Lujan's feedback: class Nº16 - Lesson Plan Nº8

1. Práctica Educativa II. Residencia en Escuela Primaria
Facultad de Ciencias Humanas. Depto. Lenguas Extranjeras. Unlpam
Docente Regular a Cargo: Prof. Adjunto E.N.Braun. Prof. Adjunto a Cargo: Prof.
Laura Gomez Ayudantes Interinas: Prof. Vanesa Cabral. Prof. Lis María Luján
Ramos. EAT: M.A. John Brakke
Año Académico / Ciclo Lectivo: 2017
Observation Feedback Report
Pedagogical Pair: Trainee Ana Valentina Monge– Trainee Ana Belén Morán
School: Escuela Nº 4. Coronel Remigio Gil
Mentor Teacher: Prof. Romina Cheme Arriaga
Class observed by: Prof. Lis María Luján Ramos
Class delivered by : Ana Valentina Monge
Pedagogical Partner: Ana Belén Morán
Date: Sep., Mon.18th.
Grade: 6th. grade
Timetable: from 16.40 pm till 17.20 pm
Number of Students on the Lessonobserved: -Around 30-
- Ob.: Last Class of Practicum -

2. First I would like to state what I liked most of the last class you taught: I think that it
was good to start the class by revising previous contents that have been recently
tested. Despite this, I think that you should have provided a proper warm – up stage
in your class and that you could have used more engaging aids in your revision stage,
such as flashcards or posters. I also think that you focused too much on writing and
on written language along the class, may be disregarding the importance of oral
language and undermining the practice of oral skills in class. Revision was based on
the contents and exercises of the test you had given to students the previous class.
And you used the board (just the board) to write examples of sentences present in the
test. These sentences were expressed in the present continuous tense. And they were
totally disconnected among them. I think that it would have better if you had
included in your test a single integrated paragraph resembling a link to a relevant
known issue or topic to your students. Besides, the sentences used contained few
communicative loads. I could not trace a significant communicative purpose behind
the activity included in the test.
You could have inquired students on the meaning of the sentences you were dealing
with, rather than just focusing on grammar rules. Moreover, you could have asked
whether they had understood the meaning of those sentences. Besides you could have
resourced to simple drawings drawn by you on the board, next to certain lexical
items, so as to clarify meaning of words present in the sentences such as “guitar”,
“book”, etc. This could have made your explanation more appealing or attractive to
students.
I think that whenever planning your classes or designing activities for your students
you should bear in mind a precise communicative goal. Students should be
encouraged to use L2 communicatively. And activities like the ones you presented
them in the test and in the last class seem to lack a definite communicative goal. In
my opinion, those activities were too grammatical biased and you should provide
your students with activities that encourage them to use L2 to communicate. It
seemed the test you two designed did not constitute an interactive, integrative way of
assessment. As teachers of a foreign language, contents worked and taught in class
should be integrated.

3. Many students did not seem interested in the explanations provided by the teacher
during revision. I think that, as a teacher, whenever you notice lack of engagement or
involvement on part of your students, you should take action in order to reverse this
situation. Teachers should try to make their classes as motivating, appealing,
attractive and memorable as possible. And in order to do this it is crucial to design
creative activities and to take into account students interests, likes and not to
disregard their previous knowledge.
Regarding the role of the pedagogical partner, I think that it is not desirable to adopt
a passive attitude. Therefore, it is not advisable to sit behind the teacher´s desk
instead of being walking around the classroom assisting students who might need
help.
Concerning the handling of behaviour, many students were not listening during
revision, for instance, and none of the two teachers in charge on the class seemed to
notice misbehaviour.
In relation to the grouping of students, they were able to organize themselves in
groups quickly enough and none of them stayed alone or isolated (unlike the other
division). The number of members per group was balanced and instructions were
provided through the use of examples. I think that instructions were clearly
explained. The students seemed to have understood the rules of the game they were
asked to play. In spite of all this, I believe that it would have been better not to mix
two unrelated topics such “children´s rights” and prepositions. Besides, you could
have made your game more creative or appealing by asking them to mime actions,
turning the game into a guessing game. This might have become the game a much
more interactive activity and less linked to written language.
Students seemed to be involved in the group task they were supposed to do. Most of
them used English in order to solve the activity. But despite this, there were some
instances of misbehaviour that appeared not to be properly handled by the teachers.
In reference to the use of aids and prompts, it would be advisable to attempt at using
bigger pictures and a larger fond on posters and flashcards used in class.
I would like to refer to a final piece of advice regarding anxiety in relation to the
handing in of tests; many times anxiety and nervousness of students can be reduced
by delivering corrected tests and dealing with explanations about them during the last

4. minutes of the class. Many times, it is better to devote the last final 10 minutes to this
task, rather than plan it at the beginning of the lesson. By devoting the last minutes to
this kind of activity you usually regain student´s attention that is generally lost in the
final part of the lesson.
Concluding I think that it was suitable to give students a parting present to thank
them for their cooperation during the classes.