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.
Friday, May 23, 2014
Looking Back
In this post I am looking back at an old video from March.
I will evaluate my teaching during the video using PPiPP (Preview/Present/isolate/Practice/Produce).
For this activity I did not do a PREVIEW.
However, it would have been quite easy to do one. The target language was using "What would you do if..." for questions and "He/she would.." for answers.
For a preview I could have simply stated at the beginning "What would I do if I won the lottery?" and then answered my own question by saying "I would buy a big house in the countryside. Or I would give all my money away to charity." Then I could have asked a few students through individual nomination or invitation to bid/reply "What would you do if you won the lottery?". This would have alerted the students to the target language and gotten them to start thinking of things they would like to do especially in regards to dreams and wishes (activating schema).
As was discussed with reflection 8 I need to and I am therefore endeavouring to reduce my teacher talk regarding directions and vocabulary at the beginning of a lesson.
For this activity I took almost 2 minutes to read and repeat the activity's directions. After that I did a very thorough model with actions and a student helping me do the pair work. Considering the level of my students just modeling would be sufficient. Since the students are only completing five "What would you do if..." questions with their own words it is very easy for them. It is also possible that mnay Middle School students could do it without verbal/written directions and then modeling. Only modeling might work if the modeling is done properly.
In addition I would not repeat the directions verbally. Asking a few ICQs (after the modeling) would be much better as it would test their knowledge of the activity not mine. I am also trying to not ask "Any questions?" anymore. Again, an ICQ would be much better. And to be honest - almost nobody ever asks a question after I say "Any questions?". No one did in this video.
At least I did not spend 17 minutes on directions/modeling/vocabulary like I did in the previous video.
I did do a PRESENTATION of the target language during the modeling (both questions and answers) as examples of correct completed questions were given (What would you do if your students were too noisy?) along with possible answers (I would scream louder than them).
I still have a little difficulty fully understanding ISOLATION or explanation. When the students individualy complete the questions with their own words - is that isolation? My understanding is that isolation involves controlled mechanical practice. Is isolation when we use the target language in a very simple way that is similar to filling in the blanks?
For this activity there is definitely PRACTICE. During pairwork the students will read their questions to their partner. The partner will verbally reply with "I would..." and the asker must write down their partner's answer onto the paper (He/she would...). Five questions and answers are down by each person.
This activity is missing any PRODUCTION. For production (using Blooms' revised taxonomy of higher order: analyze, evaluate, create) I could try the following: have the students survey their classmates using the questions they created. After the survey each student could write a paragraph or more describing the results of their survey. "What answers were common?", "What were some unique answers?" and "Did anyone think the same as me (have the same answers)?" Students could present their findings in groups of four. Or students could compare themselves with only their partners. Ask each pair to make a poster with two circles showing what was common and what was different. Common answers would be where the two circles overlap and differences would only be in their own circle. The students could also be asked "Why?" they gave the answers they did in a written assignment or in group discussion.
During individual work and pairwork I did not give time limits. I find that with higher level students, such as my current students, they can keep talking for a long time with just a few questions to get them started. Time limits might not be necessary as I can monitor them and see when everyone is finished. You will notice that I almost never stand at the front. I am constantly monitoring the class giving feedback, reading their answers and listening to their discourse. Now with middle school and high school it might be necessary to keep time for activities lest the students get bored (takes too long), the better students finish quickly and are bored, or it takes too long to wait for some slower students to complete the task. When teaching in public school in Canada I did time activities whereas in my current job I am often very flexible with time (except for public speeches: 2 to 4 minutes).
In this video we can see that I most likely gave them too much time for the pairwork (minute 12 to 29 for a total of 17 minutes).
Onto next week and more evaluation :)
I will evaluate my teaching during the video using PPiPP (Preview/Present/isolate/Practice/Produce).
For this activity I did not do a PREVIEW.
However, it would have been quite easy to do one. The target language was using "What would you do if..." for questions and "He/she would.." for answers.
For a preview I could have simply stated at the beginning "What would I do if I won the lottery?" and then answered my own question by saying "I would buy a big house in the countryside. Or I would give all my money away to charity." Then I could have asked a few students through individual nomination or invitation to bid/reply "What would you do if you won the lottery?". This would have alerted the students to the target language and gotten them to start thinking of things they would like to do especially in regards to dreams and wishes (activating schema).
As was discussed with reflection 8 I need to and I am therefore endeavouring to reduce my teacher talk regarding directions and vocabulary at the beginning of a lesson.
For this activity I took almost 2 minutes to read and repeat the activity's directions. After that I did a very thorough model with actions and a student helping me do the pair work. Considering the level of my students just modeling would be sufficient. Since the students are only completing five "What would you do if..." questions with their own words it is very easy for them. It is also possible that mnay Middle School students could do it without verbal/written directions and then modeling. Only modeling might work if the modeling is done properly.
