Micro-teaching - ICC; the final frontier

Technical:
You must have ownership of the video that you annotate to do this. I ended up
downloading the video and then re-uploading it onto my channel.
http://www.clipconverter.cc/

Annotation within Youtube: (Upload>Video manager) Once you have the video you want
to annotate (edit radio button: >annotations)

Footage shot from an iphone.

Observations:
See annotated video

Summary:
I’ve set to teach the input stage of the ICC lesson, and I feel that I’ve done this. I say this
statement with conditions though. The segment taught could have been taught in a way
that should be more efficient with the time, and crisper and clearer in the results. In
review of this lesson I feel that if I had elicited and then carried through with
pronunciation practice, finishing with the question and answer pattern would have been a
better structure. However, in light of the target language sentence was repeated multiple
times, given the level of the students could, repetition be seen as a good thing? Was it
meaningful?
From a methodology perspective, I’ve negotiated and elicited a lot with the students and
given that it’s the input stage, the students do need to know what they’re practicing. In
negotiation with the students it has lead to a greater understanding amongst the
students. With regards to error correction I have used a number of ways to deal with the
error in a way I see fit where there are a number of ways to deal with the error. Where
possible I have tried to recast and negotiate a new meaning with the student. It is much
better that the students correct and recast each other’s statements and the answer lies
with interaction patterns between the students. From this learner autonomy is needed so
that follow-through on the task is done.
In looking at the bigger picture of the class I’ve found that a good portion of my class is
based on negotiation with the students. Mainly for meaning but also in the case of
corrections too.

In examination of the structure of this segment there have been parts that have been
repeated; they are the practicing of the target language. This happened firstly with the
prompting of the teacher and then through student initiated question and answer relays
going through the whole group. It is certain that one practice section is unnecessary and
has been duplicated. This would be the initial teacher initiated practice stage. Once the
target language has been laid down, and once the students have been informed of the
interaction pattern then they should be left to do that pattern. Social and physiological
factors aside, I feel this mistake in structure stems from the lack of organization and even though I wrote this lesson plan, lack of familiarity of the order of the lesson plan. I put forward as a corrective measure that a certain amount of rehearsal be done. Both mental visualization and actual practice in of the structure specified. If the first iteration of alesson is the worst, and the last class is best then practicing of the order of proceedings even for just five minutes will work for my memory in setting the pattern of events.
In addition to this, a summary of the global aims for that section are useful to know too and serve to reinforce the active/ doing part of the lesson plan.

Echoing and the effect on talk time
I reviewed the video and do realized that echoing is detrimental to the TTT/STT ratios.
The reason for not echoing a student’s utterances are is that student talk deserves to be
heard (3 minutes and 4 seconds on the annotated track). In addition to this, language
students will always hear and process every word that a language teacher says. Lastly,
based on a normal conversation patterns this does not normally occur. Later on in the MT I did catch myself and did not echo a student.

It’s a poor example of a conversational pattern. I had perceived that what was said
wasn’t loud enough to be heard by the rest of his classmates. I’m better than being using
myself as an amplifier, instead I will instruct the student to repeat and speak louder. The
underlying problem to that situation maybe that of affective filter and raised stressed
levels from speaking infront of their peers. A suitable motivation in this case might be a
game and a time limit set their in.

Corrections and recasts
In correcting student utterances is also a case of notification of an error and then in the
form of recasting, and dialogue with the student, (3 minutes & 31 seconds on the
annotated track) I negotiate the correct sentence (using finger correction) from the
student or (less often) from other students. But, at 3:36, I did manage to elicit the correct
answer from another student. However in another corrective recast, at 7:38, I am unable
to have the other students contribute, so instead, I guide the student to the right answer.
In your reply, “they have food” is equally valid but since the task calls for the students to
name a food, then a more precise answer would be “They have turkey.” Another thought
goes into with the sentence drill in that Instead of ‘I’ I say that they use ‘they’. Both are
equally correct, in grammar and context, (use of ‘I’ more so since it will have come from
a personal perspective of the student) but, looking at the teacher ethics, was I right to
insist? As per answering in form, yes. But there wasn’t a need for such accuracy, even at
this stage of practice. Either answer has it’s merits.

Given the stage of the lesson, that of the input of the target language, methodologies will
favour certain techniques. I’ve seen that I had elicited and negotiated a lot from the
students. Teacher driven, but I feel that I could change this interaction even more
towards. Once the students know the question, then they can ask each other and
negotiate meaning for themselves. The one problem I can cite is with young learners it is
very easy for them to wander off track if not monitored. This is still very much teacher
driven, but in conclusion I do think that having the students do their own corrective
recasts, though given the situation of young learners, this will take time and though on the students’ part.

