C3: LP and Rationale

Takako Kobayashi v MATESOL Component 3: Lesson Plan and Rationale

1

My lesson plan outlines procedures for a 90-minute class session in a series of lessons to

be delivered in a secondary ESL setting. The intermediate-level, multiple-skills course for which

I have designed this lesson meets three days per week and aims to improve students’ proficiency

in English. In my teaching experience, I have found that adolescent English language learners

(ELLs) struggle with comprehending and producing wh-questions accurately, meaningfully, and

appropriately. I was thus eager to design a lesson to address this common challenge. After

reviewing the properties of information-seeking questions in English by exploring the use,

meaning, and form dimensions (Larsen-Freeman, 2003), I will describe the pedagogical design

of my lesson and the tools I envision for assessing learners’ understanding, production, and

progress.

Questions frequently occur in many contexts across registers for different purposes

(Biber, Conrad, & Leech, 2002), making wh-questions among the most of important linguistic

structures for ELLs to master at an early stage (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999).

Because question formation in English involves the selection of a wide range of interrogative

words and complex syntactic movement, ELLs may struggle to acquire interrogative rules.

Systematic instruction on the use, meaning, and form of interrogatives is thus essential to

promoting the development of ELLs (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Larsen-Freeman,

2003).

Whereas polar (yes-no) questions query an entire proposition, wh-questions inquire about

a particular piece of information housed in a grammatical constituent (Biber et al., 2002; Biber,

Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999; Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Cowan,

2008; Kennedy, 2003). Wh-questions allow questioners to interrogate any constituent in a


2

sentence. Speakers pose wh-questions when they can assume that “the listener knows the

proposition” at hand (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999, p. 251).

The meaning of a wh-question determines—and is determined by—the choice of an

interrogative word associated with “the semantic character of the inquiry focus” (Celce-Murcia

& Larsen-Freeman, 1999, p. 248). Table 1 illustrates how wh-words correspond to their syntactic

and lexico-semantic categories; it also shows the wide range of meanings that users of English

have at their disposal when they need to ask and answer information-seeking questions.

Table 1.

Syntactic and Lexico-Semantic Meanings of Interrogative (Wh-) Words in Modern English

Syntactic [Semantic] Category Wh-Word Subject NP [human] who Subject NP [non-human] what Subject Noun Predicate [human] who Subject Noun Predicate [non-human] what Object NP [human] who(m) Object NP [non-human] what Advl [means] how Advl [direction] where Advl [position] where Advl [time] when Advl [manner] how Advl [reason] why Advl [purpose] what…for Advl [frequency] how often Note. (Adapted from Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999, p. 249).

In terms of the form dimension, interrogatives can be classified according to whether the

constituent being questioned is a subject noun phrase (a subject wh-question) or occurs

somewhere in the predicate (a predicate wh-question). This distinction is important for learners

to understand because the movement rules for each category are distinct. In subject wh-questions,

a wh-word replaces the subject noun phrase, as in Figure 1.


3

Figure 1. A tree diagram of a subject wh-question. (Adapted from Celce-Murcia & Larsen-

Freeman, 1999, p. 243).

In contrast, when a constituent (of any grammatical category) in the predicate is

questioned, a semantically appropriate wh-word replaces that constituent and then moves to the

front of the sentence (wh-fronting). After the operator (auxiliary) is extracted, the subject noun

phrase and operator (auxiliary) are then transposed (subject-operator inversion), producing well-

formed questions like the one in Figure 2 (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Cowan,

2008).

Figure 2. A tree diagram of a predicate wh-question. (Adapted from Celce-Murcia & Larsen-

Freeman, 1999, pp. 243-244).


4

My lesson highlights communication and implements Task-based Language Teaching

(TBLT) as a systematic operation. Ellis (2010) emphasizes several main criteria for a task,

namely:

1. There is a primary focus on meaning.

2. The students choose the linguistic and nonlinguistic resources needed to complete the

task.

