PAIR WORK ORAL PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES IN THE ENGLISH CLASSROOM

JESÚS ADRIÁN AGUDELO IBÁÑEZ

UNIVERSIDAD PONTIFICIA BOLIVARIANA

TELF GRADUATE PROGRAM

2013

ABSTRACT

This study determined how pair work oral production activities impact the L2 of

third graders from a private school. This has been done by implementing and monitoring

some pair work oral production strategies such as speech activities encouraging natural

language acquisition, and providing students with real opportunities to use cultural norms

in L2 and to implement questionnaires to collect the students’ opinion. Upon analysis of

these activities and questionnaires, it becomes clear that the students interact with basic

social rules in short dialogues using the question-answer format. This pair work oral

activity is more effective because teachers can see the production that students are having.

It is true that teachers required an extra-effort because they became facilitators of the

communication process and have to move around the classroom all the time to listen what

the students say.

Key words: pair work, oral production, sociolinguistic, interaction, strategies.

Este proyecto determinó el impacto de las actividades orales en parejas sobre la

competencia sociolingüística de una segunda lengua en alumnos de tercer grado de una

escuela privada. Esto se ha logrado mediante la implementación y seguimiento de

estrategias orales como formulación de preguntas, respuestas cortas, proporcionar a los

alumnos oportunidades reales de utilizar normas sociales de cortesía en la segunda lengua

y aplicar cuestionarios para recoger la opinión de los estudiantes sobre el trabajo en pareja.

Tras el análisis de estas actividades y cuestionarios, se hace evidente que los estudiantes

interactúan con las normas sociales básicas en diálogos cortos usando el formato de

preguntas y respuestas. Esta actividad oral en parejas es más práctica y se puede ver la

producción que los estudiantes tienen en el momento. Pero los profesores requieren un

esfuerzo extra para ser el facilitador del proceso de comunicación, además deben recorrer el

salón de clase todo el tiempo para escuchar y manejar la actividad.

Palabras claves: trabajo en parejas, producción oral, sociolingüística, interacción,

estrategia.

Introduction

In recent years, teachers have been interested in finding out different strategies to

teach English. These strategies are sometimes referred to as oral production strategies.

Teaching is a great experience and teachers have understood that students’ language

competence will increase year by year through interaction in the classroom, but the

complication of getting students to speak in the L2 has come of importance in the teaching

learning process. Teachers do not want that students interact among themselves because

they can lose the control in the classroom. (Byrne 1989) however, claims that “unless you

have a very small class, you will never be able to give your students enough oral practice

through whole class work.”

The pair-work oral production activity for this paper is the main topic because it can

get the interaction in the students. Its main aim was to implement pair work to determine its

impact on oral production. Teacher observed their own students to establish their initial

level of sociolinguistic competence, to implement pair-work oral production strategies in

the classroom and monitor students’ progress during the implementation of strategies such

as speech activities encouraging natural language acquisition, and providing students with

real opportunities to use cultural norms in L2.

This paper is divided into implementation of pair-work oral production strategies in

the classroom and analysis sections. In the first part teacher applied different oral activities

to review all the sociolinguistic aspects and monitor the students’ progress. The application

of the tools consisted in a set of activities to diagnose the students’ initial level of oral

production with interactive speaking activities. In the second section teacher found out the

opinion students have towards pair work oral production activities through two

questionnaires.

The type of communication used in the interactions to establish students’ initial

level of sociolinguistic competence was a question answer format. They established a basic

social contact talking about what they like to talk and the fluency of the students was

developing over time and with lots of practice. It showed that these children were familiar

with the basic question and answer partners.

Statement of the Problem

When teachers think about oral production. Communication is the aspect that teachers

develop in class; they would like to have the tools in order to speak with friends about their

interests and preferences using English. They do not want to work just on the notebooks

because it is a traditional way.

One of the most difficult aspects for teaching speaking is that teachers need to speak less in

the classroom and monitor the activities encouraging students to speak among them. Pair

work oral production activities may help the teacher to achieve interaction in the classroom.

But these activities are not used by teachers nowadays to improve the performance in the

classroom because teachers do not know how get that students to speak and listen among

them, and in this sense, there are some difficult aspects such as high noise and motivation

that affect the opportunities for using English.

Each student is different and some are good at the moment of speaking because they

developed this competence from an early age, they like to interact in all conversation

exercises, while others are good in writing, listening or reading. Mostly, students have a

poor oral production in class because the talking time is less owing to the students have 2 or

3 hours during a week, and teachers do not promote interaction among students, they prefer

to talk with students face to face in a traditional classroom when there are speaking activities

as a result we as teachers can see these classes when students are boring and the teacher are

talking all the time.

