Ⅰ. Overview of the lesson
The title of the lesson plan is Business Letter of Apology. I used this lesson plan when I presented a writing microteaching in methodology class. Profile of students is adults and intermediate-mid. Target language is vocabulary related to giving apology and business letter form. The materials are jumbled letter, voucher samples, handout for reading text and focus questions, DVD (Shallow Hal) and DVD player, overhead projector, and a sample letter for writing apology. The reading text is a business letter of apology from a hotel manager in reply to one customer’s complaint. In warm-up, the teacher activates students’ schemata by asking students think of the situation of apology. After that, the teacher asks students to make an apology to a customer with a specific situation. In presentation, the teacher teaches the business letter form with jumbled letter activity and checks understanding by asking questions in handout. Next the teacher asks students to make questions for given answers in handout then finish up with teaching vocabulary. In step 10, the teacher asks students to write an apology letter to a character in the movie, Shallow Hal for the accident in the movie clip.
Ⅱ. Theoretical justification of the lesson
A. Intrinsic Motivation
Material especially the reading text is not motivating enough it doesn’t contain much of opinion and conflict or controversy even though students are adults and may have interest in business letter from. But the topic is personalized in step 7. Asking students to think of situation in giving an apology is motivating. In step 8, the topic is not personalized at all. It only focuses on main idea of the reading text and teaching vocabulary related to making an apology and business letter form. Personalized questions in step 8 would make the topic more interesting. Before teaching vocabulary, the teacher could ask students what they would do if they were in the position of the hotel manager in the reading text. Imagination gap and opinion gap in step 10 make the lesson motivating. Students have to write one sentence each and asked to be creative in writing. They can imagine the situation in the movie clip freely. They can have different opinion in the letter of apology to the customer.
B. Risk-Taking
Calling on individual students in step 7 and 8, high-level questions in step 8 and reading aloud after writing each sentence in step 10 encourage risk-taking. Especially in steps 7, there are many T-S-S-T rather than mind map. This makes students make questions and involves grammar. In step 8, the teacher asks high-level questions like why they put one piece after the other in jumbled letter activity. It is an analysis question. Students have to look for cohesive devices in the letter to put the pieces in the right order. The teacher used chunking for the answers of high-level questions. However cueing could encourage more risk-taking because students have to complete the sentence not repeating teacher’s modeling. In step 10, the teacher asks students to read their sentence aloud to a group member after writing their part. To make the lesson more risk-taking, the teacher could ask students to read the completed letter to the whole class.
C. Input Hypothesis
Students get roughly-tuned input as they read an authentic business letter in step 8 and the teacher asks communicative questions to practice meaningful input in step 7., i+1 is automatically included in authentic material as long as input is comprehensible. The teacher makes the reading text comprehensible in step 8 in various ways. With focus questions on main ideas and several specific fact finding questions, the teacher make it communicative class. Questions like “Have you ever apologized before?” and “What would you make an apology if you are the restaurant manager” in step 7 are meaningful and genuine questions. Those questions are designed for communicative purpose. Although the reading text is authentic, the lesson would make roughly -tuned input more comprehensible with open questions and personalized questions in step 9. They could be “What students would offer to the customer if they were in the position of the hotel manager” or “Have you ever received a voucher from a hotel or a restaurant when you made a complaint?”
Ⅲ. Conclusion
I was surprised to see that my lesson plan does contain many aspects of theories in SLA class and it was unintended. I didn’t think of applying those concepts in writing the lesson plan. How what I learned in the methodology class is connected to the theories in SLA is quite amazing to me. I could have made the lesson plan more perfect if I thought of applying concepts in SLA before. I am satisfied with warm-up because topic is personalized, it encourages risk-taking and roughly-tuned input is given. But in step 8, the teacher has too much to do in given time frame. Therefore the topic is not personalized enough and it contains finely-tuned input even though the reading text is authentic. In step 10, opinion gap and imagination gap make the lesson motivating and the activity involves some risk-taking. Overall the lesson is well prepared with various concepts like intrinsic motivation, risk-taking and roughly-tuned input applied except some minor deficiency in step 8.
Submitted by Anna
Posted by James Trotta at December 15, 2006 10:00 AMESL blog is one of many Blogs for learning English & teaching English. Translation services information.