Who is this blog for?

For teachers who are open to trying new things.

For teachers who are looking for a change.

For teachers who are looking for any easy solution to a big problem: planning fun and engaging classes where students will learn.

For teachers who know something´s not right but don´t know how to change it.

So it´s for you, but it´s also for your students. I mean, I hope that following the lessons here will not only change how you approach teaching but will also change how your students view learning. I know that after teaching these classes to adult students, I´ve seen first hand how their attitudes toward learning have changed. But before this, I noticed how by following textbooks provided by the director of studies of whatever school I was working for at the time, I was not only boring students, but I was patronizing them as well. So they were not learning as much as they could have been.

But what could I do? How could I change this? How could I make classes more meaningful and interesting and do it every day without spending hours planning and preparing?

Well the answer didn´t come to me until after I finished a Cambridge DELTA course--a fantastic experience, by the way, and one I´d recommend to anyone who´s not happy with the status quo of teaching, but likes teaching. It gave me insights into other ways of teaching and forced me to read books by people (a.k.a. theorists) who posed fascinating questions about learning and teaching which I had never considered before. And it was the result of the teaching practice I did during the course, as well as my research (duly encouraged by the tutors) where I discovered two truly remarkable, yet simple concepts.

The first was "Task-based Learning". The second was "Dogme".

Now, as to the former, if you don´t know what it is, I´ll briefly explain. Task-based learning was begun by N. Prabhu in India back in the 80´s. Later, Jane and David Willis became what most would consider to be the most well-known experts on the method by writing some incredibly comprehensive books and articles on the method in the 90´s and 00´s. The idea was to focus on the content of what was being discussed rather than the forms for discussing it, using a "task" as the vehicle for doing so. In other words, a task for one class could be to make a telephone reservation, or to plan a trip, or just read about someone´s problem and agree upon a solution. There are many "types" of TBL classes and many variations of the procedure for conducting classes but essentially the rules are the same.

1. Task-completion is valued above language proficiency: students are not forced into using any specific language forms (grammar) for completing the task.

2. The content should be engaging for students by making the tasks themselves interesting.

3. Tasks must have a clear and obtainable objective: the objective should go beyond the obvious such as "finishing" an exercise or "learning" a language-point and instead be an objective which is content-related rather that language-related.

This last point is perhaps the most important because it´s what I believe to be the magic ingredient which makes any class on any topic, using any activity type, motivating. But hold on, I´ll discuss this in more detail later on.

So you have the rules above. In their essence, they are, as you can see, applicable to any type of task, activity, exercise, text-book, game, whatever. Willis and Willis proposed a basic template for conducting a TBL class and other versions exist but basically it goes like this: class begins with a "Pre-task" introduction to the topic and/or task; then it moves on to what´s called the "Task cycle" that being composed of the planning stage, the task performance and the reporting stage in which student "report" their results to the others; finally, there´s the "Language focus" stage in which language used or misused during the task is analyzed and practiced further if necessary.

So this "discovery" of mine was the first step towards enlightenment, and in fact, I can´t emphasize enough how important it was. In fact, you´ll notice these basic rules are present in each and every lesson I propose.

The second "discovery", combined with the first, crystallized my ideas and inspired my imagination to write what has become this blog. That discovery was an approach proposed by S. Thornbury in the early 2000´s called simply "Dogme". If you´re familiar with contemporary Danish film directors, you may recognize the term which derives from their ideas and practices of self-imposed conditions for minimalist film-making. So like these minimalist filmmakers who gave up anything artificial such as lighting and makeup, Thornbury proposed that English teachers give up the artifice of textbooks or any materials which come from "outside" the learners altogether and take a minimalist approach, using little or no materials. Apparently, the idea came from the feeling of alienation that he (and others) felt as a result of using textbooks in class, as well as a reaction to the growing focus in the ELT world on technology as the next big thing in the classroom. He wanted to utilize "real" communication in class, have interactions with students which was based on a real knowledge gap between speakers, rather than rely upon the artifices books provide.

Although there´s no clear procedure in Dogme, his book on the subject (co-written by Luke Meddings), proposes classes which do follow the rules listed above. The difference, it seems to me, between TBL and Dogme aren´t in the rules or procedures but in the use of outside materials. TBL, as proposed by Jane and David Willis allows for outside materials to be heavily used and Dogme uses the teacher, students and immediate environment as the source of materials--something which, it seems to me, opens up as many doors as it closes.

All I can say is that what I propose here is to have students do tasks with adult themes (no, not the R or X-rated type) which attempt to mimic transactions or conversations they would have in real life. Materials do come from outside but are adapted to students´ needs, culture, interests, etc. Conversations, however, are focused on the students themselves--their opinions, their proposals, their experiences and their ideas. The internet is heavily relied upon as a source of material through which to stimulate conversation and task completion. I don´t always provide materials but instead ask you to find them yourselves on the internet because I believe that the bridge between TBL and Dogme is in adapting the materials to the students. It´s easy to do and worth the effort.

I encourage you to do your own research on these methodologies and decide for yourself what works best for you. In addition, I hope you try these classes for yourself and share your experiences --what worked, what didn´t, what you did differently--and even come up with your own TBL classes.

Why and what methods?

I´m going to start with a story of my experiences learning a language. It may be mundane perhaps, and it may even sound to you to be extremely unoriginal, but I think it serves to remind us of the simple difference between the "right" way and the "wrong" way to learn a language.

At university, I decided to learn Spanish. The professor was a native speaker and I liked her very much. She conducted the entire class in Spanish and perhaps uttered five words in English the entire year. However, I have to say, I "squeezed" by with a passing grade and finished with absolutely no ability to have a simple conversation. End of story one.