In addition I would not repeat the directions verbally. Asking a few ICQs (after the modeling) would be much better as it would test their knowledge of the activity not mine. I am also trying to not ask "Any questions?" anymore. Again, an ICQ would be much better. And to be honest - almost nobody ever asks a question after I say "Any questions?". No one did in this video.
At least I did not spend 17 minutes on directions/modeling/vocabulary like I did in the previous video.
I did do a PRESENTATION of the target language during the modeling (both questions and answers) as examples of correct completed questions were given (What would you do if your students were too noisy?) along with possible answers (I would scream louder than them).
I still have a little difficulty fully understanding ISOLATION or explanation. When the students individualy complete the questions with their own words - is that isolation? My understanding is that isolation involves controlled mechanical practice. Is isolation when we use the target language in a very simple way that is similar to filling in the blanks?
For this activity there is definitely PRACTICE. During pairwork the students will read their questions to their partner. The partner will verbally reply with "I would..." and the asker must write down their partner's answer onto the paper (He/she would...). Five questions and answers are down by each person.
This activity is missing any PRODUCTION. For production (using Blooms' revised taxonomy of higher order: analyze, evaluate, create) I could try the following: have the students survey their classmates using the questions they created. After the survey each student could write a paragraph or more describing the results of their survey. "What answers were common?", "What were some unique answers?" and "Did anyone think the same as me (have the same answers)?" Students could present their findings in groups of four. Or students could compare themselves with only their partners. Ask each pair to make a poster with two circles showing what was common and what was different. Common answers would be where the two circles overlap and differences would only be in their own circle. The students could also be asked "Why?" they gave the answers they did in a written assignment or in group discussion.
During individual work and pairwork I did not give time limits. I find that with higher level students, such as my current students, they can keep talking for a long time with just a few questions to get them started. Time limits might not be necessary as I can monitor them and see when everyone is finished. You will notice that I almost never stand at the front. I am constantly monitoring the class giving feedback, reading their answers and listening to their discourse. Now with middle school and high school it might be necessary to keep time for activities lest the students get bored (takes too long), the better students finish quickly and are bored, or it takes too long to wait for some slower students to complete the task. When teaching in public school in Canada I did time activities whereas in my current job I am often very flexible with time (except for public speeches: 2 to 4 minutes).
In this video we can see that I most likely gave them too much time for the pairwork (minute 12 to 29 for a total of 17 minutes).
Onto next week and more evaluation :)
Friday, May 16, 2014
Looking At Me
My activity for this video was VICES BINGO with the Elementary Teachers.
After some reading on the brain in the SLA class I have become aware of a problem in my class.
I often teach too much vocabulary.
For this video you will see me introduce over 25 expressions/words of vocabulary.
Studies have shown that the optimum amount of vocaulary one should teach per activity/lesson is seven to nine (7 to 9). The amount I taught in this video was about three times too much.
I gave them three pieces of paper with expression about expressing amusement (oh my god; that's amazing;etc.), expressing sympathy (sorry for your loss; that is terrible;etc.) and vocab about habits and temptations (daily habit;give in to temptation; etc.). Therefore, way too much vocabulary. It took 12 minutes for me to go through the vocabulary. The only good thing I can say is that I asked many CCQs about the vocab and other questions to confirm that they understood the expressions and words.
As a result of too much vocabulary there is too much teacher talk (TT) for the opening 15 minutes. I would also add that I do not need to say that this is "useful" before I start teaching. The students can guess that I feel it is useful (in my opinion only).
I also spent 5 minutes on the directions and modeling. As my students are high level I can just model the activity. There is no need to read the directions. For lower level reading the directions with actions and then doing a model with students would be more useful.
Therefore, it wasn't until 17 minutes that the students actually got to practice the vocabulary in an activity. I do not think anyone would disagree that 17 minutes is too long for preview and presentation.
In regards to the activity I would like to change it.
Instead of working in groups I would get them to walk around the classroom talking to each other.
I would get them to pick a sentence from the cup.
Then they would find a partner and read their sentence to their partner. The partner will respond to the sentence using some vocabulary and hopefully by adding much more such as answering the question "Why?" (why did they say that).
After talking with two partners I will allow them to choose another sentence (a different one) from the cup so that we get a variety of responses and answers. Plus, it would be boring to repeat the same sentence over and over.
This activity would have everyone active at all times and practicing the target language a lot.
As with my micro-teaching demo I found that I too quickly gave them the answers and I need to reduce the teacher talk while giving feedback.
Though I feel I did display one good example of scaffolding/feedback at the 20 minute mark.
A student asked me about stalking. Rather than give an answer I asked them to tell me what Koreans call a crazy fan (I think I forget the expression right now: is it sasaeng?).
I used this question and discussion to show them what stalking is.
I feel that my forms of praise were varied and I certainly did not use "Good job".