IC, IC! Oh, I see ICC! Festivities hit room 302

Reflection of ICC lesson;  preview and presentation stages

Preview stage

I’ve thrown up two images of my extended family at different years. With regards to making a communicative classroom and improving the quality of classroom life, this seems to have worked. I’ve shown the students my family, introduced my brothers and myself. All of which had great effect on the students; the resultant laughing and jokes are not quite picked up on the movie.

1:55 allocation of pairs – “what’s the topic” I rephrase latter, “when do they have get-togethers?” In my mind I had gone through this lesson more than a half dozen times, but there my train of imagination doesn’t quite make the station. I should have pre-scripted the instructions, it’s saves on the pauses. Sure, pausing to think is better than gabbing off and sending your TTT/ STT ratios to very poor exchanges.  But even if I don’t recall all of the script, I’m on the track anyways.

2:50 the students are set a task to think of holidays and festivals. No timing set, instead I monitor. 

3:50 Feedback to task, I have the students swap pairs and talk some more. Rolling up my sleeves, I watch with baited breath.

4:39 I repeat again my instructions. I should have set instructions first, and then checked that they understood the instructions. Bad habits! Note to self: Chunk instructions. Set instructions, check. Get up, move.  Talk.

5:28 I call a stop to the holidays and festivals discussion.  Interesting to hear that papero day is considered a holiday. It take a few seconds to call the class ‘to order’ but I think this method would work efficiently only in a small group. Larger groups in my experience needs more time.

Presentation stage

5:44 I begin the presentation stage. I show the students slides of different festivals from different countries, but I don’t pose the question, “What do they have?” in any of them. I lead the students through the context “you’ve got your plate”, this plus dual-coded with eating action. I haven’t said this with any great volume, though the slide is somewhat self-evident, I’d have to say it more prominently in the future.

8:39 the students having known what I want from the previous slides, tell me what I want to know with me just pointing at the parts of the image. Great. To increase communicative levels, I could have asked one student in the pair to ask what food do you see? Once this routine is setup, it would simply be a matter of choosing a student to ask. Will keep this in mind for future lessons.  Lots of talking ‘sideways’ to the students. Not at them, but not exactly to them. I am looking at the image though. My role in this situation is to lead the students through the slides. In preparation for the isolation stage “they have/ eat”.

9:10 much better at presenting the slide. Set the context strongly, dual-coding and a nice strong voice. All evidence that practice does make perfect, and that a rehearsal before hand, just to get these little moments right, would be worth it. The alternative is thinking through it, though I must say that the second method is prone to distraction!

9:36 though it’s not actually my plate or my photo, I am able to personalize the replies to the students by saying “it’s my home” and they from there the students gather it’s “in New Zealand”.

The students are definitely fired up and in the ball park with regards to the topic. The style of teaching is very much a teacher fronted class, though with the teacher talking less, he becomes a facilitator instead. The setting of routines would enable the students to take control of some of the lesson in that they can ask some of the preset questions. My style of teaching in this class is one that is leading, but not that intrusive. The setting of the tone of the class starting from the first two slides is a good move, lending to a good atmosphere in the class and amongst the students that, presumably know each other. From the first two slides, the students are able to construct a general framework and then a more specific one as the slides progressed. I did not use the whiteboard, but had I moved onto the isolation stage I would have. Writing of the target language would be written onto the board and then used from there. To elicit I used images of the relevant festivals I wanted to focus on later.

Student talk and involvement: I’ve made a conscious move to speak as little as possible and to turn over or give the students as much chance to speak as possible. Pairwork, and elicitation lead to most if not all the students speaking, some more than others.

There were times where I thought that the TTT/ STT ratios were excellent, the students talking more than I had. Though at the instruction setting stages the TTT ratio goes right up.  Two sentences from the teacher should be followed by a comprehension check. That would make that stage all the much clearer for the students.

As far as communicative TT versus evaluative talk goes there is a definite tilt towards communicative talk. It all starts from the mood set at the beginning of the class. Throughout the preview stage, I’ve tried to speak very little, and in the presentation stage I’ve spoken even less. I hadn’t need to say much more than what’s this, and not say yes/ no but ‘this is chicken’. The student is not felt bad about the wrong response but has reflected on the fact that this is how is it is in New Zealand. I feel that if it were a Korean student they would not reflect as much as our simulated students I taught here.

A slant on ICC

With regards to the four compass points of Knowing (how, about, why and self) I’ve covered simply the about and perhaps inferred the how.  In eliciting the foods that the respective festivals or holidays use in their celebrations I’ve indirectly shown the students the what of the celebrations through food (re: turkey versus chicken).  I would cover more about the “what and how do they” later on in the lesson. Once the slides have run their course, I would then highlight the ‘about’ stage in isolating the language. They have/ eat…  From this stage would go onto the knowing about by having initially the pairs read about, and then draw the foods they had read about. This lesson.