Most of the times, classes lead to assigning activities to fulfill a specific syllabus, teachers

want that students memorize their lessons, perform well on their tests and increase their

written comprehension and production, which are the basis of some official exams.

The main difficulty that affects the teaching and learning processes in the classroom is the

lack of interaction, students need active activities where they can participate all the time

and include examples from real contexts in order to help teachers to use more English in the

classroom.

This study implement pair work activities to determine its impact on oral production and

sociolinguistic competence. Here the role of the teacher was taking the responsibility for

analyzing ideas, organizing information, explaining rules, and correcting mistakes. On the

other hand, students needed to work independently, focusing on communication with each

other and the teacher.

Research Question

How do pair-work oral production activities impact the l2 sociolinguistic competence of

third graders from a private school?

General Objective

To determine how pair-work oral production activities impact the L2 sociolinguistic

competence of third graders from a private school.

Specific Objectives

To establish students’ initial level of sociolinguistic competence.

To implement pair-work oral production strategies in the classroom.

To monitor students’ progress during the implementation of the strategies.

Context

The study was carried out at a private elementary school that was founded 61 years ago to

offer education for the children of the administrators of an important Colombian oil, but

some years later they opened the doors to the entire community of the City.

The institution has a plan of bilingualism following aspects such as: the core of education is

the person, spiritual dimension of the students’ live, will and intelligence, and individuality,

as well as personal differences.

In 2011 an agreement was established with The British Council1 (BC) in order to diagnose

the students’ English level and implement school improvement plans involving teachers,

methodology, teaching strategies, and learning. In the teamwork teachers observed different

classes to support new ways to teach in the school and foster the students’ English level.

Also, regular training days with the BC English team have been established to accomplish

certification in content and language integrated learning (CLIL), which is defined by Marsh

(1994) as refers “to situations where subjects, or parts of subjects, are taught through a

foreign language with dual-focused aims, namely the learning of content, and the

simultaneous learning of a foreign language.”

The subjects of study in this project were 4 students from third grade; these children are 8

years old and they. These students were chosen by their high and low level in English and

by gender in order to do couples in the pair work oral activities.

1 British Council is a British organization that promotes educational opportunities and cultural

relations.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In order to answer the research question it is necessary to review key concepts such as pair-

work, collaborative and cooperative learning, oral production, and sociolinguistic

competence.

Byrne (1989) claims, that “unless you have a very small class, you will never be able to

give your students enough oral practice through whole class work.” teachers can use

different strategies to achieve interaction in the classroom, but students do not have enough

participation during the class because teachers do not know what kind of activities foster

the interaction among them. Teacher should divide students into pairs to save time and get

more opportunity to use the English.

For the purpose of this project, the definition of pair work provided by Scrivener (1994)

was used. He defines pair work as “a type of classroom interaction when students are

working with another student. This may be to discuss something, to check answers, to do a

communicative activity, etc.” from my point of view teachers talk too much and ask

individual students questions like strategy to have authority, in this way was my first

experience as teacher, but now I think that the most important thing in the classroom is the

interaction among students to discuss, create a nice atmosphere to do short dialogues, to

give personal opinions, and check activities.

Scrivener also emphasizes that students have less time to talk and build confidence among

them, with the teacher and in the use of the language if the teachers talk all the time.

Students need to share ideas, negotiate roles, and think how to ask or answer any question.

He suggests, teachers “(…) to allow the time, and the quiet students need. Teachers must

not feel the need to fill every gap in a lesson. Explore the possibilities of silence.” (1994, p.

16)

This way, the British Council (2010) lists a series of advantages at the moment of using

pair work activities. The British council states that, “Teachers need to foster interaction

among students and promote oral competence. Giving students more interaction time,

changing the pace of the class, the lesson should focus on students, not on teacher, allowing

students to mix with everyone in the group, establish a team goal to give them a sense of

achievement, pair work allows teachers to facilitate and monitor the activity, move around

the class to listen and correct the language students are producing.” On the other hand,

teachers should control all students in oral pair work activities and pay attention what they

are saying. In this moment teachers can see a few of the difficulties during the activity and

they need to resolve using some possible solutions.

Firstly, the students will make too much noise, but the noise is acceptable in oral pair work

activities because students need to interact among them, but teacher should be careful with

the shouting.

Secondly, the student will make mistakes. Byrme (1989) says that teachers need to give

clear instructions, model some examples in front of the class and give them enough practice

to get a clear pronunciation and correct use of the langue.

