Level: English III for adults at CFA (A2 according to the CEFR)
Short description: PROCEDURE I play sts an excerpt from the film Madagascar which presents the main characters of the film. Sts identify the characters (Alex the Lion, Marty the Zebra, Melman the Giraffe and Gloria the Hippo) and I ask them what the movie was about (the four characters live a life of luxury in New York Central Zoo, in spite of this they escape and find themselves in Madagascar). If they don’t remember I tell them. I divide the class into two groups, group A and group B. Within the group I divide the sts in pairs. Everybody chooses a character from the film because they have to roleplay it. Group A comes up with as many reasons as possible for the characters of the film to escape the zoo. Group B comes up with as many reasons as possible for staying in the zoo. They have five minutes to do this. Next I pair up one student from group A with one student from group B. In their pairs they tell each other the reasons for escaping or staying in the zoo. They must try to convince their partner of their viewpoint. Throughout this stage sts must bear in mind the following (which will be reflected on the self-assessment grid): - They have to listen to their classmates and pay attention to what they say. - They have to express an opinion clearly, they have to take a stand on the issue. - If possible (for sts of high ability) they have to justify their opinion. - Can they foresee any consequences ensuing from the decision?
They must take notes of their partner’s arguments. When they finish they go back with the former partners and report back the other side’s arguments and explain if they managed to convince them, and why / why not. I get feedback on the arguments from both sides and make up two lists, one in favour and the other one against.
FOLLOW-UP: writing a letter Afterwards, I ask sts to brainstorm: - ways to express opinion on the issue of escaping or staying - justifications for staying or escaping - consequences that might arise from escaping or staying
Next I show students an example of a letter from Gloria the Hippo, who decided to escape and describes her exhilarating experience in Africa “on the loose” and how it shifted her perspective on life. I make sts focus on the layout of the letter (paragraphs, connectors, opening and ending). I draw sts’ attention to these connectors and phrases: In my opinion, however, firstly, while, as a result, in addition, secondly, similarly, such as, in consequence, to sum up. Then I hand out sts a letter from Alex the Lion, who decided to stay and keeps indulging in all his creature comforts and loves living a life of luxury in the zoo. The letter is gapped. Sts have to complete the missing words. To make the activity easier sts are provided with the initial letter of the missing word. When sts finish I get feedback and have a whole class correction. Now sts have to write a letter bearing in mind that they explain a first-hand, direct, personal, hands-on experience from the point of view of one of the characters (Alex the Lion, Marty the Zebra, Melman the Giraffe and Gloria the Hippo) in the movie. They can either choose if they stayed or escaped from the zoo. Once they have a first draft I redistribute the drafts for sts to read and try to improve, either by pointing up additional contents or by correcting mistakes. Sts get back their drafts and improve them acting upon their peers’ advice. I collect them for a preliminary correction. I highlight mistakes sts can correct and suggest changes or improvements or ways to enhance the contents. I hand out the corrected drafts in the next class and sts enhance them acting upon my advice for homework. I also take advantage of the most common comments I have made and the most common mistakes sts have made in order to hold a language spot in the next class and have a look at the grammar and vocabulary in the letters.
It can be funny to read some of the best letters out loud once they have gone through several redrafts. The letters could also be posted on a blog or a wiki for everybody to read.
ADAPTATION Sts of low ability will probably just repeat the arguments they have written down, whereas sts of high ability will probably bring in critical thinking and will try to convince their peers of their stand.
Objectives: - To learn to listen to your partner - To report information - To reinforce or strengthen your arguments - To put yourself in somebody else’s shoes - To express an opinion and justify it - To be able to foresee consequences ensuing from a decision - To use connectors and paragraphs to organise your composition
Assessment: Sts have this grid to evaluate themselves at the end of the task:
Self-evaluation sheet
Now you’ve done the activity, evaluate how well you think you talked about the problem. Give yourself a score for each and say why.
1: weak 2: satisfactory 3: good 4: very good 5: excellent
§ Did I listen to my classmates? § Did I express an opinion clearly? § Did I justify my opinion? § Did I consider the consequences of the decision?
Besides these self-evaluation questions (which I think should account for 25% off the mark), I will assess sts according to the carrot. The CARROT stands for the following items: C for content A for accuracy R for range R for register O for organisation T for task achievement
Before students read their partners’ paragraphs I explain to them which mistakes to look for. I get students to write down the mistakes and the way to correct them. I tell students what they need to rectify in order to reduce and eventually eliminate the more serious errors. The number of unacceptable and other grave errors is also immediately obvious to me. I find this actually helps me in giving the work a grade. I also apply this criteria when assessing my sts’ compositions: Silly mistakes Translation problems Other problems: you understand the correction Other problems: you don't understand the correction
The CARROT just refers to the written assessment criteria grid in the CEFR (nothing new under the sun):
A2
Can write a series of simple phrases and sentences linked with simple connectors like “and”, “but” and “because”. Longer texts may contain expressions and show coherence problems which makes the text hard to understand.
Uses basic sentence patterns with memorized phrases, groups of a few words and formulae in order to communicate limited information mainly in everyday situations.
