Page 129 - The SpeakTeach method - Esther de Vrind

Figure 10: Example of classification 1, the builders: learning route of teacher Jeanine (J)
Case description: teacher Jeanine
In the regular lesson series of teacher Jeanine, there was no explicit alignment of input and exercises to improve speaking activities (procedure 1, score 0), even though supporting exercises were present in the curriculum (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, listening fragments). These exercises were the same for all students (procedure 2, score 1). There was hardly any structure in sequences of speaking activities (procedure 1, score 0)). The teacher provided feedback to the class as a whole or to individuals while walking around (procedure 3: score 0). Jeanine mentioned as advantages of her regular teaching practice that little preparation was needed and students could safely practise in pairs. Disadvantages were that students often finished the speaking activity too quickly and that they could withdraw from the activity without being noticed by the teacher. The teacher had little insight into the learning process, she found that assignments were boring for the students and because of lack of time speaking activities were the first thing to be dropped. Jeanine wanted to change the sequence of the speaking activities by adding self-evaluations by the students (goal related to procedure 1). She also intended to vary the feedback provider, to increase the number of feedback recipients, to review the assessment of speaking activities and to introduce more variation in the focus of feedback (goals related to procedure 3).
Jeanine performed two SpeakTeach lesson series in two parallel year 3 pre-university (vwo) classes. In both lesson series she maintained the structure of the book and in this way stayed close to her regular teaching practice. Concerning procedure 1, Jeanine instructed the
126
127
5