We reviewed the table questions with organized speech. It was a pair work. With my partner, we picked two questions among eight questions on the table. We choose question number one: If we learn from our mistakes, why are we always so afraid to make a mistake? and number seven: How would you describe your future in three words? We shared our opinion to these questions. While listening to my partner, we had to find the topic sentence and supporting sentences. Also, we had to find out some differences and similarities with my partner. While we were sharing our opinion, we had to circle the transition words which presented by host that my partner used. Finally, our group members shared what we discussed with our partner.
With reviewing the questions, we shared our opinion. There were things in common, but I was able to interact a lot while asking questions after listening different thoughts from me. I used as many words as I could to express my thoughts by sharing opinion with the questions. My partner told me the right words when I asked her the expression that I wanted to express. Our conversation became more active and plentiful by the questioning. Furthermore, we shared the context of the conversation, it could express as many ideas as possible by understanding meaning without worrying about using wrong words.
The advantage of pair work is that it enables us as much interaction as possible. When working in a group, I tend to be passive in conversation because I try to use the correct word as much as possible. But in pair work, it relieves me of the burden of correct expression and allows me to talk in English in a more comfortable atmosphere.
It was interesting and the questions on the table were all good, but I didnt circle the linking words and transition words which host presented because of the time limit. It made me so busy while listening my partners opinion, marking her topic sentence and support details, writing down the differences and similarities of our opinion. It interfered me to concentrate on conversation. So, circle the linking words would be better to be removed.
packing for the journey
We had to mark 10 useless things on the list of packing for the journey. It was a pair work and we choose one country where well travel per pair. At first, we searched about the information of the country and traveling spot to determine what to remove in the list. Our country was Greece and we searched about the weather, transportation and accommodation in Greece. Also, we talked about our travel style.
We shared a lot of information and preferences of traveling and Greece and we planned about the Greece traveling. We both like swimming and scuba diving, so we had to pack the swimsuit which is on the list for our journey. Also, we wanted to visit the Athene,ruins and hiking, so we needed to pack the sunglasses and hat because its an outside activity and the weather of Greece is hot in summer. Furthermore, we just shared about our preference about the Greece traveling like we wanted to ride horse around beach, borrow a small boat when we visit the Mycenae.
We freely talked about our experience and information about planning for the traveling in Greece and we get to know more about each other. While we talked to our group members about our plans to Greece, me and my partner supported each other while explaining to them.
It was a well-revised version of the last one. We could speak with specific region and topic with pair, and it is well connected with the checking list activity. However, there was less time for the third pair to share their discuss, so it would be good for our members to have same time limit to share the idea.
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
RE: Teaching Listening and Speaking (Spring 2019) - Week 8 Reflections for Super
Originally, I did activity two truth and a lie. In that activity, each group members was supposed to find what was lie among the three statements. For example, when a student presented three statements such as I have a dog, I was born in Daegu, and I enjoy hiking the statements were more complex than this, but I used these questions to give example. I did this activity to get the atmosphere of the class brighter by getting to know each other. Through this activity, people in our group had to give the reason why they thought a statement was not true. By that, all people had to think about the way to support their opinion.
I wanted to develop two aspects of this activity : First, the fact that students can get to know each other -which reduces anxiety and would be beneficial for academic achievement for learner. Second, students can tell what they think with supporting reasons, which can be developed to well-organized speech.
Therefore, I prepared an activity by which students can know about each other more, and can explain what they think in an organized way. I made some questions and let the students of our group discuss the questions. I prepared the questions by which speakers can share their perspective toward their lives, and I provided them with worksheet to summarize the partners speech and find the similarities and differences. I think the points that I wanted to improve was found because I saw groups started to talk on the questions that they chose. Also, they found the differences/similarities of what they spoke with their partner.
However, among the principles MINUS, I felt my activity lacked Avoid Overloading Learners with Too Much New Language. I think just comparing and contrasting and summarizing the thought was enough. I wanted to let the students focus on forms and learn or remind themselves some transitions. However, I think that that was not a good choice. In detail, after I explained this activity to the group members, everyone was confused and kept on asking how to do this activity. I think the problem was that I provided two pages of transition list that the group members can refer on, but the volume looked so big that nobody seemed to be referring on the transition list.
I think I wanted to give too much things within the limited time of thirty minutes, which was not a good decision. I will always keep in mind the principle 3 from MINUS : Avoid Overloading Learners with Too Much New Langauge. Actually, I personally think that deliberate attention to language features is important, so thats why I tried to include the transition list, which was however not beneficial. For me, it seems that I didnt get the concepts of Focusing on forms, and deliberate attention to language features. I dont know what those things actually mean when those were worked out in activities in real-world. How can we draw students attention to the language features without rotes and drills involved? Its still a question to me.
2.The strongest point of this activity was that it lets us to speak about the topic in the real-world context. By doing activity in the real-life context, everyone could share their perspective toward the world and felt like we were using that language out of the class.
We searched what we could do in other countries, and after that we excluded the stuffs that would not be needed for our travel in that countries. That gave me feeling that I was actually preparing for the travel.
However, although this activity was real-world context, it seemed to me that the list provided didnt reflect on the special situation of countries that we were visiting in that activity. That is, it was impossible to apply the things in the list to the specific climate, activities that we could do in that country. If the choice from the list varied depending on countries, it would have been better and the activity would have been related to the world more.
To add, it would have been better if we talked about some countries that were familiar to us. For example, it took some time to search on the internet about what was in the countries that we picked. If we were able to share some information on the countries we visited or we were from, it could have been able to make us feel that we are speaking in a real-world context.
