Tesol Report

Introduction The purpose of this report is to successfully construct and justify a lesson plan tailored to a particular ACS (Academic Communication Skills) student. To do this effectively, I will first analyse a needs analysis, it will be analysed in two ways. Firstly, what the ACS student identifies as their conscious wants from their English language learning will be specified and considered. Secondly, an analysis of their spoken and written English will be conducted to bridge the learning gap and ascertain what the learner needs with regards to their speaking and written abilities. Upon identifying the student's learning needs, I will then create a 90 minute lesson plan which addresses part of their needs. To justify this lesson plan, English language learning materials and techniques will be carefully evaluated. For the purpose of this assignment I will anonymise the ACS student and refer to her as 'Jade'.

Needs Analysis Jade's needs analysis was conducted through an interview and through a piece of her writing. The needs analysis questions were devised by the researcher, which aided in the discovery and classification of Jade's personal goals, wants and needs. As the researcher constructed the needs analysis, it allowed room for specificity and precision regarding what information was desired. Nunan (1988) classifies this type of needs analysis data to be objective, as the needs are diagnosed by the teacher in a response to the student's data of their personal aims and goals. The interview exemplified that Jade's learning goals are to improve: her communication skills, speaking skills, and writing skills. Jade identifies that she needs to improve her EAP (English for Academic Purposes) and her writing skills need to be developed also, in order to strengthen her EAP. EAP is a growing branch of English language teaching, and it focuses primarily on the skills a student will need on a course of study (typically higher education). Jade finds the referencing system which accompanies academic assignments difficult and wishes to improve this; this is a clear example of an element which features in EAP. Furthermore, Jade wishes to increase her ability to form an opinion and use English for different purposes i.e. to argue, to persuade. As she wants to improve her pronunciation and speaking skills, she finds the speaking and pronunciation focus of lessons in York St John much more productive and suited her needs. Jade finds grammar difficult and tedious, which can lead to learning motivation issues in the classroom. After interviewing Jade, it was clear that her communication skills and speaking skills were of a relatively high level. However, some questions which were asked in the needs analysis proved difficult for Jade to understand, and she occasionally answered these questions with an answer which was not related to the question asked, e.g. Q: Has your opinion of English changed since you moved to England?' A: 'Yes, I have more communication with the local people', indicating there was some sort of communication breakdown and she misunderstood the question asked. Upon analysing her writing piece, it was clear that Jade does possess an extensive word bank and a good understanding of basic grammar. She displayed occasions of using low frequency lexis correctly, and on a whole she selected the correct lexis for her intended meaning. A primary source of confusion which occurred continuously through Jade's writing was the confusion of recognising when nouns are required in their plural form or their single form. The plural and single forms of verbs also proved to be a source of difficulty for Jade as she often mistakenly inserts an 's' at the end of verb forms which do not require it. Sometimes, these verb forms require a different suffix as Jade has confused the tense forms within her writing piece. In terms of writing academically, Jade is successful in structuring her writing piece and understands the concept of paragraphing and structures her argument well by identifying both positives and negatives. This implies she has a good basic knowledge of academic English which can be improved upon. Lesson Plan Stage name & Timing Stage Aim Interaction (T-S, S-S) Procedure CONTEXT 0-5

T-S Set a context of the topic and activate schemata Introduce lesson topic of smoking and smoking bans.

Ask Ss to discuss in pairs: . Do you smoke or live with someone who does? . Do you agree with smoking ban in public places in UK? . Are there smoking bans in Vietnam?

Ask students to feedback opinions and encourage speaking. Complete task feedback and language feedback.

Ss practice speaking skills

PRESENTATION 5-15 Present lesson focus Present to students statements used for an argument and ask them to identify where in academic writing (writing to argue) they would be used. Elicit answers.

PRACTICE 15-20 Practice listening skills - listening for gist Set up listening task. First, ask students to just watch and listen to the Smoking Ban YouTube video. Ask in pairs to discuss what the report what about. Elicit feedback from gist listening task.

20-25 Practice listening skills listening for specific information Ask students to watch again. This time provide a comprehension activity so they listen for specific information. Pair check. Allow students to listen again if necessary. Ask students for answers and provide task feedback.

PRACTICE 25-30 Practice academic skills Provide the transcri ption for smoking ban video. Ask students to work in pairs and find examples of when statements used to introduce an argument are used. Elicit answers and provide feedback.

