Just like the previous activity, the host brought a sheet of paper with various speaking activities written on it. Since we had to make a pair of two to do the conversation activities which were part of the activities in the paper, the host participated as a member of the activity.
There was no striking difference compared to the previous one. I think this was because there was no such need to modify from the former activity. The host only changed the number in the dice that can make move on to the next position. Last time, there were numbers from minus 3 to minus 1(though the host changed it in the middle of the activity)and it was hard to move on to the next position when someone rolls the dice and gets the numbers like minus 3. Therefore, the host improved the rule by allowing only minus 1 in the dice. And it got much better.
The activity was fun and I felt it would definitely help participants to improve the speaking skills through diverse speaking activities that speaker suggested. Not only were there conversation activities based on real life situation, but also there were activities speaking out our own opinion and experience. The only thing that I felt needed improvement was that there was nothing left to do for a group that had moved to the end of the position because of the big number of dice they got.
<Who am I>
I am the host of this activity. Since this was the second time of this activity being as a host, I read all of the feedback that participants have suggested and tried to come up with better activity by revising the former one.
Based on the feedback given by the group members, I summarized the problems of my activity into 2 and tried to come up with the solutions, being stick to the former activity.
To start with, the problem was about the card I gave out to every member as I start the game. I had to attach it somewhere in the body so that everyone except the person who got the card. I cut the tape with the scissors while they were doing the game, intervening from time to time and attached whenever they started every round. I felt it was confusing and bothering since it was not easy for me to involve and instruct the rules in the process of the activity thoroughly. So rather than attaching the paper with the tape everytime, I got the the post it paper, which made the process faster and more convenient.
Next problem of the previous activity was in the rule to ask only 10 questions to other members to know about their own card. I allowed everyone to give hints including yes or no answer. However, there were several problems in this rule. Initially, since the activity was focused on questioner, the other participants tended to participate in a rather passive way since it was their rule to give answer as a response to the question. In addition, this activity mostly lead group members to have a tendency to practice only short conversation. Also, it was bit difficult to count the number of questions since sometimes questioner made sequence of questions. Whats more, time spent on every round varied depending on how much time it took for questioner to make question. So I changed the rule to freely interact without any limitation of number or form of question and added new rule, limiting the time within 2 minutes per person. As a result, since there are 5 members in my group except me, every round perfectly ended within 10 minutes unless they get the question so quickly. Actually we were able to end 4 rounds since one round whose theme was about professors in English department was so easy and familiar that everyone got the answer as I started to count time.
Frankly speaking, I thought the second activity which I revised based on my memory and feedback of other members, was successful and lot better than the former one. I thought limiting time into two minutes was an essential key which made my activity a lot better.
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
RE: Teaching Listening and Speaking (Spring 2019) - Week 8 Reflections for Amazing
This week, I introduce a board game again that can improve students real-world speaking skills. Compared to the last time, I tried to make a lot of changes, but I kept the rule and form of the activity. As seeing peer feedback and reflecting on myself, I thought how I could develop into a more advanced and effective speaking game. In fact, I was satisfied last hosting session because students participated in board game well and enjoyed clearing the missions when playing the game.
At first, I changed most of the missions because it would be felt boring and not fun if I do the same missions twice. I maintained the big structure of the mission such as making a dialogue with partner and answering questions with more than four sentences, but I added questions to select preferred one between two situations(words). In the first hosting, I used questions which could introduce themselves by answering to questions. However, this time I tried to increase the difficulty by using a more real-life and virtual situation.
Second, four members except me participated in the game last time, but there were five players except me this time, so I proceeded the game and participated in game at the same time. As a participant, I played the game and it was a great opportunity to evaluate the game in more depth. Some missions were harder than I expected and a little confusing what they were specifically asking. To solve this problem, I thought that I had to write the instruction of each mission in detail and clearly.
In addition, I put -1, -2 on the dice last time, so the game slowed down, but this time I put only -1 on the dice. The weakness of the activity is that it is difficult to control the speed of the game because number of the dice is random. Also, one team who reached the goal faster than the other had to wait the rest game. I should have thought more about how to control the speed of this game.