Years later, and by coincidence, I somehow landed in Barcelona, Spain, with a freshly-printed teaching certificate in my hand, no teaching experience and even less Spanish. And yet, within six-months and no formal learning, I could have pretty good conversations with people and conduct all my daily affairs with relative competence.

So what was the difference between the two experiences?

Most people would agree that one of the best ways to "learn" a language is to live in the country where it´s spoken, which is true for various reasons:

• It allows one to continually practice listening to the language being used in various contexts by various different people thus providing the learner with practice not only in understanding but also with "real" examples of language use.
• It allows one the opportunity to use the language in a variety of contexts--either conversationally or transactionally
• It allows one to learn and understand first-hand the cultural nature of the language
• Nothing quite like the necessity of "survival" provides one with the same level of motivation that living in a foreign country does
• Perhaps the simplest reason is that it´s the most "natural"--that is, it mimics most closely how we learned our first language

So why do I even mention this, if after all, I´m writing something which seeks to help teachers of English to teach in a classroom? I mention it because I think that teachers, especially those who are living in a foreign country and doing exactly what I´ve just mentioned, easily forget or conveniently choose to ignore this very simple fact. In doing so, they completely abolish any semblance of "real world" learning for the stuff of textbooks--which I liken to processed food with loads of additives and artificial flavours trying to imitate the real thing. Yes, processed foods are quick and easy to consume but don´t you feel worse for having eaten them? Does your health improve from having eaten them? 

So, if probably one of the best ways to learn a language is to live in the country where that language is spoken (you probably have some experience with that), then the solution should be to try to mimic those conditions as closely as you can in class? A no-brainer, right? The problem is, how?

If you think about it when we communicate, either through gestures, body language, signals or by use of spoken or written language, it´s all for a purpose. Even when we listen or read we do so with purpose. Now think back to the last class you taught. Think of a specific activity you asked your students to do. What was its purpose? If the answer is "to learn English"  or "to learn a specific grammar point" then ask yourself if that was enough motivation alone to keep your students engaged in what they were doing--and I mean every single one of them. If the answer is "no" or "maybe not" then it´s likely that there lies the problem. You see, if in our everyday lives we do everything for a purpose--be it to achieve something or just to pass the time pleasurably--then isn´t it a bit ridiculous to assume that students are going to do every activity, every bit of homework, every listening activity you trudge through, solely for the purpose of a long-term or perhaps never-achievable goal of learning English? Mind you, I´ve had many students for whom that was enough but they were a minority--that being the minority who never complained, who did every grammar exercise I could throw at them, who asked intelligent questions and who, despite all this, still weren´t speaking as well I thought they could have after so many years of study.

So why shouldn´t we at least make an effort of putting this one element which every "real-world" communicative activity we do contains, back into the content of our classes? And while we´re at it, why not also make students feel that what we´re talking about in class is important or more important than how we talk about it? I mean, how often is someone going to say "If I were rich, I would buy a bigger house" in a real conversation? Why not just make the class about real conversation? 

But wait, I´m getting ahead of myself here. One thing at at time. One thing at a time...

Focus on content

If there is one thing that terrifies a teacher more than anything, I believe, it´s the feeling of losing control. It could be because a lesson gets out of hand, or because you don´t know the answer to a question. It could be because you have time left over at the end of class and don´t know what to do, or because you thought your students were going to like a lesson you planned and instead small protests and questions like "Why are we doing this?" erupt into full-scale mutiny. Or sometimes loss of control comes when the class decides to chat while they should be doing something else. Loss of control comes in many forms. The question is, why is it such a bad thing?

You know you like to be in control at all times. It´s what separates you from them. You´re the knower, the guru, the one person in the class who can correctly use the present perfect every time. But control, like power, is addictive, one taste of it and you´re hooked, am I right?

Don´t misunderstand me, it does have its practical purposes as well--especially if you teach young learners, oh boy! Control--a.k.a, the upper hand--once you have it, it´s your one weapon against chaos. I get it, believe me. But I´m not referring to that type of control (a.k.a, discipline). I´m speaking of the control over what happens in class from moment to moment.

For example, ever accidentally stumble over an activity or a discussion which was so interesting it "got out of hand"? Pretty soon, students broke into bad English mixed with accidentally good English mixed with their beloved mother-tongue mixed with actual laughter? You either tried to or wanted to start shushing them, trying to get some control back and after a minute (or five) you actually got back to that kind of English where the same phrase is repeated over and over again, though with a different object and thus, control was maintained.

Believe it or not, you actually had stumbled over the Holy Grail of a communicative classroom but you didn´t know it--to you it was chaotic--but to them, to them it was communication--it was real and meaningful. What could be better than that? Certainly not a grammar drill disguised as a "communication activity".

But, you say, they weren´t "on task". They were off on a tangent. They were using their native language. They were laughing. True, you did lose control then, didn´t you? And really, if the entire class was that way, it´d be time to look for a new job. But let´s imagine for a second that it was possible to inject some control into this situation while still maintaining the element of real communication a.k.a. conversation. How do students benefit from this?

Well, fun is one important part of it because regardless of learning being a lot of work, it can and should be fun. Fun is what´s going to motivate your learners. But you know that already, which is why you bribe them with grammar and vocabulary "games" like "hangman", right? Well, imagine not having to do that--I mean, not having to use games as the only way to have fun in class. Imagine real learning and the real achievment of goals as being a kind of game in itself. Sounds too good to be true, doesn´t it? Well it´s not. It´s so true it´s good.

