Skip to main content

An aural gap-fill pair task

Aural gap-fill pair task (about 10 minutes to complete)

Instructions for the teacher

Here's a simple brief, low preparation pair work task with a focus on listening. Partner A is given a gapped text at the right level (about their current level of competence with little or no new vocabulary). There should not be many gaps, say about one missing word every sentence or two. Partner B has a list of words which can fill the gaps, but the words are not listed in the same sequence the gaps will be heard. You could add distractor words to the list (words which will not be used). See the examples below.

Partner A reads aloud at a slow-ish pace the text, pausing when there is a gap. Partner B then chooses a word from their list which could plausibly fill the gap. Partner A then re-reads the sentence to include the new word supplied by Partner B. Then partner A reads on to the next gap, and so on. If the text is relatively short, I'd suggest that when Partner A re-reads, they go back to the start of the text. In this way Partner B gets to hear the input several times, and partner A gets several opportunities to read aloud. You may need to insist on this point to avoid students rushing.

When the text is finished and all the gaps filled, the pair can discuss the answers briefly together. Or the teacher can display a correct version on the board. The whole task may take no more than five minutes, so you could supply a couple more examples.

The partners can then swap roles.

So this is effectively a simple oral/aural gap-fill task with options which could be used as a starter, filler or plenary. Gaps could be chosen on the basis of key vocabulary content words (focus on lexical retrieval) or, say, grammatical features such as verb tense (focus on grammatical parsing). Both lexical retrieval and parsing are important elements in the listening process. If gaps are placed near or at the end of sentences, students can also bring their predictive skills into play, anticipating what word is likely to come next.

See the next two pages for cards.

Example 1

Partner A's text

Pendant mes vacances l'année dernière à Barcelone j'ai fait beaucoup de _______. Par exemple, je me suis baigné dans la piscine, j'ai fait les magasins et j'ai visité des ________ avec mes parents. Un jour il y avait un grand marché dans la ville et j'ai acheté un T-shirt et des sandales pour la _______. Il a fait beau presque tous les jours, sauf un jour où il y a eu beaucoup de _______. Ce jour-là on n'a pas pu aller sur la plage. Pour moi le meilleur moment était quand on a visité le parc aquatique. Je suis allé au moins vingt fois sur le ________. L'année prochaine je voudrais bien retourner en _______, parce que les gens sont sympas et il y a du soleil tous les jours.

………………………………………………………………………

Partner B's word list – you cannot use all these words

monuments
soleil 
Espagne 
toboggan
plage
hotel 
vent
France 
choses



Example 2

Partner A's text

Quand j'étais toute petite j'allais à l'école primaire près de chez moi. Je ______ beaucoup avec mes camarades de classe, par exemple nous jouions à cache-cache dans la cour. J'adorais mes maîtresses et je ne voulais pas vraiment _____ au collège. Maintenant je vais au collège et je ______ beaucoup. Je fais beaucoup de matières différentes et en plus il y les devoirs à ______ tous les soirs. C'est pénible. L'année prochaine je ______ en seconde au lycée. Ce sera un peu différent, je crois. Je vais me concentrer un peu plus sur les maths et les sciences.


………………………………………………………………………

Partner B's word list – you cannot use all these words

jouais
concentre 
passerai 
faire
concentrer 
fait 
travaille
passais 
travaillais 
joue

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is "Input Processing"?

Input Processing (IP) was proposed by Bill VanPatten, Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition from Michigan State University. Bill may be known to some of you from his podcast show Tea with BVP. He is one of those rare university academics who makes a specific effort to engage with practising teachers. IP was first proposed in a 1993 article (published with T. Cadierno in the Modern Language Journal) entitled "Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction." My summary of it is based on an article "Input Processing and Processing Instruction: Definitions and Issues" (2013) by Hossein Hashemnezhad. IP is a little complicated to explain, but I'll do my best to summarise the key points before suggesting how it relates to other ways of looking at classroom language teaching. Is this actually any use to teachers? I apologise in advance for over-simplifying or misunderstanding. To paraphrase Dr Leonard McCoy from Star Trek &q

Delayed dictation

Image: pixabay.com What is “delayed dictation”? Instead of getting students to transcribe immediately what you say, or what a partner says, you can enforce a 10 second delay so that students have to keep running over in their heads what they have heard. Some teachers have even used the delay time to try to distract students with music. It’s an added challenge for students but has significant value, I think. It reminds me of a phenomenon in music called audiation. I use it frequently as a singer and I bet you do too. Audiation is thought to be the foundation of musicianship. It takes place when we hear and comprehend music for which the sound is no longer or may never have been present. You can audiate when listening to music, performing from notation, playing “by ear,” improvising, composing, or notating music. When we have a song going round in our mind we are audiating. When we are deliberately learning a song we are audiating. In our language teaching case, though, the

Using sentence builder frames for GCSE speaking and writing preparation

Some teachers have cottoned on to the fact that sentence builders (aka substitution tables) are a very useful tool for helping students prepare for their GCSE speaking and writing tests. My own hunch is that would help for students of all levels of proficiency, but may be particularly helpful for those likely to get lower grades, say between 3-6. Much depends, of course, on how complex you make the table. To remind you, here is a typical sentence builder, as found on the frenchteacher site. The topic is talking about where you live. A word of warning - formatting blogs in Blogger is a nightmare when you start with Word documents, so apologies for any issues. It might have taken me another 30 minutes just to sort out the html code underlying the original document. Dans ma ville (in my town) Dans ma région (In my area) il y a (there is/are) des banques (banks) des cafés (cafes) des

Pros and cons of pair and group work

Most teachers have made frequent use of pair and group work for many years, notably since the rise of communicative language teaching in the 1980s. Even before then it would have been common for pupils to work in pairs on simple role-play and dialogue tasks. So pair and group work is standard practice, if not universally supported by language teachers. It’s always worth evaluating, however, whether a practice works - whether, in this case, it helps students develop their proficiency. Pros Rod Ellis (2005) summarises the advantages of pair/group work (based on Jacobs, 1998) “1. The quantity of learner speech can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, the teacher typically speaks 80% of the time; in groupwork more students talk for more of the time. 2. The variety of speech acts can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, students are cast in a responsive role, but in groupwork they can perform a wide range of roles, including those involved in the negotiation of meaning. 3. There can