English Language And Linguistics Lesson Plans: A Critique

Critique of the Teacher’s Books

Describe about the English Language and Linguistics for Lesson Plans.

Lesson plans for any particular subject should have adequate data to distinguish the individual item based on which the entire lesson plan has been prepared. On the other hand, a lesson plan is supposed to have relevant contents which should be clearly understandable for the learners. However, at the same, it should be considered whether the substances of the lesson plans are worth motivating or not. 

The purpose of this following report is to review lesson plans for English grammar and linguistics and after that to produce in-depth criticisms of those lesson plans prepared for both teachers and students. Therefore, the report aims to analyze whether the prepared lesson plans are appropriate to give lessons by judging the point of views of both teachers and students who belong to the intermediate level. The analysis of the teaching schedules for both the teachers and the students have been established with the support of different well known learning theories such as behaviorism theory, innate theory and the theory of social construction. Additionally, the report has considered all those essential methods of teaching to support the criticism.

The very initial lesson plan for the teachers begins with a brief account about the chief focus of the entire lesson plan which indicates that the lesson aims to teach the way of using “be able to” in the context of failure and success. A lesson plan should state its goal and instructional objectives at the very beginning of the program (Cajkler et al. 2013). Teacher’s book at its very opening has said that the purpose of the plan and how it is divided into two individual phase. Instructional objectives such as how the aim of the project will be executed have been provided alongside in the introductory stage. According to the lesson plan, the purpose of the first phase is to advise teachers about how they can guide students to learn the usage of certain grammatical phrases which is followed by how teachers can guide students to focus on pronunciation. Nevertheless, the second phase of the plan for the teachers concentrates on how teachers can guide students to give focus on vocabulary. To make the lesson plan more understandable, the program is even segmented into several sections such grammar, pronunciation, speaking, vocabulary, and reading, speaking and listening. 

According to teachers’ point of view regarding giving lessons, a teacher expects that a lesson plan should provide a set of actions which could be applied to the students (Arends 2014). At the beginning of the teachers’ book, there has been given eight steps that the teachers should use in case of giving lessons on grammar. Therefore it seems that instructional objectives have well given and considering the right guidance regarding which teaching should be paid when seems workable. The lesson plan has mentioned that each task which the teachers should follow step by step should be done in a particular time frame though there is less mention of the exact times. A lesson plan for teachers is supposed to set the time of the tasks which are going to be done step by step should mention how much time the teachers should give for individual work (Reece and Walker 2016). Nevertheless, the lesson plan appropriately indicates about the teaching practices those will be provided to each child.  

Critique of the Students’ Materials

Different teaching methods are there to address different kinds of approach regarding teaching (Richards and Rodgers 2014). Following the given steps to teach grammar mainly, it seems the lesson plan has followed both the direct instruction and cooperative learning style. Cooperative learning style that falls under student-centered teaching approach helps teachers to teach how to develop social growth as in this style students get the opportunity to study in groups (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson 2013). On the other side, the direct instruction which is probably the most traditional method of teaching instructs teachers to make teaching demonstration and lecture oriented. Lesson plan in the grammar section includes involvement of students both individually and in the group. The grammar section of the schedule even gives examples of the common mistakes those frequently happen from the part of the students. Therefore, it seems that in the grammar section the lesson plan has successfully provided clear guidance to the teachers.

In the beginning, it appears that the grammar section has been prepared following the Behaviorism theory. By the behaviorism theory, learners’ minds are empty which should be filled with knowledge. Furthermore, the knowledge and experiences for the student will be given new changes in behavior will be required (Kendall and Hollon 2013). The grammar section of the lesson plan seems to bring modification in the students’ sense of using grammar. However, the method in this section does not follow the aspect of the behavioral theory that believes students’ minds are empty vessels. It is because the initial instruction says that teachers should ask the students to express their individual thought regarding the given article. Therefore, the instruction style is found to follow the Constructivism theory more accurately than the former one. It is the constructivism theory that says people or students constructs their point of view based on the given knowledge or experience (Gopnik and Wellman 2012).     

The pronunciation part, on the other hand, is little tiny though offers instruction and found to follow the personal model of inquiry-based style of learning. The personal design is observation oriented in which students learn by observing and imitating the particular process that is used by the teacher. Following this learning style, pronunciation part instructs that the teachers should play audios and should make a sentence which would be followed by the actions of the students’ right after. Similarly, the vocabulary section instruct on playing sounds and demonstrating sentences. Nonetheless, instructions in the pronunciation, speaking, and vocabulary section of the learning plan are composed considering the Constructivism theory. According to constructivism hypothesis, construction of individual understanding should be done with proper help of a teacher (Kiraly 2014). Each of these parts instructs the teacher to ask the students to make news sentences or to show their individual understanding by the given knowledge. On the other hand, teaching method wise, lesson plan on vocabulary, speaking and pronunciation and even in reading and speaking part relate to the cooperative or delegator style. In most of the part in the lesson plan, it seems the planner has given stress upon the theory of constructivism along with the cooperative and direct instruction teaching style. 

The final instruction part in the lesson plan has also maintained the constructivism theory though has used mixed teaching techniques. Considering all of the parts in the lesson plan, one thing can also be deducted that, the theory of innateness is related to all of the guidance as in each case the teacher is advised to ask the students to make new sentences or express their assumption. Innateness hypothesis says that human beings possess at least some features and knowledge regarding language following which the tasks are established keeping in mind about the capabilities of the students (Samúelsdóttir 2015). Most importantly, the schedule is made with easy and understandable tasks. Therefore, the assignments are clear. Additionally, provided materials also seem appropriate for the grade level. Unfortunately, there is very less instruction given to make an observation upon the children and few guidelines have been provided to evaluate the outcome after teaching. However, there are some instructions to get feedback from the students after the class in the speaking and vocabulary, to listen and speaking section. Nevertheless, the plan is little less coordinated with other aspects of school program though it is not required and the schedule is beneficial for needs of the students as the tasks are prepared to develop the students’ social growth.