Another important reason why the what is so important is that, again, it mimics real life. This is what we´re going for here, remember. In order to mimic real life situations you orchestrate "role-play", and that´s fine; in the movies they call it "suspension of disbelief". Of course if you give them something to do or say, there is that element of artificiality but it makes a big difference if you put substance over style. Partly because learners will find it easier to find things to say if they´re not worried about how they are saying them so that it makes practicing English so much more fluid (or is it fluent?). Partly also because undoubtedly your students (especially if they´re adults) have seen it all. You wouldn´t be the first and you won´t be the last to do that "Have you ever..." speaking activity to practice the present perfect which they subsequently will never use in spontaneous conversation. So why not wow them with good content instead? If your syllabus is comprehensive enough, they will (don´t worry) use "Have you ever..?" but this time, when they do, it will be because they wanted to use it and if they got it wrong and you caught them or they were misunderstood or whatever, they will want to remember it the next time. I could go into how information is stored in the brain and bore you with that or I could just say that there´s nothing like trying to get your point across to make you "remember", not always but often, and at least in a more meaningful way than any other.

So what will lead to how if you trust it to.

Meanwhile, you have to give up a bit of control, bite your lip a bit as you hear the mistakes fly through the air and let that warm-fuzzy feeling wash over you as you realize that your students are really having fun.

For those of you reading who are still sceptical, let me put all this in a different way. The "Communicative Approach" has been generally accepted and put into use in textbooks for years now. Despite the fact that you probably use it everyday in class and don´t even know it and that it seems as natural as breathing to talk to learners, it wasn´t always this way. The problem is, that what textbooks are doing really is disguising an audio-lingual method as communicative. What this means is that they converted the practice of specific grammar into a communication activity rather than a drill. Sometimes, perhaps accidentally, they hit it on the head with an activity which is purely communicative. But this is the exception, not the rule. What is the difference? Take a look at this example and decide for yourself. The activities both would appear after a gap-fill text about two friends in a lower-intermediate textbook.

Speaking activity 1: Think about a friend. Ask and answer these questions with a partner.

How long have you known him/her?

Where did you meet?

How often do you see each other?

Do you ever argue?

Example: "What´s your friend´s name?"

"Her name is Anne."

"How long have you know her?"

"I´ve known her for five years."

Speaking activity 2: Think about a close friend. Ask and answer questions with a partner to see how many similarities you have with the girls in the text above.

Example: "Her close friend is called Sam. What´s your friend´s name?" "Anne."

"They´re both girls names, right?"

"Yes."

"That´s one thing you have in common."

See anything other than the most superficial differences? Let´s see. Both activities follow-up on a text about two friends. You can´t see it but in the first activity, the questions provided follow exactly the information given in the text. However, this is not mentioned so the teacher might do so--perhaps even asking students to match the questions to the text. In any case, the questions are provided so all students have to do is read the questions aloud and answer. What´s the purpose? I guess the answer would be to pratice question-answer forms using various basic grammar forms as well as to simply complete the activity. Another point to add is that, in my experience, when students do these types of activities, there is a feeling that something is missing. 


One is that they don´t generally listen very closely to their partner. Very mechanically, they go through each question and answer. There is no need to listen or respond. In fact, in the directions, there is no explicit requirement to do so. 


The second thing that is missing is that feeling of accomplishment when it´s finished. Instead, we´re (the teacher and the students, I believe) left with a feeling of emptiness. What have we learned? Why are we asking such stupid questions? And why should I care about my partner´s friend? I don´t even like this person. 


The third thing missing is a focus on what is being said, rather than how it´s being said. This translates to no real communication. Real communication is communication with a purpose--be it interest in the other person or just a necessity for information. It requires one or the other person to listen and respond. Now, one might argue that it doesn´t matter. The point is to practice forms and to get them right; if they don´t, they won´t practice the forms they need to know, or worse, errors will "fossilize". Again, there´s that obession with control. They have to get it right. Errors mustn´t fossilize. The reality is that all you´re doing is storing information (if at all) in a part of the brain that will never be found when it comes time to use these forms or this vocabulary for real. In fact, why wait for students to meet someone in the "real world" to practice English "for real"? Why not do it in class? This leads me to look at the second speaking activity.

How is the second different? Well, first of all, we explicitly relate the speaking activity to the reading gap-fill (which, by the way, could be made even more communicative by turning it instead into a jig-saw reading). Secondly, it does not provide the questions. Why? Well, in real-life students have to make do with the tools they have. If they know perfectly the questions, great. If they don´t, then to complete the activity, they have to get creative. By not providing the questions, we are teaching them speaking strategies. In other words, we teach them to make do with what they have. So maybe instead of asking questions, learners will read one part of the text and ask "And you and your friend?" or they may make the sentence a yes/no question like "Do you and your friend work together too?" Perhaps they ask the questions, but not very well. Okay. But do they complete the activity? That´s the real question, because in the real world, we have to accomplish things, achieve things. Does it matter if we do it perfectly? It depends. But we can´t expect perfection in class. Instead, what we must do is take what they know now, and add to it--be it in the form of improved accuracy or in the form of new knowledge (i.e. new language).

The problem, I think, is that we tend to think of language abilities the same way we would other skills, such as scripted acting. We take a piece of language (i.e. would v.s. used to), like we take a piece of a script, and we rehearse it, over and over. Then when students have that down, we give them another, and another. Then we expect them-- based on these the various pieces--not to act out a play but to actually improvise one. What I mean by "improvise"? Well, think about it. Ever tried using a phrasebook while traveling abroad? You practice and rehearse the phrases of asking for directions, as well as the possible responses. Then when you actually speak to someone, you don´t understand a word of what they´re saying, because it´s not in the book. Communication requires improvisation. So why don´t we teach improvisation from the beginning? Why don´t we teach them strategies for communication rather than rehearsing them with "scripted parts"? It can be done. But first it requires you, the teacher, to loosen your grip on the amount of control you have.

