Page 1 of 20

Delta lesson plan

TASK 2: This is the lesson plan that accompanies the background essay
you looked at earlier. Have a look at the Analysis section and answer
these questions:
- What has Maggie chosen to analyse in her lesson plan? Why?
- How is the Analysis section in the lesson plan different / similar to
the analysis in the background essay?
You can post your comments and questions on Slack.

Teacher Assignment
Maggie LSA 2 - Skills
Level of learners Number of learners Lesson date Lesson length
Intermediate 9 (registered) 26.07.20 60 minutes

Contents (criteria)
1. Aims of the lesson (5b)
2. Analysis of target language / skills (5c)
3. Overview of the group and course (5ai)
4. Timetable fit (5d)
5. Assumptions made (5e)

6. Procedure (5h, 5j)

7. List of lesson materials (with sources) (5i)

8. Comments on individual learners (5aii)

9. Potential problems and solutions (5f, 5g)
10. Commentary (500–750 words) (5k)
 Page 2 of 20

1. Aims of the lesson

Main aim
By the end of this lesson, my students will be better able to listen to and understand recurrent chunks of
language in everyday speech.

Subsidiary aim(s)
x
Professional aim(s)
To practise a bottom-up approach to teaching listening.

2. Analysis of target language / skills

SKILL
According to research, there are two relevant processes involved in the skill of listening:
• Top-down processing, which draws on background knowledge to understand the meaning of the
message.
• Bottom-up processing, which relies on decoding the incoming input as a basis for understanding the
message.
In the last scenario, comprehension is viewed as a process of decoding, at successive levels of organisation –
sounds, words, clauses, sentences, texts. Bearing this in mind, many common expressions are produced and
heard as fixed chunks of language. Therefore, attempting to decode them word by word would be inefficient
(as it would take up working memory) and difficult (because the sequence is often reduced through elision,
assimilation or both).

FORMULAIC CHUNKS
There is a marked difference, especially in fast-flowing speech, between the standard, written form of the
utterance and the realisation of it in spoken language when it comes to the formulae below. While the
‘standard’ label applies to the written form, it does not always apply to the reduced form, as they may have
different realisations. The transcriptions in the table below are suggested realisations by Field (2008, p. 156)
and Ur (1984, p. 46).
It has been suggested that formulaic chunks are also stored in the mental phrase-bank of speakers and
listeners with corresponding intonation patterns. On one hand, under the pressure of the intonation group,
less important words become difficult to recognise, but on the other hand, the intonation group provides the
listener with one syllable that is more articulate and more reliable than those surrounding it to help him
identify word divisions.
 Page 3 of 20

HAVE OTHER
( = /əv/ ) QUESTIONS (e.g. conversation fillers)

Spelling Sound Spelling Sound Spelling Sound

It might have It [ˈmaɪtə] What are you [ˈwɒtʃeˈgənə'du] I don’t know. [dəˈnəʊ]
(jumped). going to do?
You know [jəˈnəʊ]
It must have It [ˈmʌstəgɒn] What do you [wɒdʒəˈmiːn]
gone (out the mean? Tell him [ˈtelm]
front door).
What do you [wɒtʃə'wɒn] Tell her [ˈtelə]
Somebody [səmˈbadiwʊdəv] want?
would have Do you know [nɑːpˈmiːn]
(seen it) What does he [ˈwɒtsɪˈwɒn] what I mean?
want?
(he) should Want to [ˈwɒnə]
have (done) [ˈʃʊdə] Do you [dʒəˈlaɪk]
like…?

Would you [wʊdʒəˈlaɪk]

like?

Are you all [jəɒˈrɑɪʔ]

right?

3. Overview of the group and course

This group, although consisting of learners with various professional and educational backgrounds and
prospects (7 students are employed, 2 are still at school), is a fairly homogenous lower intermediate one,
which includes eight native Polish speakers and an Italian native speaker. The course is 4 weeks long, 2
hours every day, from Monday to Friday, and it is taught by 7 teachers, two of which are native English
speakers and only one of which shares the main L1. Students have reacted positively to being in contact with
such a variety of English speakers and see it as an opportunity to communicatively improve their abilities in
English. Despite the fact that they are motivated about learning English for different reasons (e.g.
professional development, educational development, personal development etc.), most of them have admitted
 Page 4 of 20

to being particularly interested in developing their speaking skills. This is why the students work well, both
in individual and in group activities. Their manner of interaction with each other is open and friendly. They
are quite keen on sharing information and are not reticent towards new and/or experimental tasks. Students
are hard-working and interested in their own progress, seeing English as a necessity for personal and/or
professional success. In terms of learning styles, the group has a nice mix of visual, auditory and
kinaesthetic learners.

