SSIS III ciclo
Preparazione di Esperienze Didattiche
Progettazione
di un modulo
a cura di Elisabetta Barillaro
“Give voice to your
opinions”
ADDRESSEES
B1-B2 / IV-V Superiore
TIME
2/3 months?
PREREQUISITES
Level A2-B1 of the CEF
§ English Civilization: Blair’s speech on G.B.’s intervention into Iraq war (BBC/TV); The Suffragette movement (written documents); M. L. King’s speech (tape); Italian football seen from English press (newspaper);
§ History: “The discovery of Press and the consequent social transformation”;
§ Philosophy: Voltaire, Treaty on tolerance, Positivism, Socrates …;
§ Italian studies: Articles n. 2 and 21 of Italian Constitution and n. 10, 14 of the Convention, Italian newspapers…;
§ Latin: Rhethorical devices; Cicero’s speeches …
Educational: capability of inserting specific contents inside a learning precess; capability of giving reason for own’s opinions/points of view, consolidation of linguistic competences and acquisition of new ones in terms of what can be interpreted/reported/discussed/inferred.
Formative: acquisition of intercultural content; get the Ss used to self- and others’ respect by supporting the cooperation among them and by giving importance to each one’s opinion and participation. Encourage the exchange of ideas/opinions, get them used to be tolerant and respectful of the rules.
Oral production:
§
Can reasonably fluently sustain a straightforward description of one of
a variety of subjects within his/her field of interest, presenting it as a
linear sequence of points.
§
In a debate, can develop an argument well enough to be followed without
difficulty most of the time. Can briefly give reasons and explanations for
opinions, plans and actions.
§
Can use a prepared questionnaire to carry out a structured interview,
with some spontaneous follow-up
questions.
Written production:
§
Can write an essay or report which develops a topic, giving reasons in
support of or against a particular point of view and explaining the advantages
and disadvantages of various options.
Listening:
§
Can follow a lecture or talk within
his/her own field, provided the subject matter is familiar and presentation
straightforward and clearly structured.
Reading:
§
Can identify the main conclusions
in clearly signalled argumentative texts. Can recognise the line argument in
the treatment of the issue presented, though not necessarily in detail.
Linguistic
Competence
§
Lexical: fixed expressions: IT’S NO GOOD+Gerund; Clauses of reason with AS;
Describing plans or arrangements: TO BE TO; TO BE SAID TO; NEED+Gerund; NEED
+Infinitive. Phrasal verbs/idioms: SPEAK UP, AGREE
ON, PUT UP etc.
§
Grammatical: question words and relatives; conjunctions (and, but, if, altough
etc.); negative conditions: UNLESS; position of adverbial (manner, place,
degree) s; making comparisons: AS…AS, NOT SO…AS;, main/subordinate/co-ordinate
and relative clauses; 1st conditional.
§
Semanatic: relation of word to general context, connotation, synonimy/antonimy; collocation;
§
Phonological: sentence stress and rhythm, intonation.
§ Conventions for turntaking: pauses, aha, honestly, really, ooh, good heavens, oh dear, you’re joking; rhetorical questions: are you crazy?/Have you no shame?/Why bother?/Why must he be so nasty to me? etc
§ Expressing contempt/dislike or like and agreement: I’M AFRAID BUT…/I DON’T AGREE etc.
§ Expressing wishes or regrets: WISH/TO BE AFRAID;
2. Functional:
§
Asking and Expressing opinions: What do you think about…?Why not… instead? Do you think …? According
to me, I think, For me, I don’t think…,
§
Asking and Expressing
agreement/disagreement: Do you agree with so’s
point of view?I agree with you/with what you said, I defInitEly…
§ Use of THINK/SUPPOSE/HOPE;
§ Expressing statements in Indirect Speech;
§ Exclamations: WHAT/WHAT A…!;
§ Expressing preferences: I WOULD RATHER…
§ Expressing requests: I WONDER IF YOU COULD/COULD YOU?
§
Making suggestions: MAY I SUGGEST,
HAVE YOU CONSIDERED/WHAT ABOUT+ING;
§
Expressing result: TOO+ Infinitive;
ENOUGH+ Infinitive; SO…THAT+Clause;
§
Expressing willingness: WILL;
§ Expresing regret/complaint: I’M SORRY TO BOTHER YOU/I’M AFRAID;
§ Seeking confirmation: QUESTION TAGS/AM I RIGHT SAYING (THAT) + Clause;
§ Identifying, reporting, correcting, commenting, explaining, demonstrating, argumenting, persuading, summarizing.
