
discussed a our training, a sentence like "She hasn't discussed it
with her mother yet." can be analyzed according to the four language
systems and we can teach grammar vocabulary, functions or phonology
by it- in this case grammar especially. At lower levels it is
preferable to teach just vocabulary or one type of grammar
structure, at intermediate and higher levels students might like the
mixture of learning different systems and skills.
- students can play the role of the teacher, they can use the
remote control and instruct other students what to do (clever
children love these kind of situations), or "to teach" structures

Watching a "mute" video
- students can comment what they see in the pictures
- students can try to say what the characters say in the
pictures

Listening to the video, without watching
- students can imagine what is shown on the screen wile
listening to a commentary or people speaking on the video

Videos to introduce a topic
This often needs preparation, and a wider range of videos available
so that it can be of real help. Used well, it can be an
excellent "starting point" for a class- for conversational classes
especially.

These are a few ideas about using video at class- for a creative
teacher these activities don't need too much preparation. Don't
forget to make a difference between accuracy and fluency exercises,
and DON"T CORRECT your students while they try to express
themselves. Video lessons like the ones from the REWARD interactive
CDs accompanied by Video Resource Pack for teachers can help you
create even more professional classes

strike and stroke

New2grammar — Tue, 27 May 2008 04:20:52 GMT

patted - struck repeatedly and gently with an open hand to show affection

What's the difference between "stroked" and "struck" or in the present tense "stroke" and "strike"?

I reached across the counter and stroked/struck her hair.

Thank you.

Re: a Few grammar questions

CalifJim — Sat, 17 May 2008 00:12:40 GMT

Anonymous
Explain why the verb âTo Beâ is not a non-progressive verb?

It can be used in progressive tenses -- although this is not common. (The baby is being difficult this morning.)

Anonymous
I know the simple present never talks about the present ...

You have false knowledge. I wonder what makes you think this.

Anonymous
Why does the present tense not exist in English?

Again, you are mistaken. The present tense exists in English. Where are you getting all these crazy ideas?

Anonymous
What are perpendicular and parallel actions?

I've never heard of this distinction.

Anonymous
What is the difference between the Present Perfect and the Present Perfect Progressive?

Present Perfect is formed with the auxiliary have and the past participle of some verb: have seen, has done, have lived. Present Perfect Progressive is formed with the auxiliaries have and been and the present participle of some verb: have been seeing, has been doing, has been living.

a Few grammar questions

Anonymous — Fri, 16 May 2008 23:47:12 GMT

Hi everyone,

I have a few grammar questions and I don't know how to answer them:

Explain why the verb âTo Beâ is not a non-progressive verb?

I know the simple present never talks about the present but what can be an exception to this rule?

Why does the present tense not exist in English?

What are perpendicular and parallel actions?

and

What is the difference between the Present Perfect and the Present Perfect Progressive?

Thank you in advance if you take the time to help me :)

Re: I thought

CalifJim — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:12:17 GMT

New2grammar
What's the difference between "I thought I knew" and " I thought I know"?

I was told that the verb following "I thought" must be past tense.

Kooyeen has the answer:

you need to use the past tense after verbs like thought, didn't think, felt, knew, etc. Verbs like those seem to force a backshift in tense because they are more related to your "feelings" at a certain moment in the past than the "information" you had or got

Memorize:

I thought I knew / I thought I had to / I thought I was / I thought they were / I thought I could / I thought they would / ...

I knew I had to / I knew I was / I knew they were / I knew I could / I knew they would / I knew they wanted / ...

I felt I knew / I felt I had to / I felt I was / I felt they were / I felt I could / I felt he would / ...

I hoped I was / I hoped they were / I hoped I could / I hoped I didn't have to ...

I believed I knew / I believed I could / I believed they were / I believed I was / ...

I didn't think ... / I didn't know ... / ... / Did you know ...? / Did you feel ...? / ... (same for negations and questions)

Adding that doesn't change the basic principle here: I thought that I knew ...

_____________

And don't attempt to use present tense after thought, knew, felt, hoped, or believed -- and you'll be fine. You'll sound just like a native speaker.

