Author Archives: Dylan Woods

D. Woods’ Pedagogical Repertoire

Pedagogical Repertoire

  1. Mission to the Moon/Alligator River: I have listed these two activities as a single activity because they are similar, insofar as they encourage learners to verbally negotiate and reach agreements in groups. The slight difference between the two is Mission to the Moon encourages the students to formulate logos-based arguments, whereas Alligator River encourages them to formulate ethos-based arguments. Before completing Alligator River as a class, Peter elicited expressions of agreement and disagreement according to register (formal/informal) and force; this step is crucial because it helps learners be aware of the language they need to use in order to negotiate effectively. Materials and descriptions of these activities can be found in Golub’s (2000) Making learning happen: Strategies for an interactive classroom (beginning pp. 61 and 71).
  1. Life line: Students are placed in groups of three to five. Each student receives three sticky notes, and lists (with brief writing) three major events along with the associated dates. The sticky notes are placed in chronological order to form a kind of board game. Students roll dice to move across the board. If they land on their own sticky note, each person in the group can ask them one question about the sticky note. If the student lands on another person’s sticky note, he can ask that person three questions about the event. This activity is great for building familiarity/rapport, and for helping students to practice/produce question formulation.
  1. Birthday Lineup: A kinesthetic speaking activity in which students line up in a horseshoe according to their birthdays without speaking to each other. After they have finished lining up, the students say their names and birthdays. In P&P, we first lined up based on how many languages we speak, and were able to speak with each other during the lineup. I envision myself using Birthday Lineup with beginners, perhaps having them practice lining up based on the alphabetic order of their first names (perhaps intermediate learners could discuss how many minutes it takes them to get to work, or to school).
  1. My little guidebook to huge success: Students create a guidebook containing their goals and strategies for achieving their goals. The students are shown an example guidebook, and encouraged to reflect upon and write their own set of goals or strategies, and to decorate the guidebook according to their artistic inclinations. The teacher can provide less proficient writers (and less inclined artists) with prompts written/drawn on the board, or a partially completed guidebook handout. A page in this handout could read, for example, “studying in the ESL program will help me with this, my most significant goal: _______” (taken from the MLGHS handout in P&P).
  1. Four square: This activity fosters peer-to-peer and small group spoken communication and negotiation. The teacher gives the students 4 hypothetical scenarios and 4 corresponding squares on the floor, and each student demonstrates a preference for one of the hypothetical scenarios by positioning herself/himself in the corresponding square. Students grouped in the same square then discuss their reasons for choosing the square, and create a group response to share with the class. This activity can foster type-2 conditional awareness (e.g. “if I could have lunch with Elon Musk, Hillary Clinton, the Pope, or George Clooney, I would have lunch with Elon Musk”). In P&P, “Four Square” was used primarily to build peer-to-peer rapport, and Willow and Annabelled developed a series of handout-based four square writing activities.
  1. Kinesthetic punctuation: The basic premise is one student reads a handout to a group of students, the handout has punctuation spelled out (e.g. <comma> instead of <,>), and the students perform a specific movement for each type of punctuation. The students can either be walking in a circle, or in a line side-by-side (in a line side-by-side would need to be done in a large space, such as a gymnasium or outdoors). The teacher can provide the students with examples of movements (e.g. students slow down for “comma,” stop for “period,” jump for “exclamation point,” etc.), and encourage the students to develop their own (e.g. Tae Bo-inclined students may assign a punch-kick combo to the “semi-colon”). This activity was introduced to P&P students as Workstation H in the Grand Punctuation Workshop.
  1. Squares: Ss are grouped in fours. Each student receives her/his own set of uniquely coloured squares* The groups are instructed to use the rectangles to build one square, five squares, and 11 squares. The stipulations are that all rectangles must overlap, and that students cannot touch other group members’ rectangles. By removing the possibility of touching another group member’s rectangles, the students are encouraged to verbally communicate their suggestions. I envision myself using this activity as a lesson warmer, and as practice or production of spoken politeness. This is a take on the “Cooperation Squares” game described in Golub’s (2000) Making learning happen: Strategies for an interactive classroom (p. 59).

*I am unsure how many rectangles each student should receive. Perhaps four?

