Candidate name: · Web viewAs seen in the results in Appendix 2, the learners completed the writing task with some degree of success. They adhered to a conventional layout, responded

1

Candidate name: Simon RichardsonCandidate number: 011Centre name: 10294Centre number: International House LondonDate: 10th December 2012

Delta Module 3Teaching examination classes

Word Count: 4494

Delta Module 3: Teaching examination classes Simon Richardson

2

ContentsPart 1: Introduction Page 3 Choice of Specialism Page 3Key Issues Page 3Considerations in Course Design Page 5

Part 2: Needs Analysis and Commentary Page 6 The Course Page 6Learner Characteristics Page 7Data Collection Methods Page 7Diagnostic Testing Page 8Findings Page 9Priorities Page 9

Part 3: Course Proposal Page 10 Course Information Page 10Influence of Part 1 & Part 2 Page 10Goals and Objectives Page 11Content and Approach Page 12Syllabus Type Page 13Approach to Writing Page 13Sequencing Page 13Materials Page 14Constraints Page 14

Part 4: Assessment Page 14 Assessment Decisions and Purposes Page 14Formative Assessment Page 15Summative Assessment Page 16Evaluation Page 17

Part 5: Conclusion Page 17

Bibliography Page 19

Appendix 1 Page 20 Course Proposal Page 20Materials Bibliography Page 27

Appendix 2 Page 28 Collated Needs Analysis Results Page 28Collated Diagnostic Results Page 31Priorities – Decisions Page 32


3

Part 1: Introduction

Choice of specialism

I have chosen Teaching Examination Classes as my specialism as I feel that my teaching would benefit

from exploring methods and learner needs when studying for an exam. I have taught a number of exam

classes, and find them motivating as they are geared towards helping learners reach a specific goal. My

undertaking of this assignment will enable me to assist learners more effectively with achieving that goal

and will address exam strategies as well as focusing on how to reduce the stress and pressure that learners

feel when preparing for exams.

Key issues

Motivation

Learners working towards exams are usually intent on reaching a specific goal or attaining a score. As

such, they have a clear focus which positively affects extrinsic motivation, defined as ‘a construct that

pertains whenever an activity is done in order to attain some separable outcome.’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000,

P.60) Furthermore, learner motivation in an exam classroom could be positively affected by a shared,

identifiable goal, leading to greater cohesion and a collaborative learning environment. Gokhale states

that ‘Proponents of collaborative learning claim that the active exchange of ideas within small groups not

only increases interest among the participants but also promotes critical thinking.’ (Gokhale, 1995) This

would clearly aid the development of analytical skills.

However, extrinsic motivation could bring increased pressure to the classroom, meaning that learners are

also less intrinsically motivated, and this lack of personal enjoyment could lead to a higher affective filter.

As such, strategies to help learners address and cope with exam pressures need to be addressed. Further to

this is the consideration that learners may in fact be studying for other reasons. It may be that they are

taking an exam due to family or governmental pressures, and as such may have little interest in the class.


4

As such, learners’ reasons for being in an examination class must be taken in to consideration in needs

analyses so that teachers can be informed and prepared for this dynamic.

Study Skills

Burgess and Head note that ‘Most learners recognise that they cannot depend totally on their teacher to

get them through an exam, and they must do a lot of work for themselves. However, they do not always

know how to do this, and often lack the organisational skills and discipline required’ (Burgess & Head,

2005, P.8). In my experience, this can also go against learner expectation. Learners often come from

cultures in which learning comes from the teacher, and it can be very difficult for them to adjust outside

the classroom, when the demands are higher. Bearing this in mind, it is important to recognise the

importance of learner training and to incorporate this in to an exam teaching programme. It should be

made clear that such classes will deliver a higher amount of homework, but that this will be coupled with

training on how to use dictionaries, organise work and record lexis and grammar. This is something that

should be discussed at the beginning of a course so as to prepare learners for a possible difference in

environment.

Validity and Backwash

While language exams provide the opportunity for learners to further themselves, it is important to

evaluate their validity. While an exam may have a high content validity; it ‘constitutes a representative

sample of the language skills’ (Hughes, 1994, P.22), it may have a low criterion-based validity, in that the

exam does not accurately predict the future academic performance of a learner. This concern could be due

in part to the effect of backwash, defined as ‘the direct or indirect effect of examinations on teaching

methods’ (Promodrou, 1995, P.13) Focusing too heavily on discrete-point item types, such as gap fills

and multiple choice tasks may lead teachers to start teaching to the exam specifics, rather than continuing

to teach learners language that will develop them. If learners are efficiently trained to perform specific

tasks, or are supplied with language specifically inputted in order for them to successfully negotiate a

discrete-point item, then they may not be being prepared for life after the examination. In my experience


5

of teaching exam classes, there is a clear relationship between results expectation and negative backwash,

as learners are preoccupied with doing what it takes, rather than studying language in other contexts that

can then be applied to examinations.

A negative result of the above is that learners’ intrinsic motivation can be lowered even further, as there is

a monotonous and constant focus on the examination and past papers. However, Promodrou feels that this

overt backwash could be positive by adopting techniques more in line with communicative, and, to some

extent, humanistic teaching’ (Promodrou, 1995, P.15). Harmer, meanwhile, suggests that a balanced

activities approach could raise intrinsic motivation, thereby giving it a place within examination classes.