More on what is Task-based Learning

As I´ve already mentioned, TBL focuses on the content of what´s discussed rather than the forms for discussing it. The concept is to assign students meaningful tasks, that is, tasks which promote meaningful interaction and mimic real-world activities. It values task-completion above language proficiency, or focus on specific language forms for completing the task. And it aims to engage for students by making the tasks themselves interesting. And finally, tasks themselves contain a clear and obtainable objective.

So really it´s about the formatting and the objectives. Instead of more traditional "PPP" formats of starting with a "warmer", then "pre-teaching" vocabulary and grammar, then "doing" vocabulary or grammar exercises and finishing with a speaking activity, we format our classes around an interactive activity which is interesting to students and which contains a clear objective. The basic process will always be as follows:

1. The set-up for the task is provided or what´s needed to perform task is discussed or modeled
2. The task is performed in pairs or groups
3. The task is formally concluded either by reporting results to the class or by class discussion
4. The teacher does some type of follow-up--either by teaching, correction, homework or other activities related to and backing up the task

As you can see, it´s not a complicated process. It can be gone through once each class or several times for each class (i.e. multiple, short activities). Either way, the process should be the same and along each step of the process, the objectives should be clearly spelled out to learners. What is extremely important to understand is that the objectives can NOT be simply: "to learn something". Learning is a natural result of EVERYTHING you do in class, so you can´t think too much about what your students will learn. Instead think, what will they do? What will they say? And most importantly, why will they say and do it? Once you see activities in this light, you begin to rethink how you present activities and new language. But to do so, you have to reprogram yourself; this time think of objectives almost like you would a game or a challenge. To give you an idea of what those "challenges" could be, here are a list of general examples of objectives for any activity:

• find differences
• find similarities
• give a rationale
• solve a problem
• form a plan
• agree on a given number of specific ideas
• find extremes (e.g. the best, the worst, the most interesting, etc.) in the/a group
• formulate a survey
• analyze results of a survey
• discover more (formulate questions)
• test another member of the class or another group
• find missing information to complete a text
• win (a game)
• formulate a theory
• redesign something
• research and share something
• listen and decide something (e.g. if you agree, is your situation different, etc.)
• read and decide something (e.g. missing information, what will happen next, etc.)
• create something (e.g. a project, a product, etc.)

I´m sure that none of these are new to you. What makes these things special is that they, or other objectives like them, are a part of every single activity--they´re not just something you do now and again. Again, objectives can be short-term (the result of a short activity) or very long-term (over the course of a class). What´s important is that they are explicitly given because they really motivate students to complete each task (think of it as added-value).

In addition, they should be realistic, yet challenging. Creating objectives, when adapting coursebook materials, takes practice but once you get the hang of it, it´s extremely rewarding.

How to think about "The language"

Of course you can predict what forms and what vocabulary they might use but despite your best efforts, in a Task-based classroom you just never know. I know, it´s easier to do it the other way around: first give them the forms and then ask students to practice them. But an advantage from a planner´s perspective is that by in order to predict what students will do or say during the task(s), you have to visualize it or even do it yourself. This means you´ll be in a better position to determine the level of enjoyablity (which is key) as well as find any "cracks" in your planning. Meanwhile, if you plan the forms you´re going to teach and then think of a "communication activity" to practice it, or just blindly follow a textbook, what happens is you probably won´t tend to "think through" the lesson. Instead, you rely on the material´s infallibility--something which in my experience leads to disappointing, or even disastrous results.

So thinking through a lesson and what students will do leads you to consider not only grammar and vocabulary that might come up but also grammar and vocabulary that won´t come up. In other words, grammar and vocabulary they don´t know yet but which would be helpful for them to know. This is where you´ll want to focus your efforts in planning. Decide what new language you´ll present (of course, after the task) and how you´ll do it.

How to do "The set up"

• In each lesson, you´re given clear instructions for setting up each activity. Regardless, I´d like to highlight a few things.
  
  
  • Personalize it: Although example material is provided (when possible) for lessons in the appendices, I can´t stress enough how important it is for you to find your own versions of these materials which are adapted to the learners´ needs, level and interests. The lessons in this book are designed with the learner in mind, so it´s important that you, the teacher, do the same. In addition, it´s important that the material be as up-to-date as possible, something that´s not possible if you use materials published in a book (which is a big problem with coursebooks). This applies also to reading and listening texts. Only you know what´s best for your class. You´re welcome to copy and use any materials provided in this book, but nothing beats a personalized, adapted or updated text--written or recorded.
  • Ease: Despite having to troll the internet or keep your eyes open for materials in the street, no activity requires much more time than it takes to do a search, copy some text from a webpage, paste it onto a document and print it out. In some cases, you´re asked to modify the texts (such as in a jigsaw activity) but these modifications take very little time to do. In addition, the materials can be used again and again, provided the learner-profiles are similar from class to class or that the information does not become noticeably out of date.
  • Authentic material, not necessarily "realia": When I came up with the concept for these classes I began to realize how necessary it was to have objects and texts to look at, refer to and use for carrying out the speaking tasks. Some of the materials (such as advertising leaflets, menus, brochures, etc) don´t even have to be printed in English (What´s that you say? Not in English?) since the students can translate the words as they speak or write; the point is to have a point of reference--something real to make the class more real. And nowadays, with the internet (or your fantastic translation skills) we can provide learners with authentic materials in English too! So get used to picking up random brochures for holiday vacations and advertising leaflets for sales on LCD televisions; they could form the basis of your next class.
  • No materials: In many cases, where materials are "required" for the lesson, you could just "opt out" and instead rely upon your students´ imaginations and knowledge. With some modification, I´m sure most of these lessons could be done with no materials preperation. However, I honestly believe that by providing physical materials for the students to hold onto and look at is another part of what makes these lessons special. It stimulates the learners, provides valuable authentic language and adds that extra touch of reality which makes all the difference. So, unless you overslept the morning before class or don´t know how to use Google, do your best to bring the materials each lesson requires.

