Running Header: TLE1 Bell

TLE I Everest
Toni Bell
EDUC 540A: Practicum in Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Languages
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Dr. Janis Margolis
February 15, 2015

Running Header: TLE1 Bell

Classroom Setting and Background

Teacher: Toni Bell
Host Teacher: Mindy Warick
Lesson Title: Speaking and Debating Techniques
Topic: Mount Everest/Debate
Learner Level: Intermediate Level 5 ESL Learners
Age: 16-25
Location: Kings College Language School in Hollywood, California.
Number of Students: 10
Date: 2/3/2015
Duration: 45 minute
Theme: Students enjoy using English for conversational purposes in a social setting.

Pre-Planning Conference
I met with my host teacher the day before the lesson to go over her established lesson
plan. Fortunately, I opted to observe the entire class time the day before my scheduled TLE.
Therefore, I was able to pick up from lesson plan she designed. During the previous lesson, the
students were asked to choose an event from their life where they overcame a challenge. The
learning objective of the exercise was to give students the opportunity to practice adverbial
clauses. Also, one of the Everest videos was challenges and willpower. The focus on personal
challenges was in line with sociocultural theory as well as authentic scaffolding. Two students
did not have the opportunity to tell their challenge stories. As a result, Mindy requested that I
begin to next days lesson by allowing the two students to speak.

Running Header: TLE1 Bell

Mindy showed me the page in the text for next days lesson, as well as, her lesson plan
which included learning objectives and outcomes. I asked her to advise me on time frames for
certain portions of the lesson: modeling the Speaking Strategies, Everest role debate
preparation, and the actual debate. She suggested ten minutes for the Speaking Strategies, five
minutes for the Everest role debate preparation, and ten to fifteen minutes for the actual debate
and class recap. She also showed me the handout entitled Controversial Issues which she
would be using for the second phase of the debate instruction. The assessments described were
informal, summative.
It seemed that the majority of the students were eager to participate; I did ask if there was
anything I needed to be aware in regards to specific student needs. She said, no, but also stated
that since I would be teaching the first part of the class some of the troublemakers would not
be present. The students she described as troublemakers are not disruptive in class. However,
from my short time there, I recognize that they often come to class late, usually after the first
morning break. When in the class, they actively participate just like their on-time peers. Although
she does it quickly, Mindy has to spend time to getting these students up to speed after break
time.
I also asked about two particular students who although very verbose are at times hard to
understand because of accents and pronunciation. Ive noticed when the students are doing group
work, she spends extra time with them. I wasnt overly concerned with this primarily because
over the past few weeks, Ive honed my ear and am better able to understand these two particular
individuals.
Kings College as well as National Geographic Learning and Cengage Learning follow the
Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR) standard. CEFR posits that

Running Header: TLE1 Bell

learners acquire language when teachers present strategies and knowledge through specific
cognitive processes. The learner engages in language activities to complete task, (CEFR, 2011,
p. 8). Language activities include speaking, listening, writing and reading. The students in the
Level 5 class would be described as B2 level Independent Users. B2 Independent Users can
understand key points of conversation, articulate the pros and cons of an issue, and have a level
of spontaneity and fluency in the target language.
Theoretical Background
Debating allows students to practice the essential skills of speaking and listening. Debate also
provides students the opportunity to engage in critical thinking in order to develop sound
arguments and counterarguments. Sociocultural theory posits that language practices develops
from social, cultural, and historical interaction. Learners participate in meaningful meaningmaking activities while simultaneously learning from them. Thus, learning is both process and
product. Providing scaffolding in both task understanding and completion maintains pursuit of
this goal. It is also important to create a safe environment in the language learning community
by taking power and voice into consideration.
Learning Outcomes
Students will be able to demonstrate the following speaking strategies related to debating;
reaching a compromise; making a suggestion; disagreeing with a suggestion; agreeing with a
suggestion; and offering a compromise. Students will be able to form arguments and structure
them into speech using provided sentence frames. Students will engage in role-play in a effort o
understand different levels of decision-making and the advantages and disadvantages of an
argument. This knowledge will allow students to use their adverbial clauses from the prior
lesson.

Running Header: TLE1 Bell

Materials Required
White board, markers and erasers
World Class, Expanding English Fluency, Book 1
Student Name Tags

Instructional Procedure
Previous Lesson Recap and Wrap-Up

Remaining two students will tell their two minute stories related to personal challenges
Warm up: Review of Everest reading and videos from previous day. (Appendix A Text
from Previous Day)
o Teacher will Ask students to summarize the main points of the story from the
view of the Guide (Rob Hall); Mountain Climber (Beck Weathers) & Local

Sherpa Guide
o Teacher will write main points on the board
o Teacher will provide fun Everest fun facts for discussion
Introduction of debate speaking strategies.
o Students will read the short paragraph on hat introduces the topic for debate:
environmental issues on Everest. (See Appendix B)
o Teacher will explain any unknown vocabulary.
o Teacher will ask the class would they climb Everest why or why not?
o Teacher will review the language of debate (making a suggestion; disagreeing
with a suggestion; agreeing with a suggestion; offering a compromise) and the
appropriate sentence frames.
o Teacher model using the sentence frames with individual students.
o Group Work Teacher will; ask the students to read instructions for debate
exercise silently.
Teacher will summarize instructions.

