A Resource and Idea Book ( for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages )

This is a resource manual for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Those teachers who should find the manual most useful are Peace Corps EFL teachers in host country secondary schools. This manual is divided into two parts. The first part consists of seven chapters, the first six of which deal specifically with resources (teaching ideas, techniques and suggestions) for HOW to present, develop and reinforce Pronunciation, Grammar, Vocabulary, Reading, Writing and Conversation. There is an additional chapter on games as techniques for reviewing the language skills already taught. The second part of the manual, the appendices, contains information pertaining to the language itself. Each appendix presents information in one of the skill areas mentioned above. The appendices are arranged to follow the same sequence as the first six chapters. Therefore, the first two appendices contain linguistic information pertaining to pronunciation, the next six appendices contain information pertinent to the teaching of grammar, etc. The last five appendices are miscellaneous resources for the EFL teacher. For those EFL teachers who have the leeway to write/develop their own teaching materials, Appendix U contains an excellent article by Brenda Gates on the development of EFL materials that relate to students\u27 everyday lives and futures, with mini-lesson examples of how to make a dialogue on grain storage, for example, interesting rather than pedantic. The article demonstrates effectively how to make lessons reflect the concept of appropriate technology, and why it is important. Appendix V contains a list of the manuals and reprints currently available through Washington D.C. for those volunteers who went to develop lessons and classes focused on basic human needs

Variation in use of the 2-week referral pathway for suspected cancer: cross-sectional analysis

Background: A 2-Week Wait (2WW) referral pathway for earlier diagnosis of suspected cancer was introduced in England in 2000. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of patients with cancer are diagnosed by other routes (detection rate), only a small proportion of 2WW referrals have cancer (conversion rate) and there is considerable between-practice variation. Aim: This study examined use by practices of the 2WW referral in relation to all cancer diagnoses. Design and setting: A cross-sectional analysis of data extracted from the Cancer Waiting Times Database for all 2WW referrals in 2009 and for all patients receiving a first definitive treatment in the same year. Method: The age standardised referral ratio, conversion rate, and detection rate were calculated for all practices in England and the correlation coefficient for each pair of measures. The median detection rate was calculated for each decile of practices ranked by conversion rate and vice versa, performing nonparametric tests for trend in each case. Results: Data for 8049 practices, 865 494 referrals, and 224 984 cancers were analysed. There were significant correlations between referral ratio and conversion rate (inverse) and detection rate (direct). There was also a direct correlation between conversion and detection rates. There was a significant trend in conversion rate for deciles of detection rate, and vice versa, with a marked difference between the lowest and higher deciles. Conclusion: There is a consistent relationship between 2WW referral conversion rate and detection rate that can be interpreted as representing quality of clinical practice. The 2WW referral rate should not be a measure of quality of clinical care

Which patients are not included in the English Cancer Waiting Times monitoring dataset, 2009-2013? Implications for use of the data in research.

BACKGROUND: Cancer waiting time targets are routinely monitored in England, but the Cancer Waiting Times monitoring dataset (CWT) does not include all eligible patients, introducing scope for bias. METHODS: Data from adults diagnosed in England (2009-2013) with colorectal, lung, or ovarian cancer were linked from CWT to cancer registry, mortality, and Hospital Episode Statistics data. We present demographic characteristics and net survival for patients who were and were not included in CWT. RESULTS: A CWT record was found for 82% of colorectal, 76% of lung, and 77% of ovarian cancer patients. Patients not recorded in CWT were more likely to be in the youngest or oldest age groups, have more comorbidities, have been diagnosed through emergency presentation, have late or missing stage, and have much poorer survival. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers and policy-makers should be aware of the limitations in the completeness and representativeness of CWT, and draw conclusions with appropriate caution