Page 134 - The SpeakTeach method - Esther de Vrind

Chapter 5. Perspective of the teachers – professional development
3 2
S c
or 1 e
0
0123 Procedure 1 Procedure 2 Procedure 3
Teacher Florence
Figure 12: Example of classification 3, innovators who refine: learning route of teacher Florence (F)
Case description: teacher Florence
In Florence's regular teaching practice, lessons were shaped from receptive to productive skills. There was no explicit link between the speaking activities and the other components in the lesson series (procedure 1, score 1). Moreover, there were only a few guided speaking activities on which Florence gave feedback while passing by (procedure 3, score 0) and activities for improvement were the same for all students (procedure 2, score 1).
As the most important positive aspects of her regular teaching practice, Florence mentioned that the speaking activities bring alternation and motivation in the lessons, but she was dissatisfied with the limited amount of speaking activities and the time needed to design and carry them out (not directly related to one of the procedures of the innovation). In order to improve her current teaching practice in speaking skills, Florence intended to increase the alignment between lesson components and to build up the sequences of speaking activities (procedure 1). She wanted to design a lesson sequence which began with the final free speaking activity with self-evaluation, followed by guided speaking activities and improvement activities, and ending with another self-evaluation of the final free speaking activity (procedure 1). She also wanted to give the students more freedom of choice (procedure 2) and she wanted to improve the speaking activities by creating an information gap, and adding exercises aimed at communicative strategies (other goals). Regarding feedback, Florence wanted to give more
132
131