Running Header: TLE1 Bell

Teacher will assign students one of four roles: Everest Guide, Mountain

Climber, Environmentalist, and Local Sherpa Guide.

Student will read their assigned role silently.
Teacher will ask each role if they have questions about their vocabulary.
Teachers will separate students into groups of four.
Teacher will go around the room as students engage in debate and ensure

usage of sentence frames.

Class will come together to explain their solution
Students will state if they agree or disagree

Informal and formative assessment

The informal assessment is primarily done through impromptu comments and responses (Brown,
2010) such as confirming understanding of vocabulary and correcting pronunciation and word
usage by rephrasing student errors Summative assessment occurred at the beginning of the lesson
when the previous days lesson was recapped. The extension activity of engaging in the debate
about environmental issues of Mount Everest and then the following debate on controversial
issues would be considered an informal performance-based assessment. Students would be
assessed on their use of adverbial clauses and their use of debate speaking strategy sentence
frames as they made their pre-determined arguments. As part of the scaffolding, the goal of the
debate is stated and students would be prepared for the debate in clear, progressive steps (Brown,
2010).
Extension Activities
The purpose of this lesson is to increase speaking and listening comprehension to further
conversation. Extension activities include the following: writing and explaining steps in a
process and engaging in a debate about controversial topics. The teacher will explain the phrase
controversial issues and model a mini-debate using animal testing as the topic. Students will

Running Header: TLE1 Bell

given a sheet that list of controversial topics including but not limited to abortion, immigration,
and gun control. Students will pick two issues and as a group of four, choose a single topic for
debate. . Students will then pick a side, either or against, and then develop at least three
arguments. Students will then be asked to consider counter arguments. Students will engage in a
debate, using their arguments and the sentence frames from the lesson.
Differentiation
This is a low technology class setting and the majority of the students are eager to speak and
participate in classroom discussion. The students are tech savvy and their request for better
technology during the previous days lesson was noted. Because, the students stated the topic
was boring, the fun Everest facts were introduced to reignite interest. To further increase student
interest, part of the preparation lesson could be for the students to take on the roles as Everest
climbers and from information provided create their own routes to the summit based on the
information provided within the text.
Analysis
There were several strengths and weaknesses to my lesson. The students were motivated
and engaged. After the previous days lesson, I was concerned because the students described
the material as boring and I was suppose to use that lessons prior knowledge as a building block
for a major portion of my lesson. I decided to include the fun Everest facts as well as the recap of
the stories heard the previous day as a warm up. The students were laughing and eagerly
participating. I also presented the instructions clearly. I ensured understanding by having the
students read the instructions silently and then going over them again. I informally assessed
understanding of vocabulary words. Some students volunteered words that were troublesome. I

Running Header: TLE1 Bell

also went through text and pointed out certain words that I thought might be problematic and
defined them.
One of the weaknesses of my lesson was the explanation of the debate speaking strategies
and sentence frames. Although, I had reviewed the lesson the evening before, I believe I
underestimated how complicated explaining these sentence frames would be. I found myself
having difficulty explaining in detail the purpose of these phrases. However, when Mindy did
additional modeling with the students prior to the Controversial Issues segment, I saw that
many of them did understand.
The students achieved their learning outcomes. Although the Everest debate portion was
a bit rote and stilted, when the students started the controversial issues portion of the class, they
were very enthusiastic in the planning of the arguments. During the debate, the debate, the
students used speaking strategy sentence frames in very naturalistic ways. They adapted their
language quickly.
There were several things I would change about the lesson which include suggestions
from classmates. Much of the group work is done with the students sitting. The next time the
students prepare for a debate, Id have them write their key arguments as a group on large sheets
of paper taped around the room. In addition to having them describe personal challenges, Id ask
them to discuss popular outdoor activities in their home country or high risk, outdoor activities
such as skydiving or bungee jumping that theyve considered doing or have done. I also could
have used the white board more often by writing my words and writing out definitions. I
consciously opted not to do so because I was concerned about having my back to the class so
much. However, with more practice I will be able to adapt. In the future if a lesson includes

Running Header: TLE1 Bell

videos, Id create a note-taking handout that the students would have to fill out for reference for
upcoming class discussion.

Running Header: TLE1 Bell

10
References

Brown, D. & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language Assessment - Principles and

Classroom Practice. (2nd edition). Pearson Longman, NY.
Douglas, N. & Morgan, J. (2013). World Class 1: Expanding English Fluency. National
Geographic Learning & Cengage Learning. Boston, MA.
University of Cambridge (2011). Using the CEFR: Principles of Good Practice.
http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/126011-using-cefr-principles-of-goodpractice.pdf. Retrieved February 3, 2015.

Running Header: TLE1 Bell

APPENDIX A PREVIOUS DAY LESSON MATERIAL

See attachments

11

Running Header: TLE1 Bell

APPENDIX B CURRENT LESSON
See attachments

12