Lesson Plan - Used To

Used To

Lesson Plan

Chris Khonngam

Walden University

USED TO LESSON PLAN 2

Used To Lesson Plan

Lesson planning is the application of learning theory to a defined target learner, providing

a “road map” for how a class will be conducted (Purgason, 2014, p. 362). The plan for the lesson

“Used To” will consist of the following elements: exposition, objectives, feedback, content, and

classroom management.

Exposition

The foundation of a lesson plan is built upon expository information collected about the

target learner and the context of the lesson (Harmer, 2010, p. 158). The exposition section for the

lesson “Used To” consists the following areas: target learner, context, diagnostic assessment, and

analysis.

Target Learner

A description of the target learner enables the instructor to consider the students’ age,

level, and distinguishing characteristics when selecting materials and methods for the classroom

(Harmer, 2010, p. 158). The class for this lesson consists of 15 young adult foreign students

attending a private English as a Second Language (ESL) school in Hawaii. Approximately sixty

percent of the class is from Asia, primarily Japan and China; and forty percent comes from

Europe, most notably Switzerland. While some students may have a terminal goal of passing a

standardized exam, such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) to meet

institutional requirements (Llosa, 2011, pp. 206-7); or the Test of English for International

Communication (TOEIC) as a workplace requirement (Llosa, 2011, pp. 207-8); the immediate

goal for the majority of students is to improve their conversational English. Prerequisite

knowledge assumed for this lesson includes the ability to form sentences using present simple

and past tense and the ability to form basic questions about the past.


Context

The course is a combined skills class called “Intermediate Conversational English” that

meets daily for 3 hours, 5 days per week. A term consists of 4 consecutive weeks. A unit consists

of one week. The school primarily utilizes the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

method (Harmer, 2010, p. 50), but also allows for some drills derived from the audio-lingual

method (p. 49). The name of the unit is “Remember when?” The unit instructional goal is to

provide students with the skills to introduce themselves by talking about their past. The lesson is

the second in a sequence of five lessons, and is called “Used To”. The lesson goal is to form

grammatically correct sentences using the verb “used to” and to be able to use it appropriately in

conversations. Students will be able to discriminate when to use “used to” as opposed to simple

past tense.

Diagnostic Assessments

Formative assessment will be implemented throughout the lesson to monitor student

processing and progress (Bachman & Palmer, 1996; as cited in Llosa, 2011, p. 373). While a

form of summative assessment will be conducted at the unit’s conclusion, a standardized exam

will be used as a diagnostic tool prior to the first day of class to ensure students meet the

minimum proficiency level for the course of Lower Intermediate level; or Common European

Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) level B1 (COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2001).

Standardized exams are useful for this purpose because they reliability represent students’

abilities, are relatively free from bias, and are cost effective (Kunnan & Grabowski, 2014, pp.

311-13; Murray & Christison, 2011, pp. 204-5). However, due to the fact that standardized tests

consist mainly of indirect measures, calling into question their authenticity when gauging

communicative tasks (Murray & Christison, 2012, p. 203), the pre-test will be supplemented


with a face-to-face interview. Those conducting the interview will be asked to rely on their

expertise to determine a holistic score (Murray & Christison, 2012, p. 201) and will be trained to

maintain inter-rater reliability (p. 204). I have selected the Placement and Evaluation Package

for Interchange 2 for the standardized diagnostic assessment (Lesley, Hansen, & Zukowski,

2008).

Analysis

Because the target students have achieved Intermediate level, the lesson must strive to be

challenging and engaging, yet remain comprehensible (Murray & Christison, 2011, p. 20). While

the pre-test should flag students with glaring deficiencies, extra homework should be made

available to students who need to raise prerequisite skills without draining valuable class time. I

subscribe Stephen Krashen’s “plus one” input hypothesis that recommends new material just one

step beyond students’ current ability (1983; as cited in Celce-Murcia, 2014, p. 8). Because the

school promotes the CLT approach, students will expect a higher degree of communicative

activities in contrast to audio-lingual drills. Therefore additional communication games and

exercises should be used to supplement the course texts. Having a variety of tasks will also

uphold student interest (Purgason, 2014, p. 363) and cater to a variety of learning styles (Byrd &

Schuemann, 2014, p. 388). The students’ age and maturity should allow for the inclusion of

alternative media, such as Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL), Computer-Mediated

Communication (CMC), and social media (Murray & Christison, 2011, pp. 59-63).

Supplementing with authentic materials will enhance student engagement, improve relevancy,

and unfold further learning opportunities (Murry & Christison, 2011, p. 56). Finally, because

many students have chosen to study in Hawaii due to its many tourist attractions, lessons should

include references to local culture in order to pique student interest.


Objectives

Kitty Purgason (2014) lists writing objectives as the first step in lesson planning (p. 365).

The second step is mapping objectives to instructional materials. A third important step,

according to instructional design theory, is to map assessment to objectives (Gentry, 1994). The

objectives section for the lesson “Used To” consists of the following sections: learning

objectives, materials, and assessment.

Learning Objectives

In a ground-up approach, the skills and knowledge targeted for any particular lesson are

derived from a needs analysis (Norris, 2011, p. 581) or needs assessment (Graves, 2014, p. 54;

Weddel, 1997). In lieu of this time-consuming process, institutions may deduce learning tasks

from established proficiency standards and/or government directives (Kunnan & Grabowski,

2014, p 307). This lesson plan abides by lesson goals and objectives defined in the institutional

syllabi, corresponding with CEFR and standards set by the Commission on English Language

Program Accreditation (CEA).