Can link groups of words with simple connectors like “and”, “but” and “because”.
Uses simple structures correctly, but still systematically makes basic mistakes. Errors may sometimes cause misunderstandings.
Can write very short, basic descriptions of events, past activities and personal experiences Can write short simple imaginary biographies and simple poems about people.
This is an analytical grid in Catalan to assess sts’ written production:
Criteris analítics d’avaluació Expressió i interacció escrita (1) Banda 1 Acompliment de la tasca, contingut, organització i intel·ligibilitat del text 5 El text correspon perfectament a la tasca i és ric en continguts. Està ben organitzat i és comprensible en una primera lectura. 4 Entre 3 i 5 3 El text correspon a la tasca, el contingut és apropiat i està prou organitzat. Pot haver-hi algun problema d’intel·ligibilitat que fa necessari rellegir algun fragment del text. 2 Entre 1 i 3 1 El text correspon parcialment a la tasca i el seu contingut és molt limitat. El text no està organitzat i té problemes d’intel·ligibilitat. 0 El text no correspon a la tasca o és massa breu per ser avaluat. Text pràcticament inintel·ligible o il·legible. 0 punts a la Banda 1 suposa també 0 punts a la Banda 2.
Criteris d’avaluació de l’expressió i interacció escrita. Nivell Bàsic (A2)
Criteris analítics d’avaluació Expressió i interacció escrita (2) Banda 2 Adequació i correcció del llenguatge 5 El llenguatge és adequat i variat. Fa un ús correcte d’elements de cohesió bàsics. Lèxic, estructures ortografia i puntuació correctes, tot i que hi pot haver algun error propi del nivell. 4 Entre 3 i 5 3 El llenguatge és en general adequat. Ús limitat dels elements de cohesió bàsics. Lèxic, estructures, ortografia i puntuació força correctes, però amb errors propis del nivell. 2 Entre 1 i 3 1 El llenguatge és poc adequat. Ús molt limitat o incorrecte dels elements de cohesió bàsics. Lèxic, estructures, ortografiat i puntuació poc correctes, amb errors de tot tipus. 0 Una puntuació de 0 punts a la banda 1, implica 0 punts en aquesta banda.
Hi, Lluís Miquel, I am really eager to know more about the carrot.... Can you expand on that strategy?
Núria
Thank you for taking your time to answer! I need to examine this in more detail http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/Linguistic/Manuel1_EN.asp Maybe you know it already, but if you don't I think you'll find it interesting.
_
MARISA
Thanks to share with us the CARROT :) !!!
I think it would be an interesting think to investigate these days!!
Activity:
Madagascar
Level:
English III for adults at CFA (A2 according to the CEFR)
Short description:
PROCEDURE
I play sts an excerpt from the film Madagascar which presents the main characters of the film.
Sts identify the characters (Alex the Lion, Marty the Zebra, Melman the Giraffe and Gloria the Hippo) and I ask them what the movie was about (the four characters live a life of luxury in New York Central Zoo, in spite of this they escape and find themselves in Madagascar). If they don’t remember I tell them.
I divide the class into two groups, group A and group B. Within the group I divide the sts in pairs. Everybody chooses a character from the film because they have to roleplay it.
Group A comes up with as many reasons as possible for the characters of the film to escape the zoo.
Group B comes up with as many reasons as possible for staying in the zoo.
They have five minutes to do this.
Next I pair up one student from group A with one student from group B. In their pairs they tell each other the reasons for escaping or staying in the zoo. They must try to convince their partner of their viewpoint.
Throughout this stage sts must bear in mind the following (which will be reflected on the self-assessment grid):
- They have to listen to their classmates and pay attention to what they say.
- They have to express an opinion clearly, they have to take a stand on the issue.
- If possible (for sts of high ability) they have to justify their opinion.
- Can they foresee any consequences ensuing from the decision?
They must take notes of their partner’s arguments. When they finish they go back with the former partners and report back the other side’s arguments and explain if they managed to convince them, and why / why not.
I get feedback on the arguments from both sides and make up two lists, one in favour and the other one against.
FOLLOW-UP: writing a letter
Afterwards, I ask sts to brainstorm:
- ways to express opinion on the issue of escaping or staying
- justifications for staying or escaping
- consequences that might arise from escaping or staying
Next I show students an example of a letter from Gloria the Hippo, who decided to escape and describes her exhilarating experience in Africa “on the loose” and how it shifted her perspective on life.
I make sts focus on the layout of the letter (paragraphs, connectors, opening and ending).
I draw sts’ attention to these connectors and phrases: In my opinion, however, firstly, while, as a result, in addition, secondly, similarly, such as, in consequence, to sum up.
Then I hand out sts a letter from Alex the Lion, who decided to stay and keeps indulging in all his creature comforts and loves living a life of luxury in the zoo. The letter is gapped. Sts have to complete the missing words. To make the activity easier sts are provided with the initial letter of the missing word.
When sts finish I get feedback and have a whole class correction.
