In this observation, the teacher used a story of his childhood Christmas to grow his students’ Grammar skills. Besides so, He aims to improve their speaking and listening competencies. The class was organized in a horseshoe formation, and he instructed the class by sitting in the middle facing the students. He first read the story hoping the students listened to his words. He read at regular pace, and looked to see if students gave him any expressions. Later, he commented that he will read it the second time with regular pace but a sentence at a time. He repeated looking around to check for facial cues. There seemed to be no sign of confusions, so he completed the remaining. The last time, he requested students to now listen and write down on paper the key points they heard. Here, I find the teacher applied repetition differently than other observation teachers. Most of them tend to repeat phrase with the students, and by their level, this works well. However these students appear to be higher-intermediate students, so the need of repetition could be viewed and applied differently. This action proceeded and the student read what they wrote down and now the teacher said the original. The term ‘original’ shocked me, as it appeared he was initiating some sort of comparisons. Whether the intent was for good or bad, I thought perhaps this was tedious and a risk for learners. Tedious because the students may have perceived the task as a indirect grading of their grasp of the language. He never addressed why he needed to compare the original to their writing. Potentially, in the perspective of the student, this created tediousness. From tediousness, if they understood a minimal per se, this may have affected their self-esteem. The potential degrading of a student’s learning could result in a risk.

The teacher had the class split into three groups and each of them required a writer. This writer is assigned for the purpose of writing a fact from the story with proper grammar. Now, he never taught what was proper grammar in this lesson, so it heavily relied on the learners applying past knowledge. This activity was a great review, as it could really supplement the learners to see what they understood from the story (comprehension) and practice grammar all at the same time.

When everyone had their sentences written down and ready, he dissected the sentence up with the class. He explains what happened in the sentences and introduces “relative clauses”. I thought at first, he was teaching the definition relative clauses, it seemed however that he was going through the rule and not going in too much depth. Since there weren’t enough examples towards showing these clauses, so perhaps these were extension content he planned for the lesson?

From the teacher, I found the most intriguing aspect being his ability to instruct grammar to L2 acquisition learners inductively. Being a language fanatic and instructor myself, I would never ponder on the possible methods to inductively instruct new languages to learners. The how, what, why were reoccurring questions that my mind had during and after observing Rolf. It is this observation that I realized that there are no one way of delivery (i.e. deductive) but other forms of delivery as well.

From this observation, the teacher teaches an upper-intermediate classroom in London. In her lesson, the depth of questions seems to be more sophisticated compared to the other observations I have seen thus far. Throughout the delivery process, there are numerous incidents where she would pose “wh-questions” to the learners. Although certain students did not look too intrigued at first, once she wrote the topic “wife wanted” on the whiteboard, the students began smiling. Now, smiling can mean different emotions or thoughts. However, it was evident they were generally intrigued. Most of the students were mature students (25+ years old), so the topic may have related to them more. When the teacher posed the question “where do you think saw this sign?” The students said countless varying answers. Learners thought it was shown online or on the streets, but she later revealed it was shown in the front of a store in London. The learners began giggling as they thought this might be a weird scenery to imagine being a reality. What made me think the students were generally intrigued by the topic, was the fact they began rationalize why might the sign be at the front of the store.

As she continued, she had them discuss the owner (obviously a man) and what might he look like. More wh-questions like “what possibly made him want to write this sign for others to see?” In the delivery process, the students were actively participating in who this man really is by reading a short passage about him. In the discussion process, the teacher manages to engage the students quite consistently. She creates a spoken dialogue environment and doesn’t seem to have written anything on the board. Here, It is apparent she wants them to grow in their speaking and listening competencies. Reading in this lesson is a secondary or added bonus competency growth, but the primary goal is to better speaking and listening.

Students showed some positive disagreements towards the intent of the man’s sign, which the teacher appeared content. Her hearing all of it, then facilitated and got the students to understand the key points made. Later, she would give a handout for students to fill out. it would require them to write at least 3-4 wh-questions. It could be about how or what they are finding in the opposite gender. Almost like an exit-ticket, this task made the lesson appear as relative to them as learners. Their answers are a true reflection of who they are and what they think. Answers are authentic and mature to reflect their age.