When asking questions I used individual nominations, and invitations to reply (varied).
And as mentioned earlier I used many questions and examples to make sure they understood the target language.
And I walked around monitoring both groups through the group discussion.
Micro Teaching 2 - Reflection
With a cheery "Good Afternoon" the second demonstration began.
It was certainly better than the first demo in terms of my presentation skills.
However, as pointed out in my feedback the lesson plan needs a facelift.
Prior to the lesson I had difficulty understanding TDBU. Top Down I understood to be reading for gist. Bottom Up I understood to be looking for specifics such as vocabulary. Now, TDBU was more difficult for me to grasp. However, after Jeff's demonstration I understood TDBU. The activity whereby Jeff had everyone read the menu and find three vegetarian options made all the students read the entire menu and try to find specifics (veggie dishes). I should add that as a vegetarian myself I appreciated the fact that it is hard to sometimes find a dish for me.
The original scan at the beginning of my lesson could be changed to have them look for the vocabulary (language police, etc.). Another option is that I could have written a question on the board such as "What is the arguement against Chinese language only signs?" and had the students look for it.
Another changes: need to vary my praise expressions. I did try to use different forms but I noticed that I used "well-done" too much. Good, excellent, OK are some other options. At least I did not use "good job" as it is my pet peeve as I often hear Korean teachers use it (too much).
When interacting with the students during pair work I jumped to give them the answers or strong hints too quickly. I should have asked questions and engaged in scaffolding in order to get them to the answer without my supplying it. Also, in regards to the question about Quebec I gave a long answer rather than activating their schema. I could have asked them "Why is Quebec different from the rest of Canada?" and "Do you think they have laws promoting French or English? Why?" Therefore, less teacher talk from me and more talking from them. Lastly, when I got Laura to help another student (Dee Dee) with the answer I supplied too much help again. I should have asked Laura "Why?" she got the answer she did and to explain it to Dee Dee.
I feel that my energy level was much better than the first demo.
I monitored the students during pair work (I walked around and checked their answers).
I used a technique from a co-worker for pairs to confirm their partner. In my demo each person had to say "Hello" to their partner. My co-worker has also used handshakes and pointing for students to identify their partner(s).
At the beginning I worked hard to engage the students with questions such as "What is controversy?", "What is the title of the article?", and "Where does the story take place?" I could have asked some follow-up questions such as "Please give me an example of controversy", or "What do think the article's main idea is?"
Lastly, it was very interesting to see my classmates' demonstrations as I could see other ways to use the reading material.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rgys3qy8cM
It was certainly better than the first demo in terms of my presentation skills.
However, as pointed out in my feedback the lesson plan needs a facelift.
Prior to the lesson I had difficulty understanding TDBU. Top Down I understood to be reading for gist. Bottom Up I understood to be looking for specifics such as vocabulary. Now, TDBU was more difficult for me to grasp. However, after Jeff's demonstration I understood TDBU. The activity whereby Jeff had everyone read the menu and find three vegetarian options made all the students read the entire menu and try to find specifics (veggie dishes). I should add that as a vegetarian myself I appreciated the fact that it is hard to sometimes find a dish for me.
The original scan at the beginning of my lesson could be changed to have them look for the vocabulary (language police, etc.). Another option is that I could have written a question on the board such as "What is the arguement against Chinese language only signs?" and had the students look for it.
Another changes: need to vary my praise expressions. I did try to use different forms but I noticed that I used "well-done" too much. Good, excellent, OK are some other options. At least I did not use "good job" as it is my pet peeve as I often hear Korean teachers use it (too much).
When interacting with the students during pair work I jumped to give them the answers or strong hints too quickly. I should have asked questions and engaged in scaffolding in order to get them to the answer without my supplying it. Also, in regards to the question about Quebec I gave a long answer rather than activating their schema. I could have asked them "Why is Quebec different from the rest of Canada?" and "Do you think they have laws promoting French or English? Why?" Therefore, less teacher talk from me and more talking from them. Lastly, when I got Laura to help another student (Dee Dee) with the answer I supplied too much help again. I should have asked Laura "Why?" she got the answer she did and to explain it to Dee Dee.
I feel that my energy level was much better than the first demo.
I monitored the students during pair work (I walked around and checked their answers).
I used a technique from a co-worker for pairs to confirm their partner. In my demo each person had to say "Hello" to their partner. My co-worker has also used handshakes and pointing for students to identify their partner(s).
At the beginning I worked hard to engage the students with questions such as "What is controversy?", "What is the title of the article?", and "Where does the story take place?" I could have asked some follow-up questions such as "Please give me an example of controversy", or "What do think the article's main idea is?"
Lastly, it was very interesting to see my classmates' demonstrations as I could see other ways to use the reading material.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rgys3qy8cM
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Grandpa Kevan
After the disaster that was my warm-up demo it has taken me many moons to get the courage to post again on the blog.