He states that ‘by presenting learners with a variety of activities we can ensure their continuing interest

and involvement in the language programme.’ (Harmer, 1992, P.76) By setting examination classes in a

communicative classroom, the effects of covert backwash (teaching as if testing) can also be diminished,

as classes become less teacher-fronted, and more focused on a communicative task than prioritising

correctness in a teacher-fronted classroom.

Considerations in course design

Learners

It is important to consider learners’ existing knowledge of the examination in question in order to

determine the level of basic introduction required. Further to this, taking in to account learner background

with regards to previous experience of examination practice as well as general academic background

could inform course design. As I mentioned earlier, assessment of motivation and expectation, both

personal and external (if applicable) is also highly important.

Content and Materials

Using a specialised course book has clear benefits in an examination class. Not only will it only contain

materials and exercises specific to that particular exam, but it will often come with a workbook, which


6

can help shape learners’ studying away from the classroom. Further supplements to self-study can also be

found in the form of CD ROMs and practice test books, although the latter should be used sparingly,

bearing in mind the dangers of focusing too heavily on examination tasks mentioned earlier. Exam

courses are often set out in a modular fashion, and this could mean covering exam components separately,

or using a topic-based syllabus as is often laid out in exam course books. This means that items to be

taught are clearly sequenced. Hedge refers to these syllabuses as ‘’product’ syllabuses as they focus on

the product of learning, whether this is knowledge of a set of grammatical structures, or the

communicative ability needed to participate in a set of situations or talk about a set of topics’ (Hedge,

2000, P.358). This topic-based approach can be highly motivating, as it allows learners to see the

possibilities for transferring language to situations outside the examination.

While a product approach is clearly motivating, it could be said that it does not adequately cover learner

needs in an examination class. To address this, a mixture of product and processes approaches could be

adopted. The latter is described as ‘not so much on what learners need to cover but on how they acquire

language through performing it in the classroom’ (Hedge, 2000, P.359). An example of this can be seen in

a typical class outline for a process approach to writing, which focuses on learner training in the areas of

‘prewriting; composing/drafting; revising; and editing’ (Tribble in Badger & White, 2000, P.154). This

kind of approach further complements development of analytical skills in learners.

Part 2: Needs Analysis and Commentary

The course

I have chosen to focus on writing skills for the IELTS exam for three reasons. Firstly, my own experience

has suggested that the majority of learners find writing the most challenging aspect of the exam, a theory

that is backed up by O’Connell’s findings in a ranking survey: ‘The overall result was fairly predictable,

with Writing coming top of the nightmare list…’ (O’Connell, 2003, P.26). This theory was backed up by


7

the needs analysis. Thirdly, IELTS has grown significantly in the last few years and represents an

extremely important goal for learners wishing to move in to tertiary education in English speaking

countries.

Learner characteristics

The group consists of two males and two females at CEFR B1 level. The age range is 20-30 and the group

is represented by three L1s; Turkish, Italian and Arabic. They are all aiming for 6.5 or above, and, as

outlined in the needs analysis (Appendix 3), are working towards the IELTS test with a view to gaining

entry to English universities. They have experience and knowledge of the exam’s content, with two of the

group having already attained 5.5 in earlier attempts at the exam. They are highly motivated while being

comfortable and integrated in to the living environment in London, meaning that the affective filter

appears to be low. However, in the classroom they are aware of their shortcomings with regards to

examination techniques. Furthermore, they have not received any notable learner training, meaning that

they are currently struggling with self-study methods, something which has been negatively affecting

their confidence levels.

Data collection methods

Closing the learner gap between current and desired level is a key part of any course, and a needs analysis

provides a vehicle for analysing perceived and actual gaps. From this data goals and objectives can be

written. As needs can refer to wants, desires, demands, expectations, motivations, lacks, constraints and

requirements (Brindley, 1984), I have chosen to conduct both objective and subjective analyses on the

learners, as it is key to bear in mind not just their objective, factual needs related to ability, but also any

attitudes or expectations that may shape their learning, motivation or attitude. I chose to use three

different methods of data collection:


8

A two-part structured learner questionnaire (learner and exam questionnaire), in which learners

were encouraged to comment on preferences and expectations within the classroom, as well as

perceived difficulties with the exam.

A learner group discussion, in which personal goals were set with consideration given to

perceived linguistic deficiency and the aim of achieving 6.5 (7.0 for one learner) in the IELTS

test.

A self-evaluation, in which learners pinpointed their own perceived abilities with regards to

specific examination tasks.

The decision to choose more than two different methods of data collection was informed by Richards’

concept of a ‘triangular approach’ (Richards, 2001), which states that using a single method of data

collection would not suffice to adequately pinpoint the learner gap.

