Facultad CIencias de la Educación
María Ignacia Aguilar Haase Teacher’s Name: Heather Bruyere Major: English Teaching
Personal Logbook March 11th, 2015 During the theoretical class of PIP VI, in the second module, we practiced analyzing videos of EFL/ESL classes, by following the Stella Ting – Toomey’s Describe, Interpret, Evaluate Process, while answering some questions given in the handout we were working with. While analyzing the classes, it was possible to observe or guess how was the environment in the classroom, thinking about how students and teacher may feel during the lesson, among other aspects that allowed me to reflect about the challenges that teachers face at the moment of giving a lesson. Moreover, it helped me to take into account certain strategies to work on the difficulties that I may face in the future, as a teacher – to – be doing my teaching practice experience, upon what was discussed with my classmates in the class. The analysis of the videos was a good way to have a look at different realities all over the world in terms of teaching. March 18th, 2015 In the theoretical class of PIP VI, we started with a pair activity that consisted on one person had to run to the walls and read some quotes, and then retell what it said to our classmate, who was in charge of writing it. The activity involved rote memorization, due to the absence of “real understanding” of what we were reading. After that, we read about Content Based lessons, and we analyzed a Content Based lesson plan, identifying which skill was being worked in each section of the lesson. Finally, we gave examples of some activities where the four skills were integrated. The first activity was a good way to warm up, because it allowed us to communicate, practicing the four skills at the same time. In addition, considering the time we started the class, it was an excellent way to wake us up. Regarding the content based lesson plan, the analysis allowed us to get to know another way to teach English, as well as having an idea of how to work the four skills during a lesson, emphasizing some sub skills at the same time. March 25th, 2015 During the second part of the theoretical class of PIP VI, we started the module with a task - based activity, which consisted on forming groups of three, and together decide how many things from a list we would save, without exceeding 20 kg, from a ship that is sinking. After that, we analyzed a picture, which led to talk about “Dealing with large multilingual classes”. The activity about the boat was entertaining, as well as really useful because it was both communicative and educative. Moreover, it was a good example to get to
know the Task – based method and it is supposed to be applied in the class. In relation to the analysis of the picture, the discussion guided by the teacher contributed to make us “read” a bit more of different techniques that might be possible to use, in order to work better with large classes. April 1st, 2015 Today’s theoretical class was based on microteachings. Both of them were done following task – based methodology. The first one consisted on trying to arrange sits in a restaurant’s table, following some directions given by the teachers. The second one consisted on choosing a person and candidate him/her as a future president, sharing his/her proposals, and giving reasons to support our choice. In general, both microteachings were well done, using interesting activities that allowed us to produce a lot of language. In addition, the teams gave clear enough instructions that helped us to engage quickly with the task we were assigned, motivating us to work in a better way. April 8th, 2015 The theoretical class was again based on microteachings, applying the same methodology we were asked to. The first microteaching was based on a method called “Thinking hats”, which allows students to analyze problems from different points of view. The activity was done in groups of four, and each group was given 4 situations to work with. The following microteaching was also developed in small groups, and consisted on deciding whether some situations were risky, slightly risky, or not risky, classifying them according to colors representing each category. By the end of the activity, the students – teachers asked us to write some tips in order to avoid risky situations while using internet. Analyzing the two microteachings at the same time, it is possible to say that both achieved an aim of communication, due to both activities were catchy and interesting for us, considering that teachers – students introduced topics that were appropriate for us, as their students. April 9th, 2015 This was my first day going to my teaching center. I was sent to Colegio Santo Tomás, and I was asked to work with two 6th grade classes, of around 32 students each of them. As it was my first day with my guide teacher and the students, I only observed how the class was developed. While observing the class, I realized that one of the groups I will be working with has problems with behavior, due to students are really talkative, and there are also some students with attention deficit disorder. The class started with the teacher doing a short brainstorm of some vocabulary they had seen the previous class, in order to start working with the class book. The
teacher set certain time to complete the tasks, and then checked all of them on the board, with the students. The class was entirely done in English, although students seemed to be in their silent period, as their production of English is minimum. The idea of the brainstorming before start working was a good way to recall students’ previous knowledge, to connect it with the activities that followed. It allowed the teacher to practice pronunciation at the same time. In addition, the correction of the activities caught students’ attention, because the teacher asked them to go to the board and write their answers, even though it may take longer than it is expected. April 15th, 2015 During the theoretical class, we were taught about different ways of Testing and Assessing, and their differences. Among the concepts that we were presented, we learnt about the difference between: testing and assessment, informal and formal assessment, formative and summative assessment, non – referenced and criterion referenced tests, discrete – point and integrative testing, traditional and alternative assessment. We also learnt what is communicative language testing, performance based testing, computer based testing, and what were the multiple intelligences that exist. The examples given were an interesting way to make us see that there are different ways in which we can assess if our students are actually learning or not, and how to do it during the process, in order to give them feedback that might eventually help them to improve their learning process, being more aware of it. As it was a class to present new content, it was mainly teacher – centered, but at the end we were asked to work in groups in a communicative way, to first brainstorm about typical test tasks in English, then make a list of traditional and alternative assessment tasks, mentioning advantages and disadvantages of both. Finally, we were asked to share if we had had any computer based test, and to mention the advantages and disadvantages of it. April 16th, 2015 During my second day at my teaching practice center, my contribution to the class was mainly related to help the teacher to control students’ behavior, monitor the activities they were developing, and solve any doubt they may have had during the process. They worked with their school books, repeating the same methodology they used the previous week. It seems that both students and the teacher are used to working in the same way, which makes think that implementing a different methodology to do different activities may not work with the students, due to the implication of taking them out of their “comfort zone”. The class should be less teacher – center, and more students – center, giving them more opportunities to produce language, in order to improve their oral communicative skills.