4. Timetable fit
This lesson aims to build on previous lessons, which focused on features of connected speech in a native-like
conversation. Students will continue to practise decoding the speech signal, with emphasis on identifying
recurrent chunks of language in everyday speech. As the course progresses, the work which students have
done in the area of speaking will be enriched by a more targeted focus on the complementary skill, listening.

5. Assumptions made
Language and skills
As this group has been exposed and has practised functional language and conversational patterns, students
are familiar with the standard spoken and written realisations of the TL, but they might not be aware of the
its reduced forms, which occur in connected speech, a feature of pronunciation which has been only
introduced recently (i.e. in the previous lesson).

Of the four skills, students have practised mostly speaking, writing and, occasionally, reading, as these have
been the areas students have identified as being most important to them. Short listening sessions have
demonstrated, however, that students are not familiar with features of fast, colloquial speech and that they
rely heavily on context to arrive at the meaning. From previously observed and taught lessons, I discerned
that students are accustomed to slow, word-by-word processing of spoken input, which affects their
comprehension if information gathered this way clashes with assumptions extracted from the context.

Students may not be entirely familiar with a bottom-up approach to listening, as every listening lesson so far,
save for the last, has focused mainly on top-down processing.

Topics, materials and activities

In the previous lesson, students have been introduced to a bottom-up approach to listening, so they may be
by now more familiar with the format of the lesson.

Students are generally open to new activities and from previously taught and observed lessons, I have
noticed that students also interact well with each other and the general working atmosphere of the group is a
positive one, which helps them overcome embarrassment and/or shyness.
 Page 5 of 20

Students should find the listening text engaging, if not somewhat challenging.
Students will more than likely enjoy drilling activities, as they have done in every lesson so far.
 Page 6 of 20

6. Procedure
Stage and aim Procedure Interaction Timing
Pre-listening T <-> S 18.15-18.20
To raise Ss’ interest in the topic of the T hands out Appendix 1. Ss look at the picture and read the caption. S
lesson. T <->S
To ensure Ss understand the context T quickly checks for understanding of the context by asking:
before moving on to the next task. Are Jo and Angela in their own apartment? (No.)
Is everything okay? (No.)
Listening for gist T <->S 18.20-18.25
To give Ss a reason for listening. Ss listen to the first part of Jo and Angela’s conversation (2.24 – Appendix 2) and try S
To give Ss practice in listening for gist. to guess what the problem is.

To increase Ss’ confidence and give an Ss compare their ideas with a partner. S <-> S
opportunity for peer correction.
To increase Ss’ interest in the
following task.

To provide Ss with a clear answer to Ss listen to the rest of the conversation (2.25 – Appendix 2) to check their ideas. S
the previous task, diagnose and address T elicits/gives the answer – The two cousins had lost their aunt’s pet cat. T<->S
any comprehension problems.

Checking comprehension 18.25-18.35

To give Ss a reason for listening. T refers Ss to exercise 2 (Appendix 1). T<->S
To give Ss practice in listening for Ss listen to the whole conversation again and decide why facts 1-5 are significant. S
 Page 7 of 20

Stage and aim Procedure Interaction Timing

details.

To increase Ss’ confidence and give an Ss check in pairs. S<->S

opportunity for peer correction.

To provide Ss with a clear answer to T gives/elicits correct answers. T<->S

the previous task, diagnose and address
any comprehension problems.

Focus on recurrent chunks 18.35 – 18.55

To give Ss a reason for listening. T hands out Appendix 3. T allows time for the Ss to read through the hand-out. T<->S
To give Ss practice in listening for Ss listen to 6 audio extracts from the previous conversation and fill in the gaps. S
specific information. Ss check in pairs. S<->S
T hands out the transcript (Appendix 2) for the Ss to check their answers. T<->S

To raise Ss awareness of recurrent T points out that these chunks of language occur frequently in natural speech and that T<->S
chunks in everyday speech. it is easier for the listener to recognise a group of words as a complete unit rather than
trying to identify them word by word.