Diagnostic testing

A diagnostic test is designed specifically to pinpoint strengths and weaknesses that will further inform

goals and objectives. However, with an examination class such as IELTS, it is appropriate to use a past

paper sample so as to give a clear indication of level. This clearly fulfils the criterion of establishing a

tangible gap between initial level and desired level, as it can be expressed numerically. Therefore, I used

a sample of their work on part two of the IELTS writing exam. Upon receiving the sample, I graded

learners by the marking criteria as laid out by the IELTS examination board (Appendix 7:

Task Achievement (TA)

Coherence and Cohesion (CC)

Lexical Resource (LR)

Grammatical Range and Accuracy (GA)

The sub-categories that I analysed when considering grading on the above were:

Respect of word count, layout, content, presence of supported opinion (All TA)Delta Module 3: Teaching examination classes Simon Richardson

9

Paragraphing, sequencing of information, use of cohesive devices (All CC)

Range, accuracy and appropriacy of lexis (including spelling) (All LR)

Variety, complexity and accuracy of grammar (All GA)

Findings

Needs Analysis

Learners clearly identified writing as an area of weakness, and were in universal agreement that the main

difficulties lay with task 2. Through the questionnaires, I was able to ascertain preferences as well as

perceived areas of difficulty (Appendix 2). The group discussion also allowed me to observe the learners’

spoken ability, as well as begin to form goals and objectives based on the discussion.

Diagnostic Testing

As seen in the results in Appendix 2, the learners completed the writing task with some degree of success.

They adhered to a conventional layout, responded directly to the question and all used topic-specific lexis.

Weaknesses, however, lay in grammatical range and accuracy, use of cohesive devices and paragraph

organization.

Priorities

Bearing in mind the motivation of the learners as outlined in the needs analyses, coupled with their results

in the diagnostic test, I have decided to prioritise the following ten points in the design of this course:

P1. Learner training and strategies, including self-study

P2. Knowledge of appropriate topics (Part 2)

P3. An awareness of question types and expectation (Both parts)

P4. Organisation of writing – structure and paragraphing (Both parts separately)

P5. Use of cohesive devices (Part 2)

P6. Language of description (Both parts)

P7. Information flow and discourse (Both parts)Delta Module 3: Teaching examination classes Simon Richardson

10

P8. Expressing and justifying argument and opinion (Part 2)

P9. Developing a wider grammatical range

P10. Developing a wider lexical range

As this course focuses solely on writing, I strongly believe the there is ample time to divide focus over a

wide range of issues.

Part 3: Course Proposal

Course information

This course has been designed as the first 21 hours of a 60 hour programme, which will be split in to three

contact hours per day, running over four weeks from Monday to Friday.

Influence of Part 1 and Part 2

As evidenced by the needs analysis, the learners are motivated by group discussion and the presence of a

central topic as a starting point. Exam course books tend to be topic-based, and discussion is an

appropriate method of drawing lexis, argument and areas of weakness from both a topic and from

learners. Discussion as a vehicle is considered a key principle of instructed SLA theory as outlined by

Ellis: ‘interaction is not just a means of automatising what the learners already know but also about

helping them to acquire new language’ (Ellis, 2008, P.4). Taking this into account, I have incorporated a

topic text task approach, as this will facilitate discussion, analysis and completion of tasks (spoken

and written) that will develop learners’ abilities to address specific examination tasks.

I have taken in to account learners’ requests in the needs analysis with a negotiated syllabus incorporating

learners’ subjective needs. Hedge states that this ‘fits with the progressivist view that learners will learn

more effectively if it is clear that their experiences and perceptions are valued, and if they are involved in

developing the course through a process of consultation’ (Hedge, 2000, P.364).


11

Because the learners share a single goal, the exam practice element of the course can be narrow-angle,

which is suitable when the language and tasks are highly specific: ‘Narrow angle courses essentially

“provide learners with a restricted competence to enable them to cope with clearly defined tasks”’

(Widdowson in Bruce, 2005, P.240). This focus should serve to motivate, although, bearing in mind

issues of motivation and monotony, I have chosen to restrict the amount of specific examination tasks. To

allay any concerns about content, I am focussing on learner training and have chosen a course book that

provides extensive self-study materials. This will further surrender the course to the learners, serving to

develop autonomy.

Goals and objectives

The objectives outlined are centred on developing competency through a process approach, as well as

addressing tasks and communicative purpose through a product approach. The learners identified a

particular weakness in structuring writing, a process approach outlined as ‘pre-writing; composing /

drafting; revising and editing’ (Tribble in Badger & White, 2000, P.153), but also showed a desire to

develop communicative competency using a central topic as a vehicle, which could be complemented by

adopting the ‘familiarisation, controlled writing, guided writing and free writing’ (Badger & White, 2000,

P.153) product approach.

The goals and objectives have been written under the guidance of the established priorities from section 2,

and are referenced in the table (P1-P9). Priorities have been clearly defined in Appendix 2.