Overall, the students have learnt a little about different festivals from each other and, from the slide show I had shown.  As far as ICC the initial parts of the lesson have touched superficially on cultural knowings but sets up well, in my opinion the rest of the lesson that is to come. I should also add that the whole lesson could not be possibly covered in the given 50 minutes of an after school class but two lessons. the remaining time perhaps could be used eating chicken in mock observance of a Christmas dinner.

The golden rulish looses it's lustre; um, er, onwards

Before

Post CELTA, I knew the requisite amount of teaching methods and why. The one thing that was missing from my teaching was CI or, classroom interaction techniques.  I believe that my early videos will show this. As far as lesson planning goes, I’ve only been expected to teach a pre selected lesson with arguably very simple goals. Learn the TLC, repeat, chant, sing. Frequently these lessons would have no context set, and so the TLC would have almost no meaning at all. Looking back, my classes were very, very teacher fronted. Lots of talking, (but in my defence not as much as the KEt.) The students did learn, but only along very rigid lines.  Having gotten a CELTA meant that I had different ways to teach the material, often didn’t, or wasn’t able to implement new techniques. There was no motivation to or any clearly defined goal that the students should aim for nor for me as far as overall picture goes.  What STG has taught me was the one primary goal for any L2 learner is communicative competence. Which makes a very good over-arching goal. An excellent guide to which all sub goals can be set. But as to lesson planning, I informed (by a very reliable source) that my lack of planning stemming from in-depth thought.  I can cite examples of this from ICC lesson plans on video.

Reforms –still don’t know what a ‘golden rulish’ is, but I’ve a pretty good idea what it is!

This course has taught me not only the method to reflect and also what to be reflective on. Not only my teaching has been given thought but also my own personal self. It is often to separate one from the other. Indeed giving feedback on a fellow classmate was much easier than looking at ones own lesson. It’s a matter of turning the telescope around and examining oneself. A classic example of avoidant behavior are my early blog entries. Admittedly light and entertaining, they related to something that of avoidant and not facing the point to be addressed. But even once you isolate ‘a problem’ the next step is to find a solution or a remedy to it. Very blokey, manly, stuff when you come to think about it. But in making those reflections you need not be brutal in making the observations, nor make them in a sterile way. It is possible have a balance between readability and pure observation. If you want people to read it, then it shouldn’t take a dedicated egghead to get through it. But there is a time and place for everything.

Righting the errors, implementing change.

It’s all very well finding fault, but it requires deeper thought to effect change on yourself, and ultimately the classes and students I teach.  Lack of preparation is perhaps my one great sin. Put aside the time, prepare, write, contemplate. Then go over the lesson plan again. Interaction patterns between students are important in making a communicative classroom.  Give the students as much chance to talk as possible, and then some. A totally communicative classroom, one that is student driven is a great ideal, and for me, the next stop. It would be a new line of thinking for the KEt, and for me, it means setting up of routines and a bit of regularity for the students. Sure, the textbook must be gotten through, but I’d say that with a little practice on my part and the students, it can be done.

Reducing teacher talk time. Cut out the ums and errs.

I’ve pruned a lot of what I think, is aberrant talk from my TTT. So much so that I’ve become quiet to the point where my KEt has had to take up the slack. It’s improved the TTT/ STT ratios somewhat, so much so that though the class is still a teacher fronted one, the students have and are been given as much chance to talk. Even walking around my fifth grade classes, I have a sentence or two to the students. Actually the less I’ve spoken, the more they’ve spoken to me! Yes, it does work.

Being quiet does work, but the caveat is that it also requires time for the students to think. Wait time in other words is needed. Having watched some of the other STG groups videos, (A. L’s is one of them) the need for patience in the classroom is a necessary factor in letting the students think, given that they have enough comprehensible input at the time. One example I used in class springs to mind. A student asked me if her answer was correct. I saw that it wasn’t so I mimed for her the correct verb. She did get it, and the result was a rap on her friends arm for giving her the wrong answer! Still, a bit of peer correction would have been better in retrospect. But if the answer came from her friend… then okay, looking like I was sweeping the floor to elicit clean seemed to be the right thing to do at the time.

Future reform

I could learn all the games in the world, but I need to learn how to create games based on interaction patterns. A lot more focused than looking something up online. Indirectly, Bill had said that knowing the patterns would help you devise any game to suit the need.

As to building a communicative classroom, this will have to take some discussion with my KEt, on a trial basis, but, I feel it’s a start. Once I get it right, then I can release the new framework onto the other classes.  Still, a video review every month or so to check on my own progress would be good. I now know how to operate the editing software (it’s in Korean) so that’s a start. But the way forward is through better CIs? Once I’ve mastered this mindset, then it would be a matter of working on the ‘bigger picture’.  Lesson planning,

Class 3-4, Can you...