I have been teaching since 1990 and I realize I am out of date like expired cheese.
On the upside, after that demo, I have nowhere to go but up.
The first area that changed in my teaching was my turn taking routine. It was a start but only a small part, I now realize, of what I need to alter in my teaching style. Instead of always calling upon students to answer a question or read a passage I now engage in invitations to bid and especially invitations to reply. Since I have changed this part of my teaching I find that most students are keen to randomly shout out answers and participate. If someone is quiet I still try to involve them by asking a simple question to give them courage.
One thing I am really good at, in my humble opinion, is making a good classroom atmosphere. I clean my classroom one or two times per week. My windows are so clean everyone marvels at the view of the forest outside. I am also very friendly and I always ask students "How are you?" and if they are ill I provide healthy teas or natural medicine like Vitamin C. I bring this up because I think that my good classroom atmosphere will allow me to challenge the students more, and to change my teaching style without any negative repurcussions. With the change in turn-taking I already feel more energy in the classroom.
I will now outline some other areas that I need to improve on based on my self-reflection. This was of course caused by the dreadful demo. I might be old - hence the Grandpa Kevan - but I can make more than just one change (turn taking).
In the education department during my university days we were taught many things such as using pair work and group work in the class and moving away from a teacher-centered classroom. Classroom management was a common area of discussion as well. Being creative and coming up with new ideas and/or adapting old ones to fit your style and your classroom were also addressed. However, I do not remember much discussion about, or any at all, regarding activating schema and managing transitions between the activities in a lesson. Brainstorming was big and we did learn a lot about using it to warm-up a class. It is a form of activating schema but there are many other ways to get prior knowledge out of students. A teacher cannot brainstorm every class as it would get repetitive and boring. So, as you can see, clearly activating the students' scehma is something I really need to work on and incorporate into a lesson. I have already tried activating the students' schema in some lessons. I usually ask a few questions or make a statement, intending to get a response, that will lead them to the lesson's topic. It is something I definitely need to practice more as so far it is hit and miss. With words or target language it is working. For example, I wanted to introduce them to the word whooper. In the past I would have just given them the word and defintion. Last week I did not. First, I asked the class if they knew what a whooper was. Someone answered that it was a Burger King hamburger. I asked them whether it was big or small. Several said that it was a big hamburger. Then I asked them what a lie called a whooper could be. A few students answered that it was a big lie. If they had been unable to answer I would have given the hint: is a whooper a big or small lie? It was certainly fun going through the process.
I also need to try to just give verbal directions in my speaking classes for the pair and group activities. Too often I give a handout with the written directions and go over them with the class. After that I always do a model but maybe I should just model and give the directions right away. By using different MIC techniques such as gestures (which I know I can do), visuals, rephrasing, repeating and some ICQs I can get the students ready to do the assigned activity. Last week I realized that my directions were often too formal and official sounding, not common spoken discourse. Over the next few weeks, in class and the TESOL course, I hope to get better at giving natural directions. I probably will still use "please" a lot as this is common teachers' discourse in Canada. Heck, we say sorry when others bump into us.
Lastly, introducing vocabulary. I am trying to get them to give me the defintions for some words by putting the word on the whiteboard and asking them if they know the definition. Sometimes they know the correct definition right away and other times I need to ask questions or make a statement to lead them to the answer. If I tell them the definition I ask many CCQs to make sure they fully understand the word/collocation and I ask many students (not just one).
This post has been cathartic for me as I am finally saying what I have been thinking for weeks. Now, I feel I am ready for more than just a token transformation. Thanks blog :)
I have been teaching since 1990 and I realize I am out of date like expired cheese.
On the upside, after that demo, I have nowhere to go but up.
The first area that changed in my teaching was my turn taking routine. It was a start but only a small part, I now realize, of what I need to alter in my teaching style. Instead of always calling upon students to answer a question or read a passage I now engage in invitations to bid and especially invitations to reply. Since I have changed this part of my teaching I find that most students are keen to randomly shout out answers and participate. If someone is quiet I still try to involve them by asking a simple question to give them courage.
One thing I am really good at, in my humble opinion, is making a good classroom atmosphere. I clean my classroom one or two times per week. My windows are so clean everyone marvels at the view of the forest outside. I am also very friendly and I always ask students "How are you?" and if they are ill I provide healthy teas or natural medicine like Vitamin C. I bring this up because I think that my good classroom atmosphere will allow me to challenge the students more, and to change my teaching style without any negative repurcussions. With the change in turn-taking I already feel more energy in the classroom.
I will now outline some other areas that I need to improve on based on my self-reflection. This was of course caused by the dreadful demo. I might be old - hence the Grandpa Kevan - but I can make more than just one change (turn taking).
