I am not much of a technology user in my classroom.
I am very old school: teacher, students, desks, writing materials, textbooks, handouts and whiteboard.
However, at my current workplace, Jeollanamdo Education and Training Institute (JETI), we used English Central for a few years.
http://www.englishcentral.com
It is a website for speaking and listening.
Students watch videos (listening), and then will repeat sentences from each video in their own voice.
The program can measure intonation and pitch and give the student a rating based on how well they pronounced the words or sentences. The one problem though is that the website is based on a standard American accent. I have known many Koreans who studied English in other countries such as Australia, Ireland, South Africa or the United Kingdom. In addition, many Koreans do not speak with a particular accent.
Nonetheless, I feel that the website over the two years that my workplace used it was useful. Some students went beyond their assigned targets of videos listened to and words/sentences spoken. A few even kept studying after the six month training program.
As an instructor I had to monitor my homeroom class and make sure everyone meet the weekly homework targets. In addition, I had to check their progress in speaking (pronunciation). I could see who was weak and needed improvement. The program could also identify what letters, or words caused difficulty for someone. At this point I could counsel the student that they needed to work on this or that area in their pronunciation. Also, I could see who was putting an effort into trying to improve by redoing their pronunciation of sentences from one video. We encouraged students to pronounce the sentences from a video again and improve their grade. At the end of each session I had to give a grade for each student based on how much effort they put into their listening and speaking with English Central, and how much they improved over the months.
Last fall my workplace (executive decision) stopped using English Central. We were never told why it was ended.
Currently, another program called ESPT, from Korea, is being used primarily for listening at my workplace. It is not set up for speaking and pronunciation. While English Central was not perfect I feel that it has potential. I wish there was a way for it to measure correct pronunciation not just based on an American accent.
Friday, June 13, 2014
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Remaking Old Lessons in June
As I have gone through the course I have learned that I need to self-reflect more on what I have just taught. What did I do well? What could be done differently? Was the lesson too teacher-centered (focused on me)? Should I eliminate any of the activities? Can I think of a different way to do the preview, presentation. isolation, or practice phases of the lesson?
In addition, I need to edit and revise my lessons for my Speaking Skills course.
This week I was able to revise and teach my lesson on animal collocations.
In the past the lesson had nine collocations or idioms. I decided this time to eliminate several of them such as "a tame animal" and "behave like an animal" as I felt they were not useful. I also took out "there isn't enough room to swing a cat" as nobody uses that phrase anymore. I got it down to four at the start that I felt were still used by native speakers and/or interesting. They were "fish around for information/fish around for compliments", "there are plenty more fish in the sea", "curiosity killed the cat" and "when the cat's away the mice will play". For each I provide a sentence using the collocation/idiom such as "Whenever my husband/wife busy new clothing I know he/she will be fishing around for compliments from me." I was going to introduce "fish out of water" later in the lesson but in both classes we did not have enough time to discuss and use it.
For activating schema I asked the students if they have had a pet or if they have a pet now. In the first class of eight students everyone answered yes. So I used follow-up questions such as "Was your pet a dog or a cat? (Is your pet a cat or dog?)", "What is/was your pet's name?", "Is your pet still alive?". In the first class of eight students the discussion was quite vibrant and the students even asked each other a few questions. After ten minutes I decided it was time to move onto the presentation of the vocabulary. I got the students to read the expressions and the example sentences. I also gave quick examples to illustrate the expressions. In the second class, with ten students, I needed to move away from class discussion for the schema phase. I should have put them into pairs to discuss with each the questions related to pets. I also needed to add another question, "Would you like to have a pet? Why, why not?", because three students had never had a pet. Therefore, they probably felt left out of the discussion. The class discussion was less energetic with the bigger class though it was still OK.
After the collocations/idioms I also talked about carnivore, herbivore, omnivore, vegetarian, vegan and pescatarian with the classes. Now, this put me at 10 vocab items (7-9 is optimal) but several of these words were recycled as I got the students to give me the definitions. In both classes at least one person knew the word and definition. Because the famous singer Lee Hyo Ri is pescatarian some Koreans know this word. Everyone already knew vegetarian as they know I am a vegetarian (as well as monks). Next time I will change this a little as I will put them into pairs and get them write down their own definitions. Then we will share our answers as a class. This will put the focus onto the students and away from me.
Next was partner discussion. I gave them five questions to discuss with a partner. One thing I need to be better aware of is pairing students up with classmates they do not often chat with and getting them away from their dorm roommates. The questions used the collocations/idioms. Some of the questions were: "Do you agree that there are plenty more fish in the sea? Why, why not?", "Have you ever fished around for compliments from another person (especially husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend)? Why, why not?" and "Is it true that when the cat's away the mice will play? If you agree give an example. If you disagree, are you a model worker?". One change I could have made was to replace "model worker" with "good/diligent worker" as many students asked me what a model worker is. The good thing about partner discussion with the current English teachers is that they can keep talking for a long time. This activity took 30 minutes.