At the program level, goals are general statements that describe what students will have

achieved at the end of the course, derived from the needs assessment (Graves, 2014, p. 58). The

goals for the combined skills course “Intermediate Conversational English” are for students to be

able to communicate at the CEFR level B1: to understand the main points of clear standard input

on familiar matters; to cope with situations likely to arise while traveling where the target

language is spoken; and to produce simple text and speech on familiar topics, including past

events, hopes, and ambitions, and offer explanations and opinions (COUNCIL OF EUROPE,

2001). An instructional course comprises 14 weekly units. The instructional goal for the unit

“Remember When?” is to provide students with the skills necessary to introduce themselves by


talking about their past. The presented lesson is the second in a sequence of five lessons. The

goal of the lesson “Used To” is to form grammatically correct sentences using the verb “used to”

and to be able to use it appropriately in conversations, including being able to discriminate when

to use “used to” as opposed to simple past tense.

Goals are divided into sub-goals, or objectives (Graves, 2014, p. 58). According to Robert

Mager (1962), the forefather of Criterion Referenced Instruction (CRI), objectives should be

clear, observable, and measurable. This corresponds well with Task-based Language Teaching

(TBLT), a product of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) that employs “tangible”

learning outcomes (Norris, 2011, p. 578). One popular method of writing objectives comes from

the Instructional Development Institute in 1971, called the ABCD method. State the Audience

who will benefit from the lesson, the Behavior to be performed, the Conditions or how the

learner will perform the behavior, and the Degree or measurement of student success. Because

the behavior must be observable it is usually stated in the form of an action verb (J. D. Brown,

1995; as cited in Graves, 2014, p. 59). To ensure clearly defined objectives, key verbs are

selected from those corresponding to Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains

(Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956) .

As an integrated lesson following the CLT method, five activities are planned that loosely

correspond to the four phase approach outlined by John Norris for TBLT: task input, task work,

task performance, and task follow-up (2011, pp. 584-5). The following five activities are

identified along with their corresponding learning objectives:

1. Warm up: childhood picture. Objective: Using a picture prompt, students (Ss) repeat

and apply the verb “used to” in place of past simple tense to describe a habitual action.


2. Grammar focus: form of “used to” Ss apply rules for using the verb “used to” in

written sentences with complete accuracy.

3. Conversation and pronunciation practice: interview. Ss working in pairs recall and

repeat a dialog incorporating “used to” with accurate pronunciation \yustʌ\.

4. Performance: celebrities then and now. Ss working in groups apply the verb “used

to” to a sentence describing a celebrity, combine and assemble a dialog, and perform the dialog

using correct pronunciation.

5. Transfer: Truth or lie game. Ss formulate a sentence with the verb “used to”

complying with provided criteria, and appraise the truthfulness of other Ss statements.

Materials Selection

According to Purgason (2014) the second step in lesson planning is to select the materials

that can best accomplish the stated learning objectives (p. 365). Published textbooks have several

economic advantages over the development of original instructional materials, despite their flaws

of being overly restrictive (Harmer, 2007, p. 153) and imperfect (Byrd & Schuemann, 2014,

p.380). In order to maximize textbook adaptability, I have employed Jeremy Harmer’s (2007)

matrix for selecting coursebooks that stresses inclusion of supplementary materials (p. 154). As

an integrated lesson, content that is both “linguistic” (grammar-focused) and “thematic”

(meaning-focused) are required. My experience has informed me the majority of publishers that

attempt all-encompassing textbooks utilizing an “eclectic” blend of methodologies (Harmer,

2007, p. 51) fall short of their goal. Therefore, I have selected two main texts for the course.

For my thematic textbook, I choose Interchange 2 (Richards, Hull, & Proctor, 2005). It is

an integrated skills text, including reading, writing, speaking, listening, pronunciation, grammar,

vocabulary, and collaborative activities; all organized around a common theme. The set includes


a comprehensive teacher’s edition with learning objectives, teaching notes and tips, and a

question bank. Supplementary materials include an audio CD, teacher’s resource CD, games,

photocopiable activity sheets, and a comprehensive Web site with additional worksheets.

For my linguistic textbook, I select Betty Azar’s classic Fundamentals of English

Grammar (Azar, 2003). This series of books is renowned for having clear grammar rules and

explanations- often with illustrations, and lots of drills and gap-fill exercises. Downloadable

resources on the teacher support Web site include the excellent activity book Fun With

Grammar, expansion activities, song lessons, PowerPoint slides, and a seemingly endless supply

of teacher-created worksheets.

Employing the CLT method necessitates having a large resource of collaborative

activities, which also improves lesson variety (Purgason, 2013 p. 365) and stimulates interest.

For this lesson I have selected the very functional photocopiable exercises in Jill Hadfield’s

Intermediate Communication Games (2000). As identified in the exposition, the target learner’s

aptitude accommodates the inclusion of CALL. According to Robert Blake (2011), students

using CALL are more engaged (p. 30) and may perform better (p. 21). Considering that Norris

(2011) advocates the use of authentic materials in TBLT (p. 583) and Blake (2011) considers

social media to be an integral communications medium in today’s society (p. 25), I have opted to

incorporate a clip from the popular Web site You Tube in this lesson: Hottest celebrities: before

& after! (thrillerman1, 2009) because it is relevant to my students, interesting, and provides great

context for discussions using the verb “used to”.

