Фрилансеры предложат свои варианты уже через несколько минут!
Публикация заказа не займет много времени.

Challenges in teaching

4.5.2. Remplacement de l'unité de desserrage des freins

Cet équipement comprend les éléments suivants :
• Kit complet, y compris le kit avec roulements et joints d'étanchéité
• Instructions de maintenance

Kit de maintenance, roulements et joints d'étanchéité

Cet équipement comprend les
éléments suivants :
• Un kit contenant uniquement les roulements, les joints toriques et les joints d'étanchéité
• Instructions de maintenance

Jeu d'outils pour la maintenance

Outil d'extraction pour séparateur


Utilisé pour le démontage des roulements à rotules



Utilisé pour le démontage des roulements à rotules

Jeu d'outils standard

 Le contenu est défini dans la section Jeu d'outils standard
à la page 424dans la partie 2 du manuel du produit.

D'autres outils et procédures peuvent être nécessaires.
Reportez-vous aux références à ces procédures dans les instructions étape par étape ci-dessous.

Ces procédures indiquent les références aux outils nécessaires.

3.3.7. Проверка,  балансировка устройства

При осмотре устройства должно быть проверено несколько пунктов. В этом разделе описаны процедуры контроля:

• лишние шумы,
• повреждения,
• уплотнения,
• загрязнения и отсутствие свободного места.

Точки осмотра, балансировки устройства.

Устройства балансировки находятся на задней панели, в верхней части корпуса, как показано на рисунке ниже. Этот рисунок также показывает точки осмотра, которые подробно описаны в инструкции.

A. Устройство балансировки
B Поршневой шток (внутренний)
C Вентель, включая крепежные винты
D Лапка, подшипник и уплотнительные кольца
E Инструкция с указанием
F Общая проверка
G Подшипник, крепления устройства балансировки

Полный комплект обслуживания

Данное оборудование состоит из следующих элементов :
• Полный комплект, включая комплект с подшипниками и уплотнениями
• Инструкции по техническому обслуживанию

Комплект для обслуживания, подшипники и уплотнения

Данное оборудование включает в себя следующие элементы:
• Набор, содержащий только подшипники, уплотнительные кольца и уплотнения
• Инструкции по техническому обслуживанию.

Набор инструментов для обслуживания

Инструмент извлечения сепаратора


Используется для демонтажа подшипников с шаровыми шарнирами



Используется для демонтажа подшипников с шаровыми шарнирами

Стандартный набор инструментов

Содержание определено в разделе «Стандартный набор инструментов»
на странице 424,часть 2, руководство по эксплуатации.

Другие инструменты и процедуры также могут быть необходимы.
См. ссылки на пошаговые действия в инструкции ниже.

Эти процедуры указывают ссылки на необходимые инструменты.