How to give "The low down"

Leading into a task at the start of class is not easy. It really does require a bit of thought. You have to make it seem natural by starting off with a bit of chat, and yet you don´t want to let that chat go on for forty-five minutes (don´t get me wrong, chatting is great but...). Not only that, but you want instructions to be clear as well as any demonstrations you give. So here´s my advice:

• Start out friendly and relaxed. Don´t be afraid to chat for a minute or two with students in open class.
• When you´re ready to begin, continue with the same tone and energy as you did during the chat but just "Okay. So today we´re going to talk about taking a road trip." The question will focus the topic and allow you to guage the students´ knowledge of the topic. If you don´t get any response, don´t worry. Continue on by explaining what´s going to happen. "Well, today you´re going to plan a road trip."
• Give clear instructions and stress outcomes and timing for each activity.
• Give clear examples of what they might say during the task
• Demonstrate with one of the stronger students in the class, if necessary
• Divide the class into pairs or groups--pairs are more efficient and easier to control but groups are more challenging and mimic situations they might encounter in their jobs (or future jobs) as in, say a meeting, but also they can reduce talk time for each student. Alternate putting them in groups and pairs from class to class or do what works best or even what the students themselves prefer. Encourage students to move around the classroom so they are working with different partners from class to class (but don´t insist if it might create problems).
• During the task, offer help but otherwise just circulate and take notes on what students are saying--this could be what they do right as well as what needs improvement.

And "Now what?"

"Now what?" is a section of each lesson which will tell you how to finish up the lesson, giving it the sense of fulfillment which any lesson deserves. Sometimes, it will just be another (final) step of the activity. Other times it will be a type of "follow-up" to the activity just performed.

Either way, it´s important to remember two things:

• When doing follow-up, you want students to use "reporting language" (We did this. We decided this. We thought this.) whether written or spoken
• Generally, this is a writing exercise or a verbal or written report to the class. You can easily substitute one for the other or even leave something out. Be careful though! This may be the objective of the entire task! Whether deleting or modifying this part of the task, there still must be some sense of conclusion to the task

When it´s "Time to teach"

Unfortunately, there´s no one magic formula for putting the form back into the substance of what was spoken about in class. Just as you won´t know exactly what problems with pop up, you might not always know the best way to attack them. Still, there are several techniques you can refer to, which I´ll cover now. In the end though, it´s up to you and what works to decide which to use and when to use it.

• Technique #1: Take notes, teacher!
  A lot depends on the size and composition and level of the class but try this: sit in a central position in the classroom and just listen. As you listen focus on errors not mistakes (errors are generally considered to be due to lack of knowledge, mistakes are also known as "slips"). Take notes of what was said verbatim (the whole sentence). At the end of the activity you can sum up these errors (choose ten of the most egregious) by putting them, without changes, on the board or saving them until another class and making a handout for students to work on correcting. Now all that´s left for you to do is let them discuss together the context of the error, the correction and the reason for the correction. If there are any doubts, your vast knowledge will finally be put to good use here. Waiting until the next class to present the errors will give you time between classes to look up any grammar difficulties so as to be able to explain better--a plus for less experienced teachers.

• Technique #2: The popular choice
  Yes you can correct on the spot but consider that it´s probably going to be a correction that will get lost in the excitement of the activity. Not only that but the other learners in the class will be likely to commit the same error. Instead, wait until you address the class as a whole and when students are "reporting" their results during the feedback stage of the activity (more on that later) you can correct errors then. You can do this by using either of the following:

• Technique #2A: Echo the error and ask the class if that´s correct

• Technique #2B: Rephrase the error correctly (a.k.a. reformulation)

• Technique #2C: Stop the person with a gesture and say "you...what?"

• Technique #3: Don´t correct, Teach!
  So students performed the task but maybe not in the best way they could have. In other words, there were some phrases, some vocabulary or some grammar they could have used and didn´t. Here is an opportunity to show them what they are missing!
  Again, we don´t want to take the approach of, "here are the phrases you should know, use them". Instead, we´re going to direct our students´ attention to the language and hope that by noticing (or being led to notice), they will begin to use it. Think of it like this, if your ambition were to be a filmmaker, you would watch as many films as you could get your hands on. You would watch each one multiple times and you would study them as you would a book, or a piece of art. Of course, we´ve all seen hundreds or thousands of films ourselves. The difference is that the filmmaker would notice how things are done to produce a desired effect. In doing so, he would hopefully acquire those techniques into his own filmmaking reportoire (though perhaps badly at first). What´s effective about doing this is that first, the filmmaker sees how the techniques are being used in context or in use--in other words, he sees how they fit into the whole. Secondly, he sees what he wants or needs, as he needs it. So maybe he´s not technically able or ready to see how a certain special effect is done but he sees how the camera angle causes the actor to appear and the effect of doing so. It wouldn´t really help the budding filmmaker to be taught digital special effects if he doesn´t have the resources or the background to do so, would it? So, just like the filmmaker who sees and studies the masters and little by little notices how techniques are used, the learner of English should study how a native does it first and be directed to notice how and to what effect. From that, we hope the learner will utilize these techniques for speaking. If he or she doesn´t, the language theorist´s response would be that he or she is not ready--and I agree. So, teaching then is really a matter of showing, directing learners´ attention to what´s useful or necessary and giving them an opportunity to use it. There are any number of ways to do this:

• Technique #3A: Be a model
  This is something you can do before, or after any activity or task. It basically means that you provide a model, either written or spoken, of how you would do the task. Then, you can ask learners to find specific phrases, vocabulary or grammar from the model. You can ask them to decide what the structures or the vocabulary are and even what the rules for using them are (with or without a grammar book). Another thing to highlight are "chunks", that is words which commonly occur together. So, for example, from this very paragraph we can see that "This is something", "It basically means that", and "with or without" are chunks because they words which are repeatedly found together and can be used in a variety of contexts with changes to only their complement or subject.