I went around the room and mostly listened to their discussion while sitting in a chair. I think it is more comfortable for them as I am very tall. I asked several students in their pairs to tell me what their partner said in response to one of the questions. This is something new I am trying. I learn what they are talking about and it shows whether they are actually listening to each other. Happily, each time I asked the student was able to give a detailed answer about their partner. I also asked a few questions inquiring about more information and asking for clarification. But mostly I just listened.
For this lesson I did not have an isolation phase. I guess I could have added one whereby they just filled in the blanks on a handout regarding which is the correct collocation/idiom to use in the blank. Or they could have matched the expression with the definition.
We did not have time, in either class, to complete the production activity.
I was going to put them into groups and get the groups to complete two tasks.
First, write down four things that men or women commonly fish around for compliments for. I was hoping they would put appearance, clothing, sports, etc.
Second, write down four sentences you would use to fish around for information, or fish around for compliments with your husband/wife. Maybe they would write things such as "Honey, what do you think of my new dress?", or "Where did you go after work?", etc.
Previously this lesson only introduced the vocabulary and had the partner discussion. I am trying to add the schema, and production phases I often left out before.
In addition, I need to edit and revise my lessons for my Speaking Skills course.
This week I was able to revise and teach my lesson on animal collocations.
In the past the lesson had nine collocations or idioms. I decided this time to eliminate several of them such as "a tame animal" and "behave like an animal" as I felt they were not useful. I also took out "there isn't enough room to swing a cat" as nobody uses that phrase anymore. I got it down to four at the start that I felt were still used by native speakers and/or interesting. They were "fish around for information/fish around for compliments", "there are plenty more fish in the sea", "curiosity killed the cat" and "when the cat's away the mice will play". For each I provide a sentence using the collocation/idiom such as "Whenever my husband/wife busy new clothing I know he/she will be fishing around for compliments from me." I was going to introduce "fish out of water" later in the lesson but in both classes we did not have enough time to discuss and use it.
For activating schema I asked the students if they have had a pet or if they have a pet now. In the first class of eight students everyone answered yes. So I used follow-up questions such as "Was your pet a dog or a cat? (Is your pet a cat or dog?)", "What is/was your pet's name?", "Is your pet still alive?". In the first class of eight students the discussion was quite vibrant and the students even asked each other a few questions. After ten minutes I decided it was time to move onto the presentation of the vocabulary. I got the students to read the expressions and the example sentences. I also gave quick examples to illustrate the expressions. In the second class, with ten students, I needed to move away from class discussion for the schema phase. I should have put them into pairs to discuss with each the questions related to pets. I also needed to add another question, "Would you like to have a pet? Why, why not?", because three students had never had a pet. Therefore, they probably felt left out of the discussion. The class discussion was less energetic with the bigger class though it was still OK.
After the collocations/idioms I also talked about carnivore, herbivore, omnivore, vegetarian, vegan and pescatarian with the classes. Now, this put me at 10 vocab items (7-9 is optimal) but several of these words were recycled as I got the students to give me the definitions. In both classes at least one person knew the word and definition. Because the famous singer Lee Hyo Ri is pescatarian some Koreans know this word. Everyone already knew vegetarian as they know I am a vegetarian (as well as monks). Next time I will change this a little as I will put them into pairs and get them write down their own definitions. Then we will share our answers as a class. This will put the focus onto the students and away from me.
Next was partner discussion. I gave them five questions to discuss with a partner. One thing I need to be better aware of is pairing students up with classmates they do not often chat with and getting them away from their dorm roommates. The questions used the collocations/idioms. Some of the questions were: "Do you agree that there are plenty more fish in the sea? Why, why not?", "Have you ever fished around for compliments from another person (especially husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend)? Why, why not?" and "Is it true that when the cat's away the mice will play? If you agree give an example. If you disagree, are you a model worker?". One change I could have made was to replace "model worker" with "good/diligent worker" as many students asked me what a model worker is. The good thing about partner discussion with the current English teachers is that they can keep talking for a long time. This activity took 30 minutes.
I went around the room and mostly listened to their discussion while sitting in a chair. I think it is more comfortable for them as I am very tall. I asked several students in their pairs to tell me what their partner said in response to one of the questions. This is something new I am trying. I learn what they are talking about and it shows whether they are actually listening to each other. Happily, each time I asked the student was able to give a detailed answer about their partner. I also asked a few questions inquiring about more information and asking for clarification. But mostly I just listened.
For this lesson I did not have an isolation phase. I guess I could have added one whereby they just filled in the blanks on a handout regarding which is the correct collocation/idiom to use in the blank. Or they could have matched the expression with the definition.
We did not have time, in either class, to complete the production activity.
I was going to put them into groups and get the groups to complete two tasks.
