Korean Job Discussion Forums

[wormholes101]

You may be familiar with the ESA approach to teaching ESL.

E = Engage
S = Study
A = Activate

My question is... how important do you think it is to provide a contextually and functionally meaningful activity to accompany the study?

To expand on this...

Some activate games don't relate meaningfully to the context or function of the language. For example, the target language is "Let's (play soccer, go to the movies, etc)" the language function is suggestion.

A functionally relevant activity might be to have a chart with days of the week. Students try to fill up their days of the week with activities by inviting their friends.

A functionally irrelevant activity might be divide the class into two team. A representative from each group goes up the front of the class pointing to one of many pictures and the team yells out the suggestion (Let's play soccer) The reps scissor-paper-rock and the winning team gets a point.

So, in this example, the second activity is functionally irrelevant because it doesn't tie in well with the context and function of the language whereas the first activity does.

So what do you think? Is it important for activities to be functionally and contextually relevant or does it not matter. I'd like to hear opinions/thoughts/pros/cons....

[Fishead soup]

The way I would do this activity is.

Step one

Show some PPT to the students to introduce making plans. Refusing an offer and giving a reason. Refusing an offer and giving an alternative plan

Step two

Have students do roleplay from either Side by Side or Interchange and practice making plans for the evening

Step three
Students recieve scrambled dialogue they put it in the correct order

Step Four
Hand out Information gap activity from Bogglesworld. Students either agree to the plan refuse plan or offer alternatives.

[wormholes101]

[Perceptioncheck]

I absolutely think a functionally relevant activate session is important, especially with older students. I think that putting language in context not only makes the lesson more interesting for the students, it also helps motivate them if they know they may have cause to use it in the future. Plus having a more immediate language goal to work towards (ie whatever activity you're using in class) is also a big motivator; when I taught adults, they knew they would have to use the language in a "functionally meaningful activity" at the end of the lesson and - at least in the short term - this definately inspired them to listen, study hard and stop faffing about with their phones under the table.

That being said, such sessions are not always possible. Now, I teach extremely low level elementary students and it is a struggle just to get them to say "goodbye" instead of "hello" at the end of the class. Of course basic communicative surveys are always useful but I think these only go so far, especially when most of my students are still lacking basic vocab and cannot form structures even when spoon-fed.

So, in short, ANY kind of activity which helps my students learn is useful. Functionally relevant, functionally irrelevent, throwing paper balls at the teacher. . .whatever gets them speaking.

[wormholes101]

Thanks for your response. The idea that an "immediate language goal is motivating" is interesting and could be explored more.

Also, I agree that with lower level students it is more difficult to provide meaningful activate sessions. I suppose that it depends a lot on the level of the students.

One of the points (according to the text I've been reading) of the activate session is that the students should be given a chance to use as much English as they know. Therefore, it seems to me that pre-programmed responses -like the 2nd example activity I gave- don't allow a variety of responses/communication. However, since lower level students don't have a large base of language to work with, this can be problematic.

Nevertheless, wouldn't it be good, if whenever possible for the activity be arranged so that it could be functionally relevant as well allow for creative and free answers. Thoughts?

[wormholes101]

Let me tell you a little bit about why I'm writing this thread.

I work with a co-teacher who determines the lesson plans for our classes (she's not very open to suggestion so things go her way) She has very generic activities that could be done with any language structure and mostly seem to be Team A vs Team B type, yell out the right answer type activities.

I work at an Elementary school where the English level is quite high; the kids could do broader activities but it almost never happens. Kind of drives me up the wall a bit. Am I off here with my thinking or is her method just as justifiable?

[Draz]

Depends. If you're trying to get them ready to pass a test, her method is as good. If you're trying to kill time and perk the students up a bit, her method is probably better. If you have a huge class to work with, her method is most practical for dealing with that...

Please share whatever other activities you want to try.

[Yu_Bum_suk]

[wormholes101]

[Perceptioncheck]

I don't really think that words like "relevant" and "irrelevant" and purposeless buzzwords. I think the OP was just trying to ask a concise question about teaching methods.

OP, you said -

[wormholes101]

[wormholes101]

[Yu_Bum_suk]

[Yu_Bum_suk]

[wormholes101]

^^