• Technique #3B: Text as model
  This is very similar to the teacher as model technique but instead of hearing from the teacher, we hear from an outside source (recorded or written). This is an extremely common way of doing it--after all, it´s what you find in textbooks, right? And those materials can be used. The problem is when the source seems unauthentic, like they often do in textbooks. I have nothing against material prepared for English learners. However, the problem is when the example is either too easy, dull or not very realistic. Of course, the problem with materials that are 100% authentic is that they are generally too difficult, contain way too much unfamiliar (or unuseful) vocabulary or are too long. So my advice is to edit down authentic materials, rewrite or, in the case of recorded material, create your own using collegues or friends (and any device to record with that you can later connect to speakers). However, don´t script out the conversations. Instead, give the native speakers the same task and a time limit and ask them to speak clearly, but naturally. This will keep the language natural and give even low-level learners valuable authentic listening practice. If you have time, type out a transcript (which would be the ideal thing to do in order to further deepen the noticing process).

• Technique #3C: Learners can be models too!
  So instead of using the natural, expert speaker of English as a model, we can use phrases the learners themselves used. Of course, this should only be used when some of, not all of the class has used the phrases. But what it does is hightlight good language use, effectively rewarding as reinforcing that what they said actually was correct. To do this, write down on the board some of the phrases that were used and ask learners to decide how they´re used, what´s useful about them and what the rules of correct use are (if applicable). Then you can generate more examples with the same structure.
  Another way is to ask a pair/group that did the task well to model their speech for the class and ask the class to note down, for example, "ways they talk about cause and effect" or "ways they make suggestions".
  Yet another way is to just ask the class (i.e. elicit), "How do we talk about cause and effect?" or "How do we make suggestions?" after an activity. This way, students can all give their imput and incorrect use of phrases can be corrected immediately, while positively reinforcing correct phrasings.

The question of which of these to use and when depends entirely on you.

The syllabus

Could you, in theory base an entire nine-month course on this book? Yes, and in practice too!

How?

It depends on a number of factors. First, how much freedom do you have in the organization or school where you work? If you´re lucky enough (or unlucky if you´re a glass half-full type person) to have complete freedom to choose the content of the course, then let the needs analysis guide you a bit. Ask yourself who are these people? What are their general ages? Their professions? Their expressed interests? Any taboo or inappropriate topics? What should they know at their level? What would you like them to learn? Visit the European Framework of Languages website and get a list of "can-do" statements for their level. Ask them what they want to do from that list, as well from a list of things which interest them. Now do a couple of classes with them, get accustomed to their rhythm of working through the class, their language level and what you think they need, as well as their own priorities (their expressed needs).

Once you´ve got a feel for how they are, and what they want, get out a calendar and choose class topics/units for the first month. Or, if you´re not sure how quickly you´ll get through the topics, you can make a list for each month with less topics to cover than class (i.e. if there are 8 classes per month, then target 5 or 6 topics from the list) and if you cover everything and still have a class left over, great. What you don´t want is to make promises and then fall behind, so underestimate rather than overestimate. Make sure to share your syllabus with the students. This will give them a feeling that there a feeling of structure to the class (as will language feedback and correction). You could plan a whole year´s worth of classes but I like the idea of planning on a month to month basis because needs and priorities change and it will give you flexibility to work more on what was difficult for learners and less on what was easy. Also, agree upon end-of-course objectives--this will also give structure to the syllabus as a whole, especially if you plan month-to-month.

And if I don´t have the freedom to plan my own syllabus?

Then you´re not really using this book as a basis for your course, are you? Still, if you must follow the book you were assigned, then refer to the grammar/topics from this book to match and supplement sections you would have done in the course book.

You can also use the lessons as examples for modifying the lessons in the textbook you´re following. And while we´re on the subject, here´s a little tutorial on how to apply the same principles to course books.

How to give a sense of purpose to textbooks

If you really have to use a textbook, then at least spice it up a bit--make it real; turn those grammar drills back into real communication.

Instead of following a unit blindly from start to finish, look at the unit as a whole. If it has a written or recorded text, use that as your center-piece. Prime students, not by doing pre-teaching of vocabulary, but by getting them speaking about the topic of the text. So, for example, if the text is about a couple of celebrities who have something in common (either because they restarted their careers, or they are philanthropists or maybe just because they´re all blonde!), ask students what they know about them--make it a challenge to see who knows the most. Then ask them to read for general information (how many things you mentioned were correct?) and then for more specific information. Follow-up by highlighting some interesting or useful phrases, vocabulary or grammar. Finish with a task: assign each pair a part of the text (one celebrity) and ask them write a quiz to give to another pair.

Other things you can do with texts is rewrite them as a gapped jigsaw activity or ask them to write summaries. Or they can be asked to look for and take notes on specific things, or from specific part.

Other units might not have a text at all. In that case, take a look at the final activity--usually a speaking activity--and make that the first thing you do, not the last. Set it up, make sure students understand what they will be doing. Generally, you´ll want to demonstrate with a student or group in front of the class. Also, make sure the objectives are clear (you´ll have to invent one if the textbook doesn´t give it) and time limits (even if you don´t stick to them). The idea is that learners will use whatever language they know now to complete the task, not what the book says they should know. And if you would have preferred that they use a conditional but they´re not at that point yet where conditionals come easy, then they´ll probably use some more simple language. However, they mean to use a conditional. Some may even try to use a conditional. That´s when you know you know they´r ready for some input. When the task is finished, you can go back to the language focus, or create your own language focus based on the content of the task. You can do this by offering corrections for attempts or you can do this by eliciting a conditional sentence in the context of the activity. (also see How to put "teaching" back into the task?).

