The activity included a lot of paper tools: small pieces of paper that had taboo words that we had to hold on the top of our heads, a notebook where the words were written, and two pieces of paper that Seong-ah held while conducting the activity. Seong-ah explained that there were two tasks for this one activity. One was to explain the words written on the notebook while not referring to them directly, and the other was to avoid the words written on the small pieces of paper that had taboo words that we had to hold on the top of our heads. We could not know what was written on the papers that we hold in front of us.
At first, I thought the activity would not last long, but far away from what I expected, the activity finished just before the time ended, giving the group 3 minutes to rest before the next activity. It was fun and engaging, as the students took turns to speak. Seong-ah was willing to give help to students that had difficulties explaining certain words. I thought that she was involved actively in the role of the instructor. However, what I found as the problem was for Seong-ah to directly shoot answers in these students' ears. In other words, Seong-ah provided too much for the students: some key words would have been enough to encourage sentences from the students, but she provided them full sentences. It would be good for her to improve her tactics on this aspect. The other problem that I found was the security of the words; the notebooks were so thin and big that I could read the words that were written on the back of the papers, or mistakenly see the words written while the person next to me was preparing for her explanation. I felt that the notebook have to be replaced with thick small cards to improve the activity. The last problem that I found could be kind of minor depending on the point of view, but I found that Seong-ah did not really pay attention to the students' usage of taboo words. I remember hearing one of the students saying, "I am almost sure that I had said this word at least once." This meant that Seong-ah was not fully paying attention to the accomplishment of both goals, so I advise her to cut down on her goals or to pay more attention to the usage of the students' words to accomplish that goal.
Although I mentioned earlier that I saw the words frequently, it did not mean that I saw all of the words that I got right. I had fun when I got the words right. So the activity was meaningful in that the students were interested in getting the words right. It was also comprehensible, since the intermediates used adequate words for the others to understand. Moreover, the activity served its pedagogical goal to make students speak actively and explain words that we usually do not have the chance to explain in real life, while serving the real-life goal of the increased interaction between the students. I was really surprised that this could be such a good activity, and marveled at Seong-ah's skills to select the activity.
Overall, the activity was one of the best activities conducted in our group that I enjoyed. At first look, the activity might seem as an activity that are for the young, but the adults could also have fun. I thought that this activity could be altered in a form that is used to teach new words - not creating a game entirely from new words, but including some of them - in a very interest-provoking way for the students.
2. My activity
I planned my activity to mainly be composed of 2 activities, as I mentioned on my earlier reflections that it will be the most adequate. The first one was to [Complete the house] and the other was [I see something...]. I expected the first activity to take 20-25 minutes, while the other to take about 5 minutes. I prepared two sheets of paper that printed activities for student A and B. I altered them a bit by adding more objects in the sheets, but I do not think effected the activity in a critical way. I also thought about adding terminology or phrase worksheets, but the words were too low-level for our class, so I omitted this process. Basically, I knew that our group will be consisted of 6 people if none were absent, and thought that I can just instruct and help the students in pairs when one of them turn to be absent. I focused on increasing the level of confidence that the students had, so asked students on which skills they were confident in. It turned out just right: there were 3 students that were confident in listening, one that was confident in speaking, with the professor and me. I could say that I was lucky, but I thought that I did a pretty good job in this.
The instructions of the activity were clear: the students had to fill in student A's room by just using words and hand gestures, while pointing was strictly prohibited. I thought the level of the activity would be pretty challenging to the students, but my group exceeded my expectations: they were finished by 15 minutes. I'm sure that the professor's group didn't cheat, as professor acted like one of the instructors(he is the prime instructor of our course, after all.) but I suspect the other group of cheating, as I'm sure one of the group member's English speaking and listening level to be similar to that of my partner.
My partner panicked in the middle of the activity and could not distinguish right or left; I tried to settle her down and continued the activity. I had not expected this sort of occurrence, so I guess I failed to raise the confidence within my partner. She kept saying sorry until the end. We could also not participate in the [I see something...] activity properly because the other groups finished their works too early. I should have thought about this matter before, but I did not, as the prior activities that our group conducted never experienced this kind of happening(where groups finish at different times to be a serious problem) before. I thought that I should change the [I see something...] activity into another one or alter it to meet my time needs.
I planned this activity to be a chance for students to learn through both meaning-focused output and output, depending on the roles of the students. I also put my efforts to make the activity meaningful, as drawing is a fun visual activity that gives a chance for students to participate actively in conversations. To add, I tried to make students communicate, rather than focusing on vocabulary, so the students knew most of the words that they used. Therefore, the activity served real-life goals, mostly about daily conversations, while also serving the pedagogical goal of increasing the fluency within the students' speaking skills.
Overall, I did not do a good job as much as I previously planned: while looking back, I somewhat thought of a sentence from a textbook that is used in another course that said, [you do not know how the materials will affect your class until you use them in class]. I hope to improve my activities to fit my group in the future.