Classroom observation: Class 3-4

This class is a third grade class made up of 30 students, whom I see once a week, and has English lessons 3 times a week. Their English is quite formulaic, though some of the students level are quite good for the grade. Their ACFTL ratings are as follows. Speaking, novice mid. Listening, novice mid- high. Writing, novice low. Reading, Novice low. Definitely a teacher-fronted class, my goals for this lesson were to give the students as much chance to speak as possible and in doing so, rendering the TTT/ STT ratios to about 1:1.

Presentation Microteaching self-reflection

2. my teaching style in this video is different. I see that I am much more relaxed. I also perceive that the students are also much more relaxed, and so is a big step towards lowering the affective filter. while teaching, I don’t try to be funny (much), but when I do get away from the blackboard and interact with the students, I try to be more engaging, using the TLC of course.

3. The classroom did feel at ease and I felt that the students were very relaxed and able to communicate the TLC easily. I recycled the TLC whenever I could.  When I practiced a chant with the students, I did feel that all the students all the students precipitated, and so, learnt the TLC.

4. I did not plan nor use the blackboard. It was really a practice and produce section of the textbook and I recycled the TLC from the Television screen.

5.  I felt that all students spoke at one time or another be it at the chanting stage, or during the practice stage with their ‘can book’. Some more than others, but I felt that most if not all students participated. There are varying levels within any class, and though I felt that this class grasped an easy concept, they were all able to say the TLC.

6.TTT/ STT. In looking through the video, I felt that the ratios were good, and the exchange was about 1:1. (exact figures to come later in this entry.) In the recycling stage and elicitation stage, I felt that were many chances for the students to speak.

7. Communicative Vs Evaluative talk. I did make more than one error on this ground. This happened in the practice (elicitation) stage. But I feel that there is more communication going on than evaluative speech in this lesson.

What I have (re)learnt is that you get out what you put in. in this case it was reflective energy and enthusiasm. This greatly lowered their affective filter and the students were able to practice a very easy TLC. However a lot of laying the ground before hand went on before the lesson. Winning a 3^rd graders trust can be done by being pleasant, nice, and somewhat humourous.

Reflection from viewing video shot of class 3-2.

TLC: Can you + verb. Yes, I can; no, I can’t. This is the end of the unit with the practice and production stage for the students.

0:16 I just play games with the students by claiming that I can’t speak Korean. It gets certain Ss attention, though in Korean and a few sentences in ‘interlangauge’

1:03 ‘hands on heads’ a control measure by the KEt. I do this too, as a show of solidarity to the students. Smiling eases some of the rebuke that the KEt is giving.

1:37 I start my lesson with a greeting. I hadn’t taught them the adjectives of feeling so, the respsonse is rather, universal. They do some feelings. I should have insisted on a full sentence. But I did get a question of ‘How are you’ after some prompting.

1:55 I elicit by pointing towards the window to get the question, how’s the weather? I have everyone repeat it. The answers ‘It’s sunny and cold’. I respond by giving an evaluative answer.  ‘Yeah. It’s painful.‘  Hum.  Agreeing that it is what one student said is probably giving the pointer that ‘this is what I was looking for, this is better.’ In that light, a nod is better as it’s simply a confirmation.

2:02 I start by recycling the TLC (can you + verb) I scaffold by eliciting verbs first. I don’t go back to ‘throw’, but no matter. The students recite the TLC from the previous lesson. The student responses are good, and in some cases I point. In one case, I find what I want and say ‘one more time’. Dual coding would make it better. Use two hands lifting up. Repeat the next time with no voice. Is the recycling stage too brief? It goes to 3:32. Long enough.

2:44 I’m not sure that that whole class had heard what the student had said and had repeated it for the whole class. Is there a better way? Students should, by definition, learn to listen to themselves, mimicking that of a conversation. I feel that using hand signals would only confuse the matter.

2:55 I’ve elicited ‘can you fly?’ and had gotten the answer to the question. I’m joking around, but haven’t waited for the answer. Wait time. Take a breath. Wait. Smooth and controlled.

3:32. I stop the recycling stage and move straight onto a task in the textbook. I feel that I need to be smoother in my transitions from this stage to the next. It will keep their interest. Deeper thought, must work out a transition for tomorrows class. The solution would be to the task already started on the PC and then shift the questions from myself, to the screen.

3:55 presentation of task. I scaffolded a lot here, and I have brought up and have the students practice the TLC in preparation for the listen and check task.