3. The task should lead to real-world processes of language use.

4. Successful performance of the task is determined by whether the students have achieved

the intended communicative outcome. (p. 35)

Overall, my lesson plan outline includes three phases: pre-task, during-task, and post-task (Ellis,

2006). It consists of several focused tasks that attempt to elicit wh-question production. Ellis

(2010) observed that “focused tasks can be used to practice specific linguistic forms while

learners are engaged in the effort to communicate” (p. 40). Ellis’s indication supports a focus-on-

form (FonF) approach that integrates a focus on linguistic forms in communicative contexts

(Long, 1991; Nassaji & Fotos, 2011).

The pre-task phase is comprised of three activities. The first pre-task (Prepare to Read in

the lesson outline) activates learners’ content schemata by noting real-world tasks of wh-

questions to prepare them to undertake the next activities, which requires learners to read a

transcript of a witness interview (Ellis, 2003; Hudson, 2007; Long, 1985; Skehan, 1999). The

authenticity of this fictional transcript engages learners in input processing that connect

grammatical structure with their meanings (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011). The FonF approach

emphasizes learners’ attention to specific linguistic forms while engaging in communicative

activities (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011). Therefore, the during-task, a role-play activity of a witness


5

interview involves students in meaningful communication that generates wh-question production.

Collaborative L2 interactions featured in the role-play activity lead to linguistic development in

individuals by engaging learners in negotiation for meaning (Donato, 1994; Hedge, 2000; Long,

1996; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Media enables students to handle information by providing “a

density of information and richness of cultural input” (Brinton, 2001, p. 461). The video that

shows crimes for the during-task engenders an information gap between the members in dyads

and compels interactions (Doughty & Pica, 1986; Hedge, 2000). The primary focus of this task

remains meaning because the task attempts to discover more specific information about a crime.

These tasks suggest the use of incidental formative assessment defined as “the ad hoc assessment

that teachers (and students) carry out as part of the process of performing a task that has been

selected for instructional…purposes” (Ellis, 2003, p. 314). According to Ellis (2003), incidental

formative assessment is categorized into two types: internal and external. The former

“contributes directly to the accomplishment of the task…and indirectly to L2 development” by

providing students with feedback in progress. On the other hand, the latter occurs during or after

a task through reflection on the performance by teachers and students. L2 interactions in the

during-task are optimal for internal assessment by providing online feedback on learners’

production. The post-task given as an assignment serves as a consciousness-raising task that

explicitly draws learners’ attention to the grammar structure of wh-questions (Ellis, 2003, 2010;

Nassaji & Fotos, 2011). Consciousness-raising tasks lead to noticing that fosters learners’

language acquisition. The post-task stimulates students to reflect on their performance, which is

appropriate for external assessment.


6

Background Setting: • Secondary ESL class

• Class size: 10 – 14 • Students are from a mixed background;

Learner Background:

• Pre-Intermediate proficiency • Previous lesson: Students practiced producing wh-questions for the

purpose of gathering information, distinguishing the difference between subject wh-questions and predicate wh-questions.

Time Frame: 90 minutes Materials and Equipment:

Mind map (Appendix A) A picture of a witness interview (Appendix B) Witness Interview Transcript (Appendix C) Video of crime 1 (Appendix D) Witness Interview Report (Appendix E) Video of crime 2 (Appendix F) Wh-questions in Witness Interview (Appendix G) Whiteboard and markers A police hat Recording devices for student recordings Computer Projector Screen

Objectives: Students will be able to… • Produce different types of wh-questions in communications to seek

specific information. • Recognize and self-correct their use of wh-questions, focusing on form,

by listening to the recording of their investigation.


7

Lesson Outline Time Procedures/Teacher Actions Materials/Equipment

2 – 3 mins.

Introduction • Greet students (Ss). • Take attendance.

10 – 15 mins.

