- 32 -
Appendix 9.1.1. observation format 1: evidence.
Secondly, regarding students’ responses there were some strengths and
challenges the implementer faced during the lesson. One of the strengths was the
students’ participation, which was evidenced during the whole lesson, specifically, in the
brainstorming activity were learners provided ideas
about the topic without the
implementer elicitation. In the same line, other strength evidenced was the students’
reaction against the implementation, were they showed a positive attitude enjoying the
activities planned according to their multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983).
On the other hand, there was a challenge, which was related to the students’
tasks comprehension since the implementer researcher provided instructions using
code switching, but at the moment of
implementing these activities, a great amount of
students did not follow the instructions correctly. This was evidenced in the pre-listening
activity where students were asked to walk around the classroom while the teacher was
reading aloud an article related to the topic “excretory system”. When the teacher
mentioned one of the words related to the topic, the students should stop on one of
some papers previously distributed around the floor of the classroom. However,
students did not follow instructions correctly, and they stopped on the papers each time
the implementer said a word.
Appendix 9.1. / 9.1.1. lesson plan 1 and observation format 1: evidence (does the students
teacher give clear instructions…)
A possible solution to this challenge, which would be meaningful to apply in
future classes by the implementer, is to provide clear instructions step by step, and to
- 33 -
ask to students for understanding using strategies such as: asking them to explain the
task
step by step, asking students if the activity is a listening activity, or a writing or
speaking one, or modeling to students each of the tasks’ steps.
Finally, regarding the students’ linguistic outcomes, there was evidenced of
students’ language development in the study and activate stages of the ESA
methodology, postulated by Harmer (2006). The language
development expectations
were achieved but no exceeded since the researchers did not have the possibility to
observe students before the implementation. For this reason, it was not possible to
measure in a reliable way the students’ language improvement in the first session. This
will be measured in a reliable way in future implementations.
Regarding the assessment stage, it is considered taking into account some
artifacts in order to measure students’ progress in terms of language proficiency. In this
stage, students were assessed through the development of
a listening activity where
they were asked to answer some true and false statements related to the topics
“excretory system and possessive adjectives”. The results of this assessment were
positives since through this artifact, there is evidenced of the students’ knowledge and
comprehension of the topic. Nonetheless, as this is the first implementation, there is not
possible to measure students’ progress related to the English language proficiency. It
will be possible to measure in future sessions comparing the different artifacts collected
during the sessions of this project in order to observe students’ progress.