To give Ss practice in listening to the T asks Ss to recognise how many words there would be in the written form of given T<->S
acoustic forms of formulaic chunks. utterances. T dictates phrases from Appendix 4 and Ss write down the number of S
words.
To provide Ss with a clear answer to
the previous task. Ss check in pairs. S<->S
 Page 8 of 20

Stage and aim Procedure Interaction Timing

T provides answer key (Appendix 4)
To give Ss practice in producing the T<->S
TL naturally. T drills TL.
Focus on recognizing recurrent 18.55-19.05
chunks
To help Ss with some of the problems T hands out the Discrimination Quiz (Appendix 5). T<->S
in understanding caused by weak In pairs, Ss decide what the difference in meaning is between each pair of sentences. S<->S
forms, similar sounds and word T monitors and assists where necessary.
divisions.
T tells the Ss that they are going to listen and tick the right answer when the T says T<->S
one of the alternatives. S
T reads out one of the alternatives, a or b for each question.
Ss check in pairs. S<->S
T gives/elicits answers and discusses any that the students found difficult. T<->S
Follow-up 19.05-19.10
To give Ss practice in producing and The pairs can test each other using the same list. S<->S
listening to recurrent chunks of T monitors for areas to work on.
language. If time permits, pairs can be changed.

To round off the activity and give Ss a T<->S

sense of completion. Open class feedback on any lingering issues.
Feedback on the level of challenge in T gives Ss and teachers a questionnaire (Appendices 6 and 7) to complete for further T<->S 19.10-19.15
the lesson analysis as a part of PDA stage 2. S
To get feedback on the level of
 Page 9 of 20

Stage and aim Procedure Interaction Timing

challenge in the lesson
To find out if the tasks were
challenging enough.

7. List of lesson materials (with sources)

• Appendix 1 – Listening tasks (taken from Tilbury, Hendra et al., English Unlimited Upper Intermediate Coursebook (CUP, 2010), p.66)
• Appendix 2 – Scripts (taken from Tilbury, Hendra et al., English Unlimited Upper Intermediate Coursebook (CUP, 2010), p.151)
• Appendix 3 – Gapped extracts (adapted by Maggie from Tilbury, Hendra et al., English Unlimited Upper Intermediate Coursebook (CUP, 2010), p.151
• Appendix 4 – Formulaic chunks (adapted by Maggie from Field, Listening in the Language Classroom, (CUP 2008), p.156 and Ur, Teaching Listening
Comprehension, (CUP 1984), p. 46)
• Appendix 5 – Discrimination Quiz (adapted by Maggie from White, Listening, (OUP 1998), p. 59)
• Appendix 6 – Peer observation task 01
• Appendix 7 – Student feedback form 01
 Page 10 of 20

8. Comments on individual learners

Learner(s) Characteristics relevant to the lesson
1. Radoslaw Radek is a lawyer and he needs English for his job. He is a strong student, fluent and
Czajkowki fairly accurate, with solid previous knowledge of the language. In previous listening
sessions, he seemed more confident in arriving at the meaning, but he relies heavily on
context to discriminate between conflicting information, so the focus on identifying
word divisions will be beneficial for him.
2. Natalia Natalia and Kamil are the younger students in the group. Nevertheless, they are
Gruntowa and determined to improve their English. Kamil has seemed more confident of late and he
Kamil Zarzycki enjoys challenges and competitions so focusing on the acoustic forms of written
utterances and the follow-up stage should cater to that trait. Although initially shy,
working in pairs and groups has improved Natalia’s confidence in expressing herself
in English and therefore should react positively to the skills being taught today if given
the chance to compare and work with a partner.
3. Malgorzata Margret is very communicative, friendly and confident. She works well with all of her
Palka colleagues and is particularly interested in developing herself as a good communicator.
The shift from speaking to listening should benefit her in that respect, as she has had
ample productive practice, but somewhat reduced receptive practice. On a side note,
when she’s paired with Radoslaw, she tends to speak Polish with him.
4. Giuseppe Giuseppe is determined to improve his English, as he will be moving to an English
Pupella speaking country in the near future. Apart from some L1 interference, his speaking is
quite fluent and fairly accurate – he is able to correct his mistakes if prompted. As with
Margret, I think he will benefit from practising understanding recurrent chunks of
language in everyday speech.
5. Dariusz Rzeznik Dariusz enjoys communicative activities and is very friendly, but his accuracy and
pronunciation need improvement. During previous listening sessions, he struggled
with the fast incoming speech signal. He is accustomed to word-by-word processing
and his decoding skills are fairly poor. This is why, he will especially benefit from the
focus on the reduced forms of formulaic chunks and processing such word groups as a
single unit. He seems to work well with Kamil, and form a rather dynamic and
interactive pair.
7. Monika Pacia Monika was initially a very quiet student, but what she lacks in fluency, she
compensates in accuracy and a general desire of expressing herself correctly. The
discrimination quiz will help her make use of her strengths as a learner to internalise
recurrent chunks of language.
8. Pawel Pawel feels that he is limited in his progress by his lack of practice. There may be
Wyrembak some L1 interference and his knowledge of the language is inconsistent. Because he
 Page 11 of 20