Pre-Task (1): Prepare to Read • Invite Ss to recall what we concluded at the end of the

last class session. • Ask Ss to share orally what situations they have heard

or used wh-questions in their daily lives and what kinds of wh-questions are used.

• Create a mind map on the whiteboard based on Ss’ ideas (e.g., fast food: how many hamburgers do you want?, shopping mall: what size shoes do you wear?, and so on).

• Show a police hat and put a picture of a witness interview on the whiteboard, writing “Witness Interview” over the picture.

• Have Ss think about what happens in the picture and ask them to share their thoughts orally.

• Tell Ss that they are policemen like one in the picture and have them think about what kinds of questions should be asked.

• Pass the police hat to each S to share the questions they think about.

• Write down Ss’ questions on the whiteboard.

• Mind map (Appendix A)

• Whiteboard and markers

• A picture of a witness interview (Appendix B)

• A police hat

5 – 7 mins.

Pre-Task (2): Read • Tell Ss that they are going to read a transcript of a

witness interview. • Tell Ss to make groups of three. • Hand Witness Interview Transcript to each S. • Have each S in groups assign to one of the roles:

Detective Murphy, Detective Armstrong, and Charley Jacobs.

• Ask each group to read the transcript aloud, following the assigned roles.

• Inform Ss that they have only five minutes to read the entire text, reminding them not to worry about minor details or unknown vocabulary, but just to compare the questions in the text to the wh-questions they made in the previous activity.

• Witness Interview Transcript (Appendix B)

5 – 7 mins.

Pre-Task (3): Process Reading • Write the following questions on the whiteboard.

o What is each character’s occupation? o What is the main topic in the interview?



8

o What will happen in future? • Have each group discuss answers to the questions. • Monitor and assist Ss if needed.

5 – 7 mins

During-Task 1: Introduction • Inform Ss that they are going to produce a role-play of

a witness interview like the one in the transcript. • Tell Ss to make pairs (self-select). • Number off the Ss so that there is a 1 and a 2 in each

pair. • Inform 1s that they will be witnesses. • Instruct 1s to watch the video clip, which depicts a

crime. • Inform 2s that they will not see the video and they will

be detectives and question the 1s. • Tell Ss that the 1s must describe the video by

answering the 2s’ questions. • Demonstrate an activity with one volunteer S by

asking at least one appropriate question. • Distribute recording devices, telling Ss that they are

required to record their interview.

2 – 3 mins.

During-Task 1: Video Viewing • Tell the 2s to put their heads down on their desks. • Play Video of Crime 1 on the screen using the

computer.

• Video of crime 1 (Appendix C)

• Computer • Projector • Screen

6 – 8 mins.

During-Task 1: Witness Interview (Role-play) • Hand Witness Interview Report to each of the 2s. • Tell the 2s to begin asking the 1s about the video. • Remind 2s to record their interviews. • Monitor Ss to make sure that they are performing the

task correctly and assist if needed.

• Witness Interview Report (Appendix D)

• Recording devices

6 – 8 mins.

During-Task 1: Describing the Suspect (Debrief) • Ask the 2s what they learned from their investigation. • List the answers the 2s give on the whiteboard to

describe the suspect. • Play Video of crime 1 again, letting all Ss watch it. • Ask 2s if the video matches what they imagine.

• Video of crime 1 (Appendix C)



2 – 3 mins.

During-Task 2: Introduction • Tell Ss to switch roles (witnesses will now be

detectives and vice versa). • Inform Ss that they are going to watch a different

video and engage in the role-play with new roles.

2 – 3 mins.

During-Task 2: Video Viewing • Video of crime 2


9

• Tell the new 2s to put their heads down on their desks. • Play Video of crime 2 on the screen using the

computer.

(Appendix E) • Computer • Projector • Screen

6 – 8 mins.