In the education department during my university days we were taught many things such as using pair work and group work in the class and moving away from a teacher-centered classroom. Classroom management was a common area of discussion as well. Being creative and coming up with new ideas and/or adapting old ones to fit your style and your classroom were also addressed. However, I do not remember much discussion about, or any at all, regarding activating schema and managing transitions between the activities in a lesson. Brainstorming was big and we did learn a lot about using it to warm-up a class. It is a form of activating schema but there are many other ways to get prior knowledge out of students. A teacher cannot brainstorm every class as it would get repetitive and boring. So, as you can see, clearly activating the students' scehma is something I really need to work on and incorporate into a lesson. I have already tried activating the students' schema in some lessons. I usually ask a few questions or make a statement, intending to get a response, that will lead them to the lesson's topic. It is something I definitely need to practice more as so far it is hit and miss. With words or target language it is working. For example, I wanted to introduce them to the word whooper. In the past I would have just given them the word and defintion. Last week I did not. First, I asked the class if they knew what a whooper was. Someone answered that it was a Burger King hamburger. I asked them whether it was big or small. Several said that it was a big hamburger. Then I asked them what a lie called a whooper could be. A few students answered that it was a big lie. If they had been unable to answer I would have given the hint: is a whooper a big or small lie? It was certainly fun going through the process.
I also need to try to just give verbal directions in my speaking classes for the pair and group activities. Too often I give a handout with the written directions and go over them with the class. After that I always do a model but maybe I should just model and give the directions right away. By using different MIC techniques such as gestures (which I know I can do), visuals, rephrasing, repeating and some ICQs I can get the students ready to do the assigned activity. Last week I realized that my directions were often too formal and official sounding, not common spoken discourse. Over the next few weeks, in class and the TESOL course, I hope to get better at giving natural directions. I probably will still use "please" a lot as this is common teachers' discourse in Canada. Heck, we say sorry when others bump into us.
Lastly, introducing vocabulary. I am trying to get them to give me the defintions for some words by putting the word on the whiteboard and asking them if they know the definition. Sometimes they know the correct definition right away and other times I need to ask questions or make a statement to lead them to the answer. If I tell them the definition I ask many CCQs to make sure they fully understand the word/collocation and I ask many students (not just one).
This post has been cathartic for me as I am finally saying what I have been thinking for weeks. Now, I feel I am ready for more than just a token transformation. Thanks blog :)
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Student Centered Speaking Lesson
Every second Friday at my workplace we have something called TOPIC BASED DISCUSSION.
It used to be on Monday mornings, which is a much better time for deep classroom discussions such as garbage/recycling and great leaders (some of my past topics). As Friday afternoon is often Freaky Friday with the kids and Fatigued Friday with the adults I decided to try something different.
This lesson with done with my homeroom, which is eight English Teachers from Jeollanamdo.
I wrote the following instructions on the board:
1. The class will choose a topic for discussion. "What topic would you like to discuss?"
2. Each student will write one question onto the piece of paper (supplied by the instructor) related to the topic.
3. The teacher will collect all the questions and put them into a tin.
4. Then five students will each select a question for class discussion. We will pick the questions one at a time and then talk.
5. Decide if we want to talk in pairs, groups or together as a class.
6. Chat time.
I decided that I would choose one student to suggest a topic and see if we could get class agreement (consensus) on the topic. One could also use invitations to bid and invitations to reply to get a topic as well. The original topic chosen was food but after some further discussion it was changed to homeroom cafe (Is this dialogic discourse?).
The class choose to talk about the topic and the five chosen questions as a class (together).
I used individual nominations to select the questions. Sadly , this seems to be a default pattern for me and I need to open it up to invitations to bid and reply more often. I have started doing this more in class combined with individual nominations during this week (March 31st-April 4th) compared to other weeks this semester. Each student who choose a question read it to the class.
The one good thing that came out of this class was that after the question was asked I stood back a bit and let the students take control of the discussion. As I familiar with my homeroom after almost four weeks, and I see them everyday I felt that giving them control of the discussion was an example of student initiated interaction. Why? They asked each other follow-up questions, and used some of the eliciting functions such as: confirming, agreeing and committing. My role was to decide when to move onto the next question if I felt the discussion was wavering. However, as the discussion was so good and animated we only did three questions in the end.
I should add that the questions for the most part were referential. I had no idea what the students would say. Maybe only my question was open: "Who is the best photographer in the class?" and the question was thrown back into the tin by me and the students. Too simple.
It used to be on Monday mornings, which is a much better time for deep classroom discussions such as garbage/recycling and great leaders (some of my past topics). As Friday afternoon is often Freaky Friday with the kids and Fatigued Friday with the adults I decided to try something different.
This lesson with done with my homeroom, which is eight English Teachers from Jeollanamdo.
I wrote the following instructions on the board:
1. The class will choose a topic for discussion. "What topic would you like to discuss?"
2. Each student will write one question onto the piece of paper (supplied by the instructor) related to the topic.
3. The teacher will collect all the questions and put them into a tin.
4. Then five students will each select a question for class discussion. We will pick the questions one at a time and then talk.