12

Goals: By the end of the course, the learners will be better able to:

Objectives: To achieve these goals, learners will:

A) Respond appropriately to a range of task types in writing parts I and II, fulfilling marking criteria under Task Achievement (P3, P4)

1. Have been introduced to writing as a process, and have had the chance to respond to the main types of task 1 and 2 writing (Also Goals C & D)

2. Have analysed and evaluated question types and band descriptors in order to better understand expectation

B) Discuss, respond to and argue for and against a range of appropriate academic topics, using a range of lexis (P2, P6, P8, P10)

3. Have participated in debate related to a variety of topics

4. Have familiarised themselves with appropriate language of argument and have had the opportunity to use this language repeatedly through a product approach to writing

5. Have read a number of articles relating to topic areas, focusing on meaning and form (Also Goals C & D)

C) Undertake self-study, particularly with regards to exam practice and keeping lexical and grammatical records for revision purposes (P1)

6. Have been introduced to the usage of lexical notebooks and the internet outside the classroom (Also Goal B)

7. Have been introduced to a workbook and how to use it in self-study time

D) Use a range of cohesive devices, discourse and grammatical structures appropriate to the desired IELTS band (P5, P7, P9)

8. Analysed native / proficient models to notice the learner gap with specific focus on substitution, ellipsis, sequencing, use of the passive and grammatical range

9. Engaged in peer correction and collaborative writing in order to further scaffold (Also Goals A & B)

Content and Approach

I have chosen an analytic syllabus, as they ‘are organised in terms of the purposes for which people are

learning language and the kinds of language performance that are necessary to meet those purposes’


13

(Wilkins in Nunan, 1997, P.28). This holistic approach to language acquisition is further supported by

Swain’s pushed output theory, which states that ‘“pushed output”… constitutes one of the main reasons

for incorporating communicative tasks into a language program’ (Ellis, 2008, P.4). By presenting

language in chunks rather than discretely, as in a synthetic syllabus, I believe that the course provides a

challenge to match both the motivational levels of the learners and their time constraints.

Syllabus Type

The organising principle within my course follows a content syllabus. Nunan states that ‘most of them

would probably be located at the centre of the product / process continuum’ (Nunan, 1997, P.49).

Principally, a content syllabus uses topics as a means for presenting and exploiting language. Criticisms

of the content syllabus are mainly directed at ESP situations, in which learners’ high-level understanding

of a topic may lead them to feel patronised. However, the content of the IELTS exam largely negates this

criticism, as the focus is more on global rather than discrete, specialised knowledge. Furthermore, the

ability to use both product and process within the syllabus will increase learner motivation through

providing variety and responding to their needs.

Approach to Writing

As previously discussed, both process and product approaches to writing will be used. As the course is

purely focused on writing, there is sufficient time to develop writing as a skill.

Sequencing

The four strands running through the course are:

Learner Training

Narrow-angled IELTS exam question focus

Process / Product report and essay writing

Topic discussion and debate


14

The shape of the syllabus is spiral, allowing for language to be freer at the introduction of topic, but then

revisited, sculpted, improved upon and ultimately recycled. An early focus on the sub-skills of writing

similarly allows for the learners to recycle these sub-skills later on in the course.

Materials

As the basis for the course, I have chosen to use materials from a range of published materials (Appendix

8), although course book material does not supplement the entirety of the 21 hours.

Constraints

This course will be taking place at International House London. As such, access to materials and

experienced teachers within an institution accustomed to delivering IELTS courses is assured. The

intensity of the course will have implications for the teacher, as there is some production of model

answers to be done, as well as a higher marking load than on a general course.

Learners currently have no other commitments and are highly motivated, with free time in the afternoons

for self-study and completion of homework.

Part 4: Assessment

Assessment ‘refers to the general process of monitoring or keeping track of the learners’ progress’ (Rea-

Dickins in Hedge, 2000, P.376) and performs three key roles within a course. A needs analysis or needs

assessment was undertaken pre-course, and the in-service learning assessments and post-course

evaluative assessment are informed by the learners’ needs, and therefore the goals and objectives of the

course.

Assessment decisions and purposes

The assessments on this course are designed to monitor learners’ abilities to use topic-specific target

language in order to respond more effectively to IELTS exam questions. Exam questions themselves are


15

used as part of the continuous assessment during the course, meaning that a large part of these

assessments have high face validity as well as high content validity, which will increase the learners’

motivation. That said, formal examination questions could raise the affective filter, as they could be

‘associated with feelings of failure and lack of self-esteem’ (Hedge, 2000, P.376). As a result, I have

varied the formative assessments to provide learners with the opportunity to demonstrate their language

learning through task-based assessment. This also tackles the issue of motivation and negative backwash

discussed in Part 1, as the variation will serve to break the monotony of constant examination focus and

provide an alternative context for the use of target language.

When assessing writing in particular, Hughes notes that ‘we have to be clear at the outset just what these

tasks are that they should be able to perform’ (Hughes, 1992, P.75). Taking this in to account, the band

descriptors for writing are directly addressed in the first lesson of the course. Furthermore, language input

comes before formatively assessed output in all instances.

Formative Assessment

The formative assessment within this course will be both task-based and test-based, and will assess the

progress of the learners in the course strand elements. Learners will be informed of the continuous

assessment stages at the beginning of the course, which should motivate them to focus on using target

language and striving to demonstrate improvement in these sections of the course. The assessment stages

are as follows, and are marked on Appendix 1:

Debate success post language input

Learners demonstrate that they have incorporated features of target language, and can recall it verbally

before writing. Learners are likely to be motivated despite the fact that this is essentially an indirect test

(one that ‘attempts to measure the abilities which underlie the skills in which we are interested’ (Hughes,

1992, P.15), principally because it was a learning method that was requested in the needs analysis. This

assessment also gives the teacher the opportunity to modify the course depending on learner success.


16

Learner Training

Learners demonstrate development of autonomous learning through sharing lexical notebook entries and

reflecting on effectiveness of learning outside the classroom. Again, this will motivate as it was indicated

as a preference in the needs analysis.