During-Task 2: Witness Interview (Role-play) • Hand the Witness Interview Report to each of the 2s. • Tell the 2s to begin asking the 1s about the video. • Remind 2s to record their interviews. • Monitor Ss to make sure that they are performing the

task correctly and assist if needed.

• Witness Interview Report (Appendix D)

6 – 8 mins.

During-Task 2: Describing the Suspect (Debrief) • Ask the 2s what they learn from their investigation. • List the answers the 2s give on the whiteboard to

describe the suspect. • Play Video of crime 2 again, letting all Ss watch it. • Ask 2s if the video matches what they imagined.

• Video of crime 2 (Appendix E)



5 – 10 mins.

Closure/Post-Task • Assign homework: Ss are required to listen to the

recordings of their witness interviews. • Hand the Wh-Questions in Witness Interview to each

S. • Instruct Ss to make a list of each wh-question they

used on the handout, to check whether each question was well formed, and to write a corrected form if not.

• Recording devices • Wh-questions in

Witness Interview (Appendix F)


10

Appendix A

Mind Map


11

Appendix B

A picture of a witness interview


12

Appendix C

Witness Interview Transcript

Directions: Choose one role from the transcript (Detective Murphy, Detective Armstrong, and Charley Jacobs). Read aloud the transcript with your group members according to the assigned role.

Witness Interview Transcript

Detective Murphy: Have a seat, Mr. Jacobs, and please state your name and address for the record.

Charley Jacobs: Thank you. I'm Charley Jacobs and I live at 1904 Molly Barr Road.

Detective Murphy: That's here in Oxford?

Charley Jacobs: Yes, ma’am, sure is.

Detective Murphy: What is your occupation, Charley?

Charley Jacobs: I do construction work, renovating and the like.

Detective Murphy: Who is your employer?

Charley Jacobs: I work for Grantham Construction.

Detective Armstrong: How long have you worked there?

Charley Jacobs: For about 15 years now. My father worked for old man Grantham, Sonny. Dad put in a good word for me, and they hired me. All I know I was taught by my dad. No special schooling or anything. Sonny's boys, Brad and Barry, are great too. They pretty much run the company now.

Detective Armstrong: Mr. Jacobs, tell me about the job you are doing right now.

Charley Jacobs: Well, we're kind of at a standstill at the moment. We're doing some renovation work at the old Physical Plant Shop and Stores at the university.

Detective Armstrong: A standstill? Why is that?

Charley Jacobs: Well, me and a couple of the guys were taking a break and having a small snack. I was done eating, so I went and walked over to a demo area that we had done earlier, and that's when I noticed that hidden room.

Detective Armstrong: You were just walking by and you happened to see it?

Charley Jacobs: Well, I mean, I kind of leaned up against the wall a little bit and it kinda gave. So when I turned around, that's when, you know, I realized that it wasn't a wall at all. It was actually door, like a secret door. You just couldn't see it.

Detective Armstrong: So you were walking around by yourself in a place where y'all had


13

been demoing walls, and you just happened to lean up against one?

Charley Jacobs: Yeah. So?

Detective Armstrong: You didn't leave anything out of that story?

Charley Jacobs: No. What're you talking about?

Detective Armstrong: We saw some cigarette butts on the floor over there. You wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

Charley Jacobs: All right, yeah. So you busted me smoking in an area that I wasn't supposed to. So what?

Detective Armstrong: So what were you really doing when you found the room?

Charley Jacobs: All right. I was trying to get my lighter out of my pocket without dropping a bunch of stuff on the floor. And that's when I fell against the wall and it gave in and I landed on my ass. That's when I realized that, you know, there's a hidden room back there.

Detective Murphy: Did you go inside the room?

Charley Jacobs: No. Yeah. Yes, I did.

Detective Armstrong: Did you or not?

Charley Jacobs: I did. I mean, I took a couple steps in. And then the door closed behind me, and that's when I got this really bad feeling. You know, it was like the hair on the back of my neck and arms just kind of like stood straight up. You know, it was like--it was like a really creepy, creepy feeling, like something really bad had happened in there.

