Reflection 1
Teaching Demonstration on Direct and Indirect (Reported Speech):
Analysis and Reflection
Kelly Moon
Dr. Shi
English 483
April 22, 2009
Reflection 2
Grammar pedagogy has numerous facets and can be approached in a vast number of ways.
As I begin my experience in the classroom, I realize I am only beginning to skim the surface of
how to effectively apply these approaches. A single lesson encompasses not only the planning
process – finding relevant content and organizing that content so it can be presented well - but also
a sincere understanding of student proficiency levels and engagement. I must also know how to
target these two areas so that learning is enhanced.
1. Design of the Lesson
Before creating my lesson, I needed to have a clear understanding of the content and the
context in which it was to be used. In other words, it was necessary to exhibit accurate
grammatical features and to engage students with this content. Students differ in learning styles,
proficiency levels, and experience with different grammatical features, and thus relevance and
appropriateness are essential to effective grammar teaching.
I intended for my lesson to be implicit in nature, having students derive the grammatical
features from the lesson’s constituents. This approach is similar to consciousness- raising (C-R),
which is a carefully guided, self-discovery process to understanding grammar (this can be
compared to a deductive, explicit process of more traditional teaching strategies). In my lesson,
students were first asked to listen to a dialogue between Anne and I, paying particular attention to
how we responded to each other. I used this as an introductory activity because it was not too
cognitively demanding yet still subtly incorporated the grammatical features in a communicative,
real-life scenario.
Following this introduction, I preceded to read a paragraph containing indirect speech, first
allowing the students to focus on its content. I then asked a student to read it a second time, asking
students to pay close attention to the verbs in red. The paragraph was displayed on the LCD screen
Reflection 3
so they could read along. I purposefully had them read the material twice so that during the second
reading, they would already have a firm grasp of the content and be able to focus solely on the
verb forms. After this, Anne and I asked questions pertaining to these verbs, directing their
attention to what types of verbs were used (i.e., reporting verbs). I found that asking questions
about material visually represented in front of them was an effective task.
Both Anne and I were functioning as facilitators of linguistic input, or as Jones (1986)
states, “guid[ing] students to observe, activate prior knowledge, [. . .] construct meanings, [and]
organize and relate ideas” (as cited in Adair-Hauck & Donato, 1994, p. 535). Students were
observing grammatical features, responding to questions using prior knowledge, and would soon
construct meaning in the following activity, combining prior knowledge with newly acquired
knowledge. Both the skit and the paragraph exposed the class as whole to use of indirect and
direct speech. A few students were asked to answer our questions, and following the paragraph
reading, another few were able to vocalize how they would change certain uses of indirect speech
into direct speech. Not all students were asked to volunteer, as students were simply being
exposed to the grammatical feature rather than being assessed for understanding.
This “teacher as mediator” approach continued in the next part of the lesson where students
engaged in an interview-reporter activity. Both students served important roles – one asking
questions and reporting answers and the other providing answers to the questions – and switched
roles, participating as both reporter and interviewee. This allowed all of the students to practice
writing using indirect speech. Practice, according to DeKeyser (2007), is understood as “specific
activities in the second language, engaged in systematically, deliberately, with the goal of
developing knowledge of and skills in the second language” (p. 2). Students were also engaged
communicatively, not only writing but also speaking with and listening to the particular
Reflection 4
grammatical feature. As Adair-Hauck & Donato (1994) specify, all grammar activities must be
contextualized and follow a “natural flow” so that they are “integrated and meaning centered
rather than being fragmented and meaningless” (p. 538). Thus, during the lesson, students were
using the feature in an applicable or relevant environment; that is, bringing real life scenarios into
the classroom so students will recognize when to use this feature outside of the classroom.
As students shared their responses with the class, mistakes were addressed immediately
with vocalized and written mini-grammar lessons or by asking the student to pay particular
attention to verb tense or subject-verb agreement. This required both Anne and I to understand the
reasons behind grammar usage and to readily relay this knowledge to students in a clear and
beneficial manner. Indirect speech is a difficult feature to teach because of its complex,
“untreatable” tendencies. Just like with the use of prepositions in Bitchener’s (2005) study,
indirect speech has no explicit set of rules can be used to teach this particular feature. Rather,
learners are required “to utilize acquired knowledge of the language to correct the error” (p. 194).
From this perspective, with more exposure and practice with indirect speech, students would
hopefully acquire its underlying constructive rules.
As a form of assessment, I gave the students a take home worksheet, which directed them
to transform direct speech to indirect speech with various exercises. These included filling in the
blank as well as writing their own examples and sentences. This assessment directly correlated
with the lesson and provided exercises that varied in difficulty.
2. Knowledge of Grammar
[E]ffective L2 teaching requires of the teacher more than just the possession of
such knowledge and the ability to draw upon it for communicative purposes. The
L2 teacher also needs to reflect upon that knowledge and ability, and upon her
knowledge of the underlying systems of the language, in order to ensure that her
students receive maximally useful input for learning” (Andrews, 1999; as cited in
Andrews, 2001, p. 78).
Reflection 5
As this quote suggests, grammar teachers may be facilitators of learning, but in order to be
effective facilitators, they must have a firm understanding of not only that grammar feature but of
grammar as a whole. Andrews refers to this as a “knowledge-base which can be readily
accessed…” (p. 81). With this foundation, teachers are able to approach problematic areas with
more background and experience, where as simply knowing about specific features fails to
acknowledge the bigger picture or context in which the difficulty occurs.
