Last Friday we were introduced to a new activity, Alligator River. We watched a short video about 5 people, and then were asked to rate the 5 in terms of their character, from least to most reprehensible. Then we were asked to discuss our ratings within our groups (4-5 people per group), explain the rationale behind our ratings, and try to arrive at a consensus. At some point we also brainstormed ways to agree and disagree, ranging from informal to formal, gentle to firm, and the idea was to use those phrases in our negotiations. Additionally, we had also been given cards with titles of group roles and asked to brainstorm other roles and duties that would be useful in group work. We were supposed to incorporate those group roles into the activity, but because my group had such an animated discussion about the ratings, with all 4 members engaged in the conversation, we didn’t stick to the group roles we’d chosen earlier. In fact, I didn’t realize until the end of class that all 3 components were part of the same activity, and had taken them as 3 separate activity ideas.
I’ve been jotting down activity ideas that I learn in all of my MIIS classes for use in future ESL/EFL classes , and Alligator River seems like the sort of activity that can be used and adapted in many ways, whether as the main activity, focusing on specific structures or vocabulary, or as a review of a previous lesson’s topic, or one of those fun activities to be kept in mind for those days when students have finished the lesson much more quickly than expected, and an engaging activity is needed to end the class on a high note.
First I thought of a few ways that the activity could be adapted for an adult ESL class, intermediate level. If the topic for the class was expressing agreement and disagreement, AR would work perfectly as the fluency activity. However, if I were working with students who for various reasons weren’t comfortable talking about anything related to sex, I would adapt the story in some way, possibly saying that Sinbad coerced Abigail into robbing someone in order to earn a ride across the river. The story could be presented as a recording that the students listen to, or could be typed up and one student from each group could read the story to their group, or students could take turns reading the story aloud. Simpler language would be used to describe the rating system for the characters; depending on the vocabulary of the students and prior work on comparatives and superlatives, it could range from very good— very bad, or most innocent to most guilty. After the ratings and the group discussion, I could do a final informal assessment of their use of the agree/disagree phrases by asking a student to give their opinion of who was the best, etc., and ask the next student to respond with agreement or disagreement, adding his/her opinion, and so on, in a response chain around the class.
If teaching students who are comfortable talking about infidelity, a couple of variations could be used. One would be to use two versions of the story in the class, one in which the unfaithful character is a woman, and the other in which it is a man. The two stories could be split between groups, and part of the final discussion could focus on checking to see if the ratings were drastically different between the two groups, and why. That could be a great lead-in to an upcoming topic on families, gender roles, relationships, etc.
In higher-level classes, this could lead into the idea of break-out groups that Peter suggested, with tables focused on topics such as gender roles, ethics in society, etc.
Another variation in a closely-knit ESL class with at least a high-intermediate level, would be changing the story completely, to focus on “illegal acts”, with the characters breaking the law for various reasons: to save time (breaking the speed limit)/to make money (hiring people w/o documents and paying them substandard wages)/to help her family (immigrating w/o documents to be able to feed family), etc. Students could discuss their ratings from worst to least serious crimes. The follow-up discussion could focus on topics about immigration, perceptions of immigrants (documented and undocumented), reasons for immigration, immigration laws, etc.
Lastly, the activity involving group roles could either be incorporated into general class practice, or grow out of a discussion with students about class rules, class goals, etc. I love the idea about having a rotating Silent Facilitator in order to ensure that all students have a chance to participate, and that one student isn’t dominating the discussion and/or their peers.
-Willow Barnosky