Assessment

Authors Kunan and Grabowski (2013) state that “without assessment, teaching would be

incomplete” (p. 304). The purpose of classroom assessment, which tends to be formative, is to


provide immediate feedback while measuring student progress (Bachman & Palmer, 1996; cited

in Llosa, 2011, p. 373). This is in contrast to summative assessments used to measure students’

terminal skills for accountability purposes. Since summative exams generally occur at the

conclusion of a unit, none is provided for this lesson segment. However, results of the formative

assessments may be recorded for future use in a general summative assessment. According to

established instructional design theory, assessments must be measurable and correspond to stated

lesson objectives (Gentry, 1994). In addition, Katz emphasizes the direct link between practice

methods and assessment methods (2014, p. 328). Assessment can be formal and detached, as is

typically the case with achievement exams (Harmer, 2010, p. 166); or informal and integrated

(Katz, 2014, p. 320) as is often the case with ongoing feedback. Following the CLT approach,

this lesson incorporates large amounts of feedback provided by both peers and the teacher. The

following section describes and rationalizes assessment tools and methods for each of the five

identified lesson activities.

1. Warm up: childhood picture. Activity: students (Ss) compose and recite a sentence

about a childhood picture of the instructor using the verb “used to.” Assessment: formative

feedback using the IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback) method. Rationale: the task is productive

(Katz, 2014, p. 328) eliciting a limited constructed response (Katz, 2014, p. 328; Murray, 2011,

p. 190). The focus is on meaning using an authentic example (Norris, 2011, p. 583). The purpose

of assessment is to check understanding by providing immediate feedback. Evaluation criteria

are provided on a checklist: use of the verb “used to” for past tense for habitual actions. The

teacher (T) provides corrective feedback for non-habitual action (e.g. “used to take pictures”).

Negative expressions are not encouraged but allowed, and incorrect use of “didn’t used to” are

not corrected at this time.


2. Grammar focus: form of “used to” Activity: Ss study the grammar rules for “used

to” using example sentences in the textbook Fundamentals of English Grammar section 2-11

Expressing Past Habit: Used To, page 52, then complete gap-fill exercises #25 page. 52-53.

Rules include application to habitual past actions, negative form with “didn’t use to”, and as an

extension lesson, choosing the appropriate infinitive to describe people (“be” vs. “have”).

Assessment: formative using gap-fill exercises featuring self-correction, peer-feedback, and

teacher support. Rationale: the task is productive, eliciting a closed-choice constructed response.

The focus on is form using manipulated examples (Norris, 2011, p. 583). Ss employ self-

correction using the textbook as a guide, and may work in pairs to check each other’s’ work. T

monitors the assessment and provides additional guidance where necessary.

3. Conversation and pronunciation practice: interview. Activity: Ss listen to a

recording of an interview with two people discussing their past, then work in pairs to fill gaps in

a transcript of the recording and finally practice speaking the dialog using correct pronunciation

of “used to.” The recording is taken from “Listening: life as an immigrant” in Interchange 2 (3rd

Ed.) page 3. Assessment: formative using gap-fill exercises, utilizing self-correction and peer-

feedback. Rationale: the task is integrative, employing receptive skills for listening and

productive skills for speaking. The receptive skills are processed internally, thus cannot be

measured directly (Katz, 2014, p. 327). Therefore, a closed constructed-response gap-fill activity

(employing the writing mode) measures understanding. Self-correction is provided through

reviewing the audio and peer-feedback is available during pair work. Pronunciation of “used to”

is assessed through peer-feedback and T monitoring during the dialog practice. The criterion for

pronunciation is remembering to apply reduced speech.


4. Performance: celebrities then and now. Activity: Ss watch a video, Hottest

celebrities: before & after! showcasing images of famous celebrities as children compared to

how they look today and individually write three sentences describing one celebrity with the verb

“used to” or “didn’t use to.” Then, in groups of 3-4, Ss construct a dialog using at least one

sentence from each student discussing celebrities and finally perform for the class. Assessment:

formative using peer feedback during the exercise and T feedback after the exercise in the form

of a scored rubric (Katz, 2014, p. 326). Rationale: this is a performance-based integrative task

replicating authentic conditions (Norris, 2011, p. 584). Ss will be provided with the rubric used

to score the performance using direct measures. Both an individual and group grades will be

provided. The purpose of assessment is to provide student feedback, however scores may be

recorded for use in an overall summative assessment of the unit.

5. Transfer: Truth or lie game. Activity: in groups of 3-4, each S forms a statement

with “used to” or “didn’t use to” from a picture prompt representing a past habit and a random

card indicating verity: “TRUTH” or “LIE.” Group members vote as to the verity of the

statement, with points awarded if they correctly guess “TRUTH” or “LIE.” Play then passes to

the next S and continues until all picture cards are used. Assessment: formative ongoing peer

assessment. Rationale: this follow-up task (Norris, 2011, p. 584) is an integrative performance

task focusing on both form and meaning. The prompts and criteria force each S to self-monitor

language prior to producing their sentence. Ss provide feedback through negotiating meaning

(Norris, 2011, p. 581), by correctly identifying the verity of a sentence as “TRUTH” or “LIE” or,

as is more often the case, by misunderstanding or correcting misapplication of the criteria by Ss.