First, write down four things that men or women commonly fish around for compliments for. I was hoping they would put appearance, clothing, sports, etc.
Second, write down four sentences you would use to fish around for information, or fish around for compliments with your husband/wife. Maybe they would write things such as "Honey, what do you think of my new dress?", or "Where did you go after work?", etc.
Previously this lesson only introduced the vocabulary and had the partner discussion. I am trying to add the schema, and production phases I often left out before.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Final Micro Teaching and another lesson
Saturday June 3rd was my final micro teaching presentation.
I felt the least nervous of all my presentations.
It was a continuation of the Public Safety lesson from the previous Saturday in ICC class.
For the practice I started right away by modeling.
My modeling was OK but I should have read my Public Safety card first and then got the student to answer the question (What should I do next?). In my lesson plan I was going to get the student to read his/her card first and then I would answer their question. For some reason I forgot to follow my original plan. However, at least with the student I was able to guide him through the process by pointing out that he needed to answer using a modal verb (should, could, ought to, must). After the student's turn of answering my question he read his card and I gave an answer using a modal verb. At this point I repeated/rephrased the directions but I think it was not necessary as the students just saw two examples of how to complete the activity.
The activity was quite simple as students' just read their cards and the question at the end. Their partner will give an answer using a modal verb that is advice on how to address the public safety issue from the card.
The intro, directions and modeling took under 2 minutes and 30 seconds. I feel it was much better than before as I worked hard to reduce my teacher talk (TT) and to simplify my directions. However, my goal should be to get the TT and directions to even less with more practice and self-evaluation.
Next the students did the activity.
I am also working hard to comment less (talk) while students are working and to mostly listen and ask a few questions of clarification or for more information. I think that I am getting better.
One thing I would change with the activity is that I would get the students to change their cards each time with their partners. This would mean that each student would have the same situation card only once. I think this would spice things up a little with more change and variation.
Instead they used the same card for for over 2 minutes and then I got them to select another card for 1 minute and 30 seconds.
After collecting the cards I proceeded to the next activity. The students were put into groups.
In each group they were going to make a poster and a flyer/pamphlet about public safety. I made two rough drafts that I showed them (both the poster and the flyer). I walked around and showed both to each group one by one. However, next time I will change this. I will hand group 1 the poster and let them look at it for a minute. At the same time group 2 will look at the flyer. Then I will switch the poster and flyer between the groups. In my opinion this would be a better way for them to view the examples.
Self-reflection is something I need to continue doing. For example, a lesson on Monday.
This week I taught my LIES and TRUTH lesson with another class after teaching last week with one class of English Teachers.
I took my advice and some from the students too and I changed a few things.
First, I got them talking during the activating schema. I discussed white lies with them and then I got the students in pairs to ask each other if they use white lies and why, why not. This way the students got to talk more and me less.
I also got the students in the groups to read all of their lies/truths first (all four) at once instead of one at a time. This made the guessing of whether it is a lie or truth more difficult as each student wrote two lies and two truths.
After doing this activity I realized there is one other thing I want to change. Instead of me doing four lies or truths I might cut it down to 2 or 3. Also, I will get the students in pairs to discuss which ones are lies and which ones are truths, not after everyone, but after all 2/3/4 are read. This will speed things up and lead to less TT from me in my opinion.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
June 3rd Teaching Reflection
I took an old lesson "Liar, Liar Pants on Fire" and tried to make it fit the PPiPP format.
I also attempted to reduce my teacher talk (TT), and to give better more direct verbal directions.
First off, I feel that the lesson did not have the "i" or isolation stage. There was no mechanical repetition of the vocabulary. I tried to get them to repeat the expressions of truth (swear it/take my word for it) and the expressions of lying (you made that up/don't stretch the truth/I think that's abunch of baloney) through CCQs but it was not very good and I cut it short. Next time it would be better to move away from having me as the center (teacher-centered) for the isolation. I think putting them into pairs and having them make up statements of truth or lies (one of each) and responding using the vocabulary might be better. It would get them communicating with each other and get the focus off of me.
I had a preview stage where I started off asking "What is a white lie?" It took a few tries as I had to repeat and reword the question but I got an answer. At this point I asked a few more questions about lying and the truth to activate their schema ("Do you lie?" "Are you a truthful person?"). Looking back it would have been much better to put the students into pairs and get them to ask questions to each other such as "Do you tell white lies? Why, why not?". This would still be activating their schema about the topic but the focus would move away from me.
I am working hard to reduce my TT commentary but I am also making sure I ask follow-up questions especially if the first answer is only "yes" or "no".
For this lesson there were six vocabulary items in total (the five above plus whopper).
As I did with this lesson before I got the students to give the definition of whopper through follow-up questions and scaffolding. I also got the students to read the vocabulary words instead of me. Looking back I could have asked the class to give an example sentence or two with the vocabulary expressions.
