On Approaches to Preparation for English Lessons (1)

（This is an English version of my previous post, 予習指導のあり方を考える①.)

What kind of preparation do you require your students to do when dealing with reading material in high school classes?　In this article, I will discuss approaches to preparation instruction in English classes.

In many English classes, especially in high school, it is likely that students are required to do some preparatory work before the class. Looking back on my own high school days, this was the case. In addition, (though this is out of the scope of this article), many cram schools and preparatory schools require students to do preparatory studies before class. The orthodox preparatory instruction is to specify the scope of the next lesson, and generally students are asked to do the following:

• Read through the text in advance.

• Look up the meanings of unfamiliar words and phrases.

• Answer some "questions" given to the students.

• Fill in some kind of handout like a preparation sheet. 

Many teachers strongly emphasize the importance of preparation in high school English, especially in reading classes, and it is common for students to be required to prepare for classes.

I myself have taught in such a culture for many years, so I have always stressed the importance of preparation to my students and designed my classes based on the assumption that students would study in advance. However, I have had my doubts about classes based on preparation from the very beginning, and especially in the past few years I have become more and more aware of these doubts.

Approach to "Introduction"

My first question was about the approach to "introduction."

Back in my university days (though I'm not sure about the current situation), I learned about introducing the topic of the main text through oral introduction/interaction. This was meant to motivate students to engage with the text.

With a preparatory approach, I found it challenging to fit such introductions into the lesson. I would introduce the text to be covered at the beginning of the class, but what's the point of doing it if the students had already read it. On the other hand, when students prepare in advance, the introduction has not yet been given. Assuming that teacher-led introductions are effective motivation for students who haven't been introduced to the topic, they would then have to prepare for the text without that motivation. I had strong doubts about these scenarios.

Varying levels of preparation

To me, dealing with the wide range of student engagement in preparation has been a constant struggle, too.

It's not just a matter of whether students "come prepared" or not; even among students who do prepare, the level of preparation varies. Some students simply fill in the worksheet with their understanding after a single reading, while others diligently wrestle with dictionaries to provide thoughtful answers for parts they don't understand.

While the latter is certainly desirable, requiring such a high level of preparation from all students every time is realistically unattainable. Determining the appropriate level of assumed preparation for the lesson is often a challenge in lesson planning.

Monotonous lessons

This isn't solely due to the presence or absence of preparation, but in my opinion, a preparation-based approach often leads to lessons that are rather monotonous.

When students complete worksheets during their preparation, the lesson can easily become a mere "answer-checking" session. Students tend to focus on "What's the right answer?" rather than actively engaging with the material. While this can certainly be alleviated by careful lesson design, the mindset like "preparation = solving problems" and "lesson = checking answers" is something I want to avoid instilling in students.

Moreover, when lessons are based on the assumption that students have prepared, the momentum of the class can be disrupted when a student who hasn't prepared is called upon. Dealing with such situations has been a persistent challenge. While assigning preparation is not inherently problematic, how to address these issues continues to perplex me.

The Wave of "No Preparation"

Despite the above concerns, I found it challenging to deviate from the established approach of preparation-oriented instruction, either due to alignment with colleagues or curriculum constraints. Of course, preparation has its advantages, and it wasn't absolutely necessary to drastically change the approach based on its disadvantages alone. However, recent trends in English education suggest that more teachers are adopting a non-preparation approach. This may be due to an increase in information sharing via social media, rather than a new development in itself. Nevertheless, coming across information about classes that don't require preparation has made me question whether my teaching style is still effective.

I'm still experimenting with how to require preparation. In order to explore better approaches, I felt the need to compile the pros and cons of preparation, which led to this post. In the next post, I will continue to explore this topic.