4:02 I recycle again by asking the students what’s the question? Pointing at the picture is slower, gives the student more talk time. It doesn't seem natural to have such a one-sided conversation. One question is all you need to set the pattern of expected response from the students. One is enough.  I tried this this morning and indeed, one was enough.

4.52 setting of listening task. Could have been done better.  I’ve made two examples in the task, but could have waited for the answer from the students.  Wait time. I’ve also previewed for the students , the TLC within the task so as to help them with the listening task. Use of dual coding for instructions would work better. Use the graphics on the screen as an example. Read out the dialogue. “Does it match?”  Yes. No. Continue to the next example.

7:11 this is going through the answers.  Checking ‘O’ or ‘X’ if the statement rings true with the picture. I ran this task again with another class, and I had them tell me the answers while recycling the TCL some more.

-//Observation ends 9:10 //-

Summary.

My TTT/ STT ratios were tabulated up to 9:38, are 42:55, or 8.4:11. Though not 1:1 this does move away from the teacher fronted classroom to more of a facilitating role. Though in compensation, my KEt has come to the party by explaining the mingle exercise in the later half of the video.

I feel that I have taught the TLC, and that everyone had spoken the TLC. the mingle task at the end was especially useful in having the students practice what they've been working on for the past two weeks. 

Better, more quality thought needs to be put into instruction giving > MIC. Examples are good, they need to be phrased better.

Giving the students as much talk-time, okay. More initiative. Under the direction they could be given more control to start or even pass down the instructions by using the captains of each team.

ICC lesson reflection; Talk, talk! Hugs and hellos

Oh, gosh. This lesson outcome was not what I expected. Lots of things went wrong. This is my reflection.

Student profile: This is a class of about 35 students at a 5^th grade level at a public Elementary school. ACTFL level  speaking, novice low to upper ; Listening Novice low to upper; Writing Novice low to mid; Reading, novice low

Summary of the lesson

The students were presented two ICC tasks. One that involved non-communicative language and greetings and body contact around the world.

Goals of the lesson

To have the students think about think about how important non-communicative language is, and how other people greet each other around the world.

Form used: Presentation of Microteaching self reflection form.

The quality of classroom life is poor. Why? Do the students actually know the why of what they’re doing?

2. My style in this video as compared to other videos is drastically different. I feel that I am talking too much. I can account for this by not knowing how to teach a cultural lesson. Unlike previous lessons, I did not know how to deliver the material that was needed.  The students were definitely not engaged, and, I have a feeling were put off by my first comment that I would be teaching a culture lesson.

Having read Moran’s framework, makes it much easier to define the different parts of the lesson that need to be realized by the student. The how, self, interpretation, and the why. With this framework, I would have taught it differently.

3. as far as communicating within this classroom, I cannot see it being comfortable at all. The students were not engaged at all, for the reasons I’ve mentioned above. I tend to think that the students do not understand the reason for the lesson at all, hence no motivation to listen or speak.

4. I did intend to use the blackboard, as a way to list the students favourite pop groups. With regards to MIC, I have made some effort to put a screen shot of what the form that the students would be listening to and filling out would look like. After I’d shown the slide on the LCD screen, I had explained what I wanted to do with the form.  Those students that hear the instructions did actually follow them. I feel I would have had more participants if the class was quiet and focused on the teacher. As it was, they were disinterested and frankly, bored. I think that I should have presented a lot more at the beginning of the lesson, and probably introduced the subject of their favourite pop groups, not through words, but elicitation through pictures. That way the meaning is 100% clear.

5.  some of the students did talk as part of the talking activity about their favourite pop groups, but this aside, there wasn’t much student output at all. My thoughts are that the input on the task was not comprehensible, even to the best students. I feel that it wasn’t the question, but the concept behind the question was not understood. I should have broken up the big question into smaller questions to lead the students up to that point. Perhaps, Did you win your argument? What was the other person like to speak too? Did you feel angry when you spoke to the other person? If yes, what made you angry? A specific line of questions would have made my students think about this fact.

6. there were times where I spoke a lot and that was during the presentation stage and instruction giving. Deeper planning must be given to plot the results of the stage. In doing so, written questions can be put down on paper and followed. From this the flow of the lesson can be attained. In addition to this a reduction in TTT means that a communicative classroom approach must be taken. Give the students as much opportunity to talk as possible. This leads me to the last point…

7.  Communicative TT vs evaluative TT.  I would say that a good portion of what I spoke was communicative, but monological. Once again, deeper thought into the process of the said stage at the time must be given. However the answers to closed referential were confirmed by a nod or smile. I’m still deciding on whether this is judgemental or not.

Some selected moments from the video:

1:16 do you know any pop groups? This is a good question, but the classroom interactions could have been made more communicative in that the students should be talking to each other! The teacher can then ask the students since they have had a chance to talk, and, think about their answer.

