To begin with, the activities by Sojin was one of the enjoyable activities that I participated in this course. Her first activity included: papers for each students that contained instructions for the activities, and her sketchbook that had names for the characters and the celebrities written in it. Each students took turns closing their eyes and asking questions for each of the other students. Everyone except one student got the answer right, and it was fun. The level of popularity of the guesses was enough to cover all of the students. It was good to see the students intentionally trying to make the explanations of the words more ambiguous; one of the students used Japanese, and it was a clever move due to no restrictions in the explaining process. If the instructor plan to make the activity more focused on English, she might as well as warn the students on the use of other language next time. The only problem that I noticed was that the instructor did not restrict the students from asking more questions; I thought that she needs to be more stern in this aspect .
So the activity was meaningful in that the students were interested in being involved in the activity. It was also comprehensible, since the students tried to control the level of words for the others to understand. When they had problems, professor helped out in elucidating them. Moreover, the activity served its pedagogical goal to make students speak actively to shape a particular word, while serving the real-life goal of the increased interaction and the knowledge about media between the students.
The next activity also included papers for each students that contained instructions for the activity. It was for the students to talk about their problems and the others to provide advice. In bold letters, the words [should/should not/would/would not] were emphasized. (I am not sure of the latter two, as my paper was collected by the instructor.)
The activity was meaningful in that the students were open ears for the others' problems. It was also comprehensible, as it was mostly composed of daily communication text. The activity served its pedagogical goal to make students make use of particular words that are used in similar contexts that the students were involved in during the class.
The instructor controlled the time given to her; when the others asked for more, she moved on to the next activity, implying the fact that the time given to her was restricted. She implied later it was hard to control, but I believe that she managed it well. Overall, I believe the activities that included all of the students went well, and the ones in smaller groups were comparably less successful. Other than this, I thought that open-ended questions were much better when the students worked in smaller groups than those with certain answers to fit the different levels of speaking and listening. I will keep in mind of these aspects when I plan the next activity for the course.
Juyoung's activity
Stars for the activity:
In Juyoung's activity, each students received a paper with some personal questions. We had to fill them in, and then in groups of three, decide on one answer and all of the members had to pretend that the answer belonged to them. One team would read out the question and the answer, and the other team would have to guess to who the answer would belong.
Each team scored 1 points, since each team got two chances. There was a fun incident where the student from other team's favorite artist was BTS. Our team asked two students to name all the members of the group, and the answers from the students were different. One said Rap Monster, and the other said RM. One of our group members suddenly argued that Rap Monster recently changed his name into RM, and argued that only the fan would know of this fact. The student who said RM turned out to be the one who wrote BTS as the answer, and it was very funny(although it does not look as fun as text).
When the answer of our team belonged to me, one of the members of the other team pointed out that the answer was mine because I was grinning, but it was not really because of that reason; I was still internally laughing internally at the RM incident.
Therefore, this activity was meaningful in that the students able to discuss and create speaking text with purposes. It was also comprehensible, since no one was highly confused with the text written on the papers. To add, the activity served its pedagogical goal to make students discuss and speak with intentions, while serving real-life goals of explaining oneself. The students had to be involved in both speaking and writing actively, and actually enjoyed the process tremendously. I believe that this aspect of the activity helps the students to reduce their anxiety of speaking in a foreign language in front of other people rather than just introducing themselves in during class. In other words, I thought that this activity will be a great substitute for the awkward self-introduction sessions.
The instructor was able to control the amount of time given. Nevertheless, the problem regarding this activity was that the students were too closely seated, so the other team could easily recognize the answers. Later, the students figured out their own ways to hide their answers, but I believe that this aspect should be pointed out before the activity, such as notifying the students to shuffle up their answer sheets before discussions. Another suggestion is to print the questions on thicker papers, as the paper was thin enough to show the written letters on the other side of the paper. The instructor also struggled explaining the activity, so I thought that she would have to clarify her activity by being more detailed. To add further, I thought that she lacked too much confidence - her activities were great, it just seemed that she needed to believe more in herself.