30-40 Ss can practice writing to argue As a class, generate a word bank of how to write to argue. This can include: connectives, how to introduce an explanation and how to present an idea differently. Generate this word bank into a hand-out for students' next lesson.

PRODUCTION 40-65 Ss can practice target language in topic focus. Improves EAP by practicing structuring an argument.

Set up task. Split class into two by numbering them 1 or 2 to mix students around. Tell students they will conduct in a debate. The two debate teams are: . Smoking should be banned in all public places . Smoking bans should be decided by the owner OR not banned at all. Explain to the students that they will have prep time, to come up with well-structured points. Debate will be settled on a point structure, for each debate point, the team receives a point

65-80 Hold debate. Encourage teams to produce counter points and questions to the other team when a point is made. Encourage the use of points used for how to write an argument and use word bank

Identify the winner of the debate. Provide praise and feedback for the task i.e. any words/phrases which need revising as a group and any words/phrases which were particularly good.

FEEDBACK 80-90 Give feedback on task and overall language use. Feedback on whole lesson to provide praise and areas of improvement. Re-iterate lesson aims.

Theoretical Justification Theoretical justification of lesson content and procedure Context: The lesson context is based on the topic of the smoking ban with primary concern weighted towards the logistics of the smoking ban. By asking the students to compare the smoking ban which has been implemented in England, with the smoking legislation of their native country, it encourages cultural comparisons and considerations to be made. Using pair work for this task results in student-student interaction which helps students to practice their communication skills. By interacting in pairs, both the skills of listening and speaking are employed. This directly corresponds with Jade's needs analysis, and addresses her wish to practice her communication skills and speak more English. By then opening speaking floor and asking the students to feedback their opinions, it further increases the opportunity to speak and during class discussions, the communication of the students is improved as it is not just speaking and listening, but as Savignon stated: 'the expression, interpretation and negotiation of meaning' (1991). Presentation: By beginning the lesson presentation with an opportunity to elicit the answers from students, it potentially limits the teacher-student interaction and increases the opportunity for student-teacher interaction. By providing examples of writing to argue language, and using the board to display these examples, perhaps with additional input from students, it means that the students are being provided the target language for the lesson. By providing the language focus and interacting with the students they are more likely to increase their understanding, as stated by Scrivener: [.] you know more of the target language and that by listening to you, the learner is somehow absorbing a correct picture of the language; that by interacting with you, the learner is learning to interact with a competent user of the language; [that] this is far more useful than talking to a poor learner. (2011, p59) The provision of a language focus with the use of board work is important as it involves other methods of learning. Researchers in the field of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) have classified that humans vary and tend to have various sensory preferences (Bandler, Grinder & Andreas 1982). Some learners are audio learners (hearing), some are visual (seeing), and some are kinaesthetic (moving). It is important when planning a lesson, to consider all aspects of the senses and refer to a mixture of sensory activities to suit the lesson to all learners. By asking the students to then identify where the target language would be used in pairs, it encourages communication and implication of the target language. Through task feedback the teacher can then check the answers to give an outline for the level of understanding and competency. Practice: The practice phase begins with a listening practice. The students are required to listen to a YouTube video discussing the topic of the smoking ban. This employs the context of the lesson and as this class is an intermediate level, the source of the listening material is a legitimate report which is intended for an audience which also includes native English speakers. This subjects the learners to an authentic report, and therefore prepares the students for the prosodic features of speech which will be present in everyday language. To begin with, the students are only required to listen. They will then be asked after the report to work in pairs and discuss what the report was about, feedback will be elicited back to the teacher after this. The use of pair checking throughout the lesson is highly beneficial as displayed by key developments in issues regarding corrective feedback. It is stated in Benati (2013) that classroom research has indicated that 'more interactional modifications and negotiation take place paired group activities' (p55) than in interactions between the student and teacher. In Benati's Issues in Second Language Teaching, negotiation is defined by Lee (2000) as 'interactions during which speakers come to terms, reach agreements, make arrangements, solve a problem or settle an issue by conferring or discussing.' (p55). By negotiating ideas in pairs, the communication skill of the students' increases and being able to form and express an opinion improves, which is a part of the criteria for EAP. Listening activities use a series of mental processes and application of prior knowledge to interpret what is heard. Wolvin and Coakley (1985) classify listening as an active skill and declare that listeners must be active partakers when participating in listening activities. By using a gist listening task followed by a task which requires listening for specific information, it requires the use of various listening skills