The preview, the presentation of the vocabulary and the attempted isolation took 9 minutes.
The first practice was with my four statements of truth or lies. When I introduced this activity I took very little time (under 20 seconds) as I rephrased the directions. A student would read one. I then put the students into pairs and I got them to discuss in one minute whether it was true or not. After one minute I asked each pair for their answers and I wrote T or F under their names on the whiteboard.
During the practice I just listened to them talking and I keep my TT to a minimum. My TT was focused on asking for their answers. This stage lasted about 14 minutes. The one thing I would change is that at times I have reduced my TT but occasionally I lapse back into too much. When we discussed the answers for the four statements of mine (true or false) I added information about each one (several sentences). It would have been better to say nothing and only talk if they asked some questions regarding each one.
For the final practice I had them work in groups. They were to write down two truths and two lies (in full sentences) first. After eight minutes of writing I put them into groups to read their statements to each other. My directions were under 30 seconds and done verbally with one ICQ.
Two things I would change about this phase of the lesson are: points and order of reading the statements. At first I talked about getting points for each person who incorrectly guessed whether the statement was truth or a lie. As there were no prizes to be given the points were not necessary. To be honest the students did not follow this part of the directions as they seemed to deem it not important. Secondly, after we started one group suggested that we get each person to read all four of their lies at one time. I had given directions for them to read one at a time as I wanted the talking to move around the groups. However, as the group members pointed out to me my directions made it easier for others in the group to guess whether statements 3 or 4 were true or a lie based on 1 and 2 statements. Therefore, next time I will take their suggestion and get every group member to take turns reading all four statements at one time. Then the other members will guess their veracity.
During the group stage of practice my monitoring mostly involved listening and asking questions or anwersing vocabulary questions from the students. I noticed one instance where I started to chat too much. The struggle to reduce my TT is an ongoing effort but I feel I can get it down to an even lower amount.
I did have a production activity for the lesson but the video stopped recording and the class ended.
I was going to ask the students in pairs to write a 2-3 paragraph WHOPPER. After writing I would get them to post their whoppers on the whiteboard. Then each pair would walk around and read all the other written whoppers. I was not sure whethere I was going to ask their a vote of hands or through stickers placed on each writing which one was considered the best by the class.
Next week I will this lesson again (different class) with the changes I am thinking of or that were suggested to me by the students.
Teacher Development - Bill Johnston Questions
Q 4.
I started as a Social Studies teacher in Canada in 1990.
The first three years were as a substitute teacher so I learned a lot through trial and error about classroom managenment. In addition, I went to workshops too (about classroom management). I also got ideas from my colleagues especially in regards to making a class flow smoothly without major disruptions. At this time my focus was classroom management so I was not so concerned about the material9s) I had to teach. About 30% of the time I substituted outsides my subject area (Math, Science, Elementary School). At this time I also reflected on the classes I substituted a fair amount. I took down notes about what worked and what did not. My development as a teacher was both on improving my skills and growing as a teacher through self-reflection.
Starting in 1993 I moved into the Adult Education Department of the Richmond School District. I taught mostly Social Studies and History to adult students. In the summers I taught Social Studies 11 to high school students. From 1993 to 2002 I worked to improve my socials teaching skills. I sought out new ideas for lesson or for pairwork (such as jigsaws). During these years I did not reflect on my teaching much if at all. I did get student evaluations and I had to write a report summarizing them but to be honest I reflected little on the students' comments. Now if the majority of students made a point about changing something I would consider it and if it seemed reasonable implement it. Sadly, my vice-principal and principal were so busy they maybe observed my class once or twice during this time period. As a sreult I engaged in very little self-reflection and study of my classroom (the students and me).
My career in EFL was not deliberate as choose it based on one friend's advice. I had been laid off in Canada due to education cutbacks (over 1,000 teachers in British Columbia were at that time). I had a friend, who was also a public school teacher from BC, Canada, teaching in Korea. After exploring work opportunities in England and the USA I choose Korea based on his positive points about teaching English overseas. When I was younger I lived in two other countries (England and Switzerland) so living in another country was not something new to me. Also, my hometown (Vancouver, Canada) is very multicultural so I grew up around other languages and cultures. The only drawback was I had no experience in EFL. I had taught English to native speakers but the two subjects are very different. Looking back I was I had spent more time invested in skills and training and personal growth as a teacher. Most of what I learned was on the job or from co-workers. As I see the areas of my weakness now I realize I could have identified and changed them many years ago while I was working at Suncheon National University. I wish my workplace had workshops like schools in Canada where I could have learned about SLA (second language acquisition).
I agree with Johnston too that career development in terms of trying something new is important. This summer I will teach a course about childrens' books (focusing on Dr Seuss). The students will make activities and lessons using the books. Minimal pairs will be discussed. Some of things I have learned in the STG program such as minimal pairs, the l/r chopstick pronunciation activity (and some others from the pronuniciation workshop) and PPiPP will be used.
