Connections to Research and Theory
Planning with SIOP
Before presenting the lesson plan, or explaining the theoretical rationale for the approach taken, it should be explained that in planning the lesson the Sheltered Instruction Observational Protocol (SIOP) methodology was used. SIOP is the term for an “empirically validated model of sheltered instruction designed to make grade-level academic content understandable for English learners while at the same time developing their academic English language proficiency” (Echevarría, Vogt & Short, 2017, p. 19). To encourage the use of SIOP components and features, a SIOP inspired lesson template was used. This template was created and shared with me by a colleague of mine in School District #35 and can be found on the district’s website. Echevarría, Vogt and Short explain that “with careful planning, we make learning meaningful and relevant by including appropriate motivating materials and activities that foster real-life application of concepts studied” (2017, p. 28). Since SIOP’s components and features are based on effective practices for ELLs, this lesson planning approach is consistent with my personal philosophy of an eclectic approach to language teaching pedagogy.
Language Awareness
The development of language awareness is pivotal to the design of this lesson. Because it focuses on the prepositions that are not easily learned through natural acquisition, it is necessary to make students aware of these prepositions and how they are used. This lesson uses Borg’s (as cited in Svalberg, 2007) five features of language awareness methodology. First, it encourages the investigation of language when students are asked to look for errors in the use of these prepositions as well as when they categorize sentences according to which preposition is used. Secondly, analytical discussion of language takes places when students are asked to explain how they know something is an error and what similarities are noticed in how a preposition is used in the sentences of a given category. It should also be used during the game to explain the correct response in contrast with an incorrect one. Thirdly, discovery is involved when students are asked to induce a rule of use for each preposition given the example sentences. They are then guided to formulate rules that encompass all the examples provided. Fourth, the language learning skill categorizing is implicitly taught. Whereas the strategy of using mnemonics and a reference statement is explicitly taught as a strategy for remembering how to use these tricky prepositions in the future. Paraphrasing and summarizing are also taught, and a note can be made on how these skills can be useful in language learning. Finally, learners are engaged cognitively and affectively by making learning fun, personal, and engaging through games and cognitive tasks.
To further the development of language awareness, noticing activities are used. Svalberg (2007) explains that noticing is a combination of attention and awareness. Therefore, explicit learning is necessary since grammar cannot purely be learned through implicit learning since it does not involve awareness (Svalberg, 2007). To this end, noticing activities were developed for each day’s warm-up and consciousness-raising activities are used in the presentation segment. Svalberg cites Thornbury when explaining that consciousness-raising tasks “aim to focus learners’ attention on particular linguistic features and raise their awareness of how these features work” (2007, p. 292). Awareness is complimented with the use of form-focussed instructional strategies.
To further the development of language awareness, noticing activities are used. Svalberg (2007) explains that noticing is a combination of attention and awareness. Therefore, explicit learning is necessary since grammar cannot purely be learned through implicit learning since it does not involve awareness (Svalberg, 2007). To this end, noticing activities were developed for each day’s warm-up and consciousness-raising activities are used in the presentation segment. Svalberg cites Thornbury when explaining that consciousness-raising tasks “aim to focus learners’ attention on particular linguistic features and raise their awareness of how these features work” (2007, p. 292). Awareness is complimented with the use of form-focussed instructional strategies.
Form-focused Instruction
Form-focused instruction refers to teaching that focuses learners’ attention on language. Lyster argues that form-focused instruction is most effective when it is implemented into communicative contexts and when both proactive and reactive approaches are used (2007, p. 43). In the time prepositions lesson a proactive approach has been used by planning activities to help students both notice and produce the use of these time prepositions. The practice/application segment of the lesson provides pre-planned activities that necessitate learners to consciously produce the correct form of these prepositions. This section also requires the use of a reactive approach through corrective feedback for both written and oral production. The following strategies are consistent with form-focused instruction.