Overall, I think it became more clear and meaningful contrast to the last time because I provided a more difficult and diverse missions. It was a good chance to think about educational activities and materials from the view of students and instructors while planning and proceeding the game myself.
<Who am I>
Seo Young introduced again an interesting speaking game with revised instruction paper. She seemed to have made some differences in the game to make up for the problem of the last hosting. Similar to last time, we could choose randomly the paper with the topic of real-world things such as popular restaurant near to Sookmyung uni., professors name, singers, and famous area. After I choice one, I could not see the paper and others explain the answer according to my guessing questions.
This time she prepared easier words and had strict time limits. Two minutes time limit was kept accurately using the smartphone stopwatch. And last time she used tape to attach the paper on students body, so the paper detached well, but this time she used post-it paper to make the activity convenient.
I was able to answer the question more easily this time than last time. Perhaps it is because the difficulty of words and topics has become easier to guess. On the round of guessing professors name, I could deduce my answer by looking at other peoples name paper. The most interesting round was guessing the name of restaurants, which I failed to guess based on the others answers. However, explaining and answering about the restaurant was the most fun.
However, I think it would be better to keep the last level of difficulty to prevent students from just guessing the correct answers without explanation or question. In addition, she wrote the name on post-it, but it would be better if she had written it in English. Overall, the game was meaningful and fun because we improve the explanation skills which describes it in indirect way. Also, it was the activity explaining and guessing things that were actually around us or familiar things, so we could more immersed to play game.
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
RE: Teaching Listening and Speaking (Spring 2019) - Week 8 Reflections for Amazing
Similar to that of our previous class, another two hosts led today's class. Who am I was the first activity between the two. The first thing I want to mention is that it was very clear that the host had thought about the level of difficulty for each question. She had rated each of her questions with stars beside each question: two or three stars for relatively easy questions and five stars for the ones requiring more thoughtful process, for example. I liked the point that our host had mixed both easier and more challenging ones for the questions.
In this first half of our class, the host herself took part in the activity both as a player and as an instructor, which is another thing I really appreciated. She did not sit beside simply asking or guiding through the game; instead, she also participated by pairing up with one of the players in our group. This has created somewhat more active and energetic atmosphere.
Overall, her efforts were clearly shown throughout the whole session; it was clear that our host had accommodated all the feedbacks from how she had hosted in the previous round. However, I would have slightly changed two questions: talking about "your favorite season" and "the country you want to visit". Again, considering the average level of our group members (from intermediate to slightly advanced), those two questions seemed a bit too simple. It would have been better if they were asking for more specific, detailed answers like "what would you specifically prepare or bring for visiting certain country you would like to visit and why". The rest was completely fine.
Who am I
Moving on to the second activity, Who am I, the first good thing I would like to point out is that it was clear that the host had thought about the intended players: Sookmyung university students. Perhaps, students outside the boundary of our school might not have known well about the restaurants and the professors, of course. However, since we were mostly familiar with the professors from the English department, we were able to engage in more as a group together. Meanwhile, many if not most people are familiar and feel comfortable towards talking about food, which made a more cheerful environment within our group.
Considering that we are all from the English department and that there are not millions of different professors, guessing about the professors' names were somewhat too easy. Some even guessed their ones right away after looking at the paper with the names of other professors. Yet, I liked the point where the host intended to not let us say if the professor is a male or a female. This showed me that she had thought of the level of difficulty as for each question.
The whole process seemed to lean more towards on activity than a task. Still, I really appreciate that our host did not include any distinguishing limitations like using certain words or grammatical rules. This made it more similar to the real world situations; in most cases, we are not limited to either saying specific words or excluding certain phrases while speaking (well of course, not including taboo words or bad expressions). Additionally, only about one minute and thirty seconds to two minutes were left after finishing our second session; this showed that the host managed the time well just like how todays first host had done.
However, if I had to come up with one suggestion, I would prepare one or two more themes considering that some themes like guessing professors names are relatively easier and would end quickly, which might lead to having much more time left than how I would have planned to allocate my time for the activity. The rest was totally fine. I really liked all the topics.
