This is a guest post written by Bruno Sousa and it’s about his experience teaching a CLL lesson for his DELTA Module 2 experimental practice.

Bruno has taught English in Brazil for over a decade and has worked with students of all ages and levels. He holds the Cambridge CPE, Celta, Delta (M1/M2), and Train the trainer. His main interests revolve around bilingualism, IB programmes, and teacher training. Thank you for writing this post for the TEFL Zone, Bruno!

Rachel

A chance to experiment

Working at language institutes, we tend to be extremely restricted when it comes to classroom practice. Of course, there are both business and pedagogical reasons for that, and as employees, we have to comply with  company rules. However, as an experienced teacher, I have always wanted to experiment with different methodologies and techniques that were not supported by the schools I worked at. I have never been a fan of easy answers such as “so-and-so said that, so it’s obviously true”.

Delta Module 2 was an incredible experience in this regard! Not only was I able to investigate a few areas in depth, but I also tried things that I had always wanted to but was never given the chance. The LSAs are very helpful – you get to choose two systems and two skills to write about and teach a lesson on. Yet, in my view, PDA part B, aka Experimental Practice, is definitely the best part of Module 2. Why? Because you get formative feedback but you are NOT assessed.

 Books that guided me through this process 📚

I went straight to Richards and Rodgers’ book Approaches and methods in English teaching. It’s a classic; but you may easily get confused/overwhelmed when deciding which area to experiment with. 

 The book that helped me choose my focus was Wallace’s (1998): Action research for language teachers. It provides very useful tips for classroom investigation. More specifically, on page 25 you’ll find a table that you can fill with areas of interest, reasons for choice, and rank them in order of importance and interest. This was a simple but eye-opening table. I chose a few areas for investigation strictly for personal reasons (e.g., the use of translation/L1 in the classroom) and others had to do with feedback I got from my tutors (e.g., student centeredness).

Choosing a focus 🔎

It may sound silly, but jotting down and organizing all areas of interest as well as thinking about how relevant they were to my teaching context, helped me narrow my focus. After completing the table, it was clear to me that I was looking for something that would combine  student-centeredness and translation. Community Language Learning (CLL) appealed to me as it combines both these elements and it’s a less common  method, so I went for it.

CLL

A CLL lesson isn’t so different from a Dogme lesson, as students have the opportunity to generate the language they wish to learn. Students basically sit in a circle while the teacher stands behind them. They  talk in L1 until someone decides to call the teacher to have an utterance translated in L2. They have a discussion in L2 (which they can record if they want to). When there are enough items translated, the teacher and students carry out language analysis and talk about their learning processes and how everything worked out during the lesson. CLL promotes whole person learning. This means that the teacher understands that learning a language can be an uncomfortable experience, helps students feel accepted and invites them to reflect and share their feelings on the learning experience. You can download my lesson plan for more details.

Bruno’s CLL lesson planDownload

CLL online 💻

Back in April 2021, when this took place, Brazil was facing its worst moment during the pandemic, so it was impossible to have face-to-face lessons. Therefore, I had to use a method I was not familiar with AND adapt it to an online setting, which is not really common.

  • Instead of sitting in a circle, students were in the main session (on Zoom)  chatting until someone wanted to have something translated.
  • My camera was switched off to mimic the fact that the teacher should be out of the circle during this stage.
  • Instead of whispering what they wanted to have translated, they used the private chat option so I could translate whatever they wanted me to.

Reflecting on the experience 💭

I had no control over what would happen at the end, nor could I know what students would be talking about during the lesson. That was a real challenge. I found it amusing that they decided to talk about the weather (maybe it’s because it had been raining a lot in São Paulo), and it showed me how unpredictable a real learner-centered lesson might be! Also, because they are A2 learners, I had to go over basic sentence structure – and pronunciation – with them when analyzing language at later stages in the lesson.  So even though I was prepared, it was a little hectic, I must say. Still, I really enjoyed the experience. 

While I was writing the post-lesson reflection and evaluation, I noticed two things:

  1. Something I had always felt: using students’ L1 isn’t the monster that some language institutes make it out to be. Of course, it is likely to be a problem in multilingual classrooms. 
  2. A CLL lesson works best with lower levels, not higher than B1. Yet, I felt learners were comfortable and happy knowing they were leading the lesson and getting support where necessary. 

Final thoughts

Although it took a great deal of effort to carry out the research on CLL, write the assignment, and prepare the lesson, I can say it was the most exciting part of the course.  Planning, teaching and evaluating a lesson  using a completely new method, as well as doing it all by myself was  really rewarding! I haven’t taught face-to-face lessons since then, but I look forward to implementing CLL in a more traditional manner.

This whole experience has taught me that writing about our practice and interests may become a little hectic without guidance. Getting support from my tutors, reading Rachel Tsateri’s online post on how to organize this assignment, but mostly reading Wallace’s book, helped me understand not only what I wanted to focus on but how to go about it. Since then, I have passed M2 (thankfully!), and I still experiment with new techniques.

Even if you never do Delta M2, you still can (and probably should!) try to broaden your horizons and, somehow, challenge what you know or what you’ve been taught by your trainers and employers. Even the ELT “gods” became who they are now by disagreeing with their own tutors or other authors!

References

Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: CUP.

Wallace, M. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: CUP.