Corrective Feedback
The corrective feedback for learners’ oral output is encouraged through the use of repetition, elicitation, and metalinguistic feedback. These forms were chosen for their suitability to the activity as well as their encouragement for uptake of student responses that attempt to correct errors. Panova and Lyster (2002) found that these three types of feedback “are generally more successful at leading to immediate repair of learner errors and are able to prompt peer and self-repair” (2002, p. 591). These types of feedback are also desirable because Lyster and Ranta point out that these opportunities “promot[e] more active learner involvement in the error treatment process than do feedback types that reformulate learner errors” (Panova & Lyster, 2002, 577).
Corrective feedback for written output is done with both peer and teacher feedback. In an article that examines two different studies on the use of feedback through peer interaction, Sato and Ballinger (2012) reach the conclusion that peer feedback can augment language awareness. To expand on this, they explain that “language awareness in peer interaction leads to L2 development but for peer [corrective feedback] to be effective, a collaborative mindset is required” (Sato & Ballinger, 2012, p. 173). To encourage this mindset, students are asked to preface their corrective advice with positive feedback first. Secondly, the instructions for the process are to be written on the board for students to refer to and follow as a guided process. Finally, students are instructed to consult the teacher for any disputes about errors. This takes the aspect of authoritative knowledge away from their peers and makes the process more collaborative in finding the errors together.
The teacher will then provide indirect feedback on these same written sentences. This way if students have missed any issues with the use of the prepositions in relation to time when they worked collaboratively, they will have this brought to their attention later on. It is specified that the teacher is to use indirect feedback by highlighting any errors and requiring students to make the corrections themselves. This “forces the students to be more reflective and analytical about their errors than if they simply transcribed teacher corrections” (Ferris, 2011, p. 63). If students cannot make these corrections, then the teacher should provide direct feedback by telling students the correction but also providing metalinguistic feedback to explain the correction and promote more awareness of the correct use of the form. Highlighting student errors in not the only form of textual enhancement to take place in this lesson.
Textual Enhancement
Textual enhancement “involves highlighting certain features of input that might go unnoticed under normal circumstances by typographically manipulating them through boldfacing, italicizing, underlining, or capitalizing” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004, p. 134). This type of enhancement is provided by both the teacher and required of the students in each of the noticing activities as well as in the consciousness raising activity on day one. “The assumption is that such manipulations enhance the perceptual saliency of the target structures, and this, hence, increases their chance of being noticed” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004, p. 134). This feature is used as part of the focused tasks in the lesson.
Task-Based Instruction
An instructional task in language learning is when a “task is an activity which learners carry out using their available language resources and leading to a real outcome” (Richards and Renandya, 2002, p. 94). It usually gives a communication problem to solve and meaning is primary to the task. (Seyyedi & Ismail, 2012). However, Nassaji and Fotos (2004) explain that focused tasks abide by the above definition, yet they are also based on target structures and are meant to focus a learners’ attention on this structure thus promoting language awareness. In the prepositions lesson, tasks like inducing rules, playing a game, and composing sentences based on their own timelines are all focused tasks or more specifically “consciousness-raising tasks [that] require learners to communicate with each other about target grammar structures” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004, p. 135). There are also tasks in which learners are required to use and apply learning strategies.
Corrective Feedback
The corrective feedback for learners’ oral output is encouraged through the use of repetition, elicitation, and metalinguistic feedback. These forms were chosen for their suitability to the activity as well as their encouragement for uptake of student responses that attempt to correct errors. Panova and Lyster (2002) found that these three types of feedback “are generally more successful at leading to immediate repair of learner errors and are able to prompt peer and self-repair” (2002, p. 591). These types of feedback are also desirable because Lyster and Ranta point out that these opportunities “promot[e] more active learner involvement in the error treatment process than do feedback types that reformulate learner errors” (Panova & Lyster, 2002, 577).