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
RE: Teaching Listening and Speaking (Spring 2019) - Week 5 Reflections for Wonderful
The order of the activity is 1st. making two groups of 3 and giving every student a piece of paper written 4 personal questions, 2nd. letting every student write the answers to the questions, 3rd. having each group choose two best answers among 12 answers and then letting each group tell the other group one of the answers. When the first group tell the answer to the other group, all the first group members needed to pretend that the answer is theirs. When the other group hear the answer, they are supposed to guess whose answer it belongs to. To find out whose answer it is they can ask some questions to the other group members. Two groups take turns after they find out whose answer it is.
With this activity I expected students to get to know each other, so that they could be more familiar with each other. Also, I hoped that students might be interested in playing this activity and participate actively, debate about whose answer it is and ask a lot of questions to find out whos telling a lie and a truth. Through this activity, I thought that students could practice both meaningful listening and speaking.
However, my plan wasnt very successful. First, I think my instructions werent clear enough. Some students got confused and they didnt know what to do. Besides, one of the teams had similar answers to their personal questions, so they had difficulty choosing 2 best answers. In addition to this, I wasnt a good instructor. I kept forgetting that I was an instructor and I failed to make students focus on the activity. I should have guided them to come back to the activity when they had personal chats which were not related to the activity. Also, I should have encouraged passive students to participate more actively.
Being a material designer and an instructor was much harder than I thought. My first activity plan was not that successful but I hope that the second material hosting would be more interesting and meaningful.
Sojins material
At the beginning of the activity, Sojin gave an instruction paper to every students. The game procedure is that among 6 players, first player is blind folded and the other 5 players arent. Then, five players are shown a card written a name on it. The name can be a real person, a movie character or any person you could know. After that, the first player takes off her blind and asks each 5 player only one question to find out who the name is. To try to get the name easily, Yes or No questions are not preferred. Six players take turns and you can get a point when you name correctly.
The activity was not unfamiliar subject so it was easy to follow and interesting. Every students participated in the activity lively. It was also fun.
The only down side is that we finished the game in 20 minutes. Everybody got the answers easily. So, it would have been better if the material could have been more challenging, or the name could have been a little more difficult to guess. For example, a name like a politician, an inventor, 18thcenturys musician, or an historical person. And then a slightly changed rules like giving an opportunity to ask more than one question to each person could have led more talking and listening.
As we finished the first game in 20 minutes, we did an extra activity. Every student tells their personal problem and then the others give some advices or tips to the person by using the word should, shouldnt, better, better not. However, most students had no idea what problem they should tell. After the first activity, students were not focused on the second activity. So, when we plan an activity, I think we need to carefully design the activity so that we should not fail on time allotment.
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
RE: Teaching Listening and Speaking (Spring 2019) - Week 5 Reflections for Wonderful
Sojin's activities began first. The activity included the names of various characters or celebrities in Sojin's notebook, one student covering his eyes, and only the other students could see the names. And the student who covered his eyes could point to the rest of the students one by one and ask questions about the character. All but one students answered correctly. The activity was fun, but it was a bit difficult without any examples at the time of the question. The scope of the question is wide, as it had to be answered by guessing the correct answer. And one student deliberately used Japanese when the other student answered the correct answer, which seemed to be interesting but deliberately difficult to guess. I thought some restrictions were needed on this part. However, overall, I think all students were able to participate in the activity and practice speaking and listening, and the answer was the right answer for anyone to guess. I think that all students' participation in activities to answer the question has effectively achieved their educational goals. After the first activity, Sojin suggested the second activity as she seemed to have time. The activity was for students to talk about what they thought was a problem and for other students to And when giving advice, you had to use "should/shouldn't" or "better/better not." They started the activity in pairs of three people each. Our group has talked about only three problems in sufficient time. Most of them seemed to think for a long time, and they didn't say enough. The next group seemed to be led by the professor, but our team didn't have enough role to lead. If I were a host, I think students would ask questions or give more details when they were quiet. Time passed quickly, and the second activity seemed to have ended without an exact goal, which was regrettable. If the question had been given an example, it would not have been difficult.