One thing I wholeheartedly agree with Bill Johnston is in regards to the dialogue between students and teacher. I agree that it is not just the 50 or so minutes in the classroom. In Canada and at Suncheon University I often talked to students if I saw them outside of the classroom. This is where my talkative nature and outgoing personality can help. At my current job I see the students all day from Monday to Friday as they stay in our building (it has a dormitory and classrooms). In the morning I say "Hi. How are you?" and at night I often say "Goodbye" or "Have a good sleep." Hopefully my interest in their lives has made them better students.
Q 5.
Yes, I think that foreign EFL teachers are often marginalized in Korea.
Now, I should add that it is improving.
Examples of improvement are that my current workplace gives my co-workers and I in-service training (workshops) with people we choose to present. My workplace pays the presenter.
Also, at JETI (my current workplace) my vice principals now always ask me if they can use my classroom for other presentations. I am very happy that they do this. Years ago other people would use my classroom and leave garbage, use up all my whiteboard markers and not replace them, and move things around (and not put them back). Thankfully this never happens anymore. Lastly, the administrators ask the EFL teachers more often if it OK if they do something or make changes to the schedule (or at the very least we get a heads-up about changes).
The thinking in Korea "that if you speak the language you can teach it" seems to be lessening as well which should help EFL teachers be better recognized. More qualifications are expected and some workplaces pay for EFL teachers going to conferences and workshops.
One key change I hope for is that more of a foreign EFL teacher's training is paid for. Korean teachers get way more workshops and training than Canadian teachers. Overseas training and graduate studies for Korean teachers are often paid for by the education department. In my province the government has reduced the number of professional development school days and a teacher will pay for her/his own graduate programs.
But when foreign EFL teachers and professors are on one year or two year contracts and work visas it is hard to lobby as you can easily be fired or not have your contract renewed. In Japan I have heard that foreign instructors own their own visas. In Korea your employer owns it.
At least at my workplace I have a lot of autonomy about what I teach. This makes me feel less marginalized as I can suggest new courses or change my syllabus ("can lead to some freedom to make what I want"). I might be a little "off the radar" but the students' feedback can change what I teach. For example, when one group of Elementary Teachers said that debate was not useful for them I lost the course. When the course re-started I was not teaching it.
In closing, I am sure that many Korean English Teachers would also say they are marginalized. The whole now we have NEAT and now we don't showed that ultimately the central government proposes and then kills ideas based on their own reasoning.
I started as a Social Studies teacher in Canada in 1990.
The first three years were as a substitute teacher so I learned a lot through trial and error about classroom managenment. In addition, I went to workshops too (about classroom management). I also got ideas from my colleagues especially in regards to making a class flow smoothly without major disruptions. At this time my focus was classroom management so I was not so concerned about the material9s) I had to teach. About 30% of the time I substituted outsides my subject area (Math, Science, Elementary School). At this time I also reflected on the classes I substituted a fair amount. I took down notes about what worked and what did not. My development as a teacher was both on improving my skills and growing as a teacher through self-reflection.
Starting in 1993 I moved into the Adult Education Department of the Richmond School District. I taught mostly Social Studies and History to adult students. In the summers I taught Social Studies 11 to high school students. From 1993 to 2002 I worked to improve my socials teaching skills. I sought out new ideas for lesson or for pairwork (such as jigsaws). During these years I did not reflect on my teaching much if at all. I did get student evaluations and I had to write a report summarizing them but to be honest I reflected little on the students' comments. Now if the majority of students made a point about changing something I would consider it and if it seemed reasonable implement it. Sadly, my vice-principal and principal were so busy they maybe observed my class once or twice during this time period. As a sreult I engaged in very little self-reflection and study of my classroom (the students and me).
My career in EFL was not deliberate as choose it based on one friend's advice. I had been laid off in Canada due to education cutbacks (over 1,000 teachers in British Columbia were at that time). I had a friend, who was also a public school teacher from BC, Canada, teaching in Korea. After exploring work opportunities in England and the USA I choose Korea based on his positive points about teaching English overseas. When I was younger I lived in two other countries (England and Switzerland) so living in another country was not something new to me. Also, my hometown (Vancouver, Canada) is very multicultural so I grew up around other languages and cultures. The only drawback was I had no experience in EFL. I had taught English to native speakers but the two subjects are very different. Looking back I was I had spent more time invested in skills and training and personal growth as a teacher. Most of what I learned was on the job or from co-workers. As I see the areas of my weakness now I realize I could have identified and changed them many years ago while I was working at Suncheon National University. I wish my workplace had workshops like schools in Canada where I could have learned about SLA (second language acquisition).
I agree with Johnston too that career development in terms of trying something new is important. This summer I will teach a course about childrens' books (focusing on Dr Seuss). The students will make activities and lessons using the books. Minimal pairs will be discussed. Some of things I have learned in the STG program such as minimal pairs, the l/r chopstick pronunciation activity (and some others from the pronuniciation workshop) and PPiPP will be used.