Corrective feedback for written output is done with both peer and teacher feedback. In an article that examines two different studies on the use of feedback through peer interaction, Sato and Ballinger (2012) reach the conclusion that peer feedback can augment language awareness. To expand on this, they explain that “language awareness in peer interaction leads to L2 development but for peer [corrective feedback] to be effective, a collaborative mindset is required” (Sato & Ballinger, 2012, p. 173). To encourage this mindset, students are asked to preface their corrective advice with positive feedback first. Secondly, the instructions for the process are to be written on the board for students to refer to and follow as a guided process. Finally, students are instructed to consult the teacher for any disputes about errors. This takes the aspect of authoritative knowledge away from their peers and makes the process more collaborative in finding the errors together.
The teacher will then provide indirect feedback on these same written sentences. This way if students have missed any issues with the use of the prepositions in relation to time when they worked collaboratively, they will have this brought to their attention later on. It is specified that the teacher is to use indirect feedback by highlighting any errors and requiring students to make the corrections themselves. This “forces the students to be more reflective and analytical about their errors than if they simply transcribed teacher corrections” (Ferris, 2011, p. 63). If students cannot make these corrections, then the teacher should provide direct feedback by telling students the correction but also providing metalinguistic feedback to explain the correction and promote more awareness of the correct use of the form. Highlighting student errors in not the only form of textual enhancement to take place in this lesson.
Textual Enhancement
Textual enhancement “involves highlighting certain features of input that might go unnoticed under normal circumstances by typographically manipulating them through boldfacing, italicizing, underlining, or capitalizing” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004, p. 134). This type of enhancement is provided by both the teacher and required of the students in each of the noticing activities as well as in the consciousness raising activity on day one. “The assumption is that such manipulations enhance the perceptual saliency of the target structures, and this, hence, increases their chance of being noticed” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004, p. 134). This feature is used as part of the focused tasks in the lesson.
Task-Based Instruction
An instructional task in language learning is when a “task is an activity which learners carry out using their available language resources and leading to a real outcome” (Richards and Renandya, 2002, p. 94). It usually gives a communication problem to solve and meaning is primary to the task. (Seyyedi & Ismail, 2012). However, Nassaji and Fotos (2004) explain that focused tasks abide by the above definition, yet they are also based on target structures and are meant to focus a learners’ attention on this structure thus promoting language awareness. In the prepositions lesson, tasks like inducing rules, playing a game, and composing sentences based on their own timelines are all focused tasks or more specifically “consciousness-raising tasks [that] require learners to communicate with each other about target grammar structures” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004, p. 135). There are also tasks in which learners are required to use and apply learning strategies.
Learning Strategy Instruction
“Learning strategies are procedures that facilitate a learning task” (Chamot, 2005, p. 112). In this lesson classifying is a learning strategy that is taught implicitly, and the visualizing strategy used in conjunction with memorizing personal reference statements is taught explicitly. This can be classified as a mnemonic strategy with helps learners memorize information in an orderly manner by linking new items to known items (Oxford, 2001). Students are explicitly taught and guided in using this mnemonic strategy and it is explained to them how it can be used in the future to help them remember the rules for the use of the time prepositions. Chamot (2005) calls for learning strategies to be taught explicitly to develop a student’s learning autonomy. Since many languages do not use prepositions in relation to time, students cannot refer to their L1. Therefore, another reference can be useful to them. There is growing evidence that learning strategy instruction can be valuable to many students (Oxford, 2001)
In Conclusion...
Teaching learning strategies and using components and features of SIOP methodology are robust elements of my professional pedagogy. Here they suit my fundamental aim of developing the language awareness of my students. Therefore, they were used with the language awareness methodology outlined earlier in this paper alongside other form-focused instructional strategies like corrective feedback, textual enhancement and focused tasks. Although I normally integrate my grammar instruction into a genre-based pedagogy, the topic of time prepositions called for isolated focus to help my students master a lower level standard for their productive language proficiency.