ÍNDICE DE ARCHIVO CORRIENTE

Richards and Lockhart (1996) argue that teaching is essentially a thinking process, bearing in mind the number of decisions that teachers have to make whilst working in the classroom and confronted with a range of options. However, not all decisions have to be made whilst the lesson is taking place: many of those relating to pedagogic practice can be made in advance, and for the purpose of this research they, along with the more holistic aspects of classroom interaction, are termed the external features of a lesson. They (ibid) have identified three key areas of teacher decision making: planning (lesson goals, language and learning content, and materials), interactive and evaluative, but this last category takes place after the lesson, so has not been included.

Decisions to be made by a teacher about a lesson that have not been considered by Richards and Lockhart (ibid) have been defined in this research as relating to classroom management. Under this heading Cohen et al (2000) include aspects such as talk that students can understand, moving around and monitoring, disciplining students, optimum seating, communicating time limits, and anticipating problems. Although they do not discuss administrative tasks such as taking the register, from the data such activities do form a significant part of teacher decision-making, particularly during pedagogic lessons, so have been included in this context.

A Planning

The focus of this research is on model lessons, where the teacher is assumed to have taken part in some degree of forward planning: however, it is important to bear in mind that this may well be atypical of his/her normal pedagogic practice. Assuming that

151

a teacher has planned a lesson in advance, either model or pedagogic, there are several popular models relating to the way in which it should proceed, either at the macro or micro-level, or along a cline between the two. During initial TESOL teacher training, the emphasis is on solid planning of lessons (Bowers, 1987; Freeman and Richards, 1996; Harmer, 2007; Tanner and Green, 1998; Thornbury, 1997; Ur, 1996; Wallace, 1991), and generally the teacher is expected to adhere closely to this plan whilst in the classroom. Lesson plans usually contain some or all of the following: the aims, objectives and desired learning outcomes of a particular lesson, the way in which the tasks/activities will be carried out, the materials used, and the anticipated problems and interaction between students and teachers. Proponents in the field argue that there are many advantages to making such outcomes explicit, for example, Nunan (1988) claims that this helps the learners to understand where they are going, and how they are going to get there, making goals achievable. However, for practicing teachers working in busy schools and colleges, there is not always time to go through the lengthy preparation involved in formulating detailed lesson plans, and they may be downsized to form a series of activities. There are also teachers who work purely from a mental image of what will take place in the classroom, as well as those who address lessons in terms of individual learners.

Amongst several other authors, Gaston (2008) and Richards and Lockhart (1996) have defined the key factors of language lessons:

Openings: the teacher focuses the learners on the aims, and boundaries are clear. At this stage, for example during PPP lessons, the teacher reviews previous learning, and

152

establishes current goals, perhaps by means of a warmer activity. This could also cover administrative duties featuring in pedagogic lessons, such as taking the register.

Sequencing: assumes that the teacher has planned a series of linked activities in order to achieve a pre-defined goal. Richards and Lockhart (ibid) suggest that experienced teachers often have a mental format to cover such lessons, which is useful, but in reality it cannot cover all eventualities: principles for ordering and developing activities do not provide assistance when there is a computer malfunction, or the teacher discovers that they have an examination deadline to reach and a limited amount of time available. It might be fair to suggest that model lessons exhibit sequencing, but in pedagogic lessons this would seem to be far from a foregone conclusion.

Pacing: ‗the extent to which a lesson maintains its momentum and communicates a sense of development‘ (ibid:122), frequently considered to be a fundamental teaching skill. Received ELT wisdom suggests that pacing should be varied, activities should have time limits, avoid repetition, and student interest should be maintained at all times. This is, once again, a highly feasible scenario for a model lesson, but pedagogic lessons are often taught amidst constraints of examinations, equipment malfunctions and administrative tasks, and it is not always possible for the teacher to maintain a varied pace in order to pre-empt a loss of student interest.

Closure: the final part of the language lesson. Richards and Lockhart (ibid) refer to its importance in reinforcing the material that has been learned, integrating and reviewing lesson content, and preparing students for future learning, suggesting that teachers

153

develop strategies accordingly. Again, closure could be an achievable feature of a model lesson. However, a pedagogic lesson teacher, being less constrained by the presence of an observer and/or a lesson plan, is more likely to run out of time to carry out such an effective closure, so there is the possibility that it could be abandoned, or relocated in a following lesson.

A lesson format as defined above could be considered to be achievable and desirable when teaching a model lesson. Thus the observer can follow the different stages with minimal difficulty, experiencing a clear outcome, whether or not it is the one that the teacher being observed originally anticipated. However, pedagogic lessons also form part of this research, and, bearing in mind the number of administrative tasks that a teacher may have to perform during a lesson, as well as the all-encompassing need for examination preparation by both teacher and students, it may not be possible to adhere to the stages identified above. Additionally, dealing with unforeseen hardware/software problems, as is so often necessary where student laptops are the norm, can also be time- consuming and wreak havoc on carefully structured lessons. Saskia refers to pedagogic lessons as being part of the ‗Lamb Chop Syndrome‘: she feels she can only impart one key nugget of language-related information (the meat of the chop) during a lesson, and the rest (the fat) is comprised of administrative and other non-language-related tasks.