One thing I wholeheartedly agree with Bill Johnston is in regards to the dialogue between students and teacher. I agree that it is not just the 50 or so minutes in the classroom. In Canada and at Suncheon University I often talked to students if I saw them outside of the classroom. This is where my talkative nature and outgoing personality can help. At my current job I see the students all day from Monday to Friday as they stay in our building (it has a dormitory and classrooms). In the morning I say "Hi. How are you?" and at night I often say "Goodbye" or "Have a good sleep." Hopefully my interest in their lives has made them better students.
Q 5.
Yes, I think that foreign EFL teachers are often marginalized in Korea.
Now, I should add that it is improving.
Examples of improvement are that my current workplace gives my co-workers and I in-service training (workshops) with people we choose to present. My workplace pays the presenter.
Also, at JETI (my current workplace) my vice principals now always ask me if they can use my classroom for other presentations. I am very happy that they do this. Years ago other people would use my classroom and leave garbage, use up all my whiteboard markers and not replace them, and move things around (and not put them back). Thankfully this never happens anymore. Lastly, the administrators ask the EFL teachers more often if it OK if they do something or make changes to the schedule (or at the very least we get a heads-up about changes).
The thinking in Korea "that if you speak the language you can teach it" seems to be lessening as well which should help EFL teachers be better recognized. More qualifications are expected and some workplaces pay for EFL teachers going to conferences and workshops.
One key change I hope for is that more of a foreign EFL teacher's training is paid for. Korean teachers get way more workshops and training than Canadian teachers. Overseas training and graduate studies for Korean teachers are often paid for by the education department. In my province the government has reduced the number of professional development school days and a teacher will pay for her/his own graduate programs.
But when foreign EFL teachers and professors are on one year or two year contracts and work visas it is hard to lobby as you can easily be fired or not have your contract renewed. In Japan I have heard that foreign instructors own their own visas. In Korea your employer owns it.
At least at my workplace I have a lot of autonomy about what I teach. This makes me feel less marginalized as I can suggest new courses or change my syllabus ("can lead to some freedom to make what I want"). I might be a little "off the radar" but the students' feedback can change what I teach. For example, when one group of Elementary Teachers said that debate was not useful for them I lost the course. When the course re-started I was not teaching it.
In closing, I am sure that many Korean English Teachers would also say they are marginalized. The whole now we have NEAT and now we don't showed that ultimately the central government proposes and then kills ideas based on their own reasoning.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
ICC Microteaching Demo - Week 14
ICC Microteaching Demo
The topic was safety culture.
I started off by saying "good evening" and by introducing the two readings regarding safety culture. One is about the Goyang Bus Terminal Fire and the other is about the Lac Megantic Railway Disaster of summer 2013 (Quebec, Canada).
I did edit the articles slightly as I wanted to remove all the internet advertising on the articles that were printed out. Looking back on the lesson I feel that I should have removed a few paragraphs to get the article down to 1 1/2 (one and a half) pages. On the second page are several lines that could be removed (example: the history of the terminal). I would also like to edit the Lac Megantic article too. Much of what is on the second page could be removed without causing students problems in understanding the accident. Now I should add that with font editing I could have gotten the articles down to one page too.
I am glad that my teacher talk (TT) was minimal as I quickly mentioned the articles, handed them out and told the students to answer the four questions regarding the articles.
Things I would change at this point. One: make different pairs. The students had the same partners for the previous four/five demos. Two: less questions. I could have removed the second question (How many people were killed in Goyang and Lac Megantic?) as I feel four was too many. The other questions: "What happened in the accidents?"; "What caused the accidents?"; and "Who is responseible for causing the accident and who must deal with the problems caused by the accident?" - were more than enough to keep the pairs busy reading and discussing.
Originally I was going to get the pairs to go into groups to share their answers to the four answers. As I was monitoring during the pairwork I noticed that answering the questions would take more than 3-4 minutes. So instead I asked the pairs as I walked around the answers to the questions focusing on #1 (what happened) and #4 (who caused it and who fixes it).
As I saw that I had little time left I moved onto the groupwork questions: "What could or should have been done by the government officials and workers to prevent these accidents?" and "Are these accidents the result of Korean or Canadian culture? Why, why not?". Instead I should have stuck to the plan and had them share their answers in the groups first. Then if I had more time I could have moved onto the group questions.
While the students were answering the questions in pairs I did not give them the answers of any hints. I asked them for their answer to the four questions and I gave feedback of confirmation (that is correct/yes/I agree, etc.) that I understood them. However, I should have asked follow up questions to make sure they fully understood the incidents and that they did not just skim for the answers and copy forgetting other pieces of information.
The topic was safety culture.