Considering the lesson plan made for the students, it seems that the given assignments are provided by the teaching schedule done for the teachers. A lesson assignment is done for the students; need to be prepared in a way which should be understandable and workable for the students (Borg 2015). Unlike the lesson plan prepared for the teachers, students book or teaching schedule has not started with defining the purpose of the entire lesson plan though the primary context which is failure and success have been mentioned in the heading section of the book. The instructions are clear, and almost every task instructs the students to give answers after following the instructions. A lesson plan for the students required to be a clear course and should form as a written guide for the learners (Myhill et al. 2012). The lesson goals have not been explicitly mentioned though specific directions on the objectives for learning such as how to proceed to complete given tasks after reading or observing have been provided. The initial one follows the pattern and learning objective presented in the grammar section provided in the lesson plan made for the teachers. Understandable phrases, materials, and use of funny and attractive pictures in the students’ books are indicative of the fact that the lesson plan has been made to attract the eyes of the learners at first.

Materials such as short descriptive stories with tasks like completing short sentences, answering quick questions seem relevant and appropriate to increase the level of interests of the students. As per students’ point of view, learning becomes interesting and enjoyable with attractive and funny pictures, short stories (Cohen 2014). The grammar section, therefore, should be appreciated for fulfilling learner’s basic learning requirements. However, it is unfortunate that the lesson plan should have specified the grade level at the top of the chapter. Considering the learning pattern given in the students’ book regarding the grammar, pronunciation and speaking part, it seems that the schedule has been formed the base of the learning process that is project based. The project based style approaches the authentic instructional learning type which is considered to be useful in the case of engaging students’ interest and encourage them (Sztajn et al. 2012).

Unfortunately, the pattern does not match with some instructions of teachers’ lesson plan such as directing the students to work in pair or group have not been followed in the lesson plan made for students. However, the tasks created for individual learners address two fundamental concepts of social cognitive theory which are observational learning and reproduction. According to the basic concepts of this approach learning by observing and retaining students to reproduce new behavior or knowledge are required to optimize the educational growth of the students (Carter and McRae 2014). On the other hand, the constructivism hypothesis has also been maintained throughout the student’s book as every task in the lesson instruct the students to give answers or their individual expression on behalf of each given assignments. The duties demand students’ participation and judge their personal capability and level of assumed knowledge by directing them to provide answers.

The vocabulary part on the other side instructs to answer in pairs along with other instructions for individual assignments. The reading and speaking sections behold an article that is easily assumable and comprehensible, and it implicates that the design is made to give an enjoyable and comforting atmosphere to the students. Hence, the lesson plan seems manageable, and the provided contents prove relevant and appropriate for the learners and the grade level. However, some guidelines should have been provided for the students to help them judge their capability. 

Conclusion

From the above report, it can be deduced that lesson plan for the teachers’ has been made following student based cooperative and inquiry-based learning style. Step by step instructions have been provided in the guideline scheme, and the materials also seem convenient and apt in the case of teaching. Proper introduction and motive of the lesson plan have been given in the teacher’s books though students’ books do not contain something like that. Nevertheless, both educators and students lesson plan consider using audiovisuals to make the learning process more enjoyable and exciting. Most importantly, both of the lesson plans are designed considering the hypothesis of constructivism. However, there is less observable data for evaluative criteria in both teachers and students’ books. It should have been given as a lesson plan could not be called efficient without them.

Reference

Arends, R., 2014. Learning to teach. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Borg, S., 2015. Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Cajkler, W., Wood, P., Norton, J. and Pedder, D., 2013. Lesson Study: towards a collaborative approach to learning in Initial Teacher Education?.Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), pp.537-554.

Carter, R. and McRae, J., 2014. Language, literature and the learner: Creative classroom practice. Routledge.

Cohen, A.D., 2014. Strategies in learning and using a second language. Routledge.

Gopnik, A. and Wellman, H.M., 2012. Reconstructing constructivism: Causal models, Bayesian learning mechanisms, and the theory theory.Psychological bulletin, 138(6), p.1085.

Kendall, P.C. and Hollon, S.D. eds., 2013. Cognitive-behavioral interventions: Theory, research, and procedures (Vol. 21). Academic Press.

Kiraly, D., 2014. A social constructivist approach to translator education: Empowerment from theory to practice. Routledge.

Larsen-Freeman, D. and Anderson, M., 2013. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching 3rd edition. Oxford university press.

Myhill, D.A., Jones, S.M., Lines, H. and Watson, A., 2012. Re-thinking grammar: the impact of embedded grammar teaching on students’ writing and students’ metalinguistic understanding. Research Papers in Education,27(2), pp.139-166.

Reece, I. and Walker, S., 2016. Teaching, training and learning: A practical guide. Business Education Publishers Ltd.

Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S., 2014. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge university press.

Samúelsdóttir, B., 2015. The Innateness Hypothesis: Can Knowledge of Language be Inborn?.

Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P.H. and Edgington, C., 2012. Learning trajectory based instruction toward a theory of teaching. Educational Researcher, 41(5), pp.147-156.