Rewriting of tasks

Learners demonstrate that they can notice language gaps and fill them as a result of classroom input and

collaborative learning, a process designed to develop analytical skills.

Exam practice post language-input

Learners demonstrate development of exam techniques and a better understanding of criterion. This

relates directly to the overall learning objective of each individual learner. Again, the marking of these

assessments will provide the teacher with the opportunity to assess shortcomings in reference to the

marking criteria, and adjust language input according to learner performance.

In addition to this, learners will also keep a portfolio throughout the course, which will form the basis of

their final tutorial. In this portfolio, they will keep copies of written work, summative assessments and

their lexical notebooks. As reliability is an issue (‘Human beings do not…behave in the exactly the same

way on every occasion, even when the circumstances seem identical’ (Hughes, 1992, P.29), the tutorial

will provide the opportunity for a reliable assessment of learner level, as the combination of multiple

pieces of assessed work provide fresh starts.

Summative Assessment

The summative assessments at the end of the course will assess the impact of the course on the learners,

and will specifically measure their ability to respond to parts 1 and 2 of the IELTS writing exam. The

course objectives were tested formatively; however the summative test will provide further assessment of


17

objectives 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9.The papers will go in to the learners’ portfolios, which will be used formatively

to shape the remaining 39 hours of the course.

Evaluation

The course will be evaluated through the learner feedback form (Appendix 10) as well as the final tutorial

and consultation. As with the summative assessment, results will be collated and used to inform the

remainder of the course, as well as future courses.

Part 5: Conclusion

As part of the course was developing learner autonomy, I ensured that the needs analysis collected

subjective as well as objective information, so as to create a negotiated syllabus that was learner centred.

The course proposal reflects both subjective needs and addresses weaknesses observed by the diagnostic

assessment, which were lexical, grammatical and structural.

Part 1 of this essay also drew my attention to motivational issues when designing examination courses. As

a result, I designed a content-based syllabus that ensures a variety of tasks, thereby avoiding monotony.

The spoken tasks exploiting target language are also designed in order to reduce the effect of negative

backwash. However, they do directly address sub-skills required for specific parts of the IELTS writing

test (arguing and justifying opinion in part 2).

A potential constraint of this course is that it covers a large amount of material and places considerable

demands on the learners as well as the teacher. As mentioned in part 1, high demand can lead to a high

affective filter. However, I have taken this particular group of learners in to account, designing the course

with their specific exam deadlines in mind.


18

The course takes in to account both their objective and subjective needs, as well as addressing key issues

surrounding exam class teaching. In particular, I have made sure that both process and product

approaches to writing are taken in order to account for learner preference and also to provide variety, both

of task and of interaction (as some of the tasks are collaborative). Therefore, I feel that it should be both

effective and motivating, resulting in clear improvement that can be demonstrated with reference to the

IELTS bandings.


19

Bibliography

Badger, R. & White, G. 2000, A Process Genre Approach to Teaching Writing, OUP]

Brindley, G. 1984, Needs Analysis and Objective Setting in the Adult Migrant Education Program, Sydney: NSW Adult Migrant Education Service

Burgess, S. & Head, K. 2005, How to Teach for Exams, Pearson Education Ltd

Ellis, R. 2008, Principles of Instructed Second Language Acquisition, From CAL Digest

Gokhale, A. 1995, Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking, From Journal of Technology Education, Vol. 7, No.1

Harmer, J. 1992, The Practice of English Language Teaching, Longman Group UK Ltd

Hedge, T. 2000, Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom, OUP

Hughes, A. 1992, Testing for Language Teachers, CUP

Nunan, D. 1997, Syllabus Design, OUP

O’Connell, 2003, What IELTS Learners Want: Exploring Learners’ Concerns in Exam Preparation Courses, From IHJ Spring

Promodrou, L. 1995, The Backwash Effect: From Testing to Teaching, From ELTJ, OUP

Richards, J.C. 2001, Curriculum Development in Language Teaching, CUP

Ryan, R.M & Deci, E.L. 2000, Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions, Academic Press


20

Appendix 1:

Course proposal (note correspondence to Goals A-D and Objectives 1-9)

Materials are from:

IELTS Graduation (IG) Objective IELTS Intermediate Workbook (OIIW) – homework book Insight into IELTS (II) British Council Writing Lessons (BCWL) Cambridge IELTS 8 (CI8)

Monday: 9-12 Goals / Objectives

Negotiation

1. Course Introduction: Discussion of Needs Analysis results and how objectives and goals have been informed by these and the diagnostic test results

2. Learners talk about course expectations

A2

Exam overview

1. What is expected / what are the key components of the writing?

Quiz about the specifics A look at the marking criteria – IG Pp. 5-7 and Band

Descriptors (Appendix 7

B3

Topic focus – Problems with Youths

1. Learners collaborate to examine key problems affecting children today – ranking task

2. Strand – Topic discussion and debate“Which of these problems is the most serious and why?”

3. Feedback – teacher provides lexical / grammatical correction

B5

Reading

1. Learners read article from IG P.29 – focusing on meaning + lexis

2. Group work – collating lexis

C6

Strand – Learner Training

1. Introduce lexical notebooks. Key principles: Topic grouping of lexis by:

Meaning (described in English), Form, Pronunciation, strong collocations, sentences containing collocations, sentences that learners find useful or interesting