No matter how you do it, you´ll notice how much more interested your students are to know, learn and use the grammar, vocabulary or phrases now that they actually need them. Not only that, now that you´ve given your students a reason to use the target language, it´s going to be much more real to them. It´s going to also provide a context for examples that makes sense to them and hopefully is more memorable.

Let´s take a look at an example:

This the original procedure from one unit of a popular intermediate textbook:

1.1 Begins with a listening exercise in which two co-workers are discussing the arrival of a difficult client. The client has never been to Paris before and they have to entertain her. They discuss possiblities of where to take her using, "Shall we...?" and "How about...?" and "Why don´t we...?". Students are asked to cover the dialogue, listen and decide what the problem is and what the decision is.

1.2 Students now read the gapped tape-script and decide what the missing words are. They listen again and check.

1.3 They listen again and repeat the highlighted phrases.

1.4 They try to remember them by filling in extracted and gapped phrases.

1.5 Finally they are asked to decide in groups what they are going to do the next weekend. The questions they should ask which are about when and where they should meet are provided.

The same unit continues on to other listenings and readings with the same basic format.

So firstly, let me just say that this material is not bad. The actors are convincing and speak naturally. Also, the phrases used at least seem fairly natural (but obviously are not). In addition, they are given tasks with objectives (Plan when and where you´ll meet for dinner). So what´s the problem? Well, really, two things.

First, it´s not fun, not at all. I can´t imagine this taking less than an hour to get through and I think it would be a long hour. In fact, I see students going through it quite mechanically. As I´ve said again and again, to be fun, it has to be interesting, and to be interesting, it has to engage the students on a personal level. Can we be sure that this text-book material is doing that? No, not really, but you yourself probably don´t care, so why the heck would you expect students to?

The second problem is that there are a lot of opportunities for real communication that are not exploited--at all. It´s a bit odd really. I mean, why go from a recording of two people discussing what they´ll do with a visiting client in Paris to a speaking activity where students have to plan a time and place to meet for dinner? I think this is what happens when textbook writers are only concerned with how to speak rather than what.

So, here´s what we could do to make it more interesting. This would probably be at least a 1 1/2 hour class depending on how quickly students work through each step.

1.1 Ask students if they´ve ever been to Paris. Ask them to decide in groups, what are the top three things to see in Paris?

1.2 Tell students what they´re going to listen to. Ask them to listen and check the places mentioned by the speakers against their own "top 3".

1.3 Listen again and decide what the problem is and what they decide.

1.4 Look at tape script. Guess missing words. Listen and check.

1.5 Language focus: what phrases do they use to make suggestions?

1.6 Imagine this client is coming to your city. In groups, plan a one-day itinerary detailing where you would take her.

1.7 Groups report: others listen and note any differences. Each successive group reports their differences from initial reports. Finish with general discussion and comments.

Homework: Teacher writes erroneous phrases students had used and asks students to correct them.

So as you can see, I´ve added one more listening cycle to the task to give extra practice but always with an objective (call it an excuse to listen, if you must). From start to finish, each step scaffolds the next--and again, each step contains a mini-objective (call it a challange, if you must). Nearly all the orginal material is used, and in the same order. Notice that in this case, I didn´t make the final speaking activity the first activity as texts (written or recorded) provide great opportunities for learners to "notice" and hopefully, use the language they contain for the speaking activities. However, I did prime them for the listening activity by asking them something to bring them into the dialogue personally.

Another example, original procedure from an upper-intermediate business book:

1.1 The topic is "Starting up a new business". Students listen to two people who successfully started up their own business and fill in a chart with basic information.

1.2 Students match nouns and noun phrases from the listening to definitions provided.

1.3 They complete a text giving advice for starting up a business with noun phrases from the previous exercise.

1.4 Now they listen to extracts from the recording in 1.1 and complete a list of intensifiers with their corresponding adjectives.

1.5 Next, they match synonyms to the adjectives from the previous exercise.

1.6 With a partner, students respond to statements provided (such as, "What´s it like working for yourself?") using an adjective and adverb.

1.7 Working in small groups, students choose from a list of business ideas (or provide their own) and discuss questions regarding their opinions about the idea, advice for getting started, etc.

So at what point did you stop reading? I hope you didn´t, but I understand if you drifted away for a moment. I was bored myself.

Okay, so what´s the problem? Well, again, there is a task included and everything is integrated and related. The problem is that the question of interest and exploiting opportunities for real communication. Now, personally, I think the idea of starting up a business is very interesting. Why? Well, that´s exactly what I would want my teacher to ask of me. And that´s what we´re going to do. As for getting some real communication out of this, well, there are plenty of opportunities.

Let´s give it a shot.

1.1 Ask students if they have ever tried to start up a business or know anyone who has (one at a time)--what was the experience like? General discussion. In pairs, discuss what would be necessary to do so: planning, source of finance, resources, problems to consider, etc.

1.2 Listen to recordings and compare speakers´ answers to yours. How are they similar or different? Do you agree?

1.3 Listen again and answer questions for specific information (teacher written).

1.4 Look at tape script. Highlight unfamiliar vocabulary. Check meaning with other groups.

1.5 Match nouns and noun phrases from text to their definitions.

1.6 Listen to extracts and complete the intensifiers with adjectives

1.7 Match synonyms to adjectives

1.8 Task: with a partner, read the following case-study and come up with at least one possible solution, along with a rationale.

