5:20:20:5 EFFICIENCY


  • Shengmei Chang Defense Language Institute, Monterey, California, United States of America
  • Nan Zhu Defense Language Institute, Monterey, California, United States of America




Language Teaching, Teaching Efficiency, Students Attention, Technology Intergration


Some researchers claim that the typical student's attention span is about 10 to 15 minutes, but most classes last 50 to 90 minutes. In addition, some educators argue that technology can distract students more than it can help them, which makes it harder for teachers to capture student’s attention while teaching them. How a language teacher captures students’ attention and efficiently utilizes the entire 50 minutes is a challenge. The goals of this presentation are to demonstrate how to make the best use of the 50 minutes and to show how technology can be applied to get students engaged.The 50 minutes are divided into 4 phases: 5:20:20:5. The first 5 minutes aims to warm up students’ background knowledge or review related materials. The first 20 minutes focuses on leading students into the core materials for that learning period. The following 20 minutes centers on assessing what students have or have not learned in the previous 20 minutes. The last 5 minutes summarizes the core materials and clarifies any questions. Within each learning period, teachers can use visual and audio applications, such as Power Point slides, Kahoot games, SMART Board and Linoit.com activities, to keep students interested and motivated and make both teaching and learning fun.


Anderson-Inman, L. & Horney, M.A. (1998). Tranforming Text for at-risk Readers. Handbook of Technology and Literacy. NJ, Erlbaum.

Bitter, G.G. & Legacy, J.M. (2008). Using Technology in the Classroom (7th ed). Boston: Pearson Publishers.

Boller, Sharon. (2012). Bottom-line Performance. Retrieved from http://www.bottomlineperformance.com/game-based-learning/#_edn2

Chung, Chih-Chao, Hsu, Yen-Chih, Ron-Chuen Yeh & Shi-Jer Lou. (2017). The Influence of Board Game on Mathematical Spatial Ability of Grade 9 Students in Junior High School. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, Special Issue Volume 3 Issue 1, pp. 120 – 143, 21st January, 2017 https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.31.120143

Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and Education. MacMillan, New York.

Fleming, N.D. & Mills, C. (1992). Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11, 137-155. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.1992.tb00213.x

Hale Hale, G.A. & Lewis, M. (Eds.) (1979). Attention and Cognitive Development. New York: Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2985-5

James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Henry Holt and Company, vol 1.

Khine, M.S. & Fisher, D. (2003). Technology-Rich Learnig Environments. A Future Perspective. New Jersey: World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/5325

Shanahan, K., Hermans, C., & Haytko, D. (2006). Overcoming Apathy and Classroom Disconnect in Marketing Courses: Employing Karaoke Jeopardy as a Content Retention Tool. Marketing Education Review, 16 (1), p.85-90 https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2006.11488944

Tan, Shuhui. (2016). Rearch on Cooperative Learning Based on“Flipped Classroom" Teaching Mode in Higher Vocational English Teaching. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, Vol 2, No 1 (2016), Special Issue. http://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2016.s21.370377

Trifonas, P.P. (2008). Worlds of Difference. Rethinking the Ethics of Global Education for the 21st Century. London: Paradign Publishers.

Willougby, T. & Wood, E. (2008). Children’s Learning in a Digital World. USA: Blackwell Publishing.




How to Cite

Chang, S., & Zhu, N. (2018). 5:20:20:5 EFFICIENCY. PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning, 2(2), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijtel.2018.22.1219