This document has been useful in my own assessment practices. It provides examples of language features to help understand assessment criteria; I try to include examples for each level of assessment (A-F) in my own rubrics. It advises that students should be credited for informal terminology that demonstrates understanding, and I have found rewarding students for comprehension far more effective than penalizing them for misused terms. Finally, I use a similar 3-criteria rubric for writing assignments (critical understanding, composition structure, and formal expression), and the Marking Guide provides a useful breakdown of what factors comprise these categories.

Brame, C. (2013). Flipping the classroom. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Available at: http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/flipping-the-classroom/ (Accessed: 8 July 2017)

Cook, V. (2001) ‘Using the First Language in the classroom’, The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 57(3), pp.402-423.

Cumming, A. (2001) ‘ESL/EFL instructors’ practices for writing assessment: specific purposes or general purposes?’, Language Testing, 18(2), pp.207-224.

Ellis, R. (2009) ‘Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development’, L2 Journal, 1(1), pp.3-18.

Ellis, R. (2009a) ‘A typology of written corrective feedback’, ELT Journal, 63(2), pp.97-107.

Harmer, J. (2007) How to Teach English. (7th ed.) Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.

Harvard College Writing Program (2007) A Brief Guide to Responding to Student Writing. Available at: https://writingproject.fas.harvard.edu/pages/teaching-guides (Accessed: 04 July 2017).

Harwood, N. (2005) ‘What do we want EAP teaching materials for?’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(2), pp.149-161.

Lee, I. (2005) ‘Error-Correction in the L2 Writing Classroom: What do Students Think?’, TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 22(2), pp.1-16.

Meador, D. (2017) Strategies for Teachers to Maximize Student Learning Time. Available at:
https://www.thoughtco.com/strategies-for-teachers-to-maximize-student-learning-time-4065667 (Accessed 02 July 2017).

Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche, de la Science et de la Technologie (2013) Marking Guide: Ministerial Examination of College English Language of Instruction and Literature. Available at: http://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/en/references/publications/results/detail/article/ministerial-examination-of-college-english-language-of-instruction-and-literature/ (Accessed: 04 July 2017)

Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche, de la Science et de la Technologie (2013a) ‘Appendix: Sample Student Essays’, Marking Guide: Ministerial Examination of College English Language of Instruction and Literature. Available at: http://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/en/references/publications/results/detail/article/ministerial-examination-of-college-english-language-of-instruction-and-literature/ (Accessed: 04 July 2017)

Paulus, T.M. (1999) ‘The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing’, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), pp.265-289.

Richards, J.C. and Bohlke, D. (2011) Creating Effective Language Lessons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Strunk, W. (1918) Elements of Style. Geneva, N.Y.: W.F. Humphrey.

Thornbury, S. (1999) ‘Lesson art and design’, ELT Journal, 53(1), pp.4-11.

Wette, R. (2014) ‘Teachers’ practices in EAP writing instruction: Use of models and modeling’, System, 42, pp.60–69.

Woods, L. (2009) Architecture School 101. Available at:
https://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/architecture-school-101/ (Accessed 02 July 2017).

Of particular interest is a short section in which Richards and Bohlke discuss the role the lesson plan should play in the actual delivery of the lesson (pp.39-40). In their view, the lesson plan is a blueprint to be “renegotiated according to what occurs in the lesson itself” (pg. 40). Earlier in my career, I was beholden to lesson plans, unwilling to follow tangents that may have created learning opportunities; now, I may follow such asides too exuberantly, and lose focus on planned outcomes. Balance is key, and Richards and Boehlke’s suggestion of flexibility for good reason (p.40) seems advisable.

 

The primary aim of the lesson is to show students how structure and grammar change according to rhetorical purpose. The structure of the lesson is based on the Engage-Study-Activate model (Harmer, 2007, p.52-53), and features a speaking activity, lecture, and writing tasks. I emphasize corrective feedback and assignment editing, and task worksheets are designed to accommodate grammar corrections and critical commentary. I use selective grammar correction with a correction code, as learner self-correction has been shown to improve second-language acquisition (Ellis, 2009, p.7); as Lee (2005, p.10) asserts, “those needing the most practice in error correction should do it, meaning the students.” Written commentary is included on the basis that it has been shown to improve student skills in draft revision (Paulus, 1999), which is a frequent task in the course. 

 

There are practical strategies for lesson efficiency that don’t require changes of approach. Meador (2017) suggests a variety of techniques, from creating efficient procedures for routine tasks to keeping a journal of class distractions, with links to further reading for each. While some of the techniques may seem innocuous, they have helped me to develop practical ways of managing class time that have improved my lessons as a whole.