Reflective Practice

Voices from the Field

Roger Barnard, Jonathon Ryan, Roger Barnard, Jonathon Ryan

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781315397641
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Bildung
• Sous-sujet: Lehrmethoden

The aim of the book is to explain a range of options for implementing the reflective practice cycle in educational settings in various international contexts. It presents a series of empirical case studies illustrating many different ways of implementing the reflective practice cycle, and how they can be researched by practitioners and academics. Increasing attention is given by teachers and teacher educators to the construct and implementation of reflective practice as a form of bottom-up, autonomous professional development. The aim of the book is to explain a range of options for implementing the reflective practice cycle in educational settings in various international contexts. Written by international academics, these studies show how reflection can be interpreted in different cultural contexts. The book concludes with a discussion by Anne Burns of the implications of these case studies for action research. It is hoped that the book will enable practitioners, and their mentors, to consider how best to implement reflective procedures in the specific contexts in which they work. Chapters in the book include:

• Lesson planning: The fundamental platform for reflecting for action

• Reflecting on action: Lesson transcripts

• Pair discussions for reflecting on action: Stimulated recall

• Observation leading to reflection

This book will be key reading for researchers in the fields of teacher education.

1 Lesson planning

The fundamental platform for reflecting for action

Rika Otto

Introduction

For most teachers, planning a lesson is the most common, and perhaps the only, form of reflective activity they do before teaching. The amount of time spent in planning a lesson, and the extent of detail contained in a plan varies – depending on factors such as the teacher’s experience, her understanding of the matter to be taught, and her familiarity with the class and the supporting learning materials. In this chapter, I will explain why I, as a highly experienced teacher, went to inordinate lengths to plan a 60-minute lesson, the considerable amount of detail contained in a single lesson plan, my evaluation of its success, and my subsequent reflection and action. Frankly, I would not have gone to this trouble if it were not part of the practical assessment for a professional qualification I was intent on gaining. Over the years, my lesson planning had become a process – on occasion in haste – of gathering resources and jotting down lists either on paper or in my mind. I had always been a thorough organiser in life as well as at work, so I did not think that a process of reflection and planning would pose a particular problem. However, as part of my DELTA course (discussed later), I was about to enter a world of onerous, at times almost impossibly detailed, complicated and challenging reflection. Nevertheless, when I look back on this, it is with satisfaction and a sense of achievement.

Methodological focus: lesson planning

Lesson planning has long been considered an essential competence for teacher trainees to master because it assesses a teacher candidate’s professional readiness by reflecting her competence in integrating theory and practice (Pang, 2016). This is because planning helps the teacher clarify what it is that she wants to do, and she can thereafter refer to the written plan in the class to keep on track. It also shows the student that there is a level of professionalism and commitment to the kind of preparation they may reasonably expect (Harmer, 1998). Planning is a thinking skill which involves prediction, anticipation, sequencing, organisation, and simplifying (Scrivener, 2011). However, a lesson plan should also be flexible. Harmer (2007) and Richards (1998) give examples of teachers adapting their plans to the ever-changing realties of classroom interaction. For example, they make use of ‘magic moments’ to solve unforeseen problems or promote student involvement by including or leaving out activities.

When they complete a formal lesson plan, many teachers work from some variation on what has become the standard ESOL lesson template (Harmer, 2007). These templates usually have three distinct sections: first, there is space to identify background information about the students and note the materials needed and overall aims of the lesson. Second, there is a section for analysis of the language or skills that will be taught. Lastly, there is a chronological, stage-by-stage description of the intended procedure for the lesson. The teacher considers stage aims, procedure, timing, and interaction patterns (Harmer, 2007; Scrivener, 2011). According to prevailing wisdom, that is what a lesson plan should look like; the reality, of course, may differ. Some teachers are said to do ‘corridor planning’ as they walk towards the class (Harmer, 2007, p. 365). Less experienced teachers may follow an elaborated plan more closely and add or drop activities because of time factors, while more experienced teachers write brief outlines and improvise as they use materials and teach (Richards, 1998).

The study

DELTA language systems/skills assignments and lesson plans

Over a period of 3 years, a colleague and I studied three modules part-time and online towards obtaining the Diploma in English Language Teaching to Adults (DELTA). This was offered by Cambridge English through International House in London. Here I will describe Module Two, “Developing teacher practice”. This started with a face-to-face, full-time, 2-week orientation course where I was inducted into reflective lesson planning. Over a 9-month period, we were required to complete six language systems or skills assignments (LSAs), along with relevant lesson plans. Three were formative and developmental in nature and were so staged that my own evaluations, as well as extensive feedback and feedforward from tutors, were incorporated into the next assignment. The last LSA and lesson plan were externally and summatively assessed, with a minimum of tutor input, thus requiring me to work independently.

