Weak Forms in the PET Listening Lesson
Tom teaches a 16-learner B1 PET preparation class on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, 60 minutes per lesson. The listening lesson uses a recording about lost luggage; the transcript contains ‘would have’, ‘could have’ and ‘should have’ six times. In pre-listening, learners predict vocabulary. In the while-listening gap-fill, 12 of 16 write ‘would of’ in their notes, and 9 cannot locate the past modal in the gap. Tom has 20 minutes left. The coursebook suggests a grammar box on past modals followed by a speaking task. The school’s PET scheme requires listening Part 2 practice. Tom’s DoS has asked him to focus on ‘listening sub-skills’ this term, and the next observation is in three weeks. Tom has the transcript, the audio and a whiteboard.
1. Is this a grammar problem, a phonology problem, or both? Use the evidence to justify your diagnosis.
Read the worked answer
Diagnosis. Primarily phonology, with a grammar component. The spelling ‘would of’ is a written representation of the reduced pronunciation /wʊdəv/ or /wədəv/, where ‘have’ is a weak form with schwa and the /h/ is elided. The learners are not inventing a random spelling; they are encoding what they hear. The gap-fill failure (9/16) suggests they cannot segment the modal from the following auxiliary in connected speech, not necessarily that they do not understand the meaning of past modals.
Why not grammar-first. If it were purely grammar, learners might produce ‘would have’ from a rule but fail to hear it. The ‘would of’ spelling is stronger evidence of a perceptual problem. There may also be a genuine grammar gap: some learners may not know the form modal + have + past participle. So the diagnosis is layered: perception of weak forms and linking is the primary barrier; form and meaning are secondary. Teaching a grammar box first would address the wrong problem for most of the class, and it would not explain why 12 learners wrote ‘of’.
2. Plan the remaining 20 minutes. What would you do, and what would you avoid?
Read the worked answer
Plan. 3 min: replay two extracts and ask learners to write exactly what they hear; compare. 5 min: board ‘would of’ and ask where it comes from; elicit /v/ and schwa, and mark the weak form. 5 min: dictate four chunks - ‘would have been’, ‘could have gone’, ‘should have told’, ‘might have seen’; learners mark the missing /h/ and the linking. 4 min: meaning check - match each chunk to a regret, criticism or speculation context. 3 min: return to the gap-fill in PET Part 2 format, but play the extracts again.
Why this plan. It uses the transcript and audio, addresses the perceptual gap, and still gives PET practice. It does not spend 20 minutes on a grammar box that would leave the ‘would of’ spelling untouched. The DoS’s ‘listening sub-skills’ focus is met through decoding and connected speech, which are legitimate sub-skills; Tom can write that on the plan. I would avoid a long explanation of perfect modals and avoid correcting ‘would of’ as a spelling error without first explaining the weak form.
3. What would you change in the next lesson, and how would you check whether the change worked?
Read the worked answer
Next lesson. A short retrieval starter with three reduced forms from a different recording, then a listening task that requires recognising past modals. I would add a pronunciation slot, not a separate grammar slot: learners say the chunks with the weak form, then listen for them. I would also look at the scheme of work: if PET Part 2 is the priority, decoding work belongs in every listening cycle, not as an occasional special.
Checking impact. Use a short dictation next week, not a written grammar test. If learners can write ‘would have’ and ‘should have’ after hearing the chunks, the perceptual work is having an effect. If they still write ‘of’, the issue may be spelling or vocabulary knowledge rather than perception, and the next step is different.
Caution. Learners do not need to produce /wʊdəv/ perfectly; they need to recognise it. Over-correcting pronunciation could make them avoid the structure. I would ask the DoS whether the department can add a ‘connected speech’ line to the listening checklist, so the focus is systematic rather than Tom’s individual enthusiasm.