5. Decide if we want to talk in pairs, groups or together as a class.
6. Chat time.
I decided that I would choose one student to suggest a topic and see if we could get class agreement (consensus) on the topic. One could also use invitations to bid and invitations to reply to get a topic as well. The original topic chosen was food but after some further discussion it was changed to homeroom cafe (Is this dialogic discourse?).
The class choose to talk about the topic and the five chosen questions as a class (together).
I used individual nominations to select the questions. Sadly , this seems to be a default pattern for me and I need to open it up to invitations to bid and reply more often. I have started doing this more in class combined with individual nominations during this week (March 31st-April 4th) compared to other weeks this semester. Each student who choose a question read it to the class.
The one good thing that came out of this class was that after the question was asked I stood back a bit and let the students take control of the discussion. As I familiar with my homeroom after almost four weeks, and I see them everyday I felt that giving them control of the discussion was an example of student initiated interaction. Why? They asked each other follow-up questions, and used some of the eliciting functions such as: confirming, agreeing and committing. My role was to decide when to move onto the next question if I felt the discussion was wavering. However, as the discussion was so good and animated we only did three questions in the end.
I should add that the questions for the most part were referential. I had no idea what the students would say. Maybe only my question was open: "Who is the best photographer in the class?" and the question was thrown back into the tin by me and the students. Too simple.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
A Little of This and A Little of That
In this week's blog post I will address two topics: changes in my teaching over the last few weeks and the module one paper.
Firstly, changes in my classroom discourse and interaction.
Of all the readings we have done in methodology class the most influential for me by far are:
1. Studies of Teacher-Student Interaction by Xie; and
2. Construction or Obstruction by Walsh.
I found what I read in both readings to be very practical.
I feel that my teaching is not bad but as they say there is always room for improvement.
In the following areas I have worked to improve and/or to try a different tact:
1. Turn Taking: I tend to use individual nominations (students chosen by the teacher) in the classroom often. What I have changed is I am now allowing some more invitations to reply whereby any student answers without being chosen or raising a hand. I try to not do this too often as I feel it allows dominate students to dominate too much. Also, I am changing my form of individual nominations. To be honest I often choose students one by one from left to right or right to left. This might make the students only concentrate on their question as they do not want to answer incorrectly and lose face. If I randomly choose students, but I still make sure everyone answers, students will pay more attention as they do not know their question until it is asked.
2. Questions: I am working hard to ask more CCQs in class, especially after giving a handout, to check their comprehension. This also seems to be having the affect of keeping anyone from dozing off during their long days of intense English study. I am also endeavoring to ask more higher level questions. Example: after doing some poetry writing (metaphors) individually the students had to get into pairs. They read their metaphors to their partners. I walked around the class and asked each student which one of their partners metaphors was their favourite and why. This question was not on the handout. I feel it went quite well as it showed how much attention they paid to their partner's answers and allowed everyone to receive a little praise.
One area I need to work on more is checking for confirmation. I will try to do this more in the future.
3. Turn Completion: this is one area I need to improve on. In class today rather than give time for the student to answer one question (was the statement a form of permission granted or permission denied) I gave an answer to his group while I was listening. At that moment I cringed as I realized I had completed his turn. He asked the question to the group and I answered it.
When students are in groups or pairs I find I have the tendency to complete turns rather than to wait for their answer or to ask a question that might elicit the correct answer.
Secondly, the module one paper.
While I am a little worried about following the directions properly and making a decent abstract it is not all toil and trouble.
By looking at my transcript and video in more detail I hope to identify things I should not do and find actions that are absent.
Already I have seen and worked to improve my questioning techniques such as asking more CCQs (Comprehension Checkup Questions) and asking more higher level questions.
Further study will hopefully bring more illumination and result in more positive change.
Onto the preparing the paper :)
Firstly, changes in my classroom discourse and interaction.
Of all the readings we have done in methodology class the most influential for me by far are:
1. Studies of Teacher-Student Interaction by Xie; and
2. Construction or Obstruction by Walsh.
I found what I read in both readings to be very practical.
I feel that my teaching is not bad but as they say there is always room for improvement.
In the following areas I have worked to improve and/or to try a different tact:
1. Turn Taking: I tend to use individual nominations (students chosen by the teacher) in the classroom often. What I have changed is I am now allowing some more invitations to reply whereby any student answers without being chosen or raising a hand. I try to not do this too often as I feel it allows dominate students to dominate too much. Also, I am changing my form of individual nominations. To be honest I often choose students one by one from left to right or right to left. This might make the students only concentrate on their question as they do not want to answer incorrectly and lose face. If I randomly choose students, but I still make sure everyone answers, students will pay more attention as they do not know their question until it is asked.