12:54 instruction giving for the talk, talk, talk! Activity. ICQs are needed, even if the students repeat or paraphrase the instruction that would be sufficient.

24:46 how Kiwis say hello to each other. Oh dear, the student has missed the subtlety in this action. I tend to think more explicit instructions on observation is needed.  If the student is supposed to be looking, be more explicit on what he is supposed to be looking for. The task can also be done just as well with just the teacher and the class observing. Less pressure on the individual student, and the whole class  could then see it.

27:41 questions and answers. The students have answered some open display questions and I’ve responded with a confirmatory ‘yep’. As an alternative, more vigilance should be should on responding to student utterances. Keeping the ball rolling onto the next picture or stage is a skill that can be practiced if thought about before and conceptualized.

32:17 Giving instructions for hellos task. Good, task before material. No ICQs given though. Have the students repeat your instructions every sentence? That way they will remember the instruction.

A Richard and Lockhart’s question:

Would you teach the lesson differently if you taught it again?

Very differently indeed. I would have presented the subject, not by openly stating what it is, but by presenting a selection of K-pop groups that the students would know. This then would attract interest. I would have made the NZ hello a solo demonstration. The feedback task at the end of the hellos and hugs part of the lesson needed questions.

MICs need to be thoughtout better, with the outcomes of each stage needing to be thought out and conceptualized. An expanded line of questioning to bring the students train of thought around to the right mindset of contemplation.

Summary

More in depth thought should be given not so much about the stage, but the outcomes of questions, and what is going through the students minds.  A side note is that the students needed a longer presentation, something that would attract their interest.

Work on MICs should also be done, pictures, dual coding, and clearer questions. Looking at the concepts appropriate for the level of learner is also a good start too. Scaffolding by in this case, breaking up the questions so that the students train of thought are lead in a certain way

4-2 grade reflections plus pronunciation drills

4-2 lesson reflections

Introduction.

This video was shot on Monday, the 12^th of October. This is a fourth grade class, of about 30 students, that I have contact with once a week. The rest of the time, the lessons are taught by the Korean English teacher (KEt). Their level is about Novice beginner to mid on speaking, reading it is novice beginner, while listening I tend to think the students are novice beginner to mid level. The levels of ability varies a lot within a class. The lessons are structure based.

Reflection form: presenting microteaching.

2: my style of teaching.  I feel that my style in this class is an open and friendly one. I do help my students with their activities. Aid the main teacher in handing out sheets for example, and generally try to push things along. For example, the gluing in of the worksheets to their book. An average elementary grader will take about 5 minutes to have this done. I can help them (with the aid of a glue stick) done in 1 minute.

3. I do feel that the class is comfortable in communicating (at the start of class) and in doing the chants. Which can be really seen as genuine communication, but at least they are willing to do it.

4. In these lessons, I’m there as the speaking teacher and normally don’t use the board. But if there is a pronunciation issue, then I will illustrate that by writing it on the board.

5. Student talk/ involvement.  The students are expected to talk and did so. Even if it is running through the dialogue, I could have them talking to each other, as this mimics closer to what a conversation would be like.

6. On occasions yes, I did.  These were in reference to closed referential questions about the context of the video they were about to see. The ratio of TTT vs STT up to the close of sampling was 24:27 or 8:9. It’s a good start, but considering it’s a teacher lead lesson, I think that in a student lead, or at least student initiated with a bit of prompting from the teacher, it could be even better. Though some of the more traditional KEt teachers I teach with might be against it.

7. Communicative talk vs evaluative talk.

Past experience from the previous weeks, I have refrained from giving a yes or no, but have tried to nod.  I don’t always succeed but have endevoured to give non-evaluative answers.

Example 1.Why are you angry? Him?

Example 2.Ss: A million! Tt: A million, what?

I think that adding what? To the end of the statement, I think that doing finger correction + wait time would be more suitable. I feel that I have given more communicative feedback than I have evaluative.

I have viewed part of the teaching video and made comments and corrections, up to the end of the pronunciation section.

0:25 KET ask a question “how are you?” but doesn’t monitor the feedback! The students think then, it’s a game and put less thought into the response.

1:03 the class really starts here. The KET stands and quiets the class with a musical hammer.

1:37 I ask again how they are. I approach students with their hands up

2:06 student gives something like an authentic response. I don’t go any further but instead point at another student.

2:19 I set up 1:1 speaking task. The volume seems to be a bit unnatural.

3:02 I call the class to order. Waving my hands in the air is slow.

3:32 lets have a look at page 1-1-0. I think I should use tens and hundreds instead of individual digits. It doesn’t seem a natural way of speaking. KET repeats this using English, and using the right notation. I wait.

4:06 can you read the title? The class answers. I ask for an answer to the question.