Challenges in Teaching English to Young Learners: Global Perspectives and Local Realities
Aston University, Birmingham
Birmingham, England
 The literature on teaching English to young learners has identified a number of pressing challenges. One is that English is often introduced as a compulsory subject at primary school without due consideration of who will teach it. In some countries a severe shortage of trained primary school teachers of English is reported (G. Hu, 2005; Y. Hu, 2007; Nunan, 2003; Nur, 2003). Teachers may therefore find themselves teaching English either without adequate training in teaching young learners in general or in teaching English to young learners in particular. The situation is especially acute in poor or rural areas.
One of the most complex of the policy decisions affecting young learner classrooms concerns pedagogy. The spread of English as a lingua franca has given rise to the belief that learners need to acquire communication skills rather than knowledge about English. As a result, recent young learner curricula have emphasised communicative competence. In East Asia, this has often led to the introduction of some form of communicative language teaching (CLT) or task-based learning and teaching (TBLT), for example, in Korea (Ahn, 2011; Li, 1998; Mitchell & Lee, 2003), Hong Kong (Carless, 2004; Tinker Sachs, 2009), China (G. Hu, 2002), and Thailand (Prapaisit de Segovia & Hardison, 2008). However, teachers may find it challenging to introduce these new approaches for several reasons. As Enever and Moon (2009) point out, CLT is a pedagogical approach developed in Western countries to teach adults in small, well-equipped classrooms. It may not, therefore, be appropriate for teaching large groups of children in classrooms where resources are limited. Furthermore, as teachers may receive only basic training in the underpinning theory and practical applications, they may struggle to implement it effectively (Butler, 2005; Littlewood, 2007). The introduction of TBLT has been beset with similar problems (Carless, 2004; Littlewood, 2007). These imported approaches can conflict with educational traditions, or what Jin and Cortazzi (2003, p. 132) call “cultures of learning” (see, e.g., Baker, 2008; Littlewood, 2007). Linked to policies about pedagogy is the issue of resources. In some countries such as South Korea (Butler, 2004) and Malaysia (Pandian, 2003) textbooks are prescribed. In other countries, teachers can choose from government-approved books, for example, in Singapore (Mee, 2003) and in China (G. Hu, 2005). Given the global prevalence of early English learning, it is a matter of concern that in many countries appropriate books are either not available (Hoque, 2009; Y. Hu, 2007; Mathew & Pani, 2009) or are not used in the classroom (_ Inal, 2009; Nunan, 2003).
Other resources may also be unavailable in primary schools. In Li’s (1998) study South Korean teachers complained that there was insufficient funding for the equipment and facilities needed for learner-centred teaching, a point also made by _ Inal (2009) for Turkish teachers. While technology to support English teaching has clearly developed greatly in recent years, teachers have not always been able to access its benefits.
Another potential challenge for teachers concerns the level of English they require. Teachers’ low proficiency levels, or their lack of confidence in their ability, is consistently identified in the literature (see, e.g., Ahn, 2011; Ghatage, 2009; Kuchah, 2009; Littlewood, 2007). Many teachers believe that CLT demands particular classroom procedures, such as teaching in the target language, which causes anxiety and leads to teachers’ questioning their competence, particularly their speaking and listening skills (Kuchah, 2009). In many parts of the world, large classes are a common challenge (Ho, 2003; Shamim, 2012; Wedgwood, 2007), causing teachers to believe it is difficult or impossible to introduce learner-centred teaching because, for example, they cannot closely monitor students’ language use (Li, 1998) or introduce pairwork and groupwork (Hoque, 2009). A related issue is the problem of control and discipline (Butler, 2005; Littlewood, 2007); Carless (2004) argues that the noise produced during speaking activities can be problematic when the local preference is for quiet and orderly classrooms. It can also be difficult to motivate learners. In many EFL contexts, particularly in rural areas, children may struggle to understand the relevance of learning English as they have little contact with speakers of the language (Ho, 2003; Li, 1998).
Government policies and curricula that typically advocate teaching communicatively are often incompatible with the demands of national examinations (Li, 1998; Littlewood, 2007) which often focus on grammar and vocabulary. Commentators such as Kunnan (2005) have noted the tendency to “‘teach to the test’… with less time devoted to activities that are not part of the test” (p. 786). This backwash/washback effect may have more impact at secondary level (Gorsuch, 2000), although it has been identified at primary level too (e.g., _ Inal, 2009).
Having highlighted the key challenges identified in the literature, the research methodology and procedures of the current study are now presented.
A mixed-methods approach was adopted for the study (see, e.g., Richards, Ross, & Seedhouse, 2012). Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner (2007) argue that mixed-methods research “combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purpose of breadth and depth of  understanding and corroboration” (p. 123). In line with Morse (2010), a QUAN-qual design was adopted, where QUAN represents quantitative methods and comprises the core component, in this instance a survey. The qual component is the supplementary approach and comprises data from an open question on the survey filtered by country, and observations of and interviews with five teachers of young learners in five international locations.
The mixed-methods approach allows for a framework of reference that acknowledges both the global and the local. The survey provides global results across 142 countries and uncovers the major challenges in teaching young learners as reported by the 4,459 teachers who responded. The qualitative data illustrate the variation in challenges that can occur at the local level, which can be compared to the global. The cross-sectional survey drew on nonprobability “convenience” sampling.1 The survey was provided both electronically through Survey Monkey, and via hard copy to accommodate teachers who had limited or no access to the Internet (the data on the hard copy questionnaires were later transferred to electronic format). This approach allowed for large and geographically diverse samples of data to be collected in an efficient, economic, and standardised manner (de Vaus, 2002; Dornyei, 2009). € In relation to this study, the disadvantages of opportunistic sampling need to be recognised. The survey reflects reported practices only and cannot claim to be representative because of the unevenness of responses across countries. This type of sampling also does not provide a standard ratio of respondents to the number of employed primary school teachers in a country. However, increasingly, opportunistic sampling is acknowledged as common in studies of this kind (see, e.g., Williams, Burden, & Lanvers, 2002) as it is intended to fit the purpose of providing illustrative and nongeneralizable portrayals of respondents’ viewpoints (Reis & Judd, 2000).
Here, we focus on two sections of the survey. The first is a ranking question in which teachers were asked to order interventions which would “most improve learning and teaching” in their own context. This question aimed to uncover areas that teachers might consider problematic and therefore locally challenging. The content for the ranked items was taken from the literature discussed above and comprised the following: better access to resources such as books and materials (Hoque, 2009; Mathew & Pani, 2009), fewer tests and exams (Littlewood, 2007), better access to new technologies such as DVDs or computers (Ghatage, 2009), training in new language teaching methodologies (Ahn, 2011; Prapaisit de Segovia & Hardison, 2008), improvement in own level of English (Butler, 2004; Kuchah, 2009), smaller classes (Shamim, 2012; Wedgwood, 2007), starting English at an earlier age (Enever & Moon, 2009), and more hours of English (Pinter, 2006). The responses were then analysed descriptively using a Survey Monkey tool.
The second section of the survey data of interest is an open question which asked teachers, “Which aspect or aspects of your job do you find the most challenging?” This question attracted 1,931 responses. Given the large number, a corpus tool was considered the most appropriate for analysis. First, the responses were collated and then spelling mistakes corrected using Word 2010. Through repeatedly reading the data, frequently used key words were identified, such as discipline, motivation and grammar. Wordsmith was used to search for these key words and to create the preliminary categories. Further categories were created through searching the remaining data and identifying further key words. If more than one challenge was included in the response, each challenge identified was categorised separately. All items were considered, although this resulted in some categories with very small numbers (for example, both after school activities and appreciation only featured twice in each case).
The researchers carefully examined the res...