21

2. Provide dictionaries and give overview on usage

C6

Homework

Learners collate vocabulary from group work as lexical notebook entries

Tuesday 9-12

C6

Recycle

Vocabulary test – learners asked to volunteer contexts, sentences, spellings of vocab from Monday’s group work (Formative Assessment 1)

A1, A2, D9

A1, D9

Strand – Process Writing – Part 2

1. Learners look at exam question from IG P.35

2. Collaborative process approach Pre-writing (brainstorm) Drafting (Pair input) Revising – focus on grouping of ideas, clarity of text and

organisation / layout Editing (Formative Assessment 2)

(Copy of writing in learner portfolio)

D8

Strand – From Process to Product

1. Model Analysis – learners look at model answer from IG P.37 and identify differences between model and S response

2. Focus on cohesion – linkers between paragraphs, sentences and words

3. Learners use question on IG P.38 to write some linked ideas as a controlled practice

C7


1. Learners given workbooks – overview of OIIW

2. Discussion – what is self-study?

C7

A1

Homework

1. OIIW P.52 – choosing the correct linking word

2. Exam practice – IG P.38 (Formative Assessment 3)


22

Wednesday 9-12

D8

A1

Task 1 Discussion

Learners discuss difficulties regarding task 1

Strand – product approach (report 1)

1. Jigsaw reading – learners (in pairs) look at teacher-prepared models of data presentation of the bar chart, pie chart and table from II Pp. 67-68 and summarise the main points to other pairs with different models.

2. Learners highlight key points related to layout, organisation of ideas, grammar and lexis. Teacher input.

3. Complete controlled activities

4. Individual writing – responses to separate answers

5. Group discussion – review of band descriptors (Appendix 7

(Copy of writing in portfolio)

D9

Recycle

1. Review of homework – how can these linkers fit in to the learners’ task 1 response?

2. Editing stage of writing

3. Peer work sharing – correction, discussion and re-editing (Formative Assessment 4)(Copy of writing in portfolio)

B5

B4

Topic focus – The environment

1. Learners discuss environmental problems and alternative energy sources

2. Reading – IG P.41 (process for meaning) and discussion of validity. Do learners agree or disagree? Why?

3. Learners write a list of reasons for their answers and compare

4. Group language analysis – presenting opinion, supporting ideas and giving reasonsLexis – Collocation

1. IG P.45 – energy.

Homework


23

B5, C6

A1

1. Lexical notebook entries – lexis from reading and useful collocations

2. Learners write a structured argument for or against converting to renewable energy sources (Formative Assessment 5)

Thursday 9-12

C6

Recycle

Review of Homework 1. – learners share lexical entries

B3

Strand – Debate

1. Learners use Homework 2. to have a structured debate using UCLU debating society rules (Formative Assessment 6)

2. Emerging language input – lexis and grammar.

D8

Pre-Assessment

1. Learners look at teacher-prepared model of below question. Process for meaning, group discussion – agree or disagree?

2. Learners list points for and against – reference to key language and structuring

Recycle

Review of Homework 1. (linkers) from Tuesday

A1

Strand – Exam Question Focus (Formative Assessment 7 )

Timed writing (40 minutes)

“As the price of oil increases, governments have no option but to explore alternative energy sources.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?”

C7


1. Collaborative learning – learners look at OIIW book together and make a decision about homework

C6

Homework

1. Learners’ pick

2. Homework 2 from Tuesday returned. Learners to make notes from comments in lexical notebooks and prepare questions for morning Q+A session(Copy of writing in portfolio)


24

Friday 9-12

A2

D8

Recycle

1. Q+A session – homework feedback

2. Homework review – from learner pick (Homework 1) (Formative Assessment 8)

2. Review of band descriptors and implications for homework 2. scoresLanguage Focus

1. Describing trends – lexis / grammatical forms - II Pp. 69-70

2. Grammar review – using comparatives when comparing trends (look at teacher-prepared sample)

A1

Strand – Exam Question Focus

Timed writing (20 minutes) - CI8 P.101

D8

A2

D8

D9

Strand – Product writing (report)

1. Learners look at model answer to timed writing – CI8 P. 168

2. Analysis of structure and sequencing.

3. Grammar review – non-defining relative clauses

4. Sentence samples for controlled practice using non-defining relative clauses (teacher-prepared)

5. Collaborative writing – learners rewrite the exam focus task (Formative Assessment 9)(Copy of writing in portfolio)

C6

Homework

1. Preparation for Monday’s topic: Health – learners find an article on the internet about health that interests them. Prepare a summary to discuss in group session on Monday morning.

2. Learners analyse text for lexis, grammar and style and update lexical notebooks

Monday 9-12 Topic focus – Health

1. Learners present their article summaries

2. Group discussion


25

C6, D8, D9 3. Collaborative learning – lexis, grammar, style from articles

B5

B3

Reading

1. IG P.62 – Health

2. Discussion – the dangers of self-medicating

B4, D8

Language Analysis

1. Learners pinpoint passive sentences in academic article

2. Discussion of meaning, form and use. Analysis of discourse and information flow

A1

D9

D9

Strand – Process Writing - Essay

1. Learners look at IG P.65

2. Pyramid discussion, brainstorm, boarding of ideas (Main body only)

3. Collaborative drafting

4. Revision and editing based on peer corrections (Formative Assessment 10)(Copy of writing in portfolio)

D8

Introductions and Conclusion

1. Learners look at teacher-prepared introduction and conclusion. Language discussion – words to express summing up of ideas.