Students do not work properly when teacher do not explain or give clear examples to

practice the language. In this students need motivation to practice the activity and not

chatter in the L1, but teachers should be careful because students expect that they are taught

them and about it Byrne says that students need to understand why they have to do a

specific activity; I think that they need to clarify and put in context the activity to discover

students’ need and motivate that students do it better.

Finally, teachers can lose control of the class. Teachers need to create a set of body

language strategies to get the attention of the students at the moment that teachers want to

change the activity or finish it. In this way teachers have not to shout and keep the calm.

Pair-work activities foster collaborative and Cooperative Learning. Dillenbourg (1999)

explores various aspects of collaborative learning. He claims: “collaborative learning is a

situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together.” In this

kind of learning students develop and share ideas to achieve a specific objective in an

activity or class and also give more participation to use the English. Each student empowers

the other to participate and gives their point of view to build knowledge in the group after

using this group strategy to learn in community as teachers need to set up goals, define

what and how students will communicate, evaluate progress, listen them to make decisions

and resolve conflicts.

Learners will use a particular strategy with their partners using collaborative learning to

face problems such as to remember a new word to communicate the idea during the

activities.

Regarding Cooperative Learning, Millis (1999) states that it is a “generic term used to

describe a situation where students work together in small groups to help themselves and

others to learn.” (See Figure 1)

Figure 1: Source learning

Douglas (2007) suggests a series of oral production strategies to promote oral production.

He says, “From a communicative, pragmatic view of the language classroom, listening and

speaking skills are closely intertwined, the interaction between these two modes of

performance applies especially strongly to conversation, the most popular discourse

category in the profession”. The oral production competence is conversational discourse,

pronunciation, accuracy, fluency, affective factors, the interaction effect, questions about

intelligibility, the growth of spoken corpora, and of spoken language.

Fernández (2008), carried out a research in Mexico, in the Foreign Language Center of the

Universidad Autónoma de Baja California with the propose of improve the oral production.

She Points out some important aspects to achieve interaction in the classroom. She stated:

“we can facilitate the interaction in the classroom using interactive oral activities, a good

environment created by teachers, learning strategies, training in the use of learning

strategies and a careful selection of oral activities.” The most difficult task that teachers

have is monitoring the oral production in students, then, teachers need to build confidence

in kids in order to interact with others kids and achieve goals.

Tillitt y Newton (1993) suggest a simple way in order for students achieve goals in the

class and communicative strategies. They say that “the students of a second language need

to know the difference of social rules between the L1 and the L2. They distinguish between

the formal and informal speech that the people use at the moment of talking.”

The Sociolinguistic Competence entails factors about formal and informal register of

speech, so that, students understand when, why, and in what ways to communicate

properly. In this point we need to talk about the biggest tool that we as teachers have in this

moment. The common Europe Framework (C.E.F) states that the “sociolinguistic

competence is concerned with the knowledge and skills required to deal with the social

dimension of language use.” When the teachers use this competence, it provides students

with real contexts to use social rules in L2 and allows that teachers become a facilitator of

the process in order to monitor the interaction in a formal or informal speech. The point that

teachers should know is that sociolinguistic competence takes into account activities to help

students develop communication competence in context.

As part of the teaching practices, alternative assessment is when students give a response to

a question or task and gives teachers the opportunity to experiment with language and the

context that is related to real situations in the use of the language and the social structures;

teacher has to give constant feedback to students on what they have done well and what

they need to improve in order help them become more autonomous and conscious learners.

Brown, H.D. and Hudson, T. (1998) points out some alternative/authentic SL assessment

techniques and procedures such as: Selected-Response, constructed-response, personal-

response.

Brown, and Hudson suggest that “personal-response requires students to produce language

allowing their responses to be different. Most commonly used types: Conferences,

portfolios and self and peer assessment. It Allows students to communicate what they want

to communicate. Provides personal or individualized assessment. Can be directly related

to and integrated into the curriculum. Can assess learning processes in an on- going

manner.” Brown & Hudson, 1998: 660)

Some assessment types are conferences, portfolios, journals, Self- and peer assessment,

observations, clinics.

“Constructed- response requires students to produce language by writing, speaking or

something else. Most appropriate for measuring those language skills most commonly used

types: fill-in, short- answer and performance assessments. It is useful for observing

interactions of receptive and productive skills. Eliminates (virtually) most of guessing

factor.” (Brown & Hudson, 1998: 660)

Some key words are fill-in, short answers, Completion: word or short phrase , fill in table

or diagram, blanks in text–word, letters, sentence completion multiple-choice,

Performance: Oral interview, Oral report, Oral presentations, Lectures

Discussion/conversation, writing samples, problem solving. Note-taking.