STRATEGIES
INVOLVED:
Oral
Production:
Planning: Can work out how to communicate the main points he/she wants to get across, exploiting any resources available and limiting the message to what she/he can recall or find the means to express.
Compensating: can convey meaning by qualifying a word meaning something similar.
Can define the features of something concrete for which he/she can’t remember the word. Can start again using a different tactic when communication breaks down.
Spoken interaction: can make his/her opinions and reactions understoood giving brief reasons and explanations. Can invite others to give their views on how to proceed.
Turntaking: Can intervene in a discussion on a familiar topic, using a suitable phrase to get the floor. Can ask someone to clarify or elaborate what they have just said.
Written
Production:
Can write straightforward connected texts
on a range of familiar subjects within his field of interest, by linking a
series of shorter discrete elements into a linear sequence. Can convey
information and ideas on abstract as well as concrete topics, check information
of immediate relevance, getting across the point he/she feels to be important.
TASKS TO
BE PERFOMED
Writing: Fill-in/Completion/Multiple choice/ Cloze test/ True-False/Matching/ Note taking/Short argumentative text (report, article).
Speaking: Role Plays, Class discussions, interviews, simulations, debate.
Listening/Reading:
listen/read for the gist; skimming (yes/no
questions); scanning (wh-questions).
TITLES OF
TEACHING UNITS
AIDS
Books; Authentic material: Newspapers, Internet, Tapes, Satellite TV. OHP.
I would ascertain task parameters so that students are
able to get directly into their roles and to rely on their own experiences to
provide information. I aim at testing not specific background or cultural
knowledge but rather the capability to carry out a task in the most effective and confident way.
Furthermore I
think that tasks should be, at the same time, open-ended to maximize test taker
opportunity for self-expression. And they should elicit at least sentence-level
discourse, allowing the students to go beyond memorized phrases and
patterns.
All instructions and tasks should be provided in Italian , since Ss are not being tested on their ability to comprehend oral or written target language for these assessments.
According to me
even testing activity should be motivating for the students as it shows what
they can do with the language.
So, in order to
assess the results obtained I set up a series of interrelated tasks that draw
out production according to topic and function determined relevant by standards
or curriculum. Such tasks include structured and semi-structured tests such as
multiple choice; true/false; fill-in-the-blanks; mind maps; short report (for
written assessment). Role plays, open
dialogues… (for oral assessment).
The role
play exam consists of two
parts. First the students read a short text about the debate topic and then
they role play a debate. The role play can be held for ten minutes. The
placement criteria are pronunciation and grammatical accuracy, vocabulary
control, nonverbal communication skills, rate of speech, volume , organization
of material, and interaction ability.
Contribute to
conversation with short statements of opinion, adapt language to manage less
predictable elements, contribute by asking appropriate questions.
You are a
guest in an English family during your summer holidays. The children
have a quarrel with their parents about how to spend their spare time. You
complete the dialogue by saying what you usually do in Italy.
As far as the evaluation is
concerned the following results are
possible: good, satisfactory and low. They correspond to:
Good: correct, adequate, appropriate and fluent use of all the levels of the language structures/functions invloved. Thorough understanding of all the information received.
Satisfactory: sufficient production and comprehension of messages even if with imprecisions on lexical, grammatical, phonetical etc. level. The processing of information is difficult/not fluent enough.
Low: the message is not/not sufficiently understandable because of
serious lacks in gramamtical/ phonetical/ lexical etc. levels.
CERTIFICATION
At this point
it should be possibile to affirm that this module is self contained, meaningful
and certifiable.
It is self-contained because it is
organized on a single key problem and aims at acquiring a process typical in a
communicative context: expressing own opinions/give reasons.
It is meaningful
because it responds to concrete needs and emphazises processes of learning and
improve socio-psychologic and cultural identity.
It is certifiable because aims at
developing pragmatic and functional competences and allows us to establish minimal standards which can be described
and agreed upon.
An example is given in a fac-simile of a
portfolio document here attached.