of the learners and therefore, increases their listening skills which will be simulate the skills required in real life. As highlighted by Wenden (1998), by requiring students to use a range of listening strategies, they will become more successful in developing listening comprehension skills. In the next practice phase of the lesson, students are required to practice their reading skills. The students are provided the transcri ption of the report and asked to identify the academic language, in particular that used in writing to argue, which was covered previously in the lesson. By setting this task, it requires learners to read for a specific purpose and encourages them to integrate the transcri ption with their own knowledge from the previous part of the lesson. By contextualising the language forms being explored in the lesson, the learners' thinking and reasoning is being tested and applied. Once the answers of the task have been pair checked, feedback can be provided. The students are then required to work as a class in a group discussion to generate a word bank of phrases and words they would use in an academic assignment when writing to argue. This can be broken up in to connectives, ways to present an idea differently and how to introduce an explanation or evidence. By doing this as a class, the teacher is not lecturing at the front of the class but instead is engaging the students and encouraging them to be active learners. This activity is useful to then be able to provide students with the finalised word bank as it can be used a revision aid when writing academically. Production: The production phase of the lesson is when the EAP need is heavily addressed. The process of being able to structure an argument and counterargument is one which is often needed in academic writing. By using a debate task, the students are able to plan their argument and counterargument in groups which employs the skill of drafting and negotiating. They are then required to argue one of two opinions: that smoking should be banned in all public places or that smoking bans should be decided by the property owner (or not banned at all). By focusing the debate on a contemporary issue in the UK, it increases the learner's cultural awareness and knowledge. The actual debate itself practices speaking skills of each student and by awarding points and encouraging healthy competition; the motivation of the students may be increased. Benati states that 'language instructors should develop a task that is essentially goal-orientated and that requires the group or pair to achieve an objective' (p68). Benati also suggests that language instructors should keep students speaking using the target language and that learners should be able to communicate so that negotiation for meaning is involved in the speaking tasks. Feedback: Feedback on the whole of the lesson allows the instructor to praise students which positively reinforces behaviour, it also allows the tutor to indicate group issues which may regard pronunciation and can therefore provide an opportunity for choral drilling. Although choral drilling of particularly difficult lexis at the end of the lesson can be helpful to students, it implicitly implies that there is a 'standard' of English which should be spoken. However, the changing nature of the TESOL field indicates an increased understanding of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and Elder and Davies (2006) state that 'ELF may be regarded not as a use of Standard English but as a code in its own right. Similarities to varieties of World Englishes such as Singapore English, Indian English are noted', this highlights the changes in ESL and shows that non-native varieties are becoming more widely accepted. This is imperative to consider when constructing a lesson plan and providing pronunciation feedback; and feedback should be moulded to suit the learners. By using peer feedback throughout the lesson, the awareness of students' own writing and speaking skills is heightened as they are asked to consider the writing and speaking skills of their classmates. Rollinson (2005) identifies the features of collaboration and communication in peer feedback: 'peer feedback, with its potentially high level of response and interaction between reader and writer can encourage collaborative dialogue.' (p25). By using peer feedback, a range of socio-cognitive interactions take place such as: arguing, clarifying, justifying and explaining. Villamil and de Guerrero identified this as 'a myriad of communicative behaviors.' (1996, p69) Conclusion The aim of this report was to identify criteria for improvement in an ACS student dependant on a needs analysis of what they want and an analysis of their written and spoken language in accordance to this. Upon identifying this criterion, the report objective was then to construct a 90 minute lesson plan and justify this with theoretical validation. I believe that I have successfully analysed a needs analysis alongside the student's written and spoken language and used this effectively to design a lesson plan which meets these needs. I have backed up my lesson plan with EFL publications in two ways: firstly, I justified the layout of my lesson plan and the model I selected. Secondly, I then justified my procedure and lesson context in relation to EFL reports and studies, and what the student has identified as room for development in their needs analysis. Although I understand that I recognised various features in Jade's writing which need addressing, for example, the misplacement of 's' and suffixes confusion, this criteria is too broad to address in one lesson. I believe that this will be inexplicitly altered and corrected through increased practice of English use and communication. Although the lesson plan did not contain any areas of specific pronunciation practice, it is a skill which will be revised and practiced throughout lesson communication, as Kenworthy stated (1987) 'it is impossible to restrict pronunciation work to particular lessons'. Throughout this report, I have considered the changing nature of TESOL and have practiced sensitivity towards non-native speakers and acquiring English as a foreign language.