The 2,500-word language systems or skills assignment (LSA) consists of three parts. First, there is an analysis of the system or skill, and secondly a discussion of possible problems students may encounter, along with solutions to them. Then, short teaching activities which overtly link to the problems and solutions are suggested. The LSA and 60-minute lesson plan are submitted together for formative feedback. Thus theoretical analyses and teaching ideas are linked through study, so the teacher is primed to think about the detailed lesson plan she must write.

My final LSA and lesson plan were prepared for adult intermediate-level learners that I was teaching in New Zealand. These were international students from China, Korea, Thailand, Chile, and Venezuela. Nearly all studied English in order to gain entry to mainstream study in management, tourism, or culinary skills. Some students were residents who needed English for work and social purposes. The topic was “Helping learners understand and use descriptive adjectives”, with the specific aims being:

By the end of the lesson the learners will be better able to use descriptive adjectives and their noun collocations e.g. amazing scenery, an appetising meal, a cute soft toy and a small range of intensifiers (very, really, absolutely) to express excitement and passion when telling their classmates about a recent holiday they enjoyed.

This will be done by focusing on adverb + adjective + noun collocations to describe

• What they ate: a very tasty meal
• What they bought: a really fine greenstone pendant
• What they saw: an absolutely spectacular beach

Table 1.1 depicts the table of contents for the final lesson plan.

Table 1.1 Contents of the lesson plan

1. Class profile	3
2. Individual learners	3
3. Aims	7
4. Analysis	7
4.1 Adjectives	7
4.2 Intensifiers and adjectives	9
5. Timetable fit	10
5.1 Link with previous lesson	10
5.2 Link with next lesson	10
5.3 Relevance to the course as a whole	10
6. Assumptions	10
6.1 Language	11
6.2 Skills	11
6.3 Interests	11
7. Learner problems and possible solutions	11
8. Personal aims	13
9. Procedure	15
10. Materials	22
10.1 Teacher resources	22
10.2 Room resources	22
11. Alternative strategies	22
12. Possible learner questions	22
13. Board work	23
14. Groupings	23
15. Lesson plan commentary	23
15.1 How this lesson was informed by learner characteristics and needs	23
15.2 Links to reading and research	24
16. Appendices	25
16.1 Adjective use in the Waiariki Journal	25
16.2 Spidergram to show adjective use	26
16.3 Adjective-noun collocations in diary writing	27
16.4 Pre-lesson adjective exercises	28
16.5 Lesson worksheets	29
16.6 Dialogue cards	32

The DELTA lesson plan is prescriptive, formal, structured, and highly detailed. In fact, my final lesson plan document contained 7,038 words and, with appendices, was 38 pages long. In this regard, it bears little relation to the reality and rush of lesson planning by full-time language teachers. The lesson plan or procedure itself was only seven pages, but even so, it was highly scripted. Nevertheless, as an academic planning exercise, it required me to reflect on a great range of aspects of the planned lesson.

Illustrative findings and discussion

My immediate reflections-on-action

My immediate reflection-on-action after the lesson involved the writing of a 500-word evaluation of the lesson. Following the DELTA requirements, I reflected on and evaluated my planning, teaching, and the learners’ progress; identified key strengths and weaknesses in the planning and execution; and explained how I would consolidate the learning achieved in the lesson. The lesson was not recorded, so I used my lesson plan to remind me about key elements. To gather data prior to writing, I had asked a colleague to conduct a group interview with the students immediately after the lesson and ask two questions: “What did you learn?” and “What could have been done better?” In response, the students commented inter alia:

• Learnt very useful new adjectives in a good context / for daily use / in the right way
• Learnt how to make sentences with new words and how to use them / use correct word order
• Learnt main differences between different adjectives

There were no negative comments and, in fact, students recorded that they wanted more of the same. I included their comments in the lesson evaluation.

The key strengths that I identified were the materials (the speaking cards contained pictures of beautiful New Zealand scenery, delicious food and attractive souvenirs). There were also much and varied exposures to the target language before the speaking activity (on paper and PowerPoint) – for example, matching meanings, spelling, article use, pronunciation. There was a variety of student movement such as working in pairs or individually, seated or standing, individual or plenary board work; teaching words in chunks; and using the test-teach-test approach. During the lesson I deviated from the plan to answer a question about the difference in meaning between very and really. Although I had clearly indicated the meaning and usage difference in the analysis, and had mentioned it in passing in a handout, I had not overtly included the difference in meaning in the lesson. I had assumed that intermediate students would know the difference. One student did not, or he was just checking. I then learnt to teach the obvious as well.

I was also able to identify some weaknesses in the lesson, and this provided an opportunity to reflect for future action. In particular, timing was one issue that arose. This is an inherent problem in tightly planned lessons, as one can never predict exactly how long learning takes. I finished the lesson, leaving enough time for speaking, but I left out two activities: an article matching exercise as well as truncating the feedback on speaking from writing exemplars of good and bad practice up on the board to a short oral feedback. The final writing consolidation of six sentences went over the hour by a few minutes. Finally, I could have used concept questions to convey the meanings of very and really instead of telling the student the answer. On the other hand, just telling the student is quicker. I also could have thought more about p...