My current teaching situation involves teaching a foreign language to a young learners’ class consisting of six Greek and two Russian schoolchildren, aged 10-11 years old. These children have been studying English for three years, and apart from the Russian pupils who are bilingual in Greek, all of them are monolingual. Although they come from different backgrounds, their social identity does not affect their learning progress. The pupils are highly motivated to learn the language and have demonstrated no difficulties thus far. They attend the same Greek primary school and get along well, which, in turn, helps them compete with each other thereby improving their results. Two pupils have a natural inclination towards learning languages and show a strong grasp of vocabulary, syntax, and fluency. However, the rest of the class is equally enthusiastic and believes they can learn English easily. All the learners' parents are supportive, and the students are encouraged to use dictionaries and translate English into Greek to bolster their learning strategies. They are at the A1.1 level, or the 'Breakthrough' level, as defined by the Common European Framework, and the course book used is 'I5 1' by Jenny Dooley and Virginia Evans, which is communicative.

2. Evaluation of Speaking Tasks

The speaking activity in question comprises of a table with three columns (Appendix I, activity 5) where the students are required to tick how well they can perform various tasks and how well their friend performs them. The aim is to ask and answer questions in pairs using pre-written responses based on an example. The task is appropriate for their language level but doesn't foster fluency or authentic communication. Applying Johnson's and Nation's principles to evaluate this speaking task, it becomes apparent that the information transfer principle is being utilized, but the information gap principle is limited. The jigsaw principle is not applied, and the task is not dependent on tasks as each speaker can skip a question without impeding progress. The outcome is non-communicative, and the challenge is absent as there's no interest or competition.

In 1981, Littlewood conducted a classification of pre-communicative and communicative activities. Pre-communicative activities separate specific elements of language competency for learners to practice independently. In Appendix I, Activity 5, students practice the correct "can" form in isolation, qualifying it as pre-communicative. These activities can be quasi-communicative or structural, with quasi-communicative activities linking language forms with their functional meanings. Although there is control in language, there are no communication features beyond pair work, a "speaking to learn" activity in which students engage. To encourage communication, the activity should transition into controlled discussion, where students can present their work to the classroom.

As a post-speaking activity, Appendix I, Activity 5, follows the "pre", "while", and "post" framework, which emphasizes skill integration. Pair work is ideal for achieving a small amount of teaching time.

In my lesson plan, I followed the "pre", "while", and "post" speaking framework, where speaking is the primary objective. In the pre-speaking stage, the teacher introduces tea etiquette in Britain and ordering in a cafe. Following this, the students are split into two groups, each with a specific topic, and attempt to write down as many related words as possible.

In the next stage, the teacher uses real-life equipment to display and demonstrate how to drink tea, which connects the classroom to the real world.

Overall, my lesson plan aims to activate schemata through a competitive game and provides a meaningful learning experience through connecting students to real-world scenarios.

In the upcoming task (Appendix II, Step 4), students will participate in their first speaking activity. Each student will be given a picture (worksheet 2?) that displays a portion of a tip, such as a teapot or a teacup filled with tea. The students will mingle and ask questions like ‘I have the teapot. What have you got?’ to find their partner. Once they have found their pair, they will present their advice in the best way possible.

The goal of this activity (Appendix II, Step 4) is to apply the features of different authors to be communicative and purposeful. Johnson’s principles (1982 a: 163-75 in Hill p.316-317) were used as a basis, emphasizing information transfer as students convey information to each other. Additionally, it includes the information gap principle since each student has a picture that others cannot see but needs to find their pair. The jigsaw principle is also present since each student has one part of the advice on their picture, and they must find the other part to complete the advice. This activity is task-dependent because students need to find their pair before presenting their advice. Finally, there is the correction for content principle as there is no judgment on the accuracy of language use by students.

Most of Nation’s principles (1989: 24-29 in Hill p.317-318) are also present in this activity. The feature of outcome exists because the students know what to do and their goal is to ‘complete’ a picture. It is a procedure because students first find their pair and then present the advice to the whole class. Split information is also present as the picture is split in two. Finally, there is a challenge since the process of finding the correct pair is a challenge itself. The only feature which is absent is that of roles.