  1. Gambit chips: In order to give structure to peer-to-peer reflection or feedback on written assignments and presentations, give students “gambit chips” (smallish cards) with response prompts like “to me, the main part of your argument is X” or “tell me more about X.” This is taken from Stone’s Cooperative Learning & Language Arts (p. 140), provided as a handout in P&P. I can see gambit chips facilitating many different types of conversational activities (i.e. inner-outer circle, one-on-one feedback, group feedback) for learners of various proficiency levels. Gambit chips could even help native speakers develop conversational skills, like those offered by Julian Edge’s collaborative development system.
  1. Outcome sentences: Taken from the Review and Assessment category of the SIOP model, outcome sentences are designed to encourage students to reflect on a lesson by completing one (or more) of the following sentences “I learned _____,” “I think _____,” “I wonder _____,” “I feel _____.” I believe students might enjoy writing these sentences on the board. For this, the teacher could create four columns for the four outcome sentences. Alternatively, students could write outcome sentences in class journals or on miniature white boards.
  1. Film reenactment and adaptation: This activity begins with a focus on pronunciation, subsequently focuses on writing, and returns to pronunciation. Students, in pairs or threes, begin by selecting a short clip from a TL-culturally affiliated film or show they would like to reenact. Students record or perform the reenactment in front of the class, focusing primarily on prosodic replication. The students then adjust the register of the dialogue or the identity of the characters, if not both, and record or perform the adaptation for the class. The recordings/performances offer opportunities for instructor feedback on prosody, and the adaptation scripts can be used for writing assessment/feedback. So as to avoid the promotion of stereotypes, the instructor should check-in with each group at the beginning of the adaptation process.
  1. 10 Cards: This activity facilitates vocabulary acquisition/review for course readings, and can be a good alternative to the traditional, handout-based keyword and definition matching activity. Students are grouped, and each group receives an envelope with 10 blank slips of paper. The group selects from a reading (previously read, in class or prior) 10 challenging words and writes the words and definitions on the slips, and places the slips in the envelope. Envelopes are then swapped between groups. Members in a group then take turns removing one slip from the new envelope and providing clues so the others can guess the word. If the slip-selecting student does not know the word, the slip is returned to the envelope and another slip is drawn. In order to scaffold toward this activity, the instructor should first provide the students with envelopes of ten pre-selected words and corresponding definitions, perhaps during a previous lesson.
  1. Trivia review: Trivia can be played to review a unit or entire course, for which the teacher or students create categories and questions that represent the material and the learners. Post-its can be used to represent the point-oriented categories, and the questions/prompts written or typed on a separate document, or PowerPoint can be used to show the categories and provide the learners with visual text for the questions/prompts. If students create the categories, groups can be formed, and each group can create the questions for one category. A group will then not be allowed to play its respective category during Trivia Review. Example categories from P&P, here to inspire the development of new categories for different courses, include: world cultures & languages, Bloom & Crabbe, know your classmates, Precepts, acronyms, Krashen, instructor trivia, methods in the madness, cooperative concepts.

Projects and H2H Communication

Our group of four was tasked with reaching a collective understanding of the important characteristics and dimensions of projects in a language course, and applying this understanding to planning a project for an imagined educational context.  This project plan was to be written on a piece of poster paper, specifying each step our imagined class would take towards the project’s completion. Our group was expected to present our project to the class, using our poster paper as a guide. My group distinguished itself from the other groups in two ways: (1) one of our members was a guest, a former MIIS alum and current director of a Los Angeles based English language program dedicated to helping international students transition to U.S.-based higher education, and (2) our group had nothing written on the paper when it came time to present the project. My goal here is to share the decisions my group made for the imagined educational context and project, and to describe the process by which these decisions were made. That our project never made it to the poster paper was somewhat embarrassing, but I am proud of the fact that our project and imagined context represented our shared interests and concerns regarding English language education.

Our imagined context was EFL at a university in a non-Native English (NNE) speaking country, specifically a grammar course made compulsory for students aspiring to be English language educators who met the minimum English proficiency requirements to gain entry into the university. This decision was not reached immediately. Our guest (whose contributions were greatly appreciated by me and the other group members) first asked us what contexts we expected ourselves to be teaching in upon (presumed) graduation from the M.A. TESOL program. This was an appropriate question to ask, because we would naturally be more motivated to create a project for a context in which we envision ourselves teaching. A fellow classmate and I both imagined ourselves teaching English language skills development courses at the community college level. A third classmate said that she would most likely teach grammar-focused courses in an EFL context abroad, a context in which she has previously worked and found to be challenging. I believe our group’s decision to teach in the EFL context was born of our empathy for this classmate’s experience and the challenges she anticipates returning to; the decision was also born of a shared understanding that teaching is full of challenges, and that we are better off facing challenges head on.

Like the imagined context, our group did not make decisions hastily for the project design. After much discussion, we decided the project would ask the students to create a newsletter (hardcopy or digital) for the university’s international cohort of native-English speakers (NES) who are also educators in training. This newsletter would inform the NES educators in training of the host country’s educational practices, past, present, and future. Because it is a grammar course, the newsletter would provide our learners with the opportunity to use the pattern-based grammar they would study throughout the semester. In order to make expectations clear, the teacher would provide the students with a checklist of the grammatical categories to be represented (e.g. verb tenses, passive and conditional constructions, etc.). The newsletter would be the product of all the students’ efforts (i.e. writing and editing articles, managing the placement/organization of the articles, overall design), and would thus foster peer-to-peer collaboration.  It would also foster communication between the classroom and the greater campus community.

Our group’s decision to have the students collaboratively create a newsletter-type item was made relatively quickly. We liked that it was collaborative and multimodal. Before going any further, however, our guest asked if the document would serve any real communicative purpose, smartly implying that it should. Had our guest not asked this question, I believe we would have unwittingly committed the error of designing a writing based-project that removes writing, and by extension, language, from human to human (H2H) communication. Understanding that the newsletter would need a real audience in order to have a real communicative purpose, and that this audience would need to be English literate, we imagined the NNES students attending the university and sharing an interest in education.