I get answers, but acknowledge by gesturing.

4:19 A setup of a listening task.

4:50 so, where are they?

A number of answers are given.  I choose the student that gives the right answer.

I state that ‘Si jang’ is called flea market or market place. I don’t get the class to repeat any of these words even though

5:30

Setting of task. What does Bommi say?

What do you want? Pretty much. And?

I want the doll.

It’s 8, 800 won.

6:13 Right, so we are going to look at the video.

“Right, so” … is a vocal way of bring the attention of the class back to the teacher. This contributes to TTT. As noted before it would be a better move to wave as to raise attention to the teacher.

6:38 Eliciting who this person is in the book.  ’Naw, naw. Okay.’ I think a better answer would be ‘I don’t know’. This statement comes across as being wishy-washy. Perhaps just a shrug of the shoulders would have been a better move.

6:46. KET calls the students attention to the TV for their viewing task.

7:27 Okay, what is the question?  How much is it? Do you want this doll. Etc

Getting everyone involved is a good way of everyone reciting the target language. This whole class is very much a teacher fronted task. How could this be changed in some way? In a structure based classroom,  it would take some modification to do.

7:47 Tt: what’s the price?

After having lead a chant, I ask a closed display question. It would have been better to use ‘and…’ or ‘and then’ to continue their flow of answers. In this instance, had I said that I would have been helping them as opposed to someone directing the task.

 8:08 a clarification request on an incorrectly stated question.  Good. Now, how do I get the students to self correct, or, other students to correct the sentence. Ask them. I’m sure they’ll get the sway that it is what I want, and they will automatically do it.

8:20 I’m having them practice question sentences. The intonation goes up at the end. I signify this with my finger. The students are doing it. An illustrated example on the board would work too, and also dual code the point nicely. At the end of the practice, they could have had some freer practice.

8:49 KEt goes through the picture asking questions.

9:16 I’m bored. I mime some of the objects. (Dolphin). I point to some students who got the answer right. But I don’t say a word. I’m not sure what else I can do at this point.

9:34 chanting of key sentences listened to in the video. I had recycled one key sentence. Good. Would pair work, work at this point? With young learners this may not work.  Will have to trial this to see if it does.

10:17 KEt is isolating the grammar parts? Not sure how much understanding is going on. Not translating into Korean afterall. All the parts of a grammar lesson are there, just not in order. Oh and they almost never produce.

10:50 -13:10 I begin my chant to the class by saying ‘can you say this’. If they’re expected to model their speech on me, shouldn’t I start it? I know that the students should be able to hear themselves. I do think that I should model it first!

In light of hearing themselves, I don’t think I should be clapping any beat to it. Horrible. The whistle hammer doesn’t help either! Clapping does give them a sense of rhythm to the sentence, but on grounds of modeling, they’d be listening to my voice. Fair point, but the students do go on to not stress every syllable and do sound more natural. Ah! Model it first without the claps, then practice it with the claps.

I have modeled the rising intonation at the end of the sentence. With a notation on the board too. Students still clapping though. I didn’t tell them to stop.

I start the chant without clapping, picking up the clapping after the second time round.

--//reflection ends 13:10//--

Recommended changes to teaching methodology

Be more consistent in the way I run a chant drill. Model and then drill.

Keep working on clarification requests. Turn over as much of the speaking to the students as possible. This includes students making the corrections too.

Keep on working on non-judgemental  speech. Keep the conversation going with open ended statements.

Richard and Lockharts

“How am I helping my students”

I feel that I am helping my students by giving them as much chance to talk as possible. It could be more though, and I will work to improve this. By writing this, I mean that I will have to set up rituals and expected responses (in error correction by other students).

I also feel that I’m helping my students by changing the way they’re being taught. I try to ask more open questions, and ask questions in general, about them. How they are feeling, and why.

Micro teaching 2 re-publish

This is a second take on my reflection of my micro teaching 2.

Presentation microteaching self-reflection form

1.In reviewing the video that was taken of my MT of a reading activity, I feel that it was done quite badly. I’ve used some MIC’s but I feel that I could incorporate more of them into the lesson taught and indeed the lesson plan itself. As to answer a question of TTT/STT ratio, it was measured at 10/4.5. Not quite the 50% ratio, but getting there. More vigilance over my self-talk is needed, since everything is processed by the student and, it takes up STT.

2.My personal teaching style is an interactive one, but based around interaction with the teacher. This goes along well with question-answer type teaching. But contrary to communicative type lessons where the interaction patterns are moved towards student to student interactions.

3.The environment I try to create in the classroom is a relaxed one, though in the video Ifeel that I am a bit tense. This can reflect onto the students. Though in my classes at school, they do tend to be a bit more relaxed. I make the classroom comfortable by smiling and asking pleasantaries.