I started off by saying "good evening" and by introducing the two readings regarding safety culture. One is about the Goyang Bus Terminal Fire and the other is about the Lac Megantic Railway Disaster of summer 2013 (Quebec, Canada).
I did edit the articles slightly as I wanted to remove all the internet advertising on the articles that were printed out. Looking back on the lesson I feel that I should have removed a few paragraphs to get the article down to 1 1/2 (one and a half) pages. On the second page are several lines that could be removed (example: the history of the terminal). I would also like to edit the Lac Megantic article too. Much of what is on the second page could be removed without causing students problems in understanding the accident. Now I should add that with font editing I could have gotten the articles down to one page too.
I am glad that my teacher talk (TT) was minimal as I quickly mentioned the articles, handed them out and told the students to answer the four questions regarding the articles.
Things I would change at this point. One: make different pairs. The students had the same partners for the previous four/five demos. Two: less questions. I could have removed the second question (How many people were killed in Goyang and Lac Megantic?) as I feel four was too many. The other questions: "What happened in the accidents?"; "What caused the accidents?"; and "Who is responseible for causing the accident and who must deal with the problems caused by the accident?" - were more than enough to keep the pairs busy reading and discussing.
Originally I was going to get the pairs to go into groups to share their answers to the four answers. As I was monitoring during the pairwork I noticed that answering the questions would take more than 3-4 minutes. So instead I asked the pairs as I walked around the answers to the questions focusing on #1 (what happened) and #4 (who caused it and who fixes it).
As I saw that I had little time left I moved onto the groupwork questions: "What could or should have been done by the government officials and workers to prevent these accidents?" and "Are these accidents the result of Korean or Canadian culture? Why, why not?". Instead I should have stuck to the plan and had them share their answers in the groups first. Then if I had more time I could have moved onto the group questions.
While the students were answering the questions in pairs I did not give them the answers of any hints. I asked them for their answer to the four questions and I gave feedback of confirmation (that is correct/yes/I agree, etc.) that I understood them. However, I should have asked follow up questions to make sure they fully understood the incidents and that they did not just skim for the answers and copy forgetting other pieces of information.
Friday, May 30, 2014
Merry Month of May
Hello and welcome to summer in May :)
Time for yet another self-reflection.
This video is from early May.
Starting off I should point out that unlike a previous lesson and video the time for activating their schema, introducing the vocabulary and asking some CCQs about the vocab is much shorter. I timed it as over 9 minutes. Probably still too long but much better than the 17 minutes from the Vices Bingo lesson.
One small note: I should move the lectern out of the view of the smartphone before I start recording..ha..ha.
Using invitations to reply I activated their schema about synonyms for permission (the lesson title) and denying. However, at times in the past I have been good at waiting for answers but in this lesson I noticed that I was too quick to give the answers myself (self answering). Whoops!
I should have done much better at introducing the topic like I did when I had the lesson on lying. To be honest: the first two minutes comes off as awkward.
However, I quickly recovered and got the class going again when someone sneezed. I incorporated the sneeze into my teacher talk (TT) about the the topic and I got the class laughing. People can also see that I got some tissues for the student that sneezed (2:30). As I have mentioned numerous times classroom atmosphere is very important to me.
At 4 minutes I incorporate the students into the discussion of the target language by using realia. I take items from the students and ask if i have their permission (May I/could I/can I..) and I expect them to use the target language in their replies (Go right ahead/Be my guest/It is not possible, etc.).
I am not sure why I introduced another vocabulary item at this point (hoarder) as the students already have over 10 items from the permission lesson. The lessons I am making these days are going to have 5-9 vocabulary. Not 15! Not over 25! No more than nine.
For the activity where they write their ten dreams I will not read all ten of my examples in the future. It took too long (2-3 minutes) as I introduced yet again more vocabulary. Even if I reduce the lesson's vocabulary I still have a tendency to bring in more new words. Bad Kevan!
The one good thing is that I did well in eliciting answers from the students that lead to them understanding Mr. Mom.
At just over ten minutes (10:30) I finally give the students time to make ten dreams or wishes.
At this point I begin monitoring. I should point out that I rarely, if almost ever, sit at my desk while students work. I am always working around and looking at their written work or listening to their answers. I interact with the students quite well as I give feedback or ask questions of every single student (there are ten students in the class). While at times I help with grammar (articles for one student) my problem is I talk too much giving feedback in the form or opinions or advice. I should instead focus on questions to help them make corrections (or using scaffolding), and questions of clarification or information. This would move the focus of the feedback or talking away from me and onto them. For example: at 15:30 I tell one student who wrote something about Kyeongju that they should take the train there from the north. At 19 minutes I start comparing Canada and Korea with a student as well as old people in both countries.
I should have also given a time limit on writing their dreams. It went from minute 10-11 to minute 26. Too long as I feel now that 8-10 minutes would have been sufficient. My chit chatting with students most likely prolongs this portion of the lesson. Chatty Kevan indeed!