Lesson planning is a huge topic, and its nature is beyond the scope of the current study. However, in the eyes of the supervisors/observers involved in this research it seems to be integral to a successful outcome of the appraisal process, and teachers are expected to submit an appropriately designed plan for their model lessons. The basis for this does not appear to have been questioned a great deal by either teachers or supervisors, but does seem to come from the concept from teacher education that by

154

producing a valid lesson plan teachers can demonstrate what they are doing, and why they are doing it. More importantly, it would seem to be a useful document that also acts as an ‗aide memoire‘ for the observer, and provides a basis for post-lesson feedback.

B Teacher/student interaction

Interactive decisions are made whilst a lesson is taking place, but there are also interactive aspects that can be planned in advance, and hence form part of the external features. Thornbury (1996:280)) argues that in situations when achieving lesson aims is important (as in a model lesson), this ‗is often at the expense of spontaneous, student- generated interaction‘. For example the teacher will have anticipated where certain forms of interaction, for example pair or group-work, will occur. S/he will know when s/he wants the students to respond as a group, and when they should be working in pairs or individually, and such considerations are an important part of the teaching process.

Research suggests that whole class teaching is the most common classroom format in mainstream education (Richards and Lockhart, 1996), especially at the outset of the lesson, They (ibid) go on to claim that individual, or ‗seatwork‘ is the second most common form of instruction, and although it does not give learners opportunities to interact, it does give them the opportunity to demonstrate learning during teacher monitoring.

Pairwork is another popular approach to classroom interaction, as with insufficient time available for students to interact with the teacher in the L2, they can practice with their fellow learners. It is often seen as one of the key tenets relating to CLT (Richards and Lockhart, ibid) and is a technique that many English language

155

learners are familiar with, so custom and practice seem to decree that such activities form part of the model lesson scenario. However, its effectiveness as a language learning tool is reduced in the case of weak students, or those who lack confidence. Groupwork is believed to build on the advantages of pairwork, because the L2 learner is able to interact with a number of her/his peers, increasing student participation, and allowing the teacher to work as a facilitator. Group size and activity purpose have an important impact on the interaction that takes place (ibid) and Jacobs (1998) argues that the advantages of encouraging students to work together means that their affective filter goes down, and motivation, enjoyment and social identity increase, as well as interaction with peers. However, groupwork and pairwork are not necessarily as desirable as they may seem: Thornbury argues that ‗while groupwork is a commonly used participation structure, it is frequently conducted at the lowest possible level of involvement‘ (1996:280). Jacobs (ibid) identifies the dangers of freeloading, arguing, take-overs, increasing use of the L1, and problems relating to classroom management. It may also appear that the teachers concerned are not doing their job, and these are all considerations that need to be taken into account when a lesson is being planned, as the emphasis should be on successful teaching and learning. Within the context of this research, it is often difficult to establish grouping arrangements from an audio recording, although there may be some clues given by the teacher in terms of instructions or comments on classroom arrangement.

156

C Classroom management and administration

In this study classroom management could include the way in which the teacher physically arranges the classroom, as well as dealing with latecomers and possible disciplinary issues (Cohen et al, 2000; Harmer, 2007). Wright (2005) describes the core elements of classroom management as being time and space, engagement and participation. Engagement is the affective domain, and refers to people management, linking clearly to the issue of space and time (ibid:18). Participation, his third core element, relates to the interactive decisions described in B above. This is potentially a huge area which is beyond the scope of the current research, but the way in which a teacher organises the classroom environment can have a significant impact on the events that take place there. Additionally, the teacher may have necessary classroom duties such as taking a register, or ensuring that all students are present. They may also have information to share with students about forthcoming examinations, or other administrative details, so these factors are included within the scope of classroom management.

D Teacher self-evaluation

This is another key decision identified by Richards and Lockhart (1996) occurring after a lesson has been taught. This has particular resonance in terms of model lessons, as the teacher is generally expected to provide a realistic evaluation of what has just taken place in the classroom, and is something that s/he learns to do from the early stages of ITT. Kurtoglu-Hooton (2008) and Copland (2008) have explored the feedback event in great detail, but the consensus is that this is something that should happen when teachers, either in ITT or practicing, are observed. However, the criteria that teachers

157

use to evaluate themselves change with time and experience (Richards and Lockhart, ibid), so their reliance on feedback from the observer may not be so immediate when they reach the stage of the current research subjects. Additionally, although feedback seems to be a recurring theme during this research, it is not a core topic and therefore does not form part of the data analysis.