Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Observation 1 - 3rd year - Colegio C. - Methods2 - 2009

Observation 1 - 3rd year - Colegio C. - Methods2 - 2009

Ratings: (0)|Views: 66|Likes:
Published by Shorli83
First observation on a 40-minute lesson in 3rd year of Colegio C., CABA, 2009.
First observation on a 40-minute lesson in 3rd year of Colegio C., CABA, 2009.

More info:

Published by: Shorli83 on May 27, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





LCB – TTC – Methods2Tasks for Teacher Education, Taner and Green, Longman, 1999Unit 2, Task 6 Telescopic or microscopic viewing?Class Observation #1
Colegio C. (A-11) May 12
 , 2009Class: 3
year ............................................................. No. of learners:
 Age of learners: 15/16-year-olds ................................ Length of lesson: 40 minutes......... Level: IntermediateObserver: Yohana Solis ..............................................Teacher observed: GB
List all materials and equipment used in this lesson (e.g. textbook, blackboard, audio-visual aids).
Copy of the test (see Appendix A)
Posters with irregular verbs
What do you think the aim of the lesson was? Do you think the teacher's objectives wereachieved? Give reasons.
Since the teacher had 80 minutes with the class and two different plans, she gave the option of whatto do first to the students. They agreed to have the test first and then to start working with the book.It was really great to give the students the choice; this gives us the clue of the affective domainteacher’s objectives. It was pretty clear that for her, lower the affective filter before the test, bymaking them feel they are deciding whatever was best for them, was the most important goal in thatclass. As regards the cognitive objective for the first 40 minutes was to have them experienced acommunicative test. This could be observed not only in the test format, a fable as the ones they hadbeen working with in class, but also to the approach the teacher had at the end of the test. It wasclear that her objective was that the students react to the fable, so she started asking questions aboutit:
How many people were/ were not familiar with this fable?
Do you remember the characters in the story?
Did you get what the bear said?
Do you agree with the moral? Although students were not expecting this type of test, or at least they were not used to it, they couldhandle it quite good. They were allowed to resort to the posters when dealing with irregular verbs. Itseemed as if it were the first time in their English classes they were going through a test that was notevaluating memory skills as regards irregular verbs, but a comprehensive understanding of the use of tenses. It is important to highlight that this was a success oriented test; they found it quite simple andby the end of the test they were already calculating their scores.
How much time did the teacher talk compared to the amount of time learners spoke(e.g. 50-50%)?
Since it was a test, the time was not meant to speak; however, since it was a 15-minute test, there were plenty of time for speaking warm up and test follow up. While carrying out the warm up activity, the
teacher got most of the answers in their mother tongue or through body language. After the test, whenthe teacher engaged in a more active role, they were eager to know the answers for the test and theteacher managed well to get them say the answers aloud. All in all I could balance the talking into a50-50%, considering the students as a group. It is important to highlight, however, that there weresome students that were willing to participate while there were others who got engaged into smalltalks with their partners without paying attention to the teacher.
How much time did the teacher use English compared to her native language (e.g. 20-80%)?How much time did the learners use English versus their native language?
Something that really caught my attention was that the teacher used English 100% of the time, even tocall some misbehaving students attention. Equally surprising was the effort made by the students whoused English around 60-70% of the time. Whenever they were not acquainted with the structure or word they had to use, they risked themselves by inventing (e.g. Student to Observer “where do youknow her?” pointing at their teacher, instead of “where do you know her from” or “where have youmet her”).
Describe the learners' participation (very active for most of the time, etc.). How were thelearners called upon? Did any volunteer?
Regardless of the effort made by the teacher trying to get the whole class engaged to the post-testactivities, it was clear that their attention spam had been lost. Most of the students started talkingabout personal matters
or to make the matter worse, referring to the subject just to calculate their average score. However, there was a group, surprisingly the ones located at the back of the class, whowere very interested specially in getting the correct answers to their test. At first teacher tried to getvolunteered answers (i.e. oral correction) but since she was getting no response, she started to read thestory aloud and to ask comprehensive questions so as to get them back in track. Meanwhile, there wasa group of 5 students sit at the front of the class, near the door, that did not uttered a word during thewhole class, GB addressed them several times when asking questions but getting no more thanunsuccessful monosyllabic answers.
What was the general behavior and attitude of the learners during the lesson? Whatwas the general atmosphere of the class?
It was pretty clear that English classes were of their taste, considering that this class was plannedwith a written test in it, students took it as a normal class. They showed typical behavior as stress andanxiety, but it was less than expected (at least by the observer). They respected the teacher’s authorityregardless of the relaxed atmosphere once the test had finished. Students’ were listened to, and theyknew they could express their thoughts; this was clearly seen through students’ question after the testsuch as “why were we able to check with the poster on the wall?”
How often did the teacher praise her learners? How were errors handled?
There was no much error focus, but surprisingly not much prizing either. The class seemed to runsmoothly, and lack of vocabulary and/or stricter was taken as an instance of incidental teacher, evenby a simple act of teacher’s correct repetition of what had been wrongly said before.
Use part of the reverse side to draw a sketch of the classroom. Notice what is on thewalls and where any equipment is located. How are the desks arranged (in rowsfacing the blackboard, etc.)? Where is the teacher most of the time?
Use the rest of the back of this sheet to make notes on the different languageactivities in the order that they occurred (e.g. review of homework, 5 minutes,individual learners read aloud answers, teacher corrected errors).
Warm-up 7min: teacher asked several questions to students as a class
Test 13 min: individual work on given copy about an Aesop’s fable to workon tenses
Post-test discussion 10 min: class work with oral questions about genralcomprehension of the test, oral discussion with an active role of the teacheras the one asking questions to the class
Oral correction 10 min : after reading the fable aloud and stopping for eachindividual answer, the teacher decided to read the whole text with thecorrect optionsThe class didn´t finished but the lesson seems to have been planned differently for thetwo different periods.
 Appendix A

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->