Jiwon's activity
In Jiwon's activity, the students were given a piece of paper containing four questions. The students had time to write down each of answers. And then formed groups of three of every member of our group and think about the an answer for acting. This is rule for this acitivity. When one team read the question and answer, the other team matched whose answer it was. The question seemed to be quite a personal question and, in a way, it seemed easy. It didn't work as well as I thought to act as if it was my answer that wasn't my answer. And there was something a little unpleasant about the celebrity question. I just wrote down a singer named BTS who was my favorite, and when the other team asked me to say the all names of the member for guessing. I just told them a name I knew, and I felt like someone was laughing at me. She seemed to keep teasing until another question began and ended. I wish I could have done it in moderation, but I thought the host would have a little control over what she said. Everything was smooth except this incident. Both thinking and speaking to ask questions think that all students have increased their participation and that they have achieved educational goals that correspond to speaking and listening. However, I think the amount of questions that were a little bit disappointing. Compared to time, I think the amount of questions was an environment that was easy for the other team to guess. For example, if there were 10 questions, I think students could have posed a variety of questions without having to ponder which one to choose from.
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
RE: Teaching Listening and Speaking (Spring 2019) - Week 5 Reflections for Wonderful
I prepared two activities for this week and the name of the first activity was Who Am I. The only material that I prepared for the first one was a sketchbook. There were several names of famous characters, singers or any celebrities whom everyone would recognize easily. To talk about the instruction briefly, whoever takes the questions should close her eyes, so that she cannot see the word written on the sketchbook. And then, the one who will be the main player is allowed to ask each person only one question to find out who she is. But, the students should try to avoid yes or no questions.
For this activity, I tried to make each student takes turns asking and answering. Everything was worked out as planned, but one of my great regrets was that some of the students broke the rule which was to avoid asking yes or no questions. The reason why I set this kind of rule was that I believe that open-ended questions would be more efficient to find the evidence of the problem. Even though I knew who were against the rule, I was not strict on them. At this point, I felt that I should be rigorous in keeping the rule next time. Another thing was that I failed to control the time. I thought it is going to be enough for them to play for half an hour, but the result was away from my expectation and there was time left. I should have adjusted the time. Fortunately, I prepared one more activity just in case. It seemed like all students really enjoyed playing the previous activity, so I was a little bit sorry for them. However, I dont think we just wasted time.
After conducting the activity, I felt that it was worthwhile because it served the pedagogical goal very well which is to develop questioning skills for students and help them speak enthusiastically. Above all things, the interaction between the students stood out the most. Overall, I think I did a pretty good job on my activity and all of the students in my group seemed that they fully enjoyed it. I will keep in mind what I have to be improved to be a perfect instructor and make it better for the next time.
Jiwons activity
In Jiwons activity, each student got a little piece of paper and there were some personal questions that we had to answer on it. She divided us into two groups (in groups of three) and then we had to pick only one answer among three of peoples answers. After that, all of the members had to pretend that the answer is theirs. When one team reveals both the question and the united answer, the opposing team had to guess who the owner of the answer is. To be honest, it was difficult to understand the rule at a time although the instructor explained it several times. I remember that one of our group members helped every player to understand the rule with a comprehensible explanation instead of the instructor. At this point, she seemed to be a little bit lacking in responsibility as an instructor.
While doing this activity, every student seemed that they could speak very confidently and actively. Actually, all of the questions on the paper were not abstruse at all because they were all about self-introduction, so it was so comprehensible to us. I thought that it could be one of the nicest ice-breaking activities. Furthermore, she was really good at controlling time and it was meaningful for everyone because I felt that the interaction between the students plays a large role in this activity. Overall, Jiwons activity well served its pedagogical goal which was to speak actively and confidently. If she develops a strong sense of responsibility as an instructor or improves her self-confidence for the next activity, everything would be perfect.
I liked both of the activities tis week and in many ways they were similar. So Jin did a Guess Who guessing game and Jiwon hosted a task where teams had to guess about the history or beliefs of other team members. So both were guessing games,. They were both designed to be one with no specialized content. That is, the content was of a highly familiar person nature so everyone can do it without any kind of special preparation. And both were interesting and egaging for the students. So, they both worked as fluency-based types of activities. And in the Materials Hosting we are getting allot of those.
The possible improvements for them also seem to be similar. The biggest thing would be to try to expand out the content to include things that are not only personal. This goes for the people who we are guessing and especially for Jiwon's personal guessing. I liked the idea of trying to guess who in the group answered what. There are a, slot of sneaky strategies that can be applied and talked about. More diversity in the questions would be better.