For this particular teaching demonstration, I was very familiar with the content, as I use
reported speech in every day conversation and writing. But I was unfamiliar with how it is
constructed, or the means by which an ESL learner would approach the grammar feature. As
mentioned earlier, reported speech is an untreatable grammar feature; there are rules that govern its
construction, but they are instinctive for native-speakers and are therefore very difficult to
categorize and explain. After researching verb tense and word choice in relation to reported
speech, I felt I understood this feature well enough to teach it. This research gave me a firm
knowledge base and also provided me with a variety of sentence structures and examples to use
while teaching. My approach centered on real life experience – listening to native-speakers in
dialogue using the feature followed by reading the feature in writing and verbalizing and creating
sentences on their own – so students would discover ways to construct transformed sentences and
ask questions about confusing structures.
As with any other grammar feature, I will always need to recall certain rules, making sure I
understand the full complexity of their constructions. I am confident in my grammatical
competency, but in order to teach grammar to L2 learners, knowledge is not the only necessary
component. I must look at the entire learning process from their point of view, changing my
perspective so that I can better predict troublesome areas. In this way I can prepare my lessons
Reflection 6
using my grammar knowledge, providing clear explanations for why rules exist – or in some cases
do not – and utilizing challenging moments as opportunities to propel learning.
3. Quality of Materials Used
For my lesson I used a variety of materials, including a skit, power point, and worksheets.
In order for the lesson to be executed effectively, I had my power point and other materials ready
at hand so that everything could happen punctually. In the power point, I used color contrast to
better display the verbs used indirect speech, which I think helped point out the purpose of indirect
speech (that is, to report using verbs like “reply,” “said,” “told,” and “commented”). I also thought
it was effective to fill in the missing quotations on the following slide after students verbalized the
direct speech transformations, allowing them to actively see the process of transformation.
To improve my lesson material, it would have been more effective to put the lines of the
introductory skit on the LCD screen so students could follow along with the written text. Students
may have been more attentive, listening and reading simultaneously. I would have also used fewer
questions during the communication activity. Students were adamant about finishing all of the
questions before switching partners, so lessening the total number of questions may have left more
time for addressing questions and letting all pairs share their responses. In addition, it would have
been wise to provide students with workbook paper to write down their answers, which would
have provided them with a clean workspace and allowed me to collect their work afterwards.
4. Pedagogical Analysis
In my lesson I utilized whole class lectures, mini lectures, pair work, and class work.
Essential to a successful lesson was being attuned to the students’ engagement with the activity.
After looking at student feedback, most were appreciative of the amount of time devoted to
Reflection 7
practice and communicative activities. Most also commented that I integrated communicative
skills while teaching grammar, utilizing, writing, speaking, listening, and reading.
My intended purpose – to teach the differences between direct and indirect speech, how to
change from one to the other – was implemented. Correct execution of these forms were also
understood by the majority, but based on the assessment and feedback from the students, it is clear
that verb tense is still a struggle for students, even after my lesson. If I were to perform this lesson
again, I would allow students to practice more with writing complete sentences and changing
between indirect and direct speech. One alteration could have been to focus less in the beginning
on explaining what the feature is, as most students had a clear idea of reported speech, and to let
students use class time to practice with the worksheet. Doing this would have allowed students to
ask Anne, myself, or any of their peers questions. This may have also allowed more time for mini
grammar lessons of difficult areas, which would most likely have benefited all students. If there
were a follow-up lesson, a beneficial focus would be on punctuation of direct speech, especially
comma usage and quotations, and more practice with difficult verb tense structures.
I often struggle with the balance between engaging my students and incorporating
meaningful, appropriate amounts of content. As stated by Andrews (2001), one teacher was “more
concerned with the affective dimension of her teaching (engaging the interest of her students) than
with content-related issues” (p. 84). Finding the right content is usually not difficult; it is the
teaching of such content in a manner that will engage students that is often unpredictable and will
most likely be modified as the lesson is executed. I noticed this while teaching my lesson. Since I
had never met any of the students prior nor had I been accustomed to their learning styles and
normal classroom structure, I had to plan for the unexpected, hoping that I would engage my
students and have alternative methods to do so if my original plans were not effective.
Reflection 8
For the most part, my original lesson went as planned and students actively participated.
Interaction was vital, and primarily this aspect made the lesson successful. Problematic areas,
however, were unexpected, and answering students’ questions with explicit, direct answers was a
challenge for me. After teaching, I now realize that the key to an effective lesson is confidence; if
I am confident in my lesson and truly want my students to learn, there is no need to fear failure.
Success is often derived from unexpected challenges and working through problematic areas.
Reflecting on my own skills, I must improve on the clarity of my speech, slowing down
and emphasizing important points. I should tap into students’ prior knowledge to begin my lessons,
using this as a building block for more complicated material. It would also encourage them to be
more confident in their abilities. With more experience in the classroom, I hope to be less rigid,
more flexible, and more eccentric about my curriculum.
References
Adair-Hauck, B., & Donato, R. (1994). Foreign language explanations within the zone of proximal
development. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 532-557.
Andrews, S. (2001) The language awareness of the L2 teacher: Its impact upon pedagogical
practice. Language Awareness, 10(2), p. 75-90.
Bitchener, J, S. Young, & D. Cameron (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback
on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, p. 192-205.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In Practice in a Second
Language, 18.