Paper 2 Task 3

This task can get you up to 40?marks in total. Each correct point is worth 2 marks, so you should try to make at least 15 (points)?but since it’s not certain that all your points will be accepted, it’s better to include more.

Given the number of marks, you should allocate approximately 35 minutes to this task.

Apart from the 30 marks for the breadth of your answer, you can also get up to 5 marks for the depth of your response. This is then doubled to a maximum of 10.??In order to get full marks there, you need to develop your points, provide a rationale and refer to your experience, a range of examples, different contexts, sources or theories.

Depending on your familiarity with the topic, or the lack of it, you may want to aim at maximising the breadth of your answer by making as many undeveloped points as possible. Alternative, you can choose to make fewer but develop these as fully as you can.

It’s important that you read the instructions carefully and answer exactly what’s being asked. There are often 2 or 3?parts to this task, so make sure you label the different parts in your answer clearly.

Regarding the content, you should always consider different?points/angles/perspectives when looking at the focal area.

Paper 2 Task 3– practice task

(40 marks)

Recommended time:35-40 minutes

Below are procedural notes for two elementary (CEFR A2) level lesson plans focusing on food-related lexis.

a) comment on the similarities?and differences?in:

- the principles informing the teacher’s approach

- the teacher’s role

b) Comment on the effect of each approach on different learner types and learning contexts.

P2T3

Similarities?in principles informing the teacher’s approach:

·?learners need to extend their vocabulary in general and in this topic in particular

·?single-word items / lexical sets are an important part of the lexicon

·?communicative activities in language teaching allow student interaction and communication

·?learner interaction helps learning / aids memorisation

·?language is used for communication and is not an ‘a(chǎn)cademic’ subject for study / communicative function / purpose is important for learning language

·?semi-authentic tasks make language and practice meaningful for learners.

·?personalisation motivates learners

·?beginning a lesson with a personalised activity reduces the affective filter and engages relevant schema

·?language needs to be explicitly focussed on

·?meaning has to be focussed on (and checked)

·?phonology is needed to ‘know’ an item of language / learners need to use the language in speaking

·?collaborative learning encourages cognitive engagement / aids learning and retention

·?immediate / nearly immediate error correction is required(otherwise may lead to fossilization)

·?ending a lesson with an activity which engages learners’ cognitive skills leads to greater involvement / learning

·?a communicative approach is useful for introducing new target language.

?

Differences in principles informing the teacher’s approach:

Lesson A

·?use of PPP ?

·?the teacher knows what learners need to learn

·?it is necessary to focus on form and meaning before using the language, ?

·?it is necessary to practise the language in a controlled environment before in a freer one / where the learners can make more choices

·?use of realia (typical of communicative approaches) – helps learners engage / is effective for providing meaning of concrete items

·?repetition drilling assists in language learning/memorisation

·?scaffolding and support are needed throughout a lesson/learners need a framework to guide them.

?

Lesson B

·?use of Test-Teach-Test / TBL approach

·?the content of a lesson is dictated by learner needs / the teacher does not know the content in advance

·?an initial ‘test’ stage is needed to determine what language input is needed. / language focus must come after an initial task / ‘test’ phase

·?a task allows learners to ‘notice the gap’ in their knowledge and means that they are more motivated to learn the language that fills the gap

·?evidence of the (Brumfit) principle of ‘fluency first’ (stage 2)

·?learners should be involved in the correction process.

Comment on the similarities and differences in: the teachers’ role

Similarities in the teacher’s role:

·?‘teacher as manager’ plans / controls the activities and interaction patterns in the class (based on the belief that teachers have wider pedagogical knowledge than learners and are expected to use it for others’ benefit)

·?monitors learner output for feedback / correction

·?corrects errors in form and pronunciation (belief that teachers have wider content knowledge than learners and are expected to provide the ‘correct’ model)

·?finds out what students already know (in A by eliciting at the beginning of the lesson, in B by monitoring)

·?decides (ultimately) the language input (either before or during the lesson).