The teacher was an instructor that taught intermediate level students. For the lesson, she taught the class using more hand gestures and images to connect her questions to the students. With observing this class, the learners sat in a L-shaped table settings, and they were relative close to a classmate. This was convenient for group discussion due to saving time and the teacher would easily split the learners in somewhat equal group. Her pacing is not sped up nor intentionally slowed down. This decision made me be aware that no matter what levels are students are at, the learners are still learning the language. Language acquisition is always considered, and pacing is the best tool to make sure that acquisition can lead to efficacy. I would think acquisition equals efficacy, but I sure was wrong. Every experience thus far, pacing became a constant that presented itself time and time again. Every teacher rather than rushing through course content, instructors focused on learners comprehending information before anything else. It is always great to finish all that is written in the lesson plan, but amusingly that content under certain conditions can be pushed to the next lesson. Sometimes, maybe this is or should be the pedagogical mentality of instructors at any level of language learning. As mentioned, the teacher used hand gestures to instruct the course, but the students understood what she was saying. Perhaps, it is not words that made learners understand what she was saying, rather the actions of pointing or acting supplemented the statements/questions from her.

One thing that caught my attention was her way of using ‘Wh-‘ questions. I have seen this being used in my previous observation and my sponsor teacher. The effectiveness of having Wh- questions is so that students are motivated to think beyond just giving a yes/no response. In a language classroom, no matter the level of competency, instructors need to keep in mind that learners are immersing themselves in a new language speaking environment. Important to note: promoting student-care.

Activities ranged from Pair-work, Group discussions and matching sentences. Each selection made students feel that it wasn’t as just giving a yes/no, but needed a degree of attention and dedication. The class really wanted to focus on at least the writing, speaking and listening competencies. From each of the three, students were engaged in the sense that they filled in the shoes of the 1st person. It was like the example dialogue from the teacher was directed to them individually. She did reflect on how for matching, she could have the student(s) come to the SMART board to connect the sentences they feel make the most grammatical sense. Important to note: maintaining student interaction.

Lastly, the students were able to use group work to discuss the complaints and what were the key points. As they were discussing, the teacher would walk around each group and check on their progress. Checking on them helped them get going if they were stuck and need some motivation or influence. Students didi seem to rely on others for guidance if they were missing a piece of information. Important to note: Foster student growth.

From the observation, the course topic was all about food. This lesson had a slight change, the teacher became more of a facilitator and/or a support colleague for Neda. The situation was such due to the fact that Neda was more of the instructor for this lesson, so the teacher was to support her when needed. The class seems to have a few new people compared to last week. On similar note, certain students were not present in this observation. Perhaps, students are taken down for outside class participation. Thinking of what went on in the experience, the students were primarily talking about cultural foods. As an example, the majority of class time was dedicated to discussing the national foods that we know. From this, students from various nationalities participated. There were many materials and technology assistance used to help out with the delivery of the lesson. Examples such as interactive whiteboard and polls, these were tools that the TA used as activities throughout the lesson. I found that certain students were more interested than last day. To me, it made me ponder whether the topic’s interest can attract attention from our learners. Although, not all student had talking time, the lesson was good.

As the lesson progressed to certain slides, especially those that called for student participation, TA sort of struggled to keep track who shared and who didn’t. This was addressed by the teacher after our observation, which was a crucial takeaway, critical reflection (what went wrong/well, how can we improve together). The TA did have some troubles, like correcting or clarity. There were times when students would use a word like “snake” to describe a food. However, he/she intended to use snack to describe how a food was looked in their culture. The teacher had to step-in and correct them for clarity purposes. The lesson and the TA was fairly culturally inclusive. Within the lesson and from the TA, both wanted to implement the importance of cultural recognition. Without it, what we see actually has no meaning. Simple food can mean and bring long rich history for why it exist.

Every activity had instances of teamwork and its effectiveness in lesson delivery. When the teacher would feel a few students needed to share, she would take charge and ask those students to share their thoughts. Also, when certain technical issues arose, Hilda would provide assistance and aid the TA. Here, this made me criticize my own planning to teach a future lesson with my fellow colleague (team-teach). Although, the lesson seemingly need one instructor teaching, there are benefits of team-teaching. As I primarily focused on the teacher’s and their TA’s ability to lead as a pair, there was one final takeaway that the teacher used only one sentence to describe the importance:

“Pacing is important, because we should have the students talking, and it’s not about whether we complete lecturing on all the content”.

As a teacher, efficiency might be convenient but efficacy is a necessity

For the observation, the teacher is teaching around 10 level 1/2 students two sessions a week. Students are reminded of the words they learned last session. the teacher would proceed and says the words out load and have the students repeat it two to three time. Through every part of her lesson, she repeats a couple of times to instill the phonetic sounds to the students. From this constant repetition, it somewhat pre-evaluates/pre-assess the students whether they grasp the phonetic sounding of the word. As soon as they finish repeating, she explains in basic vocabulary with slower pace, why they are looking at these words. Not just for reviewing purposes, but to introducing the topic of ‘telephone’. She keeps the introduction of the topic short. Only explaining that they use the telephone to talk to others for information. And so, she writes all the examples on the board and students follow the teacher to pronounce all the words in the sentence. As more repetition occurs, she has them turn to two respective sides: side a and b. For each turn, one side would state the example sentence and the other side would respond. Then, they switched roles. This was a brilliant practice, as both sides can practice questioning and responding. In the setting, it seemed more direct method with a bit of audio-lingual method.

As the lesson progressed, there were numerable instances where the teacher modelled everything she wanted to be completed. Since the class was comprised of level 1/2 students, she wanted to make sure the activities were realistic and applied to real-life environments. An example of a realistic activity was when they were practicing calling an imaginary ‘supervisor’. They would apply the words and phrases they had learned till that point, use it in the dialogue exchange. Frankly, certain students may lack self-esteem, so the teacher would remind them to refer to the white-board (had the phrases of the day) or ask her. Students were timid for sure, but they gradually became self-motivated to participate. The activity was interactive but also very practical due to them needing to speak first to get the new piece of information. The focus of the lesson knowingly was speaking, students were slowly able to manage the challenges at hand step-by-step. Challenges for the class were motivation to try and having enough knowledge to participate in the activity. For most, the activity became fun and interactive (since they were starting to apply new words in phrases that they learned prior). However, some may present this anxious feeling to the instructor. Thus, possibly prompting the teacher to think of the following considerations/reasons:

1. Objective Orientated
2. Purpose Driven
3. Skill Set & Language Acquisition

Using basic vocabulary to determine the students’ process of the information (instructions and/or new content), the instructor must pace comfortably for students and themselves. Comprehensively, the teacher took content delivery slow enough information to be properly processed. Being slow may have setbacks, but students will gain much more out of the experience. From the teacher, I felt when students were allocated appropriate worktime, the more examples/opportunities for the instructor to proceed with post-assessment. the teacher also focused on efficacy and not efficiency. This was shown through her closure part of her lesson. She reviewed the material for the day and explained the use of their vocabs and phrases.

In this observation, the instructor teaches a class of emergent learners. The approach was presented more of a direct method of delivery. These learners are getting use to the English phonetics together as a class. the instructor does a warm-up in a form of a review. Such review included a printed photo of what they did last day. Then, she would question the class what they were doing in the presented photo. The students were able to speak regarding what they remembered learning through being prompted by the illustration. It was a great tool done by Andrea, as the photo allowed students to think back due to a physical reference. The photo reference made me think, “how might my learners react if they saw this? Would they recall anything?” However, the photo surely made students engaged. Her pacing throughout was slow and concise. There was no reason to speed the lesson and the instructor valued repetition far more than how much information were they able to absorb. From my first observation to this one, I found that one reoccurring approach arose — efficacy. When monitoring classroom dynamic and flow, I realized that all the instructors never looked at the lesson plan, nor cared how fast they went. Rather, the content reaching the students permanently. No matter if it was a simple introduction sentence or a bit complex explanation, the time was considered through a high-context culture lens. Process was seen greater than the product. For the instructor, her students’ competency relied on speaking activities. Her students spoke sentences that were related to their everyday lives. This was partly due to the instructor reaching out to a housing manager to find out what people in the same age groups as her students would frequently ask. There, she would develop a list of scenarios using the vocabulary that she gathered from the manager. Not only were the activities highly realistic, but it made sense to the students. By this statement, I mean that every person in class can use it almost as soon as their house has issues.

She proceeded with the activity where students would develop new sentences using the words they just learned. Using words like “broken toilet”, they were able to develop “I have a broken toilet at home.” Although the task may seem impossible for the students at first glance, she would let the students commence talking first before stepping in to help. In ways among the other observation, the instructor seemed more flexible and facilitating. There were times that I would think when planning my lesson plan, whether making content catered to the students be an advantage or a disadvantage. Nevertheless, student participation is a must. In the experience, she would assign pairs to do work, and she would go up to them and hear the words. Again, most of the teachers seemed to not correct or talked unless the incorrectness stood out. the instructor was no different, she made sure that the most important aspect: pronunciation was fully grasped before moving onwards. An example of this was word association. She would have cards that were labeled with the word and she would ask the student to pronounce the word she was holding. If their sound was off, she would intervene, but never discourage. Later, her next activity would have the students do the same but with two words. Students held words that made sense when the two came together. The modelling strategy was an eye-catching moment. She modelled and had the students follow with an additional small task. As a observer and a future teacher, I realized that this strategy would benefit all levels if difficulty was adjusted appropriately. Students had smiles for the activities, so it was clear, relatability met with appropriate content, makes for worthwhile classroom learning experiences.

In this observation experience, the lesson was delivered via online. The approach was presented more of a direct method of delivery. Through this experience, there was some issues that arose just before the class began. Firstly, since the class needed to be brought to the LLC by another instructor, some of them had arrived late and needed to log into Moodle to access the Big Blue Button link. Secondly, the class being beginner level, when they had issues with the camera and mic, sometimes they were not able to speak about the issue clearly. For that, the instructor had to set some time to guide the students. This was very crucial because it taught me as a language teacher, you must be patient. No matter if it is beginner or intermediate level, the teacher must know that issues will occur and be comfortable with helping students. the instructor was patient with these students all throughout, hoping that all students had a chance to speak their mind.

Her introduction to the class included a purpose and topic. Being that it was their first time together (presumably), she briefly and simply explained that day was all about knowing each other. She had a warm-up activity that had 2 truths and 1 lie. She explained the game in basic vocabulary (simple words), and even wrote her expectation on the interactive white board. Whenever she would need an answer, she would see if someone had raised their hand (raised-hand button) or she would appoint someone to answer. Each time, a new student would state their answer. the instructor would not comment too much on their answer, but only corrected if the grammar or word choice was incorrect. When it came to the speaking activity, she made sure that she paced students well. If there was a word that the students needed, she would aid them. She empowered to speak and always proposed questions to each student. Every student had a task of answering. Even if a student was shy, sharing was a must. I appreciated she never rushed and paced slowly and gave examples with basic words. Although, students may be beginners, teachers might look at time and try to save time.

The instructor wanted students to grow, so she would write all information on the interactive board. Though the students were beginners, I was shocked how energetic the class became through each activity. In my experience as a language teacher, too much info could make processing difficult. the instructor seemed to rely on interaction, leaving the students to depend on their understandings and adding onto others idea. For this, it gave more growing opportunities for all the students.

Another appreciation I had for the instructor’s lesson was the use of repetition. Sometimes repeating is great but doing it four or five times might cause students to feel bored. She repeated only the instructions and every time she repeated, it was a slower version of the instructions. She used repetition in helping other students understand what their fellow classmates stated. This is due to connections acting weird, as some were accessing the link in the same room with different computers (echo etc.) Lastly, she adapted when breakout rooms were not functioning. She realized for some reason, the connection was off, so whole class discussion/class poll became the alternative. This amazed me as her acceptance of change was apparent. As teachers, we can never expect all to function like we plan. We should expect the possibility of change and react accordingly. Not only did the instructor illustrated that change but modelled how using an alternative can benefit the class. Rather than ignoring issues, why not use the other method with efficacy?

In the observation, the instructor was instructing an ESL level 1 and/or 2 class of about fourteen adult students. The classroom size was not immense, so the students were sat together spread across to long desks. Such desk arrangement called for her to be closer to the students for them to clearly hear her words. She kept all the class instructions very short, and consistently tested the students by asking for answers. Her pedagogical method was more direct question and answer. the instructor would ask a short direct question, and her students would give a short direct response back. Her students have not attained much experience with applying their knowledge in the real-world, let alone might have not received much education in the English language at all. Hence, introducing concepts called for concise and related to the item (i.e. pointing to the item itself). Throughout the observation, she used hand gestures and pointing to associate the word to the item. Association was immensely important and was shown why this was needed constantly. When necessary, she would correct the students if they referred the wrong word and item.

In the warm-up, the instructor can be seen teaching common introduction phrases like “how are you”, and its responses. After introducing the phrases and its responses, she would hand out the name tags and use the question to ask the owner of the name tag. This action allowed for name familiarity, quickly checking whether the students understood and apply the learned knowledge. She did not introduce intermediate words, rather necessary words that described their feelings in the right way (i.e. “I have a cold/fever” [rather than just saying I feel sick or bad]).

In the lesson, it was student orientated. Not only were students being introduced to new vocabulary, they needed to grow in their four respective competencies. For that, she always has them speak after her, and they would give examples. For instance, she used “Tanya’s store” to help students apply what they learned. If it was incorrect, she would step-in and correct them. This real-world application was brilliant. As soon as she organized her desk surroundings as a store (as look-alike as possible), students kept being engaged. Furthermore, the learners being adults, the atmosphere was relatable, because this was the atmosphere they were in day-by-day. Having the surrounding prompt memory is great, and she wrote down the basic sentence structure for the question and response on the board (i.e. “Do you have a shirt?/ I want a shirt), so students can always look at it for reference. Progression in the lesson had increase student participation. When it came to the card game activity, it gave them an extra chance to practice their new words among groups. The game was not confusing nor complex. It seemed to be like goldfish, and the students would ask their peers if they had a specific item card in their hand:

Student A: “Do you have shoes?

Student B: “Yes I do.” *hands the card to Student A

Student B: “Do you have _______?”     

Lastly, when it came down to the exit ticket, she made sure that they can at least give her an example. Requirement was simple, they had to say what they were wearing. Correct, and they would be leaving the classroom. She never discouraged answers, just to correct them if the word was incorrect.

In this observation, the instructor used the class to explain the purpose of the lesson. It was obvious from the beginning that he wanted to prepare the students for the real-world. The world could have been applying to the Universities of their choice. Despite his students knowing what he was saying with certain limitations, he did ask them to request to speak slower if needed. The class dynamic was very bright and purposeful. On numerous occasions the instructor mention why they attend his class, or why learn English etc. Everything had a purpose in completing, and not just a random task working towards nothing. When handing out the paper consisting of questions and reading material, he tasked the students to be in groups of fours to guide one another. When class first started, the desks were arranged in columns. As soon as the task was given, the group of fours created square-like shapes to collaborate with one another. Group work was a tool that he used in his activities as maybe he saw the need for assistance amongst his students. Possibly, it could be that by discussing with one another, they can practice reading and speaking altogether. He did require the task, or all spoken words to be in English for obvious reasons.

As an observer, I found the activities to be inclusive to everybody. When he asked about why a student responded the way they did, he would add a simple question to allow the class and himself to know that student a bit more. One of the impressive pedagogical approaches he used in the lesson, was breaking it down. Breaking everything down from task instructions to finding purpose in student responses, allowed each student to complete it step-by-step. He never assigned and ignored, rather walked around and checked on their progression. Further, he always considered the simple fact the demographic which he was part of was not a native English-speaking classroom. For that, he was careful in his word choices. Making sure that the words were not elementary, but not exceptionally difficult vocabulary. Huge benefit in my opinion, especially for how much setbacks the lesson may have concurrently. By keeping tasks and words simple, there were no room for over-complexity. As an observer, that piece of care he instilled in the approach made me be aware of keeping the expected classroom competency equal to words used. Observing each part of his lesson, the notion of prioritizing whether students understood the task and his dialogue before anything else. Thinking back to the experience, he never asked whether the students understood it, rather kept explanation short. As result, those that asked, either had a follow-up question, or they simply did not grasp the instructions or task fully.