2. Questions: I am working hard to ask more CCQs in class, especially after giving a handout, to check their comprehension. This also seems to be having the affect of keeping anyone from dozing off during their long days of intense English study. I am also endeavoring to ask more higher level questions. Example: after doing some poetry writing (metaphors) individually the students had to get into pairs. They read their metaphors to their partners. I walked around the class and asked each student which one of their partners metaphors was their favourite and why. This question was not on the handout. I feel it went quite well as it showed how much attention they paid to their partner's answers and allowed everyone to receive a little praise.
One area I need to work on more is checking for confirmation. I will try to do this more in the future.
3. Turn Completion: this is one area I need to improve on. In class today rather than give time for the student to answer one question (was the statement a form of permission granted or permission denied) I gave an answer to his group while I was listening. At that moment I cringed as I realized I had completed his turn. He asked the question to the group and I answered it.
When students are in groups or pairs I find I have the tendency to complete turns rather than to wait for their answer or to ask a question that might elicit the correct answer.
Secondly, the module one paper.
While I am a little worried about following the directions properly and making a decent abstract it is not all toil and trouble.
By looking at my transcript and video in more detail I hope to identify things I should not do and find actions that are absent.
Already I have seen and worked to improve my questioning techniques such as asking more CCQs (Comprehension Checkup Questions) and asking more higher level questions.
Further study will hopefully bring more illumination and result in more positive change.
Onto the preparing the paper :)
Friday, March 21, 2014
Teacher, Teacher - The Smartphone Fell Off the Wall
Yes, it is true.
When I videotaped my class over a week ago the smartphone was taped to the wall but it fell down.
I quickly picked it up and put it back into place with the sides and bottom both taped.
No problems after that.
I am very lucky as I have taught at a university and now a teacher training center.
As a result both me and my students speak in English during class time. For me I get to use my L1 and the students their L2. In my current job the students speak in English, their L2, all day and night at the training center from Monday to Friday.
As I analyzed my transcript (at least 15 minutes of it) I was suprised at how often I use SO to start sentences. I do have a tendency to use OK too much but I was surprised at the numerous SOs used.
Another negagtive I noticed that I did TURN COMPLETION too often when they were working in pairs. I either quickly corrected what they wrote or said, or I did not allow them time to modify their work with prompts from me. For example: "you need the possessive here. Good." Or "Do not worry, you can say commercial." I am now consciously in class during pair/group work trying to allow them time to fix errors I see or hear. I suspect my interruptions and my direct error correction were obstructive towards having the students correct themselves. My activities that day tended to have many referential questions (no known answers). The students had to answer questions their partners made using the "What would you do if...?" structure. With the pair activity it was "student-initiated intercation" but only with their peers. I did not give them the opportunity to evaluate my responses.
My turn taking was clearly individual nomination as I picked Lilly to model the activity with me. I am a little reluctant to invitations to reply as I am worried that dominant students will always answer. I wnat everyone to participate and contribute.
While the students were talking in their pairs I engaged in lots of corrective feedback on both content and meaning. Example: "this one can have two different prepositions - in and at. Both are correct. But I would say that native speakers use "at". What do you do at home on the weekend is better."
I think I would have done less direct corrective feedback if I had chained questions for them and given some wait-time instead of rushing to make changes.
One technical thing I need to work is the mic.
When speaking to the class all my teacher talk was audible and the student responses were as well.
But when they were in pairs I was not able to pick-up what I said at times and I rarely could hear their words on the recording. Maybe practice will rectify that problem.
Next time the smartphone will not fall off the wall.
When I videotaped my class over a week ago the smartphone was taped to the wall but it fell down.
I quickly picked it up and put it back into place with the sides and bottom both taped.
No problems after that.
I am very lucky as I have taught at a university and now a teacher training center.
As a result both me and my students speak in English during class time. For me I get to use my L1 and the students their L2. In my current job the students speak in English, their L2, all day and night at the training center from Monday to Friday.
As I analyzed my transcript (at least 15 minutes of it) I was suprised at how often I use SO to start sentences. I do have a tendency to use OK too much but I was surprised at the numerous SOs used.
Another negagtive I noticed that I did TURN COMPLETION too often when they were working in pairs. I either quickly corrected what they wrote or said, or I did not allow them time to modify their work with prompts from me. For example: "you need the possessive here. Good." Or "Do not worry, you can say commercial." I am now consciously in class during pair/group work trying to allow them time to fix errors I see or hear. I suspect my interruptions and my direct error correction were obstructive towards having the students correct themselves. My activities that day tended to have many referential questions (no known answers). The students had to answer questions their partners made using the "What would you do if...?" structure. With the pair activity it was "student-initiated intercation" but only with their peers. I did not give them the opportunity to evaluate my responses.
My turn taking was clearly individual nomination as I picked Lilly to model the activity with me. I am a little reluctant to invitations to reply as I am worried that dominant students will always answer. I wnat everyone to participate and contribute.