For example, S may be prompted to “LIE” but constructs an incorrect sentence, which is

revealed during the group vote. T may optionally deduct ‘points’ for incorrect sentences or


mispronunciation of “used to.” The ‘points’ awarded are arbitrary, but may lead to a motivational

reward, such as candy. The purpose of assessment for this activity is not to measure performance

per se, but to provide authentic peer feedback during negotiation and empower Ss to self-correct

and notice gaps in their own understanding in an authentic communicative context.

Feedback

Although tolerance for error would appear to be greater in the fluency-oriented CLT

approach (Brinton, 2014, p. 344), feedback remains a key element of every instructional method.

Despite the contention that error correction can lead to increased student anxiety (Larsen-

Freeman, 2011, p. 531) and may interrupt the flow of conversation (Bartram & Walt, 1991; as

cited in Sheen & Ellis, 2011, p. 599), the fact is students want to be corrected (Sheen & Ellis,

2011, p. 598, 605). From a behaviorist perspective, corrective feedback (CF) prevents the

formation of “bad habits” (Ur, 1996; as cited in Sheen & Ellis, 2011, p. 598). From a cognitive

perspective, CF empowers students to “notice gaps” in their understanding and modify their

output, an element of negotiating meaning (Sheen & Ellis, 2011, p 596). From a sociocultural

standpoint, CF provides scaffolding necessary for learners to expand their development (Norris,

2011, p. 584).

Implementations of feedback differ between “accuracy” and “fluency” work (Sheen &

Ellis, 2011, p. 599). During “accuracy” work, feedback is more immediate and explicit (Sheen &

Ellis, 2011, p. 593). During “fluency” work, feedback tends to be more implicit (such as asking

for clarification) and delayed. In addition, oral feedback lends itself to being immediate and

implicit, as in recasts (Brinton, 2014, p. 344), while written feedback is more likely to be delayed

and explicit (Sheen & Ellis, 2011, p. 599). In addition, instructors need to be wary of

overcorrecting students (Sheen & Ellis, 2011, p. 598), and thus should employ selective


correction (p. 599) in alignment with the formality of speech or social register (Lai, 2010, p.

167). The register for written grammar tends to be more strict and formal than for spoken

grammar (Larsen-Freeman, 2011, p 532). Also, English exchanged between non-native speakers

(NNS) facilitating as a lingua franca may contain “ungrammatical but unproblematic” errors

(Seidlhofer, 2001; as cited in Larsen-Freeman, 2011, p. 535), which are likely to occur during

group activities.

IRF pattern in oral feedback

As identified by researchers Sinclair and Coulthard in their 1975 article, Towards an

analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils (as cited in Murray & Christison,

2011, p. 182), the Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) sequence is one of the most common

patterns of oral feedback in the SLA classroom. Its use may be traced back to parent-child

interaction (Seedhouse 1997; as cited in Waring, 2008, p. 578). Despite criticisms that the IRF

technique is too teacher-focused (Murray & Christison, 2011, p. 182) and constraining (Broady,

2002, p. 64), these shortcomings may be mitigated by modifying the pattern to allow for

unexpected “contingencies” in conversation (Lee, 2007; as cited in Waring, 2008, p. 579) and

opportunities for elaboration (Hall & Walsh, 2002, as cited in Brinton, 2014, p. 346; Broady,

2002, p. 64).

Feedback in the lesson “Used To”

This section will outline feedback for each activity in the lesson “Used To” for both oral

and written modes and describe appropriate rubrics for measuring learner competence.

1. Warm up: childhood picture. Using the IRF technique, immediate and explicit oral

feedback is provided as each S speaks a sentence incorporating the verb “used to.” However, as

this is a warm-up activity focusing on meaning rather than form, the pattern may be modified to


allow for more “instructional conversation” (Hall, 2001; as cited in Brinton, 2014, p. 346) to help

learners to “notice new language features”, in particular the use of the bare infinitives “have” and

“be.”

2. Grammar focus: form of “used to.” Appropriate to written accuracy work, feedback

is explicit and delayed in the form of student self-assessment using the textbook key as a rubric.

Ongoing peer-provided oral feedback may occur during pair work. In addition, T should actively

monitor Ss’ work and provide targeted, immediate, and explicit oral and written CF for egregious

written errors that could derail S understanding or if disagreements are observed during pair

work.

3. Conversation and pronunciation practice: interview. Students self-correct the

listening portion through repeated listening and checking of their completed transcripts. Some

oral feedback may be provided by peers during pair work before and during recitation of the

dialog. As this is a listening and speaking accuracy task, CF should be explicit. Because peers

may hesitate to provide direct CF, it is vital that the T actively monitor the activity and act as a

“mediator” to facilitate scaffolding (Sheen & Ellis, 2011, p 597). For the pronunciation task, T

may reduce tensions by making peer-assessment into a game. As the activity progresses, T may

opt to encourage accomplished Ss to expand on the rehearsed dialog by adding new information,

thus expanding the focus from form to meaning.

4. Performance: celebrities then and now. As this is a complex integrated and

collaborative activity, it is important for T to confirm S understanding of the steps and criteria.

This can be facilitated with the presentation of a formal rubric or checklist that identifies the

steps and requirements for the task. While the first part of the task, writing a sentence, is not

formally assessed, T should actively monitor Ss’ work and provide direct, informal feedback to


Ss who may be struggling or off-track. During the second step, peers provide feedback as they

negotiate production of a combined dialog during group work. Again, it is very important for T

to act as “mediator” during this phase to provide expert guidance, scaffolding, and facilitate

negotiation. During the third phase, production of the group dialog, T oral feedback must be

limited to facilitating the task, as CF may interrupt the performance and hamper fluency.

