1. The observed lesson was a general, intermediate class with 12 students. It was the first lesson with this
class for the teacher and the focus of the lesson was on communication (speaking).
The start is effective with a video, it raises students’ attention and introduces the topic of sport for the
lesson. Students then write getting-to-know questions for each other. The students start their timed
getting to know activity. There is a buzz in the class, the learners seem to enjoy asking and answering
questions in this timed manner. The teacher monitors but does not interrupts, error corrects or gets
involved in the discussions. In my opinion this is a correct decision as it is a good opportunity for
students to practice fluency rather than accuracy. It is also a good opportunity for the teacher to ‘assess’
the class and identify areas (grammar points, pronunciation work, vocabulary extension, etc) to work on
in the future.
In the class feedback the students are asked to talk about their experience of the task. The teacher also
gives his rationale to students. I wonder whether it was necessary. The students doesn’t seem to mind
but it takes time away from them. I feel that this time could have been used more effectively.
The teachers’ instructions are clear for the next task, which are reinforced by some instruction checking
questions. The students are working in threes on an information gap activity about sports, which is a
great piece of adaptation of the activity which was designed for 4-5 students, which would clearly be
less effective. The teacher monitors and helps students with language and vocabulary. Would the whole
class benefit from these ’private’ discussions in the class feedback? The teacher describes this activity as
‘relatively simple’ for this level in the lesson plan. Would there be an opportunity here to make it more
challenging and also to work on students’ language? I often give students clues for ‘repair strategies’
(what to ask if in doubt from their partner) and/or phrases to use when answering a question or forming
opinion. It would be a good opportunity for students to pick up some new language with guessing,
speculating, etc.
The activity seems to be going on slightly too long. Although students seem to be engaged but one team
finishes early and - prompted by the teacher – they start discussing their relationship to sports
(preferences, their favourite one, experience with various sports, etc). This seems to work really well,
injecting new life into the exercise. It is personalized and localized as they talk about each other’s
country. Would it be worth rolling it out to all groups? In the class feedback the teacher goes through
some of the sports, asking about challenging words and asks one team to summarise one sport based on
the descriptions on their sheets. This latter is a great extension of the activity, so much so that I feel it
would be a great opportunity for some more speaking practice. Students could for example in a couple
of minutes prepare and then give a brief description of one chosen sport using the vocabulary from their
task sheets.
At the end of the class the teacher pulls the class together, elicits, explains and reinforces some
challenging vocabulary (stamina) and finishes the lesson - with a quick preview of what is coming up for
the rest of the week.
I observed a class taught by a very competent teacher. I witnessed some useful techniques – monitoring,
selective error correction, instruction checking questions - used effectively in class. The teacher had
2. good rapport with the students and had good control and authority in class. The lesson was skill based
and learner-centered; with a lot of opportunity for speaking. The pace of the lesson was good, there was
a buzz and excitement in class for the productive stages of the lesson. Going forward I suggested to the
teacher to make better use of monitoring, be more responsive and work with emergent language. A
more flexible lesson plan would accommodate these well.