I recall holding a red marker in my hand while the group discussed the above-mentioned topics. If I’m not mistaken, others in the group were holding markers in their hands, too, or at least had markers within reach. Despite this access to markers, we did not commit ourselves to writing on the poster paper, not as long as decisions needed to be made about how the imagined project would meet our imagined students’ needs. These decisions mattered to us because our imagined group of learners had become, through our discussion, very real. Another, less romantic but no less real, reason why we did not use the markers was because we did not stick to our assigned roles (i.e. leader, scribe, announcer, “chaser”). Even though we failed to write on the poster paper, I would be happy to work with these individuals again, because they were effective H2H communicators, keen to communicate their own opinions and ideas, and keen to listen to the contributions of others. I do wonder, though, how we’d each respond to our imagined students hosting similar H2H discussions, and managing to not produce the newsletter.

TPR Participation and Observation

Alas, our discussion of comprehensible input has led us to the principles and practices of total physical response (TPR). TPR essentially aims to provide learners with large amounts of vocabulary through repetitive activities which require the students move (not speak) to express their understanding of the target language (TL). This method was modeled in class with Peter as a Spanish teacher and eleven TESOL colleagues, myself included, as students of Spanish.

Eleven learners (SS) sat around the teacher (T) in a semicircle. The T, standing, gave verbal cues such as tóquense las rodillas (“touch your knees”) or dense dos veultas (“turn twice”), which the SS responded to accordingly, touching their knees and spinning in circles. After instructing several body part terms in this manner, the T cued a video which showed young children dancing to a song with lyrics similar to the T’s cues (i.e. tóquense las rodillas, etc.), called Juanito baila con el dedito. The SS were able to apply their knowledge of the terms by dancing along with the video.

Then the T moved to a table which had four blocks, one red, one yellow, one blue, and one green. The T presented the colors of the blocks very deliberately, “una tabla verde, verde (holding up the green block), una tabla azul, azul (holding up the blue block),” etc. The T then produced four plastic cups numbered one, two, three, and four. The blocks were placed under the cups, and the teacher asked “dónde está la tabla roja?” This interrogative was written on the board (“dónde está la tabla roja/amarilla/azul/verde?”). Students could reply to the question in the TL by saying the number that corresponded with the cup containing the red block, “uno,” por ejemplo. This game was repeated many times with varied degrees of challenge.

The T then changed the interrogative written on the board into a command, Pon la tabla roja/azul/verde/amarilla encima de la tabla roja/azul/verde/amarilla. The T demonstrated, again with great deliberation, the meaning of the prepositional phrase encima de. A volunteer was called to the front of the class. The T made verbal commands by pointing to words on the board which the volunteer student was expected to follow. The volunteer student was then put into the role of teacher, and another volunteer student came to the front to follow the first student’s command. This activity was rehearsed many times.

This TPR lesson continued with more activities which extended the color-related theme to shapes, and there was an additional activity which introduced verbs. This model lesson demonstrated the massive amount of vocabulary typical of TPR instruction, amongst other characteristic practices. My conversation partner and I both agreed that the amount of vocabulary taught was impressive, but the content was too loosely related. Transitioning from body parts, to colors, to shapes, to seemingly random verbs was not very cohesive.

I was one of the volunteer students, and my partner mentioned that I looked very comfortable in my student role, which he attributed to my familiarity with Spanish. I commented on the fact that my proficiency encouraged me to take on a leadership role in following the T’s cues for physical response. The caveat to being proficient in Spanish was that I felt under-stimulated during the activity, a feeling which was not assuaged by the slow delivery of information and the repetition of each activity characteristic of TPT.

Interestingly, I did not feel under-stimulated during the body part instruction and dance. When asked to stand up, sit down, spin around, and baila como Juanito, I felt more involved in the lesson. This engagement could be explained by my preference for kinesthetic learning activities, a preference which the perceptual learning style questionnaire helped me to become aware of.

My experience as a student in the TPR demonstration taught me that more proficient learners can be engaged through leadership roles, but this engagement is not guaranteed to last. The leadership role stimulated my interest and involvement with the lesson, but this interest and involvement waned once the activities were limited to questions and short answers. The saving grace was the inclusion of an activity which catered to my perceptual learning style. I see this as an argument for the inclusion of activities which give students the opportunities to use many senses (viz. visual, auditory, mechanical [oral, digital], kinesthetic) to internalize and practice new language.

I do see certain content lending itself well to TPR instruction (e.g. body parts, prepositions, adverbs related direction, etc.), but the fact that this method discourages students from speaking is one reason why I would only reserve TPR-like tasks for occasional (if not “rare”) introductions to vocabulary. Coursework highly focused on communicative principles could benefit from TPR-like tasks, as a kind of break from speaking which some students will likely appreciate.

-by Dylan