While the students were talking in their pairs I engaged in lots of corrective feedback on both content and meaning. Example: "this one can have two different prepositions - in and at. Both are correct. But I would say that native speakers use "at". What do you do at home on the weekend is better."
I think I would have done less direct corrective feedback if I had chained questions for them and given some wait-time instead of rushing to make changes.
One technical thing I need to work is the mic.
When speaking to the class all my teacher talk was audible and the student responses were as well.
But when they were in pairs I was not able to pick-up what I said at times and I rarely could hear their words on the recording. Maybe practice will rectify that problem.
Next time the smartphone will not fall off the wall.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Warm-Up Activity Part II
#STGmethreflectionweek2kevan
This is a reflection on my warm-up activity that I wrote about in the first reflection.
I did the activity Writing Relay with one class of English Teachers for Writing Methodology, my homeroom :)
They are very high level so I just read through the directions with them (they were on a handout I made). I did one very quick example on the whiteboard for them.
Things I liked about the warm-up:
-my directions were simple and took little time.
-after reading Xie's paper for the Methodology class I decided to give them more time to find the errors in their own and the other team's whiteboard writing. In the past I would find 40-70% of the errors. This time I gave them around 5-10 seconds to think and the students found almost all the errors (75% or more). Some students even had suggestions for better language in some of the written sentences.
Things I want to improve:
- the energy level was OK but it has been better in the past. It was a very slow relay during the writing on the board time. However, as mentioned above the slower pace did help the students find more errors and they were able to correct them while writing and also while checking the other team's completed story.
-try to have each student write twice on the board as there was my sentence plus four others (four students per group) so the stories were short. Might have been funnier or more interesting if they were longer.
Anyways, I like forward to trying this activity with the other class of English Teachers next week. Never too late to make changes :)
This is a reflection on my warm-up activity that I wrote about in the first reflection.
I did the activity Writing Relay with one class of English Teachers for Writing Methodology, my homeroom :)
They are very high level so I just read through the directions with them (they were on a handout I made). I did one very quick example on the whiteboard for them.
Things I liked about the warm-up:
-my directions were simple and took little time.
-after reading Xie's paper for the Methodology class I decided to give them more time to find the errors in their own and the other team's whiteboard writing. In the past I would find 40-70% of the errors. This time I gave them around 5-10 seconds to think and the students found almost all the errors (75% or more). Some students even had suggestions for better language in some of the written sentences.
Things I want to improve:
- the energy level was OK but it has been better in the past. It was a very slow relay during the writing on the board time. However, as mentioned above the slower pace did help the students find more errors and they were able to correct them while writing and also while checking the other team's completed story.
-try to have each student write twice on the board as there was my sentence plus four others (four students per group) so the stories were short. Might have been funnier or more interesting if they were longer.
Anyways, I like forward to trying this activity with the other class of English Teachers next week. Never too late to make changes :)
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Warm-Up Activity Part I
#STGmethreflectionweek1kevan
My warm-up activity will be an activity a former co-worker and I made called WRITING RELAY.
It is a group based activity with lots of movement.
I will use this activity with the two classes of English Teachers for the Writing Methodology course.
For this warm-up I will put the students into two groups.
To start the activity I will write a sentence onto the whiteboard.
Thereafter when I yell start one member of each group will come to the front and write another sentence (their own) below my sentence. The goal is to make a story using my first sentence.
The board marker is used as a relay baton and passed among the group members.
We will go through each group member once. You can also have each member write two or more sentences per person depending on time.
Other group members may help their fellow group members writing at the board by giving advice (spelling, grammar, etc.) but they may only leave their seats when they have the baton.
I give points based on order of finish: 1st - 50; 2nd - 30; 3rd - 10. Points are also given for a logical story: 20 per group.
Lastly, we will read all the stories on the whiteboard from beginning to end. The goal here is to find errors. Each mistake is -1 points. If another group finds the error they will receive +1 for every error they identify.
This activity involves ERROR CORRECTION for everyone including me.
Especially there will be peer correction. In addition the teacher, me, will do some correction but only if no other student or group identifies it. Often students will also engage in self-correction while at the whiteboard.
Writing Relay also involves ASSISTANCE. Mainly it is students asking each other for help.
My hopes for this warm-up activity are to have the students be active.
I also hope that the lesson will show them a way to work on error correction and group support. I personally feel that caring and sharing (helping each other) is a very effective method for students and citizens in society to reach their goals of self improvement. All great change in society might have a person or idea as the spark but only by working with others is that change realized. In my class room I try to push student cooperation.
The problems that could occur: students are not active and they put little effort into the activity. Therefore the lesson will bomb. Students also fail to support each other in one or more groups. Lastly, students do not find most errors and I become the default error corrector. This would be too teacher-centered for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)