ations, which were made by us, can be divided into 2 types; informative (as a rule, they wear culturological character, for example «Place where I live - place that I love») and educational which introduce grammatical structures (presentations on Sequence of Tenses, Subjunctive Mood) .we tried to generalize our experience of making of presentations. During our research we faced some challenges which weren t connected directly the process of teaching, but influenced on it indirectly. They touch organizational, technical and supporting sides of the process of teaching English.
· firstly, all presentations should be united by the same communicative situation;
· they should take into account the same level of difficulty (equal tasks);
· presentations should include and texts, and pictures;
· the background should be the same for all slides and wear «calm» character;
· characters and objects, which are used in the presentations, should belong to the same style;
· all presentations should include effects of the same type;
· each presentation should have rather simple navigation and be easy to use;
· replacement of slides should be done by click;
· amount of slides in «grammatical» presentation shouldn t be more than 10.the final stage of the project, we asked pupil to make their own project on theme «Ecology». In general, we were very pleased with the results: many pupils spoke English freely even without notes. Most pupils went beyond discussing the mere content of their chosen themes, and even brought in supplemental materials.pupils, of course, were less inventive, but even these presentations were engaging and well-prepared; in addition, each student wrote new vocabulary items of importance on the board and explained them to the class, thus ensuring the other pupils comprehension of his report.suppose that such wonderful results were reached because in the beginning of the experiment we understood that it was necessary to involve all pupils, giving each of them those tasks which met a demand of their level of knowledge.of our research proved that when we re speaking about drawing attention and interest to learning English, we can t just rely on the content of studied material. If pupils are not interested in the process of learning, even the most factful material just brings only contemplative interest to the process of learning and it wouldn t be effective.the end of our experiment, we conducted repeat polls and conversations with the pupils of control and experimental group in order to see or not to see effectiveness of our work. Let us to remember that we had 2 main goals during our research: to raise motivation of pupils and to raise efficiency of pupils knowledge. Results are given in diagrams 3, 4 and 5:
3 Motivation of learning English (control group 8)
Diagram 4 Motivation of learning English (experimental group)
we can see, in the control group the level of motivation stayed the same. We predict such result since the period of experiment was only 5 weeks and its rather difficult to speak about any changes without involving something new. But on the other hand 5 weeks were enough for noticing great results in an experimental group. They are shown in the diagram 5 below
Diagram 5 Changes in motivation of learning English (experimental group)
The most important achievement is that after our project all pupils attend English lessons, although in the beginning of our experiment there were 2 pupils who missed lessons systematically. It proves efficiency of our work and shows that non-traditional methods, especially when they are connected with modern computer technologies are able to draw attention of even those, who werent interested in the process of learning at all.now let us to address to results of effectiveness of teaching.was estimated by us according to 3 indicators: linguistic competence, activity in communication process and during the whole lesson and preparedness with home task.experiment, we analyzed the work of pupils according to these indicators again. Results are shown in the table 3 and table 4
Table 3. Control group
Levels/RatesHighAverageLowLinguistic competence0 (0%) 5 (42%) 7 (58%) Activity1 (6%) 5 (42%) 6 (50%) Preparedness0 (0%) 5 (42% ) 7 (58%)
Table 4. Experimental group
Levels/RatesHighAverageLowLinguistic competence1 (7%) 8 (53%) 6 (40%) Activity4 (27%) 7 (46%) 4 (27%) Preparedness7 (46%) 6 (40% ) 2 (14%), as we can see, the only change in the control group is that one of the pupils who had high level of activity moved to average...
