1 Learners were exposed to linguistically challenging reading
/ listening / video material.
2 There was a variety of tasks to enable learners to
comprehend the above (=process it for meaning) as effectively as possible.
3 Learners were encouraged to process that input not only
for meaning but also for form. In other words, not only to understand what was said, but also to notice how certain ideas were expressed.
4 The teacher attempted to pitch her level of English above
the learners’ (thereby taking advantage of teacher talk as a source of “advanced input”).
5 Learners were occasionally encouraged to notice linguistic
features of the above (i.e. not only what the teacher said, but also how the teacher said things).
Accuracy work
6 Work on grammar arose out of the students’ linguistic
needs as detected through meaning-focused work. In other words, intervention through observation, even if the above needs were artificially engineered.
7 There was corrective feedback when appropriate (i.e.,
again, intervention through observation). Luiz Otávio Barros.
8 There was an adequate amount of attention to lexis
(possibly enough for learners to leave the classroom with the impression that they “learned new vocabulary” in that lesson). Luiz Otávio Barros.
9 If the lexis taught was taken from the coursebook, it was
NOT taught for its own sake, but as a form of pedagogical intervention leading up to some sort of real(istic) outcome.
10 If the lexis taught originated from another source (e.g.
learners’ lexical gaps -“teacher, how can I say X”-, teacher talk, other learners etc.), the teacher made some of this lexis systematic by, say, writing it on the board and having students add it to their vocabulary notebooks.
11 (in either 10 or 11) Learners were encouraged to learn
words + common collocates (rather than in isolation) and/or embedded in memorable phrases or sentences.