But put a present tense there (I knew they are / I thought I am / I hoped I can / ...), and you'll expose yourself immediately as a non-native!!!

P.S. If you make a distinct pause in speech to indicate a direct quote, these principles do not apply:

I thought, "I know how to do that. Why are they saying I don't?"

I thought [ short pause ] I know how to ...

You absolutely cannot use the complementizer that in this case:

*I thought [ short pause ] that I know how to ... (NO!)

Re: When vs after

khoff — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:04:48 GMT

New2grammar

You wouldn't say, I took a cab home when I walked in the park. Please let me know what you think.

But you would say "When I finish walking in the park (as a general rule), I take a cab home."

"When you cook unripe plantains, they taste like burned mush."

All the italicized verbs are in the present tense.

"When you do such and such, this is the result" is the normal pattern for general observations. If you use "after," it seems to me that your are stressing the difference between before cooking and after cooking. It wouldn't be grammatically incorrect to say "After you cook the unripe plantains, they taste like burned mush," but if you said it to me I might ask "What do they taste like before you cook them?" (Probably even worse?)

If you really want to use "after," you could say "After being cooked, unripe plantains taste like burned mush." (But you could also just say "When cooked, .........)

Re: Difference between Say and Said

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:41:04 GMT

Hi Sir,

Thank you so much for your taking time to help me and may God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, bless you greatly..

Sir, what is the proper verb to be use here? Why is it that even if it did happen in the past (the conversation, I mean) I can read a lot of them using the present tense "say" Like: Tom says that.....yesterday. Why says not said?

Re: Difference between I have sent and I am sent

Mister Micawber — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:31:11 GMT

I have sent is present tense, perfect aspect, active voice: I have sent three letters to my boss in the last three days.

I am sent is present tense, simple aspect, passive voice: I am sent on errands by my boss every day. I am sent letters by beautiful girls very day.

Re: Which Tense is Correct?

Hoa Thai — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:14:50 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
I see, so there is not much difference between these two cases. Therefore, I can use either case anyway, in terms of verb-tense usage. Is my understanding correct?

Hi,
Not much in the context of the original post. However, as I stated in my previous post, 'will' means 'sometime in the future'. If we want to state fact, which is true at all time, we use the present tense. Note that we can also use 'will' for prediction as in "It wll rain tomorrow." And if we attach 'be' to 'will', we send a message of firm decision as in "I will be there."

Re: Which Tense is Correct?

Hoa Thai — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 07:13:53 GMT

Gori wrote:
Are these sentences both grammatically correct? If they are both grammatically correct, what's the difference in meanings?

Case A:
If the fuel is not full, the engine will stop./If the fuel is full, the engine will not stop.

Case B:
If the fuel is not full, the engine stops./If the fuel is full, the engine does not stop.

Hi,

Grammatically, all four sentences are fine.
Semantically, all of them have two common logical problems. The first one is: full is associated with a container not the fuel itself. Assuming that you mean a fuel tank not the fuel itself, we still have one more logical problem: for a fuel tank, not full does not mean empty. All four statements convey an illogical message. As soon as I read them, I feel like the engine would stop right after its start since partially full is not full.

That said, let's change your sentences as follows:

Case A:
If the fuel tank is empty, the engine will stop./If the fuel tank is not empty, the engine will not stop.

Case B:
If the fuel tank is empty, the engine stops./If the fuel tank is not empty, the engine does not stop.

In terms of verb-tense usage, there is no much difference between the usage of the 'present tense' and 'will' except part B states fact, while part A talks about eventuality (i.e., sometime in the future). Since there is not much difference between the two cases, let's see if there is any differences in the meaning between the two sentences in either case. Take B as an example; the first sentence is natural. That is how normal people think. The second sentence sounds odd, because it sends a message that the engines keeps running as long as the the tank is not empty! It triggers many more questions such as: "What would / will happen if we cut the electrical power? "

Anyway, I think my interpretation is debatable in terms of engine mechanics. However, I hope it makes sense to you.