Formative CF is therefore explicit and delayed in the form of a graded rubric provided after the

activity. However, ongoing verbal encouragement is advised as a motivational tool.

5. Transfer: Truth or lie game. This conversation game to apply knowledge and

confirm understanding is also collaborative and complex. Since this activity is not formally

assessed, no rubric is needed. However, it may improve execution if T writes the steps and rules

on the whiteboard. Modeling the activity with a select group of Ss is strongly recommended.

Informal oral CF is provided by peers during the activity, focusing on meaning. If S fails to

provide an accurate statement based on the prompted criteria, peers earn points for noticing the

error. The complexity of the activity invites misunderstandings by design, providing numerous

opportunities for Ss to practice negotiating meaning. However, as these misunderstandings may

lead to confusion and even arguments, it is important for T to actively monitor the game and

provide explicit oral feedback to clarify understanding and assist scaffolding. In addition, T

should provide encouragement to maintain a fun atmosphere and inspire Ss to elaborate and

expand on their statements by temporarily intervening in conversations using follow-up

questions as a prompt. However, T must avoid becoming the focus of conversation and should

bow out as soon as possible.


Content

The content of the lesson “Used To” consists of an analysis of how the lesson fits into the

overall curricular plan, meets course goals, and integrates into the unit. The presentation of

content is organized in a standardized format (Murray & Christison, 2011, pp. 26-7) that

illustrates the lesson context and describes specific steps for each activity.

Curriculum plan

According to Graves (2014, p 53), an effective course plan is derived from three

elements: identifying instructional methodology, examining the educational context, and

assessing learner needs. The instructional methodology embraced by the school is primarily

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). The school utilizes notional-functional syllabi as

established by the Council of Europe (Robinson, 2011, p. 297), and the primary text, Interchange

2 (Richards, Hull, & Proctor, 2005) provides objectives that correlate with CEFR. The

educational context is postsecondary learners attending a private language school in Hawaii

(Murray, 2011, p. 150). Student needs have not been directly assessed, as the curriculum is

designed to meet CEFR standards. While students may have individual goals of passing the

TEOFL or TOEIC exams, the general goal is to improve conversational English. One special

consideration is the potential for students to be both distracted and/or motivated by their

environment being a world famous tourist destination.

Curricular goals

According to the Interchange 2 CEFR Correlation (Richards, Hull, & Proctor, 2005), the

lesson “Used To” corresponds to the following CEFR level descriptors [the learner can…]:

generally follow the main points of extended discussion around him/her, provided speech is

clearly articulated and in standard dialect (B1); ask and answer questions about pastimes and past


activities (A2); participate in short conversations in routine contexts on topics of interest (A2);

describe plans and arrangements, habits an routines, past activities and personal experiences

(A2); write very short, basic descriptions of events, past activities and personal experiences (A2).

Considering the lesson “Used To” is the second lesson in the unit “Remember when?” which is

the first of a 16-week course “Intermediate Conversational English,” the identified behaviors

provide the foundational skills required to support curricular goals. The unit instructional goal is

to provide students with the skills to introduce themselves by talking about their past. The goals

for the combined skills course “Intermediate Conversational English” are for students to be able

to communicate at level B1 of the CEFR.

Content integration

The first lesson in the unit “Remember when?” reviews prerequisite skills such as asking

questions about the past and talking about the past using simple past tense. The second lesson

introduces the form “used to.” The succeeding lessons perfect the form, expand context, and

provide opportunities for practice. This unit provides scaffolding that “links topics” (Harmer,

2010, p. 162) to future lessons, such as: describing change, sharing holidays, comparing time

periods, describing abilities and skills, talking about landmarks, and speculating about past and

future events. In addition, each chapter in the primary text Interchange 2 contains common

“threads” (Harmer, 2010, p. 162) running throughout, including: conversation, grammar focus,

listening, speaking, vocabulary, pronunciation, reading, and projects. Finally, in concert with

CLT, the final lesson in each unit consists of a project-based summative assessment, advanced

conversation games, and a social activity integrating the lesson with Hawaiian culture.


Content

A Lesson: “Remember when?” Day 2: “Used To” (80 minutes).

B. Level/Subject: Lower-Intermediate (CEFR B1)/Conversational English

C. Student body: 15 students: 10 Japanese, 5 European

D. Book: Interchange 2 (3rd

ed.) by Richards, Hull, & Proctor. Fundamentals of English

Grammar (3rd

ed.) by B. Azar.

E. Seating: Movable chairs and tables.

F. Equipment: Whiteboard & markers, CD-player, Computer with Internet access, video

projector & screen.

G. Instructional materials: Childhood picture of instructor, Interchange 2 (3rd

ed) classroom

audio CD, “Life as an immigrant” transcript/gap-fill handout, “Celebrities then and now”

assessment rubric, “Truth or lie” game cards (5 sets), game prizes (optional).

H. Lesson Goal: To teach students how to form grammatically correct sentences using the verb

“used to” and to be able to use it appropriately in conversations. Students will be able to

discriminate when to use “used to” as opposed to simple past tense.

I. Instructional objectives: 1. Using a picture prompt, students (Ss) repeat and apply the verb “used to” in place of

past simple tense to describe a habitual action.

2. Ss apply rules for using the verb “used to” in written sentences with complete

accuracy.