4.In this lesson, I had not planned to use the WB, as it is a skills lesson, but failing the initial elicitation having not worked, I had drawn on the board a ‘beetle’, with the mind of eliciting ‘The Beatles’. This did actually work. Another way of doing this would be to show the students an image on the LCD monitor. In future, anticipation of these sorts of problems is required.

5.When looking at student involvement, in the video and recalling teaching this lesson at school, the students did talk to each other. In this lesson that I planned, the Ss<>Ss could have been planned to have more interaction. 

6.Yes, I did speak more than two sentences in between student responses or utterances. From the notes I made from my video, I could conclude that a better design instructions. Less self-talk. More vigilance in responding to students’ answers, and in those responses, how to make them into a communicative response than a simple yes or no. Another alternative is to reply with an open ended statement or question to keep (if desired) the conversation going.

7.Sadly, most of the responses are evaluative and therefore don’t lead to communicative sentences. On the evaluative responses side, there are many. They are simply confirmations from an answer given by a student. To which the ratio is about 0:7. Very poor indeed. Some of the things I have learnt about my teaching personality in making notes from the video are that, I need to plan better when it comes to making lesson plans. Within this framework, more thought into making better task-giving is needed. A remedy for this is to script the instructions (until I know the correct phrasing) for a better, communicative task. The second thing I’ve learnt is that I have a fear of failure when it comes to delivering instructions for tasks, this leads to a more direct approach that excludes student to student interaction. This also means that wait time is very short in the case of eliciting.

Some more thoughts

Making notes while watching the video again, my targets were to look at MIC, CI, PW & GW .> in particular the setup of tasks, TTT/STT ratios, how better? Hand gestures – ‘dual coding’

Comments and notes on video viewing, numbers in minutes: seconds

0:17 ‘okay, so’ this is the introduction of the lesson to the STG classmates. The use of ‘okay, so’ is used as a way of getting attention of the class, and at times getting the class to pay attention. This does not work. Use of proper classroom commands (which the students do know) must be used in it’s place.

0:48 ‘okay’ as above, it’s proof that ‘okay, so ’ does not work. Classroom commands will get their attention and then you can go from there. Instructions only work if and only if you have their undivided attention.
Instruction giving still needs to be more robust. On the fly instruction giving will not do. Script the instructions and review them for any vocabulary that is above their level.

1:03 replacement of word >> rephrase “contemporary to new”. A good save, though scripting of instructions would negate this altogether.

1:09 is “one more time” really necessary? Monitor, and respond when needed. One more time is a very teacher centered statement. If some of the students are struggling, then say it. If not then go ahead to the next step. It’s also a waste of TTT, and also, time. Yuck.

1:28 possibly a better phrasing of the question “who am I?” >> I’m from a book. This book is about wizards. (Harry Potter). The more specific the better, in this case, the general to the specific. Top, down!

2:10 could have elicited “The beatles” by waiting. But from an eliciting standpoint, it was a good use of the Whiteboard. MIC and dual coding. BUT, Wait time, slow down, eliciting is an enjoyable process but don’t get caught up in it. Get what you need and then move on.

2:22 confirmation of answer from the question, who were they? (a pop group). “good job” there is a balance between being overly congratulatory and simply giving a confirmation. A confirmation is all that is needed. 
Instructions for task

2:34 
2:50 better setting of pairs. Phrase the question. “who is a good writer?” Instead of allocating roles. Wait time. Patience. Take a breath.
CI better S<>S interaction, therefore needs wait time.>> fear of failure, give the students time to process, they are young learners afterall.
Then ask to confirm, “who is the runner?”, “Who is the writer?” Slow down.

3:34 the setting of the roles could have possibly taken a shorter time. Less teacher interference, let the students sort themselves out. A bad (naughty) student will not do as they are told no matter what. If everyone does as directed, they will feel peer pressure to do the same. Otherwise pick them out, and then direct them to their partner. Let the partner give them the instructions. Once again, get their undivided attention first before giving instructions. If they constantly need prompting then a number of possibilities exist. Their attention maybe elsewhere; they’re bored because they can’t understand. You can’t do anything about the first one, but you can about the second. MICs. In the form of powerpoints, better ways to elicit, more S<>S CIs.

3:44 recall artists. “Asks who wants to be ___”(BoA, the beatles, Harry Potter)

Wait time. The students need to learn how you do things. Wait for an answer. Do this more than once, and the students will pick up a pattern and respond accordingly. No fear.
Could the instructions have been more streamlined? >> writers, what do you need? Or, pens and paper ready? These are elementary schoolers, a direct instruction is better than a hint. Instructions need to be direct otherwise confusion will reign and time will be lost.