Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Laura Spence Comprehensive exams: Teaching Methodology Fall 2012 Defense of Lesson Plan The National Standards for

Foreign Language Learning highlight five components that are recognized as critical to the process of foreign language instruction and learning. They are categorized as the 5 Cs: Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons and Communities, each with sub-categories that further define their relevance in fortifying student competence and performance in the L2 (Canale 3). While it can be a challenge to effectively incorporate all five components into one lesson, it is possible to integrate each of these sub-disciplines in the same lesson in varying degrees. The lesson plan that I have provided seeks to combine all five of the aforementioned categories, with primary focus on communication and connections, and secondary and tertiary reinforcements of culture, comparisons and communities that have been intermingled throughout the 50-minute class period. As an introductory note, it is important to state that the activities found within this lesson have been created to initiate an active learning environment that exposes students to multiple forms of inputprimarily auditory, input modification, and embedded scaffolding techniques, respectively. Several of these methods have been outlined in various empirical Second Language Acquisition (SLA) studies, which will be analyzed in more detail below. It should be mentioned that Vivian Cooks presented concepts of internal and external learner goals were an integral part of the creation of this lesson plan. Her description of internal goals speak to the students mental progress with the

Spence

target language, and external goals, she claims, reflect the students capacity to use their L2 proficiencies outside of the classroom setting (Cook 55). The lesson begins with explicit statements from the instructor about the objectives of the day. Students receive an activity sheet (see C.1) and choose a partner, with whom they will work on various activities throughout the course of the class period. Partner work is used as a reciprocal learning tool, so that students may be able to expand their knowledge by using their partners strengths and critical understanding of the L2, which invariably differs from their own. The questions associated with the warm-up activity (C.1: Calentamiento) serve two primary purposes: firstly, they prolong their exposure of the previous days concepts and subsequently help students develop what Carol A. Chapelle identifies as cognitive interactionist second language acquisition, using verbal and auditory cues to support comprehensive linguistic development (102). The initial slides of the PowerPoint presentation (see A.1: 2.a-b and E.2) serve a similar purpose. Students use the visual guide (the map of Guatemala) and the questions provided to synthesize geographical elements of the country. On slide three (E.3), students actively use their knowledge of the linguistic system to complete the paragraph about Antigua on their activity sheet (C.1: 1.1). Slide four (E.4) provides them with immediate and timely feedback, giving them the opportunity to self-correct and ask questions to help clarify any weak points they might have with previously studied grammar structures. Slide 5 (E.5) helps them build cultural awareness using visual aids while strengthening their auditory skills (Lange 77). Slides six and seven (E.6-7) introduce the students first point of contact with the featured grammar points of the day: the subjunctive with verbs of will and influence. The

Spence

linguistic structure is presented with the inductive approach, which has been widely regarded as a much more active and effective learning method when compared to more archaic deductive methods. The grammatical structures get progressively more complex with the use of scaffolding techniques, which engage their established linguistic knowledge while steadily introducing new linguistic structures (as mentioned at the beginning of the lesson plan, the students have already been introduced to the subjunctive verb formations, but they are now seeing them in a new structural context). These new manifestations are clearly labeled and contrasted (see slide E.7) and the questions provided below help the students constructively analyze the new linguistic structures. A brief intermission is taken from the PowerPoint, where students listen to identify the use/lack of use of the subjunctive with sentences read by the instructor (see B.1: 1.2), working to hone their auditory skills with advanced input and lower-level output with their activity sheet (see C.1: 1.2). Both implicit and explicit guidelines of the Standards for Foreign Language Teaching state that comparisons between the L1 and the L2 should be primarily cultural, and translation between the students L1 and target language should be avoided. Contrary to this opinion, however, Jim Cummins states that these monolingual instructional doctrines lack empirical evidence that would support their claims. He argues that bilingual instructional strategies stimulate a two-way cross-language transfer (222), and that comparisons between languages should not systematically be categorized as simple translations, but as a social and intellectual resource (227) that encourages grammar comparison. This theory seems to support the concept of multicompetence, presented by Vivian Cook, which deals with the manner in which two languages relate in one mind