3. Ss working in pairs recall and repeat a dialog incorporating “used to” with accurate

pronunciation \yustʌ\.

4. Ss working in groups apply the verb “used to” to a sentence describing a celebrity,

combine and assemble a dialog, and perform the dialog using correct

pronunciation.

5. Ss formulate a sentence with the verb “used to” complying with provided criteria, and

appraise the truthfulness of other Ss statements.

J. Rationale: Ss will describe habits and routines, past activities, and personal experiences

(CEFR A2).


K. Approach or philosophy: Following the CLT method, students learn meaning through

authentic, comprehensible input and producing authentic, comprehensible output.

Students perfect form through contextual sentence manipulation, repetition, and

application.

L. Procedure

1. Warm up: childhood picture. (10 minutes).

Hold up a childhood picture of the instructor, and/or pass it around.

Ss write 3 words (adjectives) describing the person in the picture.

T monitors Ss and offers suggestions.

T writes on the board and says: “I used to have big ears.” (or another appropriate

sentence).

T reveals the subject of the picture. Be humorous.

T writes form on whiteboard: “You used to _______”

T using IRF format, questions each S: “What did I use to look like?”

o Encourage Ss to use one of the words they wrote to save time.

o Use recasting to correct mistakes.

o Expand and respond to interesting or funny statements.

o Use follow-up questions with advanced students.

o Maintain a quick pace.

o If S can’t answer, allow them to pass but go back to them later.

o Write common infinitives on the whiteboard, such as “have” and “be.”

o Allow negative statements but don’t correct misuse of “didn’t used to”

o Correct for non-habitual actions.

T reviews by summarizing habits that are still true today using “still am/do”.

2. Grammar focus: form of “used to” (15 minutes).

Ss read Fundamentals of English Grammar section 2-11 Expressing Past Habit:

Used To, page 52, a-f.

T lectures form rules:

o a-c) Past situation or habitual actions. Reinforce using examples from the

Warm Up Activity or the textbook page 52. Non example: “Yesterday I

went surfing”. “I used to go surfing.” Not a habit, happened just one time.

o d) Question form (use not used).

o e-f) Negative form (didn’t use to not didn’t used to)

o T note: since most NS (NAE) incorrectly say “used to” it is acceptable.

(if needed) T uses IRF to complete error correction Exercise 24 #1-7 page 52.

Ss complete gap-fill Exercise 25 #1-6 pp. 52-3.

Ss self-correct Exercise 25 using the key. (Optionally, in pairs).

T answers Ss questions and provides guidance.

Extension: T notes use of “be” for most adjectives, however for personal

attributes, say “have.” Example: “I used to have big ears.”

Homework (optional): Exercise 26 #1-7 page 53.


3. Conversation and pronunciation practice: interview (15 minutes).

Warm up: T asks “What is an immigrant?” Use IRF format to extend discussion

(if needed). Refer to Interchange 2 #4 page 3.

Ss form pairs.

Play Interchange 2 class audio CD #1 Track #3 “Life as an immigrant.”

Pronunciation: T asks “How did they say used to? In NAE we reduce our speech

and say \yustʌ\” Write phonetic pattern on whiteboard.

Ss practice repeating \yustʌ\

T plays audio again, Ss listen for \yustʌ\

T hands out “Life as an immigrant” transcript/gap-fill exercise.

T plays audio again. Ss fill gaps in handout. Play audio once more to correct

errors (if needed).

In pairs, Ss practice the dialog.

o T instructs Ss to listen for reduced speech \yustʌ\

o T monitors Ss for using reduced speech

o Ss change roles and repeat dialog.

o Extension (if needed): Ss fill gaps in dialog with original words, and speak

new dialog.

4. Performance: celebrities then and now (20 minutes).

Warm up: T comments on celebrities that change their looks. Example:

“Remember Michael Jackson, he used to have a cute nose, and then he changed.”

Show the You Tube video: Hottest celebrities: before & after!

T encourages brief but loose reactions to the video. Use IRF if needed.

Ss form groups of 3-4.

T instructs Ss to each select one celebrity and write 3 “used to” sentences.

o Can be positive or negative.

o T offers help if they don’t know the name of the celebrity.

o Each group member must choose a different celebrity.

Repeat the video. T monitors Ss writing sentences.

T hands out “Celebrities then and now” assessment rubric.

o Groups will write and speak a combined dialog.

o Each S contributes at least one sentence.

o Ss are assessed both individually and as a group.

o Dialog should be logical and sound natural. Explain “gossip” if necessary.

o Assessment criteria:

Accuracy of grammar.

Appropriateness of context.

Pronunciation of \yustʌ\

o T monitors Ss, offers suggestions and mediates group interaction.

Groups should practice their dialog. It must be memorized, not read. (Separate the

class if needed).

T collects rubrics, sentences, and completed dialogs.


Ss perform dialogs for the class.

o T should encourage applause and class interaction. For example, react

with faux shock to how celebrities have changed.

o Note: T does not provide CF during the performance.

5. Transfer: Truth or lie game (20 minutes).

Ss remain in groups or form new groups of 3-4.

Arrange chairs of each group surrounding a table.

T announces “Truth or lie” game. Note: game pieces consist of two stacks of

cards, 1 stack of 20 pictures depicting past habits, and 1 stack of four cards

reading either “TRUTH” or “LIE.” Both stacks lie face-down on the table.

T reviews steps. If needed, write on the whiteboard. Alternatively, provide written

instructions.