Learner(s) Characteristics relevant to the lesson

generally enunciates when speaking and he is used to word-by-word processing, he
will benefit from stages that focus on developing his decoding skills.
9. Agata Oynda Agata seems to work well with Monika and they share a similar interest in accuracy
over fluency. As with Monika, I think the last stages in today’s lesson will prove
beneficial for her improvement.

9. Potential problems and solutions

Language and skills
Problem Solution
1. The reduced forms of the TL might be a challenge 1. Point out to Ss that in fast speech, speakers give
for some students, as most of them are used to less prominence to the components of a chunk.
following the carefully enunciated written form of Model TL, monitor closely during activities and
the utterances when speaking/listening. offer support and/or encouragement to make sure
that Ss become aware of the shortened realisations of
the TL.
2. Ss might not recognise formulaic chunks in the 2. Provide Ss with gapped extracts from the
spoken text. recording. Provide transcript to check answers.
3. In the follow-up stage, Ss might not use the 3. Monitor closely, offer support and make sure that,
shortened realisation of the TL. at least, Ss are not enunciating.

Topics, materials, activities, equipment

Problem Solution
1. If paired, stronger students might not pay attention 1. Avoid pairing them (especially Margret and
to the task on hand. Radek). Break them into different pairs if they are
sitting next to each other.

2. There might be technical issues with playing the 2. Check before the lesson to assess the quality of
recording properly. sound. If there should be a problem with playing the
extracts, I can play the original recording and
pausing when necessary.
3. Some students require clearer instructions (Radek, 3. Use ICQs to ensure everyone knows what to do.
Giuseppe and sometimes Dariusz). Monitor to see if the students are on task.
4. Modelling the TL can be challenging for the 4. I will attempt to model in relaxed and fairly brisk
teacher. fashion. Phonemic transcript of the TL will be used
as a visual aid.
 Page 12 of 20

10. Commentary (500–750 words)

Rationale for lesson aims, content and procedure with reference to:
a. the learners’ needs and characteristics

Students in this group expressed a general desire to improve their speaking abilities right from the beginning
of the course. However, being able to produce the spoken language is inextricably linked to the ability of
listening to and understanding the speech signal. In previously observed lessons, I have noticed that the
students encountered difficulties in processing fast flowing speech, as they are mostly accustomed to
decoding one word at a time, which, inevitably, takes a toll on their working memory. The top-down
approach to listening that students have been exposed to has only managed to repair the break-down in
comprehension to an extent. When information gathered from different sources (background knowledge and
received data) conflicts, students tend to rely more on context, which does not always ‘save the day’ and can
therefore prove misleading.

In order to address the issues mentioned above, I have chosen to structure my lesson in two main parts: one
including a short pre-listening period to create motivation and establish context and a lengthier, traditional
listening session to allow me to diagnose any comprehension problems and another part, comprised of short
micro-listening sessions, aimed at helping students to become aware of recurrent chunks in everyday speech,
to be better able to recognise them in their shortened realisations and attempt to internalise them through
practice.

The focus on formulaic chunks has stemmed from the fact that this group has had a great amount of practice
with producing such language items as presented today and therefore the TL is not unfamiliar to them, but
the receptive practice of spoken texts has been somewhat reduced. In order to balance the two skills –
speaking and listening – I have decided to use a bottom-up approach to raise students’ awareness to the
features of fast flowing speech and help them become better decoders.

b. your reading and research for the background essay.

One point that I discussed in my essay was related to the feeling I have as a teacher that, although vey useful,
a top-down approach to listening is not sufficient if we want to train our students to become better listeners.
What’s more, I have often felt that as our students become more proficient our techniques should vary in
order to provide them with sufficient challenge. However, this does not always happen in listening lessons,
where reliance on context in assisting comprehension and meaning building can very easily become over-
reliance on context.
 Page 13 of 20

Both processes involved in listening are relevant and good listeners are able to make use of both (as Field
mentions “we could not identify the topic of an utterance without some minimal decoding and we could not
appreciate the relevance of the utterance with some minimal use of context” – 2008, p. 133), but if that does
not translate into our teaching practice, i.e. if we do not help students to become better decoders of the
speech signal, then top-down processing can only help us that far.