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
RE: Teaching Listening and Speaking (Spring 2019) - Week 4 Reflections for Wonderful
The activity was simple and clear. Everyone was given a taboo word and placed it on their forehead so thatothers can see the taboo word except herself. After that, each one described a certain word to others without using their own taboo words and others were supposed to guess the word. Each one took turns but when guessing the words, students were also not supposed to use their own taboo words. When someone breaks the rule, she must be excluded.
I think that the conditions for meaning-focused input and output of this activity were mostly applied. Only a few words, such asbulldozer and paralysis, were unfamiliar. And all the students had plenty of chances to convey messages to other students by getting chances to explain a word to others. With these chances, students could practice selecting accurate words to complete the task. Also, while we were doing the task, students needed not only speaking but also listening skills since the speakers descriptions became others meaningful input. However, since it was kind of one way speaking,there wasnt enough opportunity to make up our own lack of knowledge. When someone wants to describe something and they didnt know how to do it in English, there was no way to consult.
Overall, the activity was interestingand I was pleased to perform. As everyone had a chance to be a speaker, no one was isolated. However, no one used their own taboo words so nobody got excluded. Since it was a speaking activity game, it would have been more interesting and effective if there have been a way to induce other students to use their own taboo word. In that way, students could be more interactive and the game could be more exciting.
Yeon Jins material
At the beginning of the activity, students chose either a speaker or a listener. And then, each speaker was paired up with each listener. Every listener was given an incomplete drawing and every speaker was given a completed drawing. The task was to finish the drawing by listening to speakers description. After that, they compared the drawings with each other. When the activity was done, every pair played I see something game. The game is that one explains an object which is in the classroom and the other guesses the object.
The task was clear and the content was familiar. From this activity, speakers could practice delivering precise information such as, The dining table and chairs are on the checked-pattern carpet, There are 4 plants and one of them is on somewhere, etc., and the listeners could practice concentrating on conveyed information.
However, students couldnt have a chance to be both a speaker and a listener since they were divided into a speaker and a listener. In I see something game, students could practice both speaking and listening, but still it seemed not enough. I think it would have been more effective if students could have taken turns with a different drawing. Also, I guess it would have been more exciting if it had been a whole group activity, not a pair activity.
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
RE: Teaching Listening and Speaking (Spring 2019) - Week 4 Reflections for Wonderful
For Sang Ahs material, she prepared a notebook where some words were written and gave us different paper cards with some taboo words on them, and then told us to hold them up over the head. The important point was that we should not see our own card, but everyone except for me can see which taboo word Im holding on the top of my head. To talk briefly about the rule of this activity, I should have to explain a word written on the notebook to the others and make them guess which word Im explaining to them. However, if I say a taboo word that Im holding while explaining a word, then Im going to be a loser.
In this activity, everyone got an opportunity to speak one by one, so we all could take part in it. Also, I think she performed her duty as an instructor very well because when some of students were struggling with the definition of several words, she tried to give them a helping hand very actively. However, I found two problems while the instructor was conducting the activity. The first problem was the size of the notebook. When the person next to me was holding the notebook, I saw the word unintentionally, so I just had to give up getting the answer. If she had used the smaller notebook or flashcards, this kind of situation would not have happened. The second problem was that no one paid attention to the taboo words and everyone was unaware of them. As a result, not one of us picked out a person who used the taboo words after this activity. It seemed that she focused more on explaining the words than catching mistakes, so I would like her to be the one whom listens very carefully while the students are speaking.
Overall, I felt that the pedagogical goal of this activity focused on speaking actively with the interaction between the students. To add, I think everyone can enjoy this activity regardless of age. Moreover, it was an interesting and creative activity.
2. Yeon Jins material
Yeon Jin, the second instructor of our group, actually brought two activities, Complete the house and I see something. For the first one, she prepared two different pieces of paper and before handing those out to us, she asked us on which skills we have confidence in, speaking or listening. And then, people who were confident of listening were in charge of the paper A and the others who were had confidence in speaking took the paper B. At this point, I was disappointed that each student could not take turns changing the roles. Anyway, the instructions were like this: the student who got the paper A had to draw some objects in the sheet by just listening to the other who got the paper B.
During this activity, I was a listener and my partner was a speaker. At first, I felt that everything seemed to shape up nicely, but my partner started to stammer very often because she had hard time distinguishing the direction. I thought that the pedagogical goal of this activity was to build ones confidence by speaking actively, but it seemed that Yeon Jin failed to accomplish this goal because some of students confidences were being shaken after having made some mistakes while speaking. Also, I do not think that Yoen Jin conducted the activity and led our group well because when some of the students were struggling with a lack of vocabulary, it seemed that she did not care about them. However, she did a good job in this.