2. Content focus – learners identify features of content (No new ideas in conclusion, introduction generalises the topic and defines scope)

A1

C6

Homework

1. Learners time themselves writing answer to IG P.65 question

2. Revision of lexical notebooks in preparation for oral vocabulary test

Tuesday 9-12

A2

Recycle

1. Oral review of lexis / grammar noted in lexical notebooks over the course

2. Group marking of homework 1 – review of band descriptors (Formative Assessment 11)(Copy of writing in portfolio)


26

D8

A2

A1

Strand – Product Approach

1. Learners discuss process and then analyse model answer from BCWL 5 P.2

2. Language focus – showing purpose / use of non-defining relative clauses / use of passives to describe processes – BCWL 5 P.3, P.5

3. Learners complete controlled practice exercises from above

4. Strand – Exam Question Focus (Summative assessment 1)

Learners complete writing question from BCWL 5 P.6 – timed (20 minutes)

A1

Strand – Exam Question Focus (Summative Assessment 2)

Learners complete timed writing (40 minutes) for CI8 P.54

Summative Assessment 3 - evaluation

1. Learners’ course evaluation (feedback form and discussion) and final language evaluation

2. Review of portfolios and 1 to 1 tutorials with teacher (Copy of summative assessments 1,2 and 3, and lexical notebook to be included in portfolio)

Bibliography of Materials

Allen, M. Powell, D & Dolby, D. 2006, IELTS Graduation Student’s Book, Macmillan

Black M & Sharp, W. 2006, Objective IELTS Workbook with Answers (Intermediate), CUP


27

Cochrane, S. (Year Unknown), IELTS Academic Writing Module > Lesson 5, From Learn English Professionals: http://www.britishcouncil.org/professionals-exams-ielts-academic-5a.htm

Jakeman, V & McDowell, C. 2004, Insight into IELTS, CUP

Official Examination Paper from University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations, 2011, IELTS 8 with Answers, CUP

Appendix 2

Collated Needs Analysis Results


28

Learner Profiles

Name / Gender / Age / Nationality

L1 Length of Study Previous IELTS?

Required IELTS

Objective

Aysu / F / 20 / Turkish Turkish 6 years Yes: 5.5 6.5 University entry 2013Mattia / M / 25 / Italian Italian Since school No 7.0 University entry

(Masters) 2013El-Farog / M / 20 / Sudanese Arabic Since school (10

months in the UK)

No 6.5 University entry 2013

Nada / F / 30 / Sudanese Arabic Since school (3 weeks in the UK)

Yes: 5.5 6.5 University entry (Masters) 2013

Highest Frequency Learner Wants (1 = Yes) (Highest Frequency shaded)

Want Aysu El-Farog Mattia Nada TotalInside the ClassroomExpressing yourself in communication, discussions and debates (speaking / writing)

1 1 1 1 4

Vocabulary 1 1 2Working in small groups 1 1 1 3Practicing exam questions / papers 1 1 1 3Reading tests 1 1 1 3Class discussions / debates 1 1 1 3Outside the classroomWatching TV and films 1 1 1 3Speaking to people in English 1 1 1 3

Highest Frequency Learner Difficulties (1 = Yes 0 = No) (Highest frequency shaded)

Difficulty Aysu El-Farog Mattia Nada TotalListeningListening and answering at the same time 1 1 1 3Matching list items with options 1 1 1 3The different accents 1 1 2ReadingTiming 1 1 1 1 4Dealing with difficult vocabulary 1 1 1 1 4Matching headings 1 1 1 3Completing sentences 1 1 2WritingThinking of arguments / supporting ideas (Task 2)

1 1 1 1 4

Task 2: The short essay 1 1 1 1 4Organising and structuring the text 1 1 1 3Knowing enough suitable vocabulary 1 1 2


29

Using a range of sentence structures 1 1 2SpeakingPart 2: The long turn 1 1 1 1 4Structuring your answers 1 1 2Expressing yourself fluently 1 1 2

Learner Self-Analysis results

1) Skill score (Total score from questions by skill / number of questions) (Lowest Shaded)

Aysu El-Farog Mattia Nada Average (Combined scores / 4)

Speaking 5.14 5 5 5.29 5.11Listening 6.5 6 5.5 4.67 5.67Reading 4.8 4 4.6 5.4 4.7Writing 4.57 4.14 4.14 4.71 4.14

2) Lowest Scorers (Below 5.0 avg) (Below 4.0 shaded)

Discipline ScoreSpeakingSpeaking for 1-2 minutes with little preparation 4.25Speaking without making many mistakes 3.75ListeningUnderstanding academic lectures 3.75ReadingCompleting this section of the exam within the time limit 3.0Overall ability 4.5WritingPresenting your opinion and arguments 3.75Analysing shapes and numbers 4.25Clear paragraphing 4.75Using a wide range of vocabulary and grammar 4.25Understanding the questions and what you need to do 4.75Overall ability 3.75