Lastly, I found that compared to the other classrooms I have observed, he wanted learning to be fun even at a high school level. No matter if he was asking a question, or making a small remark, he added a humorous element to the spoken words. Ultimately, creating a bright atmosphere which the students laughed together. Students receiving education in Asian communities tend to be quiet and contain less happy element in the classroom. I am comparing on how the eastern form of school calls for strong, strict learning discipline. Whereas western students are empowered through positive vibes and support from teacher and peers daily. Hence, as soon as I saw Shawn creating the laughing atmosphere for the Japanese high school students, it made me ponder on blending cultures. Occasionally, we may think schooling is divisive and cannot mend together. However, as I witnessed in the instructor’s classroom, schooling is schooling. If there are parts that works in this context, why not use it to our advantage?

As adolescent English learners, perhaps in their early middle school years, students are sat in pairs amongst two columns. However, as the class progresses with certain activities, they get up and go the front to perform the task. Although, it is difficult to see the total layout of the front of the classroom, it can be assumed that the students can “perform” their task in front of their classmates. Through the warm-up, the instructor explains to the student about his vacation (using what was learned from prior class). From the statements or comments made, he allows some time for students to digest the information and sometimes have repetition from students. Per each activity, He made sure that the slides on the PowerPoint were short and simple. It included similar examples as what they learned previously but with added layer of new content (early slides were review material and adding onto the difficulty as they progressed to the next slide).The sponsor teacher had always asked how were you feeling? What would be the next question without giving the answer away. Asking questions prompted the students to respond as soon as they developed a response in their minds. It was apparent that when she asked the question, the goal was for them to be comfortable answering and not focusing on the grammar immediately. As an example, after watching a video containing some dialogue, she would ask students what one of the characters was asking. Then, the student would respond to his/her ability. She may or may not correct them, unless it is a small mistake that can be fixed rather quickly (subject-verb agreement). In the classroom, the question techniques were short and intended for the student to say what was expected to be said. In other words, the creativity of a new form of sentence structure was almost impossible. For example, “class, please ask the student teacher ‘how was your vacation?’” The students simply repeated what she said. Even in the beginning when the student teacher questions, it never requires more than one-word responses:

Student Teacher: “How are you today?”

Student A: “I am happy.”

In terms of competency, the class needed practice with speaking (main language skill focus), the class involved pair-work/teamwork. They had many instances where they would turn to the neighbor next to them and converse with the question. For the other partner, they would have to answer accordingly. The students responded well to the activities during the lesson. In fact, I would say they were calm and answered or respond based on what was required by the instructor. If the instructor said repeat after him or her, they would do so. After that, there would not be any other action or noise made. Very straightforward schooling technique. The general atmosphere of the class was calm. This meant the students were not forced to listen nor was told to regain focus. They just had it in them to participate and listen in class. The instructor knew the task at hand, and students were to perform the task and not do the “unnecessary”. Based on observation, the students were constantly engaged due to being called on by the instructor(s) almost every other slide. Since, there was either a prompt or a question, the students were chosen and had to answer what they thought was the right answer. Nevertheless, the instructor allowed wrong answer, she simply used positive reinforcement to reward the right answer and not the behaviour.

From the observation, I learned that teaching ES/EFAL or EAP needed to be student orientated. The instructor becomes the facilitator and acts only when there comes an error. If not, this facilitator continues to begin the next prompt or task. I found that the class progressed well due to the students not being introduced much until they spoke a phrase themselves. Whether it was wrong grammar or word choice, the importance of trial-and-error in the lesson was apparent. If I was the instructor, I would not focus on giving physical positive reinforcements. The physical item may cause answering to become a competition, setting the tone of what is “smart”/ “dumb” in class.