W. Murray spotted a gap in the market when noticed how difficult it was to find a good pair of headphones in shops and online so he decided to start up his own online store for headphones and headsets. The start-up capital came from his own savings as well as a loan from the bank. It´s been one year and his business isn´t growing as quickly as he´d like it to. He barely has a marketing plan and he´s behind on payments to the bank and needs to do something quickly.

Okay, so what did I do here? First, I brought in students interest into the text by asking them about their experiences or if they haven´t any and don´t know any one who has, I´d ask them if they´ve ever fantasized about it. Once we have some general discussion going (we hope), we ask them to imagine what would be necessary to do so. This gets them thinking about the topic and details of the listening extracts. It also engages them in the listening process, by asking them to compare their answers with the speakers´. Next we focus on language details before finally doing a problem-solving case-study which I invented based on ideas taken from the unit.

Perhaps you´re wondering to yourself two things: one, why not ask them to practice using the adjectives like in part 1.6 of the original? And second, the final task the book sets of starting up a business as a group and discussing the issues related is an interesting task, why not use it?

To the first I say, the statements are ridiculous and completely unreal--we delete such garbage directly. If you want them to practice some specific grammar, don´t do it this way, please. Ask them to write their own statements or questions to have a partner respond to, if you must do anything. But pre-fabricated statements and questions make us feel like we´re speaking using a machine.

To the second, I say yes that´s true, it should be interesting and fun to do but the reality is that it isn´t. It´s a tough call but remember, there has to be a clear and realistic objective. At first it seems that this activity does contain an objective: to start a business. But think about it. If the objective was to start a business, you would actually write out a business plan and start the business, right? But obviously you can´t. So then the objective becomes, talk about what would be necessary to start up a hypothetical business. It´s phoney and I think students know that. So they do it half-heartedly. And even when just choosing the business--they think, what´s the point? Does it matter which they choose? No, not much, so then students hem and haw for a while over it before just deciding on the first choice provided. Now, I know that in business schools, the long-term project is to do such things, but they have a good reason for doing so and the experience of having written a realistic, detailed business plan is truly a worthy objective. But for a ten or twenty minute activity in English class, it´s going to be very difficult. It´s just not a real task. So instead we have to look at something else. Problem solving, even if it´s about a fictitious person, is real to students because we have a clear and obtainable goal and because they can share their ideas with each other--almost competively. We focus only on a few details and we choose from several possibilities before coming up with a final plan. It´s simple, it´s interesting and it´s realistically achievable.

One last example, a unit overview of a popular lower-intermediate coursebook:

This is the first unit in the book, whose aim is for students to talk about themselves. Page one and two are about names, page three is about remembering names and faces, page four and five are texts and form focus exercises related to discussing personal details and the last page is a song coupled with a task for students to talk about themselves. This material would probably take four classes at least to cover. So we can roughly divide it so that each class is a page or page and a half. I´m now going to detail the first page to illustrate that how you can apply a task-based teaching methodology to even the simpliest and most basic topic: names.

1.1 Students listen to someone talk about all the different names she´s called and answer one gist question (found at the end).

1.2 Students listen again and match the names she´s called to the person who calls her that name.

1.3 Students write down a list of names that they are called and explain to a partner which they like the most and which they don´t like much.

1.4 Students fill in a chart with names of family members which correspond to the various family relations listed as headings

1.5 Students add more headings and names

1.6 Students discuss questions related to the names they wrote such as whether names are usual/unusual in their country.

1.7 Students listen to a list of English names and decide which one has a different vowel sound (long).

1.8 Finally, they listen again and rearrange the names so they have the same sound

Again, this is the first unit of the book meaning that teachers are expected to actually begin with this on day one of class. Well, in general, it´s not the worst approach to get students talking about their names and family. However, the procedure is quite dry. Let´s see if we can´t make it a bit more interesting.

1.1 Introduce self (again) and say how I am also called by different "nick-names". My teachers at school called me "Zachary", my wife calls me "cariño" and my brother calls me "bro". Ask some students their names and if they have other names. Continue asking until find someone who is called "Cariño" (common term of endearment). Ask students to do the same by answering the question, "Do you have any names in common?" in pairs/groups.

1.2 Introduce recording then ask students to listen and answer gist question from book.

1.3 Students listen again (and again) and match names to person who calls her that name.

1.4 Students look at tape-script and check answers. Extract a few common phrases from the recording such as, "My name´s...", "Most of my friends call me...", or "I was always called...at school." Choral drill each and choose individuals to finish sentences. Then ask students to do the same in pairs.

1.5 For exercise about family, in pairs, student describe their family while partner draws family tree based on description(see page____ "Family tree").

So as you can see from day one, we can begin with unscripted conversations in class. There is still a model which students can follow, both by the teacher and by the listening exercise, but it´s not forced upon them to perfectly execute the task. And as with all tasks, they have a reason to explain to each other the names they´re called, or to explain about their family. 

 In addition, one activity builds on another, going from speaking to listening to speaking again. Notice I did eliminate the listening for pronunciation exercise (1.7-1.8). The ability to listen and distinguish sounds is always important but I felt that distinguishing the difference between Burt and Luke was not as important as focusing on other things. 

Finally, I chose a jigsaw-type activity as a way for students to describe family because it makes it more interactive and it gives them a reason to listen. It´s challenging but students can utilize whatever language and grammar is available to them. They can say "My grandmother...Maria" or "My grandmother is called Maria" or "My grandmother´s name is Maria". They can describe immediate or extended family. If the person drawing the family tree choose to ask for more information, he/she can. So we don´t place strict rules and limits on what students can say but as they speak or afterwards, we can provide correction and alternatives.