The second activity, I see something, was to describe anything that I can see around me to my partner, and then my partner had to guess what Im describing. Actually, the second one went smoothly compared to the previous one. I felt that this activity put emphasis on the interaction between the students. To add, the pedagogical goal of this activity seemed to make the students to be fluent in speaking in English, such as daily conversations. Overall, even though I could not feel that the instructor paid attention to us, I think that she somewhat served the pedagogical goals in these two activities.
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
RE: Teaching Listening and Speaking (Spring 2019) - Week 4 Reflections for Wonderful
Instructor prepared a notebook with many words written on it, and gave students a note with each taboo word on it. Then she told each student not to look at her notes, but to put them on each head. In the end, the students could not see its own taboo, and others could see it. The activity is to explain the words written in the notebook to other students and to match them. In the process of explanation, it is a rule to be a loser if you speak a taboo word.
This activity was quite creative and fun. For one thing, it was because every student had a chance to speak and had fun in a situation where they understood. Students somehow tried to explain the words to explain them, and I think it was an effective activity to speak and listen because the matching people also had to listen carefully. Also, the leader seemed very active in trying to help some students when they did not know the meaning of the word.
If there was a bit of a regret in this activity, I think the difficulty of the word was a little. The vocabulary was easier than I thought, so many students matched it before it could be explained. It seemed to be a bit inefficient in speaking and listening.
Also, the English words in the notebook were so big that other students could see them quickly if they were careless. I wish it had been a little small because the word is only for individuals.
Finally, the existence of the taboo word was pointless. Many students seemed to have forgotten that there was a taboo, as they focused only on explaining and matching words. In conclusion, no one was eliminated. It would have been better if the leader had seen it a little more carefully when the students explained it.
In conclusion, I think this activity was fun and satisfying, except for the three parts that were missed. I think people of various ages can participate in it with fun, and increase the chances of listening to English speaking with fun.
Yoen Jins activity
Leader's activity is that complete the drawing. Divided into two by two in one group as a speaker and listener in. At first, the leader asked students what they were confident about speaking or listening. It seemed landom, Students who raised their hands that they were confident in eating received A paper The students who raised their hands that they were confident received paper B. I felt a little sad because I couldn't choose the role I wanted. The speaker received a picture of a perfectly filled drawing, and the listener was given a drawing of the house empty. This was the activity in which the speaker told the listener all the furniture, all the details, and the listener listened to it and drew the picture.
I was a listener, and my partner was a speaker. My partner gave me a very detailed description of the furniture and things. I listened to it and drew a picture. There was a lot of confusion about the direction, but in conclusion, I was able to draw the perfect picture. I think the creativity of the activity was good, but I don't think that speaking and listening, which is the object that the activity is trying to convey, were done well at the same time. Because I couldn't do the role, both of them in such an inversion.
The second activity she presented was a game in which I saw something in the classroom and explained it to my partner, so the partner answered correctly. Fortunately, I think the interaction was made because I could talk and listen alternately. What was unfortunate about this activity was that students teamed up with only two people. Had there been a process of six people participating together to create and solve problems, the content would have been richer and more interesting. I didn't often see the leader during my process of activity, but I occasionally saw him working hard with his partner. But as a leader, it would have been better if he had organized various people to lead the activities. But I think she achieved this goal well because both of her activities were satisfying both speaking and listening.
This week we have two main things that were brought in by our hosts Sang-ah and Grace.
Sang-ah went first with a speaking game called taboo with description. The design was very simple. There were words and people in the group, excluding the host, took turns decrying the words while the others guessed the word. To complicate things all the participants were given a taboo word that they could not see. the point was to avoid the taboo word. So we started playing. things started slowly. The host should try to get more involved and generate moire talk. The fisrt few words were very easy and we got them very quickly with not so much talking. As we went through the words they became harder and this led to more talking, which was good. So the basic design from easier to harder words was good, but still proper didn't talk super a lot. I do think they had fun though. as a type of speaking practice this is less than optimal. What kind of language are people using? I am wondering what people learned from doing this. Did we develop greater awareness of forms or learn new vocabulary or improve our pronunciation? This is a common problem with lots of game like this is that there is often no clear language focus. The goal is to be engaging but there is not too much more than that. in such cases the Host needs to step in and try to get more targeted language going.
The other thing we did was a task from Grace that was a pair work we did based on description. Each pair got different pictures of the same room. In one picture the room is empty in the other there is a lot of stuff. In the empty picture all the stuff from the full picture is on depicted on the side of the room. The goal of the task is for one person to tell the other how the room is decorated as precisely as possible. This was quite challenging and in theory the describer and the listener should interact a lot. But the reality is that one person did most of the talking. So, while this was good in many ways. it was one-sided. The Host could have facilitated more language use and have tried to get the more passive people to speak more. It would have been better if the partners could have switched roles. Still, there we're a lot of opportunities to learn and practice structures for spacial description. And that was good.