Performance in and results of group discussion

Learner Decisions Learner Concerns Learner Performance 100% wanted more exam

practice Time constraints –

learners were very All displayed a high

level of motivation


30

100% wanted to take more responsibility for their learning outside the classroom

100% wanted to discuss more topics related to IELTS writing part 2 – 75% wanted this to be initially discussion based

100% felt that a course book with a clear topic progression was beneficial

75% felt that their main weakness lay in writing, 75% also mentioned speaking as a weakness, while 25% highlighted reading as a main weakness. All learners felt that their listening skills were fairly strong

75% of learners agreed that they needed more focus on written structure in parts 1 and 2

75% of learners wanted to improve their fluency, while 50% felt that this could be achieved through debate and discussion

75% wanted to be taught techniques to improve reading speed

conscious of the pressure of time both within the exam itself, and with reference to the timeframe in which they needed to achieve their target

A lack of awareness of how to study outside the classroom was wasting time

Too much communication outside the classroom in a lingua franca environment – learners wanted more time interacting with native speakers

Narrowness of lexical knowledge

Organisational issues – learners felt that they were not leaving classes with sufficient records of learning to aid memory outside of the classroom

Learners felt that their overall knowledge of the listening and speaking papers was good, but they were unsure of how to answer some of the questions on the reading paper, and felt unconfident with the variety of task in writing task 1, particularly describing processes

during this task – the collaborative nature of the discussion seemed to challenge and motivate

Learners were able to produce some natural utterances, with a high frequency of coordinating conjunctions and a pace that matched B1 level

Frequent pauses without pause fillers

Appropriate selection of grammar with an awareness of modal backshift, although only with suggestion – not with assertion

Class dynamic was excellent – no dominant learner or negative atmosphere

Learners showed a high level of ability to consider, evaluate and rationalise, indicating analytical learner style

Collated Diagnostic Results

According to IELTS band descriptors (See appendix 7on supporting document)


31

Task Achievement

Coherence and Cohesion

Lexical Resource Grammatical Range and Accuracy

Task was understood

No clear definition of subject or scope

Introduction – Body – Conclusion form followed

Word count not respected

Lack of support of main ideas and arguments – also, a lack of clear opinion

Some logical progression of ideas, although linkers and sequencers are often used formulaically / overused

Topic selection within a paragraph can be unclear due to lack of progression and organization

Low proportion of referencing, although learners demonstrate awareness of pronoun referencing

Issues with conjunction / underuse of conjunction

Some appropriate topic-specific language choices: ‘harm, spread… gases, landfills’

Some inappropriate choices – ‘the folks that…’ – lack of awareness of registerSpelling is good in the main

Some strong collocations: ‘contribute to’, respiratory problems’, ‘implemented by’

Overuse of two-part verbs – ‘breathe in’, ‘goes on’

Outside topic vocabulary, supporting lexis is limited in range

Awareness of relative clauses – ‘…which come out from factories’, ‘The most common problems that we can feel’

Lack of grammatical range – present simple and present continuous used throughout (1 learner used the passive appropriately)

Some errors with word order, especially in longer sentences: ‘Air pollution causes every year more problems…’

Some article omission or misuse, particularly when generalizing

Confusion or omission of verb ‘be’

Inaccuracies: Overuse of present instead of past modals, incorrect aspect selection (omission of auxiliary ‘have’ means that the present perfect is incorrectly formed)

IELTS writing performance

Name TA CC LR GA BANDAysu 4.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0Mattia 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0El-Farog 6.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0Nada 6.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0

Priorities – decisions


32

Learner training and strategies, including self-study

Reaction to learner wants, mindful of intensive nature of course, learners are highly motivated so should

respond well

A knowledge of appropriate topics (Part 2)

Learners expressed a lack of knowledge of recurring topics, topic-based syllabus activates schemata

which is helpful with top-down processing, provides basis for discussion which fits learners’ learning

preferences

An awareness of question types and expectation (Both parts)

Reaction to learner concerns, provides opportunity for repetition which will help to automatise process of

writing, different contexts provide course variety

Organisation of writing – structure and paragraphing (Both parts separately)

A specific weakness noted from diagnostic testing, key marking criterion

Use of cohesive devices (Part 2)

A specific weakness noted from diagnostic testing, key marking criterion

Language of description (Both parts)

Topic-specific language required to attempt tasks in part 1 – language required to describe change or

evaluate numbers and figures. Part 2 language required to describe problems, solutions and trends in a

more global setting.

Information flow and discourse (Both parts)

Will provide basis of stylistic development, will rationalise use of passives, referencing, substitution and

ellipsis, key marking criterion

Expressing and justifying argument and opinion (Part 2)

Ties in with structuring paragraphs, learners identified arguing as a weakness, will provide further

opportunities for group discussion, key marking criterion

Developing a wider grammatical range


33

Learners’ grammatical range was very poor, key marking criterion

Developing a wider lexical range

Learners indicated that they did not feel confident in this area, and the lexis they used in the diagnostic test was limited


Documents

Candidate name: · Web viewAs seen in the results in Appendix 2, the learners completed the writing task with some degree of success. They adhered to a conventional layout, responded