Differences in the teacher’s role:

Lesson A:

·?prescribes language items (based on the belief that teachers have wider content knowledge than learners, provide the ‘correct’ model, and can predict learners’ needs)

·?‘informs’ in the presentation stage and the written record / provides accurate models

·?drills to correct pronunciation / aid retention.

·?corrects errors in form and pronunciation explicitly in the role of ‘knower’

·?controls more than in Lesson B.

Lesson B:

·?diagnoses learner needs (rather than predicting what these are)

·?‘informs’ at stage 3 - not at the beginning of the lesson

·?encourages learner autonomy through st-centred correction

·?adopts a lower profile / makes the lesson more learner centred.

b Comment on the effect of each approach on different learner types and learning contexts

Lesson A would appeal to / be appropriate for:

·?learners who expect teacher to be the ‘knower’ due to previous learning experience

·?step-by-step / serialist learners

·?educational cultures where accuracy is prized over fluency OR Lesson B appeals more in educational cultures where fluency is prized over accuracy

·?Younger Learners as the lesson has a lot of structure / it has real objects / it doesn’t demand as high a level of cognitive awareness e.g. self correction ?OR Lesson B appeals more to Younger Learners because it is more task based and there is less overt focus on language

·?larger classes because the teacher can control the amount of input OR In a large class, the input generated in Lesson B might be overwhelming for teacher and learners

·?lower levels OR Lesson B may be inappropriate at lower levels as learners may have very little to build on

·?visual learners (who would respond positively to looking at objects / pictures) in Stages 2 and 3.

Lesson B would appeal to / be appropriate for:

·?learners who like to be challenged / treated like ‘a(chǎn)dults’ / given more autonomy.

·?analytical learners – individual learners and those from some cultures may not be analytical (so Lesson A would appeal more)

·?multi-lingual groups as the range of vocabulary items they bring up is likely to be wider and more interesting. ?

Both lessons may appeal to / be appropriate for

·?learners with an auditory preference (who like discussions / listening to others) in Stage 1

·?learners who enjoy group work / learning from each other.

?

Neither lesson may appeal to / be appropriate for

·?cultures where the ‘dinner party’ is not a norm

·?learners who do not see the value in communicative activities in class

·?very small groups / classes.

?

Depth marking

?

Depth

? ?Give a rating between 0 and 5 for the overall response. NB Ratings for depth are doubled to a maximum of 10 marks.

? ?Depth criteria: development, rationale, reference

?

RATING

5 A fully developed, well-balanced response to the task.

Points are consistently supported by rationale based on relevant reference to experience; and/or examples; and/or range of contexts; and/or sources; and/or theories.

Rationale is convincing and insightful in justifying points made.

4 A well-developed, well-balanced response to the task.

Points are mostly supported by rationale based on relevant reference to experience; and/or examples; and/or range of contexts; and/or sources; and/or theories.

Rationale is mostly convincing and insightful in justifying points made.

3 A generally well-developed response to the task.

Points are generally supported by rationale based on relevant reference to experience; and/or examples; and/or range of contexts; and/or sources; and/or theories. Some points may be less well supported; a few irrelevancies may be present.

Rationale is satisfactory in justifying points made.

2 A limited response to the task.

Points are sometimes supported by rationale based on relevant reference to experience; and/or examples; and/or range of contexts; and/or sources; and/or theories. Some points may be unsupported; a number of irrelevancies may be present; the response may contain more description than analysis.

Rationale is evident, but inconsistent in justifying points made.

1 A minimal response to the task.

Points are minimally supported by rationale based on relevant reference to experience; and/or examples; and/or range of contexts; and/or sources; and/or theories. Most points are unsupported; a number of irrelevancies may be present; the response contains a lot of description and very little analysis.

Rationale is minimal.

0 No development of the response.

?