April 22nd, 2015 In the theoretical class, there were done three microteachings. The first one consisted on the class – group divided into two big groups, and each one was given a picture about a famous person. What we had to do with it was that each of us had to give a characteristic to describe him/her, so the other group had to guess who the person was. The activity was entertaining because it was a challenge for both groups to first listen to each other, and then try to guess who they were talking about. In addition, it was absolutely communicative, because each person was forced to share an idea. The following microteaching was developed by first watching a video of some important people through history. Then, we were divided into groups of three, and each person was given a flashcard with different characters, and a piece of information about him/her. Finally, the rest of the group had to ask some questions and, by the answers that were given, guess who the person was. This task was motivating and challenging too, because made us think carefully to make appropriate questions, in order to get as much information as possible to guess who was the person they were pretending to be. The last one started with an audio of a flight attendant giving instructions. Then, we were divided into three groups, and each group was asked to choose a destination to travel to, for a man with certain characteristics, among a list that we were giving through brochures that we had to read. Finally, we had to give reasons to support our choice. This microteaching involved the usage of our four skills, which made it the best activity done. It was well planned, and absolutely effective in terms of communication. April 23th, 2015 I did not have classes at school due to the Calbuco Volcano’s eruption. April 29th, 2015 During the PIP VI class at university, we were presented different principles of assessment and ways to evaluate learning. Because of time, we were introduced only three out of five criteria. The three we talked about were Practicality, Reliability, and Validity. It seems that the class’ aim was to get to know the things that we should take into consideration at the moment of designing our evaluation instruments, and so for it was mainly teacher centered. Students’ participation came only at the beginning of the class, when we were asked to give some ideas about “how we knew if a test was effective, appropriate, useful, or a good test”. After the brainstorming, our participation ended up. It could have been more communicative or dynamic.
April 30th, 2015 At school, students took a test, which was created to evaluate contents from two different units. The test was mainly focused on the usage of vocabulary, and the correct structure of present perfect tense. The test consisted on ten items, including two listening tasks, which were read by the teacher. It seems that it was done in order to help them, by using an adapted and clear accent. The rest of the test was mostly based on “fill in the gaps” exercises, based on sentences given, and also with short texts that then they used to answer some reading comprehension questions. My performance during the class was only being able to solve students’ doubts, and making sure they were not trying to cheat. May 6th, 2015 In the theoretical class of PIP VI, we continued with the two types of assessment that were pending from last class, in order to finish with the content. The criteria we talked about were Authenticity and Wash back. Those concepts refer to the usage of as natural language as possible, and the feedback that a test gives to both teacher and student about their performance, respectively. After that, we were asked to work in pairs to analyze a test, scoring each item of it, giving reasons to support our choices. We did our analysis based on the five criteria we had already seen. The exercise we did at the end of the class was good, because it made us think about the complexity of the task, and which ability may be more difficult for the students, and by taking those aspects into considerations, we should assigned score to each item in a test. May 7th, 2015 While working with my students at school, as they had to check their answers of their test, I was in charge of guiding part of the general correction, because my guide teacher had to leave the classroom for a while. The correction took the whole class due to students’ misbehavior. In relation to my performance during the class, I have to say that had difficulties trying to keep silence during the activity, so it means that I have to work on my classroom management skills. Students in general were really motivated to participate and go to the board and write their answers, but all of them wanted to do everything, which made them talk too much, and start to stand up in order to get my attention.
May 13th, 2015 During this theoretical class, in the first period of the subject, we again continued talking about assessment, and now we analyzed types of test, according to the five criteria we had already seen. The exercise allowed us to speak, due to it was a pair activity. In addition, the activity itself was a good way to make us think about how we should really create our instruments of evaluation, in order to make them coherent to what we want to assess. Moreover, it was a good way to compare different kinds of instruments, and to put into practice our criteria as future teachers, while grading each one. In brief, it was a practical task that involved lots of students’ reflections, which made it a good activity to recall previous knowledge. May 14th, 2015 When I had to work with my students at school today, I had to help my guide teacher to control the class, due to students’ constant misbehavior, while they were supposed to be working on their reading fluency, which is the new skill they are trying to improve. The reading practice was divided into three steps: First, they had to listen to an audio file which was a guide for them to get to know the pronunciation of each word of the text, while following the reading. Then, they were asked to read the whole text as a group, all together, being the teacher the one in charge of setting the pace, and modeling the pronunciation as well. Finally, the teacher asked a couple of students to read the story. From my point of view, the activity was well developed because it helped students to receive input about how they were supposed to pronounce words, as the teacher was the one showing them how to do it. In addition, the activity itself allowed the teacher to receive feedback on common mispronounced words that needed more practice for their final evaluation.