Spence

(48). With regard to these particular theories, Slide 10 (E.10) was created to help students compare and analyze the difference in characteristics between their presumed L1 (English) and the L2, in fulfillment of standard 3.2 and 4.1. The remaining twenty minutes of the class are dedicated to guided and independent practice with the introduced language concept. The second guided practice (A.2: 5.a and A.3: 5.b) is both a communicative and cognitive activity that helps the instructor asses student comprehension while giving students the framework to review and make adjustments to their understanding of key concepts that have been presented in the class. In contrast to the beginner level input task (C.1: 1.2), the second guided practice incorporates an intermediate level input activity that works to fulfill subcategory 1.2 of the communication standard, where students interpret written and spoken language on a variety of topics. In the second part of the activity, students take their learning a step further by modifying the sentences with subjunctive clauses. In doing so, they produce a low intermediate level output as they continue on to in the process of the mastery of the new concept. During this activity, the students receive immediate (if limited) feedback from the instructor, which puts them in a position where they must diagnose their own errors. If they are unable to find their mistakes, they have two immediate resources: the instructor, who can give them hints about the location of their errors, and other students in the class who are experimenting with the same concepts with varied levels of success. The additional resource of other students helps compensate for the 1:10 teacher to student ratio since they are completing pair work in a class of twenty students. Echevarra (2004) states that these output activities usually fall into one of two categories: process-oriented

Spence

or performance-oriented objectives, where students have a chance to analyze and experiment with grammar concepts before the move on to advanced competency (25). While this whiteboard activity is process-oriented, the next and final class activity is performance-oriented. For the final independent practice activity (A.3: 6.a), students will use reciprocal (pair work), embedded (created in advance) scaffolding techniques to expand their output abilities in the L2. It is important to add that Slide 10 (E.10) of the PowerPoint will remain on the screen during this activity, giving the students an additional resource as they attempt to create grammatical sentences using only functional and lexical cues (see B.2: 1-6). Students will circulate around the room, which caters to kinetic learners while helping students develop their sociolinguistic competence. It also creates situation dialogs, which satisfy standard 5.1 by imitating practical, real-world tasks that the learner might need to perform outside the classroom setting in a culture where the L2 is the primary language. With respect to the overall evolution of the target language abilities of the learner, Swain has reasoned for the use of comprehensible output, which she presents as an educational dynamic in which learners are faced with situations that they must first understand, then synthesize, and finally work to produce structured output (239). The functional, contextual clues serve as the first part in this series of comprehensible output, and then the students continue on with the lexical cues, which help them complete the process of synthesis and creating structured discourse in the language. It is also worth noting that their writing of these structures is important to this process, since they will not yet be at a level where they can substantiate meaningful, grammatical verbal discourse

Spence

with the new concepts. The assessment component of this new material will be presented to the student the next day, after they have had a chance to practice intermediate output level activities for homework (see F.1). The sentences they produce on their own time are automatically corrected by the software, providing them with immediate feedback; students see their errors highlighted and compared to the correct sentence structure. In his article Rethinking Examinations and Grades, Steven M. Cahn posits that examinations can often provide students with a more developed opportunity to actively learn than course activities can provide, stating that assessments in and of themselves can be worthwhile learning experiences (173-4). He goes on to state that grades and examinations serve primarily one purpose: to motivate students to study (178). This is the basis of the assessment that the students will have at the beginning of the next day (see G.1-2). For the first activity (G.1: 1.1, provided by VHL Central), the students hear a native speaker leave an answering machine message, and they need to respond to the questions provided. This activity helps them hone their auditory and sociolinguistic skills while they also synthesize material in situations with which they should be familiar and comfortable. The second activity (G.1: 1.2) is an information gap activity where they will use lexical cues to complete the sentences in a logical and grammatical manner. It will also expose them to a new level of subjunctive synthesis, where they need to analyze the structure of the sentence to then provide comprehensible output. As previously stated, the goal of this lesson plan is to fulfilladmittedly in varying degreeseach the 5 Cs that are associated with the Standards for Foreign Language Learning. The progression of the activities and gradual exposure to new concepts was created with the intention of steadily revealing foreign linguistic structures

Spence

to learners in a way that can be logically and effectively assimilated. Within the framework of this lesson, students are required to employ active learning techniques that include scaffolding and various input and controlled output techniques. By reading, listening, writing, and speaking, students are required to employ all of their faculties to advance their linguistic competence while simultaneously participating in activities that expose them to the various facets of intercultural proficiencies that are represented by these national standards.

Spence

Works Cited Cahn, S. M. Rethinking examinations and grades. A professors duties: ethical issues in college teaching. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 1994. 171-192. Canale, Michael. Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics 1 (1980): 1. Chapelle, Carol A. Technology and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 27 (2007): 98-114. Cook, Vivian. Basing teaching on the L2 user. E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-Native Language Teachers, Educational Linguistics 5 (2005): 4761. Cummins, Jim. Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10.2 (2007): 221-240. Echevarria, Jana, and MaryEllen Vogt. Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: the SIOP Model. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2004. Lange, Dale L. Culture As the Core: Perspectives On Culture In Second Language Learning. Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age Pub., 2003. Swain, M. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. Input in second language acquisition. Ed. S.M. Gass & C.G. Madden. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1985. 235-253.

Spence

Вам также может понравиться