1. S picks a card from the pictures stack.

2. S picks a card from the “TRUTH or LIE” stack.

3. S makes a statement about themselves and the picture.

4. If S card says “TRUTH” S must tell the truth.

5. If S card says “LIE” S must tell a lie.

6. Group votes if S statement is “TRUTH” or “LIE.”

7. S reveals card. Each correct guess gets one point.

8. If S made a mistake, S loses one point.

9. Discard picture. Replace and mix the “TRUTH or LIE” cards.

10. Play passes to the next S.

T models game play with one of the groups or with other teachers.

Ss play game until all picture cards are exhausted.

o T monitors Ss carefully for correct game play.

o T monitors for correct reduced speech.

o T maintains fun atmosphere by making playful comments.

o T enforces validity of S “TRUTH” or “LIE” statements, and encourages

Ss to assess peers by asking follow-up questions.

o Note: mistakes will be made. That is part of the fun!

o T facilitates negotiation of meaning.

o Optionally, provide a prize for S with the most points.

o Game can be extended by reshuffling the picture cards or shortened

depending on time constraints.

5. Closing (time permitting).

T uses IRF format to question each group or each S about something interesting

they found out during the game.

T asks about any mistakes or misunderstandings that occurred.

T assigns homework.


Classroom Management

Effective classroom management involves considering how the instructor will cope with

a variety of variables (Harmer, 2010, p. 34). These include managing classroom interaction

(Brinton, 2014, p. 343) and dealing with challenging students (Beare, 2012). Classroom

interaction is managed by “restructuring” activities into individual work, pair work, and group

work (Murray & Cristison, 2011, p. 45). Examples of student challenges include waning

motivation and accomplishing tasks at a different pace.

Classroom management for the lesson “Used To”

The lesson “Used To” varies activities and pacing to sustain student engagement (Murray

& Cristison, 2011, p. 41), incorporating a myriad of strategies for student interaction. The

following section describes rationale for student grouping for each activity, predicts potential

student challenges, and provides suggestions for successful implementation of each activity.

1. Warm up: childhood picture. One-centered activities bolster student confidence

(Murray & Christison, 2011, p. 46) and allow students to work at their own pace (Harmer, 2010,

p. 43). Using the IRF technique, Ss individually produce a sentence and share it with the class.

As a warm-up activity, students are engaged by the childhood picture of the instructor, creating a

“social event” around how the instructor once looked (Brinton, 2014, p. 350). During the IRF

activity, students may have difficultly thinking of an original sentence. That is why the T first

instructs Ss to write three adjectives describing the picture before the target language “used to” is

introduced. By writing the sentence first, remedial students are not pressured to improvise a

sentence. During the IRF sequence, if a student can’t produce a sentence, T should allow them to

“pass” with the caveat of returning to them at a later time.


2. Grammar focus: form of “used to.” Individual work is employed to develop student

confidence in the new language; however, pairwork may be implemented for corrective

feedback. If Ss appear disengaged, T may add urgency by randomly calling on Ss for answers

using IRF. T should monitor the activity for struggling students, and employ pair-teaching by

teaming them with a stronger partner (Harmer, 2024, p. 177). If Ss finish the activity early, a

supplemental homework exercise is provided for them to complete.

3. Conversation and pronunciation practice: interview. This activity begins as an

individual exercise which then expands into a dyad, which provides a “low-risk” environment for

Ss to acclimate to later group work (Murray & Christison, 2011, p. 46). If students have

difficulty listening to the audio recording, it may be necessary for T to preview vocabulary using

the transcript (Harmer, 2010, p. 183). If students appear unengaged or are resorting to using their

L1, T may have to reassign partners. The activity may be extended for students who finish early

by having Ss replace missing dialog with original phrases and repeating the exercise.

4. Performance: celebrities then and now. Through the use of an authentic and relevant

video, Ss attention is refocused. Complexity and interactivity are scaffolded by first having

students write individual sentences then combining them into a group dialog. Groups are utilized

to increase opportunities for practice and to improve the quality of output (Murray & Christison,

2010, p. 47). Instructions are clarified and expectations are communicated by distributing the

assessment rubric, which is written using clear and simple language (Harmer, 2010, p. 37). At

this point in the lesson, the environment is becoming less teacher-focused and more student-

focused by gradually relinquishing control to the students (Murray & Christison, 2011, p. 44).

This frees up the T to monitor group interaction, provide encouragement, and remediate

struggling students. Disengaged students should be motivated by the pressure of performing for


the class. Use of L1 must be discouraged, as the instructional goal is for students to practice

negotiation in the L2. This can be accomplished by reminding Ss to use English (Harmer, 2010,

p. 179) and using the assessment rubric to demonstrate consequences of using L1 on their grade.

Groups who complete their dialog early may be encouraged to improve or expand their

compositions.

5. Transfer: Truth or lie game. Student interaction has gradually built from individual,

to pair work, to group work, building S trust and elevating S attitudes (Murray & Christison,

2010, p. 47). A collaborative game is employed to maximize opportunities for practice and

increase S autonomy (Brinton, 2014, p. 350). The role of the T has shifted from lecturer to

manager, monitoring the activity to provide encouragement and occasional assistance. Because

this is a complex activity, it important for the T to communicate the steps using clear and simple

language. It may be helpful to write the steps on the whiteboard or provide a handout. T must

also model the activity before having Ss proceed. The activity is designed to create intentional

confusion that will force Ss to practice negotiating meaning, therefore the T should monitor

group interaction to clarify misunderstandings and smooth over arguments. It is important for the

T to maintain a fun and relaxed atmosphere by reminding Ss that this is not a graded exercise,

that there is no single “correct” answer, and by occasionally “dropping in” on group discussions.