Now sts have to write a letter bearing in mind that they explain a first-hand, direct, personal, hands-on experience from the point of view of one of the characters (Alex the Lion, Marty the Zebra, Melman the Giraffe and Gloria the Hippo) in the movie. They can either choose if they stayed or escaped from the zoo.
Once they have a first draft I redistribute the drafts for sts to read and try to improve, either by pointing up additional contents or by correcting mistakes.
Sts get back their drafts and improve them acting upon their peers’ advice.
I collect them for a preliminary correction. I highlight mistakes sts can correct and suggest changes or improvements or ways to enhance the contents. I hand out the corrected drafts in the next class and sts enhance them acting upon my advice for homework.
I also take advantage of the most common comments I have made and the most common mistakes sts have made in order to hold a language spot in the next class and have a look at the grammar and vocabulary in the letters.
It can be funny to read some of the best letters out loud once they have gone through several redrafts. The letters could also be posted on a blog or a wiki for everybody to read.
ADAPTATION
Sts of low ability will probably just repeat the arguments they have written down, whereas sts of high ability will probably bring in critical thinking and will try to convince their peers of their stand.
Objectives:
- To learn to listen to your partner
- To report information
- To reinforce or strengthen your arguments
- To put yourself in somebody else’s shoes
- To express an opinion and justify it
- To be able to foresee consequences ensuing from a decision
- To use connectors and paragraphs to organise your composition
Assessment:
Sts have this grid to evaluate themselves at the end of the task:
Self-evaluation sheet
Now you’ve done the activity, evaluate how well you think you talked
about the problem. Give yourself a score for each and say why.
1: weak
2: satisfactory
3: good
4: very good
5: excellent
§ Did I listen to my classmates?
§ Did I express an opinion clearly?
§ Did I justify my opinion?
§ Did I consider the consequences of the decision?
Besides these self-evaluation questions (which I think should account for 25% off the mark), I will assess sts according to the carrot. The CARROT stands for the following items:
C for content
A for accuracy
R for range
R for register
O for organisation
T for task achievement
Link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0351283/?ref_=sr_2
Add your comments:
Hi, this is Lluís MiquelBefore students read their partners’ paragraphs I explain to them which mistakes to look for. I get students to write down the mistakes and the way to correct them. I tell students what they need to rectify in order to reduce and eventually eliminate the more serious errors.
The number of unacceptable and other grave errors is also immediately obvious to me. I find this actually helps me in giving the work a grade.
I also apply this criteria when assessing my sts’ compositions:
Silly mistakes
Translation problems
Other problems: you understand
the correction
Other problems: you don't
understand the correction
The CARROT just refers to the written assessment criteria grid in the CEFR (nothing new under the sun):
Can write short simple imaginary biographies and simple poems about people.
This is an analytical grid in Catalan to assess sts’ written production:
Criteris analítics d’avaluació
Expressió i interacció escrita (1)
Banda 1 Acompliment de la tasca, contingut, organització i
intel·ligibilitat del text
5 El text correspon perfectament a la tasca i és ric en continguts.
Està ben organitzat i és comprensible en una primera lectura.
4 Entre 3 i 5
3 El text correspon a la tasca, el contingut és apropiat i està prou
organitzat. Pot haver-hi algun problema d’intel·ligibilitat que fa
necessari rellegir algun fragment del text.
2 Entre 1 i 3
1 El text correspon parcialment a la tasca i el seu contingut és molt
limitat. El text no està organitzat i té problemes d’intel·ligibilitat.
0 El text no correspon a la tasca o és massa breu per ser avaluat. Text
pràcticament inintel·ligible o il·legible.
0 punts a la Banda 1 suposa també 0 punts a la Banda 2.
Criteris d’avaluació de l’expressió i interacció escrita. Nivell Bàsic (A2)
Criteris analítics d’avaluació
Expressió i interacció escrita (2)
Banda 2 Adequació i correcció del llenguatge
5 El llenguatge és adequat i variat. Fa un ús correcte d’elements
de cohesió bàsics. Lèxic, estructures ortografia i puntuació
correctes, tot i que hi pot haver algun error propi del nivell.
4 Entre 3 i 5
3 El llenguatge és en general adequat. Ús limitat dels elements de
cohesió bàsics. Lèxic, estructures, ortografia i puntuació força
correctes, però amb errors propis del nivell.
2 Entre 1 i 3
1 El llenguatge és poc adequat. Ús molt limitat o incorrecte dels
elements de cohesió bàsics. Lèxic, estructures,
ortografiat i puntuació poc correctes, amb errors de tot tipus.
0 Una puntuació de 0 punts a la banda 1, implica 0 punts en
aquesta banda.
Hi, Lluís Miquel, I am really eager to know more about the carrot.... Can you expand on that strategy?
Núria
Thank you for taking your time to answer! I need to examine this in more detail
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/Linguistic/Manuel1_EN.asp Maybe you know it already, but if you don't I think you'll find it interesting.
_
MARISA
Thanks to share with us the CARROT :) !!!
I think it would be an interesting think to investigate these days!!
Hi Núria, this is Lluís
Thank you for the link.