ELT in Brazil

1. The more specific the aim, the better

Seneca once said that “If a man knows not which port he sails, no wind is favorable”. Seneca was obviously not talking about planning lessons for DELTA nor was he an accomplished English teacher. I reckon he didn’t even speak the language, to be honest. However, we can easily take his philosophy to heart and look at it from the perspective of a teacher in ELT goggles.

In my planning process, the aim is step numero uno. In addition, when it comes to writing lesson plans, and, more specifically, lesson aims for DELTA, the more focused, narrow, and specific you can get the better. The CELTA frame for lesson aims is a great start but, as DELTA is a step further, your aim should also walk the extra mile. In this article, we are going to analyze a small but transformative feature of writing lesson aims focusing on the CELTA course but that could easily be taken into account for the DELTA.

For example, these are the lesson aims I wrote for my CELTA lessons in 2018, in the order I wrote them:

1. By the end of the lesson, students should be able to produce sentences regarding wishes and regrets.
2. By the end of the lesson, students should be able to use the vocabulary presented in the context of traveling abroad.
3. By the end of the lesson, students should be able to listen to a conversation for gist, detail, inferential and specific information in the context of traveling.
4. By the end of the lesson, students should be able to use will/won’t for promises, offers, predictions, and decisions in the context of relationships.
5. By the end of the lesson, students should have produced an informal letter answering personal information questions and questions regarding staying with a host family.
6. By the end of the lesson, students should be better able to speak in the context of storytelling.
7. By the end of the lesson, students should be better able to use should/shouldn’t, have to/don’t have to, and must / mustn’t as advice or strong recommendation in the context of self-medication and health problems.

It is clear to see that I took a very linguistic focus during my CELTA. All my lessons, with the exception of lessons 3 and 6 (six was a complete disaster, I might write about it in the future.), were focused on an atomistic bit of language. In a movement that resembles L’Art pour l’art, here, Language for the sake of Language.

It is also interesting to see how aims progressed from the beginning of the course towards its end. Aims moved from producing sentences to using bits of language to achieve a communicative purpose such as telling stories and giving advice. Not as much L’Language pour L’language but language as a means of achieving a communicative goal.

Last but not least, the addition of the word better changes the mindset of planning a lesson completely. Allow me to expand on that.

Read the two aims below and take some time to notice how fundamentally different they are.

(a) By the end of the lesson, students should be able to tell a story.

(b) By the end of the lesson, students should be better able to tell a story.

Yes, the only difference in the writing of the aims above is the word better. However, it fundamentally changes the mindset of this lesson. When I say that students should be able to tell a story I’m telling you, the students, my coordinator, and myself that, at this point in time, those learners cannot tell a story. I’m also stating that, after this class, they should move from being unable to tell a story to being able to tell a story. Doesn’t it sound a tad arrogant? Also, in my opinion, it closely resembles Freire’s critique of the banking education. One in which the student is devoid of that knowledge and the teacher shall deposit said knowledge into the student’s mind.

When you say that students will be better able to do something, the story changes completely. What you are saying is that students are already able to do it and that by the end of the lesson, they will be better at it.

Also, what would happen if you come to class with aim (a) in mind and students already know how to tell a story, even if not at an expert level? Would there be a class? Would you teach them to do something they can already do? Teach the plan and not the students?

If aim (b) is the one in mind, it does not matter how experienced or inexperienced, proficient or novice your students are at telling stories. There is always room for development. Think of it this way. We can teach a lesson with aim (b) in mind to arguably any group of learners. A1 to C2++.

The idea that there is always room for improvement also means that everybody in the lesson will be getting feedback, not only the students who are struggling but also the ones who are acing. The students who are acing want to ace it better.

To wrap it up the way we began, Heraclitus says that “The only constant in life is change” and if you believe that, students will always be able to become better versions of themselves after our classes.