Lack of engagement is not anticipated to be a problem due to the nature of friendly

“competition.” Because gameplay is fairly complex, T may choose to reassign groups to avoid

pairing remedial Ss. If groups finish early, the game cards can be reshuffled and played again.


Summary

“Used To” is a self-contained lesson plan for ESL students studying at level B1 of CEFR.

It meets the instructional goals of the overall course and has clearly written lesson objectives.

While following the CLT approach by focusing on meaning and employing comprehensible

input and output, grammar and listening exercises also focus on form and utilize behaviorist gap-

fill exercises and repetition. Lesson content is integrated and task-based; practicing reading,

writing, listening, and speaking. The lesson content is varied, including both authentic materials

and contrived materials for sentence manipulation. Lesson materials are presented in a relatable

context, including personal photos, authentic dialog, and a YouTube video of familiar celebrities.

Assessment is formative, and criteria closely match the stated objectives and the practice

environment. Feedback varies according to the instructional context, and includes formal explicit

T feedback for “accuracy” work and informal selective correction for “fluency” work. Self-

assessment is utilized for individual work, while peer-feedback is employed during pair and

group work. The terminal performance is assessed using a written rubric in order to avoid

interrupting group presentations. Finally, a conversational game is employed to provide

opportunities for students to practice the target language in context, and to simulate an

environment where students are required to negotiate meaning. Since language is unsuccessful

unless it is understood, negotiating meaning is the most important skill in SLA. This lesson

provides amble opportunities for students to practice, experiment, perfect, and reinforce

understanding of the target language.


References

Azar, B. S. (2003). Fundamentals of English Grammar (3rd

ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson

Education.

Beare, K. (2012). Classroom management. Retrieved from

http://esl.about.com/od/esleflteachingtechnique/a/classroom_management.htm

Blake, R. J. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 31, 19–35.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy

of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay, 19,

56.

Brinton, D. (2014). Tools and techniques of effective second/foreign language teaching. In

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Snow, M. A. (Eds.), Teaching English as a second

or foreign language (340-361). Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.

Broady, E. (2002). Changes, challenges and complexity: recent debates in English language

teaching. Language Learning Journal, 26(1), 62-67.

Byrd, P. & Schuemann, C. (2014).English as a second/foreign language textbooks: how to

choose them - how to use them. In Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Snow, M. A.

(Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (380-393). Boston, MA:

Heinle, Cengage Learning.

http://esl.about.com/od/esleflteachingtechnique/a/classroom_management.htm


Celce-Murcia, M. (2014). An overview of language teaching methods and approaches. In Celce-

Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Snow, M. A. (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or

foreign language (2-14). Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:

Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Retrieved from:

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_en.pdf

Ellis, R. (2014) Principles of instructed second language learning. In Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton,

D. M., & Snow, M. A. (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (31-45).

Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.

Gentry, C.G. (1994). Introduction to instructional development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Graves, K. (2014). Syllabus and Curriculum Design for Second Language Teaching. In Celce-



Hadfield, J. (2000). Intermediate communication games. Pearson P T R.

Harmer, J. (2010). How to teach English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Longman.

Katz, A. (2014). Assessment in second language classrooms. In Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D.

M., & Snow, M. A. (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (320-337).

Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.

Kunnan, J. K. & Grabowski, K. (2014). Large-scale second language assessment. In Celce-




Lai, J. (2010). Interpersonal functions of EFL teachers’ evaluative discourse. International

Education Studies, 3(2), 167–173.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Teaching and testing grammar. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty

(Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 518–535). Chichester, W. Sussex:

Wiley-Blackwell.

Lesley, T., Hansen, C. & Zukowski, J. (2008). Placement and evaluation package, Interchange

third edition/Passages second edition. Cambridge University Press.

Llosa, L. (2011). Standards-based classroom assessments of English proficiency: A review of the

issues, current developments, and future directions for research. Language Testing, 28(3),

367–382.

Mager, R. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Palo Alto, California: Fearon Press.

Murray, D. E., & Christison, M. (2011). What English language teachers need to know, Volume

II: Facilitating learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

Norris, J. M. (2011). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.),

The handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–592). Chichester, W. Sussex: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Purgason, K. B. (2014). Lesson planning in second/foreign language teaching. In Celce-Murcia,

M., Brinton, D. M., & Snow, M. A. (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign

language (362-379). Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.

Richards, J. C., Hull, J., & Proctor, S. (2005). Interchange 2 (3rd

ed.). Cambridge University

Press.


Robinson, P. (2011). Syllabus design. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of

language teaching (pp. 294–306). Chichester, W. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),

Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, Volume II (pp. 593–

607). New York, NY: Routledge.

thrillerman1. (2009, January 4). Hottest celebrities: before & after! Part 1 of 2. Retrieved from:

http://youtu.be/nVXpaUUF9hA

Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation‐Response‐Feedback): A Single Case

Analysis. Language Learning, 59(4), 796-824.

Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF,

feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 577-594.

Weddel, K. S. (1997). Needs assessment for adult ESL learners. In ESL Resources. Center for

Adult English Language Acquisition. Retrieved from

http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/digests/Needas.html

Documents

Lesson Plan - Used To