Looking back at my TT in Canada and at Suncheon University I am dismayed that I talk so much now. I had much less TT at Suncheon University because many students were low, and the classes were too big to chat with everyone. I would often chat with my students more outside of the class if they were interested in engaging me in discourse. In regards to Canada the students were younger so our conversations were brief and they did not have time to chit-chat in between classes. At my current job the students are older and speak better English so I am apt to chat more (more TT). During class time, as this video shows, I really need to go back to my old ways. Not so chatty Kevan!
Before I started the last activity I did quick verbal directions and then I modeled the activity.
Much better than in the past where I would verbally read 5-10 directions then model the actvity with one or two students.
For the modeling I had every student do one wish with me whereby they get a response denying or granting permission. Next time I will just do 2 at most and throw them into groups sooner. I should take the focus away from me.
Lastly, like a good Canadian I cannot get away from using "Please" and "Thank you". It might seem very formal but it is how Canadians were brought up in my generation. It is very hard to get away from it. Thank you for reading my blog. Please have a good day or evening.
Time for yet another self-reflection.
This video is from early May.
Starting off I should point out that unlike a previous lesson and video the time for activating their schema, introducing the vocabulary and asking some CCQs about the vocab is much shorter. I timed it as over 9 minutes. Probably still too long but much better than the 17 minutes from the Vices Bingo lesson.
One small note: I should move the lectern out of the view of the smartphone before I start recording..ha..ha.
Using invitations to reply I activated their schema about synonyms for permission (the lesson title) and denying. However, at times in the past I have been good at waiting for answers but in this lesson I noticed that I was too quick to give the answers myself (self answering). Whoops!
I should have done much better at introducing the topic like I did when I had the lesson on lying. To be honest: the first two minutes comes off as awkward.
However, I quickly recovered and got the class going again when someone sneezed. I incorporated the sneeze into my teacher talk (TT) about the the topic and I got the class laughing. People can also see that I got some tissues for the student that sneezed (2:30). As I have mentioned numerous times classroom atmosphere is very important to me.
At 4 minutes I incorporate the students into the discussion of the target language by using realia. I take items from the students and ask if i have their permission (May I/could I/can I..) and I expect them to use the target language in their replies (Go right ahead/Be my guest/It is not possible, etc.).
I am not sure why I introduced another vocabulary item at this point (hoarder) as the students already have over 10 items from the permission lesson. The lessons I am making these days are going to have 5-9 vocabulary. Not 15! Not over 25! No more than nine.
For the activity where they write their ten dreams I will not read all ten of my examples in the future. It took too long (2-3 minutes) as I introduced yet again more vocabulary. Even if I reduce the lesson's vocabulary I still have a tendency to bring in more new words. Bad Kevan!
The one good thing is that I did well in eliciting answers from the students that lead to them understanding Mr. Mom.
At just over ten minutes (10:30) I finally give the students time to make ten dreams or wishes.
At this point I begin monitoring. I should point out that I rarely, if almost ever, sit at my desk while students work. I am always working around and looking at their written work or listening to their answers. I interact with the students quite well as I give feedback or ask questions of every single student (there are ten students in the class). While at times I help with grammar (articles for one student) my problem is I talk too much giving feedback in the form or opinions or advice. I should instead focus on questions to help them make corrections (or using scaffolding), and questions of clarification or information. This would move the focus of the feedback or talking away from me and onto them. For example: at 15:30 I tell one student who wrote something about Kyeongju that they should take the train there from the north. At 19 minutes I start comparing Canada and Korea with a student as well as old people in both countries.
I should have also given a time limit on writing their dreams. It went from minute 10-11 to minute 26. Too long as I feel now that 8-10 minutes would have been sufficient. My chit chatting with students most likely prolongs this portion of the lesson. Chatty Kevan indeed!
Looking back at my TT in Canada and at Suncheon University I am dismayed that I talk so much now. I had much less TT at Suncheon University because many students were low, and the classes were too big to chat with everyone. I would often chat with my students more outside of the class if they were interested in engaging me in discourse. In regards to Canada the students were younger so our conversations were brief and they did not have time to chit-chat in between classes. At my current job the students are older and speak better English so I am apt to chat more (more TT). During class time, as this video shows, I really need to go back to my old ways. Not so chatty Kevan!
Before I started the last activity I did quick verbal directions and then I modeled the activity.
Much better than in the past where I would verbally read 5-10 directions then model the actvity with one or two students.
For the modeling I had every student do one wish with me whereby they get a response denying or granting permission. Next time I will just do 2 at most and throw them into groups sooner. I should take the focus away from me.
Lastly, like a good Canadian I cannot get away from using "Please" and "Thank you". It might seem very formal but it is how Canadians were brought up in my generation. It is very hard to get away from it. Thank you for reading my blog. Please have a good day or evening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)