This activity also exhibits the features of control and communication, as demonstrated by Beaumont exemplified by West (2000, unit 2: 26 in Hill p.319). The learners’ language is not restricted, and they can use any language to achieve their goal of finding their pair. This activity is genuine communication as learners are free to use any information or language to convey their message. Additionally, according to West (2000, unit 2:11 in Hill p.313), this activity is a ‘learning to speak’ activity as the aim is to achieve fluency.

Based on Littlewood’s classification, this activity is a communicative activity as students use their knowledge and skills to communicate their message. This activity is a functional communication activity because it involves pair and group work (1981, ibid: 86, in Hill p.334). According to West (ibid: 8, in Hill p.335), this functional activity falls under the non-reality technique. Cooperation and the sharing or processing of information are also features identified by Littlewood (1981, ibid: 22 in Hill p.336). This activity aims to share information with restricted cooperation since each student must find the missing information from their picture, i.e., their pair.

During the fifth activity (Appendix II, Step 5), students will watch a second video on YouTube showing a man ordering tea at a café. Students will receive a photocopy with various phrases used when ordering at a café and listen to the video to identify those phrases. After checking their answers, the teacher will explain how these phrases can be used in the next speaking activity. This activity provides linguistic input for the main speaking activity via the integration of listening.

2. The Speaking Stage

The seventh task involves a speaking exercise that constitutes the core of the activity (Appendix II, Step 7). The instructor sets the stage by presenting a scenario where tourists in London are on a limited budget of only 25 euros and decide to visit an English café to enjoy the experience of tea etiquette. The café offers two menus - one for sweets and tea flavors and the other for salty snacks with different tea flavors. The goal is to decide what to order from both menus and call the waiter or waitress to place the order while practicing the tips learned on proper tea etiquette.

The teacher distributes the two different menus (worksheet 4?) to the customers, encouraging the students to use the ticked phrases from the video and add their ideas. The instructor also provides phrases to express agreement/disagreement, opinion, and suggestions. For example, "I like/don't like this because...." or "I think we…", "Let's try...".

This activity (Appendix II, Step 7) adheres to all of Johnson's principles of communication (1982 a: 163-75 in Hill p.316-317). Information transfer occurs since each student has to transfer the information from the menu to the other student. Additionally, there is an information and opinion gap because the customers do not see each other's menu, so they have to describe it, discuss, and express their opinions about what to order. The jigsaw principle is also applied because each student possesses part of the information needed to complete the task. Finally, the correction for content principle comes into play since the students are judged for their fluency and communication, not their grammar accuracy.

Nation's principles (1989: 24-29 in Hill p.317-318) are also in play in this activity. There are defined roles - customers and waiter/waitress, there is an outcome, as the students have to order from a menu, and procedures. They first need to decide what to order, then order it, ask questions of the waiter/waitress, and finally drink the tea. The information is also split into two different menus, so the customers do not know each other's choices. The fact that they must reach a consensus on what to order is a challenge in itself.

Beaumont, exemplified by West (2000, unit 2: 26 in Hill p.319), points out that there is loose control in terms of the language used by the students and communication in this activity. This means that the students can transmit new information and engage in authentic interaction. Additionally, according to West (2000, unit 2:11 in Hill p.313), this activity is a "learning to speak" exercise because the goal is to be fluent.

According to Littlewood's classification, the activity is communicative since it involves the use of the total skill of communication. More specifically, it is a social interaction activity as it involves a simulation. "In a simulation, the roles are more generalized and imaginary," and "permit the learners to 'act as themselves' using their own experience and knowledge" (Hill, 2004/2018, p.360 week 13). Social interaction activities use a reality technique (ibid: 8, in Hill p.335), according to West. Bygate summarizes Littlewood's examples of social interaction activities. In this exercise, there is controlled role-playing, with background information that leads to "drama-like" dialogues in a single situation (1987: 69).

Post-speaking, the students can reflect on their performance, and the instructor can provide feedback. The instructor can also ask follow-up questions to encourage the students to continue the conversation and practice their language skills.

Your assignment is to rephrase the entire paragraph by implementing superior terms and crafting a unique composition using natural language. The final product should be presented entirely in English. Here is the original passage to be reworded: