In this entry I’ll describe two lessons I conducted in form 10 about modal verbs.

1. Lesson / task description - before

2. Lesson / task description – after

First, Ss were given a worksheet where they were asked to insert the appropriate modal verb and the infinitive form. When Ss did the task, I showed them the answers. Ss corrected their variants.  The average score was about 3-4 correct answers out of 10.

When they were ready I asked them to formulate at least 2 questions the answers to which they would like to find by the end of our work with these modal verbs.

When Ss finished, I drew their attention to different infinitive forms that exist. We discussed the form of each infinitive.

After that the Ss were given a number of sentences. Ss were asked to read the sentences and to write next to each sentence what they think the time of the action is. When they finished, we compiled a table:

Modal   Verb

TIME OF THE   ACTION

CAN

 

COULD+INF

?PAST/FUTURE/NOW

MAY+INF

FUTURE/NOW

MIGHT+INF

FUTURE

MUST

 

WILL+INF

NOW

SHOULD

 

OUGHT   TO

 

WILL+BE+VING

FUTURE?

MAY+BE+VING

NOW

MIGHT+BE+VING

NOW

MAY+HAVE+V3

PAST

COULD+HAVE+V3

PAST

MIGHT+HAVE+BEEN+

VING

PAST

We discussed each answer with Ss. I didn’t correct them or give any hints. But there where ideas differed, we put a question mark.

Ss home task was to finish filling in the grid (parameter “time of the action”)

3. Overall reflection on the lesson / task

We analysed the examples from the course book and compiled a table.

1 What should I change in my lesson structure to make it more “thinking”?

2 How to work with “wrong” places in the Ss’s models? Should I select such sentences where the “right” answer would be obvious?

Lesson 2

1. Lesson / task description - before

2. Lesson / task description – after

In the beginning of the second lesson I asked Ss whether they have any questions about their home task. Several questions about the time of the action were asked. We discussed each answer with Ss. I didn’t correct them or give any hints. But there where ideas differed we put a question mark.

Then I gave to Ss the following sentences:

It must be Peter.

It should be Peter.

It may be Peter.

It might be Peter.

Ss were asked to try to formulate another parameter to compare the modal verbs. Different answers were given (“how sure is the speaker”, “personal ideas”, etc.) Finally, we formulated it as “degree of probability”. Ss were asked to read the sentences and to write next to each sentence what they think the degree of probability is. When they finished, we compiled a table:

Modal   Verb

TIME OF THE   ACTION

Degree of   probability

CAN

 

c

COULD+INF

?PAST/FUTURE/NOW

Low/medium

MAY+INF

FUTURE/NOW

medium

MIGHT+INF

FUTURE

Medium?/low

MUST

 

 

WILL+INF

NOW

Almost fact

SHOULD

 

 

OUGHT   TO

 

 

WILL+BE+VING

FUTURE?

Almost fact

MAY+BE+VING

NOW

Medium/low

MIGHT+BE+VING

NOW

Medium/high?

MAY+HAVE+V3

PAST

Medium/high?

COULD+HAVE+V3

PAST

Medium/low

MIGHT+HAVE+BEEN+

VING

PAST

 

  We discussed each answer with Ss. I didn’t correct them or give any hints. But there where ideas differed we put a question mark. It turned out that degree of probability depends on the “basis for assumption” or what influences the speaker’s degree of certainty. Thus, the 3rd parameter was added and discussed “basis for assumption”.

Modal   Verb

Degree of   probability

Basis for   assumption

CAN

c

 

COULD+INF

Low/medium

Personal choice/   opinion

MAY+INF

medium

assumption

MIGHT+INF

Medium?/low

Personal opinion

MUST

 

 

WILL+INF

Almost fact

Background   knowledge

SHOULD

 

 

OUGHT   TO

 

 

WILL+BE+VING

Almost fact

Background   knowledge

MAY+BE+VING

Medium/low

Personal opinion

MIGHT+BE+VING

Medium/high?

Personal opinion

MAY+HAVE+V3

Medium/high?

Personal opinion

Background   knowledge

COULD+HAVE+V3

Medium/low

Personal opinion

 

 

Ss home task was to finish filling in the grid (parameters “degree of probability” and “basis for assumption”)

Next lesson I plan to give Ss sentences where they will have to insert the modal verbs and the appropriate infinitive form. But before that they’ll have to fill in the value of each parameter: time of the action, degree of probability and basis for necessity.

3. Overall reflection on the lesson / task

We analysed the examples from the course book and compiled a table.

1 What are the possible follow-ups?

2 How to organize Ss’s re-drafting of their models?

Comments  

# Alexander Sokol 2013-12-30 09:29
Olga, thanks for sharing. A few comments and answers to your questions.

>1. What should I change in my lesson structure to make it more “thinking”?

If we look at it from the Thinking Task Framework perspective (a tool for structuring a lesson in a thinking way), I think the following improvements are possible:

Step 1 - more attention could have been given to contextualising and actually defining the problems to deal with. You gave them a test and demonstrated to them that they had problems with the topic. It's not clear, at least from your reflection, if they had an opportunity to define learning goals based on their difficulties.

Step 2 - here I think you should have given them less guidance. It seems that you defined a parameter for them (Time of Action was part of your instruction, it's not really clear how Degree of Probability appeared out of your discussion with students). A possible alternative would have been to think of a supplementary task where students arrive at possible parameters to pay attention to. And only then move to actual course book like tasks.

Step 3 - this step always goes hand in hand with the previous one. It's difficult for me to judge what actually happened during the lesson as information is scarce. One possible thing is to get students to realise that their models don't really work or are not applied appropriately.


>2 How to work with “wrong” places in the Ss’s models? Should I select
> such sentences where the “right” answer would be obvious?

I am not sure I understand the question. If you look at the description of the Creative Grammar Technology (http://www.thinking-approach.org/index.php?menu=1&id=10), you will see that students are expected to collect a bank of mistakes when doing tasks in Part 5. Perhaps you could share specific questions you have regarding this process and then I will try to respond.

In fact your two questions after the second lesson are connected with this one. Please look at the link above. You can also take a look at www.thinking-approach.eu - in fact, if you try to do one of the grammar systems there yourself, you will have a very good idea about how the process is organised. But as I wrote, feel free to share specific questions.
Joomla SEF URLs by Artio