Detective Armstrong: Did you touch anything in the room?

Charley Jacobs: No! No. But I noticed the writing on the back of the door. It said, "I died here. R B killed me." There was something else underneath that, but I wasn’t about to stick around and figure out what it was. I mean, so I got out of there as fast as I could. I closed the door and made sure that nobody else got in there until the cops got there.

Detective Murphy: How did the other workers react to the news of the hidden room?

Charley Jacobs: Well, I had to yell for them. Carl said, "You look white as a sheet." But he promised me that he wouldn't let anyone in that room while I went out and called 911. So I stepped outside, and I couldn't get a signal inside for some reason. Oh, and Jack was out with me.

Detective Armstrong: What made you think the police needed to know about this room?

Charley Jacobs: Just the feeling--like the writing on the back of the door wasn't enough? I mean, I could just tell something creepy had happened in there. Something really bad had happened. That's why you're talking to me, isn't it?


14

Detective Murphy: We are looking into it.

Detective Armstrong: Do you know if that room was on any blueprints or floor plans of the building?

Charley Jacobs: No, it wasn't on any of the plans that we had.

Detective Murphy: Thank you for your time, Mr. Jacobs.

Charley Jacobs: Thank you. When you find out what went down in there, will you let me know?

Detective Murphy: We can't do that. If something bad happened, it'll probably be on the news or in the papers.

Charley Jacobs: OK, I'll check the papers then. Bye.

Source: http://www.crimescene.com/currentcase/index.php/previous-cases-1473587461/the-hidden-room-case/interviews-hroom/1144-interview-charley-jacobs-found-room Readability Statistics Flesch Reading Ease 83.9 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 4.0


15

Appendix D

Video of crime 1 http://vimeo.com/64201445


16


17

Appendix E

Witness Interview Report

Directions: You are going to interview the witness of a crime. Please fill in the blanks by asking specific questions to the witness.

WITNESS INTERVIEW REPORT Officer Name:

Witness Name:

Location of Crime: Example: Where did the crime happen?

Time of Crime:

Nature of Crime:

Suspect(s) Description (e.g., age/gender/clothing):

Other Details (e.g., suspected reason for crime):

POLICE DEPARTMENT


18

Appendix F

Video of crime 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3B5zoU2WVg&feature=youtu.be


19


20

Appendix G

Wh-Questions in Witness Interview

Directions: Listen carefully to your witness interview recorded in the lesson. List wh-questions you produced during the interview and check whether they are grammatically correct. If not, write well-formed wh-questions. Wh-Questions in the Interview Good? Correct Form

Example: What she stole? What did she steal?


21

References

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (2002). Longman student grammar of spoken and written

English. London, England: Longman

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of

spoken and written English. London, England: Longman.

Brinton, D. M. (2001). The use of media in language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.),

Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 303-318). Boston, MA:

Heinle.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s

course (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle.

Cowan, R. (2008). The teacher’s grammar of English: A course book and reference guide. New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G.

Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives to second language research (pp. 33-56).

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). “Information gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second language

acquisition? TESOL quarterly, 20, 305-325.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task-based teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 19-45.

Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition research and language-teaching materials. In N.

Harwood (Ed.), English language teaching materials: Theory and practice (pp. 33-57).

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.


22

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Kennedy, G. (2003). Structure and meaning in English. London, England: Pearson Education.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA:

Heinle.

Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition. In K. Hyltenstam and M.

Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-99). San

Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K.

Debot, R. Ginsberge, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural

perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.

Ritchie & Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New

York, NY: Academic Press.

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating

form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York, NY: Routledge.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent

French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.

Skehan, P. (1999). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

C3: LP and Rationale

Documents

form dimensions larsenfreeman

subject np nonhuman

advl reason

advl manner

advl time

advl position

advl direction

subject noun predicate