That is why I believe that consistent work on developing students’ ability to decode the fast streaming speech
from the bottom up will better enable students to employ both skills of listening (decoding and meaning
building) in order to achieve fast and accurate comprehension.

Commentary word count: 523 words.

 Page 14 of 20

APPENDIX 1

Taken from Tilbury, Hendra et al., English Unlimited Upper Intermediate Coursebook (CUP, 2010), p.66
 Page 15 of 20

APPENDIX 2

Taken from Tilbury, Hendra et al., English Unlimited Upper Intermediate Coursebook (CUP, 2010), p.151
 Page 16 of 20

APPENDIX 3
1.
JO: This is just ridiculous.
ANGELA: Yes, it is.
J: So...what ________ we _________ ____ do?
A: I ___________ ____________. What _______ we __________ ______ say?

2.
J: So you think it’s outside?
A: Well, it _________ __________ jumped out the window, yes. Or fallen.

3.
A: Ok, so what do you think happened?
J: Well, if it’s not here and it didn’t go out of the window, it ___________ ___________ gone out the front
door.

4.
J: Me too, but the door was open for quite a while. I had to go back down and get those bottles of water,
remember?
A: Yeah, but somebody _________ ________ seen it on the stairs, one of the neighbours.

5.
J: Hmm...you’re wrong about last night, though.
A: What _____ you ________?
J: This bowl is empty.

6.
A: Yes, it has...I went out to get some sugar, first thing.
J: Well, that’s it then.
A: What?
J: Oh, come on. You _______ what you _________ __________ in the mornings. Half asleep until you’ve
had, like, wight cups of coffee.

[Adapted by Maggie from Tilbury, Hendra et al., English Unlimited Upper Intermediate Coursebook (CUP, 2010),
p.151]
 Page 17 of 20

APPENDIX 4

‘HAVE’ group QUESTIONS CONVERSATION FILLERS

Spelling Sound Spelling Sound Spelling Sound

It might have It [ˈmaɪtə] What are you [ˈwɒtʃeˈgənə'du] I don’t know. [dəˈnəʊ]
(jumped). going to do?
You know [jəˈnəʊ]
It must have It [ˈmʌstəgɒn] What do you [wɒdʒəˈmiːn]

gone (out the mean?

front door).
[wɒtʃə'wɒn]
What do you
Somebody [səmˈbadiwʊdəv] want?
would have
[seen it]

[Adapted by Maggie from Field, Listening in the Language Classroom, (CUP 2008), p.156 and Ur, Teaching Listening
Comprehension, (CUP 1984), p. 46]
 Page 18 of 20

APPENDIX 5
DISCRIMINATION QUIZ
Tick the one the teacher says:
1. a) You know what you like.
b) You know what you’re like.

2. a) He shouldn’t have done it, really.

b) He should’ve done it, really.

3. a) What does he want?

b) What does she want?

4. a) Tell him!
b) Tell her!

5. a) Do you know what I mean?

b) What do you mean?

6. a) Do you like coffee?

b) Would you like a coffee?

7. a) Were you right?

b) Are you all right?

8. a) I won’t go.
b) I want to go.

9. a) I’ve lived here for ten years.

b) I lived here for ten years.

10. a) I can swim.

b) I can’t swim.

Adapted by Maggie from White, Listening, (OUP 1998), p. 59

 Page 19 of 20

APPENDIX 6 Peer observation task 01

Your name:__________ Your colleague’s name:_________ Date:________

Assessing level of challenge

How would you rank the overall level of challenge in this lesson (1-too easy, 5-too difficult for the level)?
Why?
1 2 3 4 5

Which activities did you find were particularly challenging for the students?

Did the students learn anything new? And if so, what?

How were their existing skills extended or developed?

 Page 20 of 20

APPENDIX 7 Student feedback form 01

How difficult did you find the lesson today (1-too easy, 5-too difficult)? Why?
1 2 3 4 5

Which activities did you find too easy? Why?

Which activities did you find too difficult? Why?

Did you feel you learnt something new in today’s lesson? If yes, what?

Thank you for your feedback!