Nunan (1989) lists a set of approaches and methods that have been used by teachers through

history of the English teaching. He says, “Language is a system for the expression of

meaning talking about communicative language teaching and focus his theory of learning in

activities involving real communication; carrying out meaningful tasks; and using language

which is meaningful to the learner promote learning.”

METHODOLOGY

This study is qualitative because the idea is to establish, implement and analyze data by

observing what students say. This qualitative of the exploratory – descriptive study

considered a phenomenon within a particular context.

Also, this study is exploratory and descriptive because it describes what is

happening during the application or implementation of the strategy.

DATA COLLECTION

Several instruments were used and designed in order to collect information about students.

Student artifacts: with the purpose of establishing students’ initial level of

sociolinguistic competence teacher implemented different pair work oral strategies

before the research and after the research.

Some activities were recorded to review all the sociolinguistic aspects and monitor

the students’ progress. The intervention of the tools consisted of the application of a

set of activities to diagnose the students’ initial level of oral production with

interactive speaking activities.

Questionnaire: Students gave their opinions about pair work oral production

activities in the first questionnaire, after in the second questionnaire the students

provided feedback, about their performance during the activities. This questionnaire

was administered after each oral production activity. See appendix # 1

DATA ANALYSIS

Two questionnaires were applied; the first one was intended to find out how the

participation was during the activities, if the instructions were clear, if the material was

appropriate to stimulate oral production and if students achieved the goal of talk in English.

The second questionnaire was intended to find out how students felt when they worked

in pairs oral production activities.

8 questionnaire forms to four students of third grade were distributed. Those were the

students who participated in the research. The questionnaire number 1 contained four

questions and the second one contained five questions (see appendix 1).

In the first instrument the number of students who did not have fluency was quite

high. Two (50%) of the students answered they are fluency during the activities. 2 (50%) of

students had poor fluency, the reason for this fact is that students needed more time to think

what they wanted to say and practice some unknown words in order to use them in the

speaking.

During all the activities the instructions were in English. In the second question

about understanding of the instructions 4 (100%) students understood the instructions in

English. The answers for this question confirm that is important use the language all the

time in order to have a language immersion in the classroom. Instructions were clear and

the activities were developed with the interaction among students.

3 (75%) students answered in the third question that they achieve the goal to

communicate in English. Only 1 (25%) student answered she/he did not know how to say

some things in the interaction. The goal in this question should be for students to speak to

each other in English between activities as well as during them. So many students

communicated in English because they remembered some basic rules in order to ask and

answer, also when they did not know how to say what they wanted to say they used

gestures with their hands and faces in order to ask their partner or teacher for help. They

used synonyms and opposite words to find out what to say.

Students liked the material that teacher used in pair work oral activities, but a little

percentage said that he/she did not understand it. 3 (75%) students said that the material

was appropriate to stimulate the oral production. 1 (25%) student did not like the material

to stimulate the oral production. The reason for this fact is that the student needed more

instructions at the moment of use the material. E.g. what is the role of the material; some

pictures were not clear, the input that this material gave him/her was poor.

2 (50%) students would like to have more games and videos. 1 (25%) answered that

he/she would like to do the activity in a different place outside of the classroom. 1 (25%)

students would like to work on computers. We should not forget that Pair work oral

activities are based on collaborative learning because students need to solve everything

together but getting a good time.

In the second questionnaire

In the first question 2 (50%) students consider that the pair work activities are

excellent. 2 (50%) students consider that these kinds of activities are good. This answer

confirms the answer to the question number 1 in the questionnaire number 1 about the

fluency. Students should practice more pair work oral activities to have the opportunity to

speak English with other students.

In the second question, 2 (50%) students answered that they had more participation.

2 (50%) students answered that these kind of activities are funny. 1 (25%) student said that

she/he achieves the English communication’s goal. 3 (75%) students answered that they

could remember the topic and 1 (25%) student said that his/her classmate did not want to

work. The pair work activities increase the participation because students should interact

among them to achieve the goal in the class, when students were working in pairs they had

a good time. But the most important thing in this answer is that students could remember all

about the topic when they worked in pair, this aspect is interesting because the teacher want

that students product all the time without help.

In the third question 1 (25%) student answered that he/she was scared to talk in

English and 3 (75%) students answered that they were not scared to talk in English.

At the beginning of all activities students were scared but after they talk in

confidence with partners and teacher. This study also evidenced that students want to

participate more in the classes and use the English to communicate their necessities, they

only needed to know how to express some ideas to be not scared to speak in English.

Finally in the fourth question 4 (100%) students felt motivate at the moment of

work in pairs.

Findings

To establish students’ initial level of sociolinguistic competence.

The type of communication used in the interactions was a question answer format; the

fluency of the students was developing over time and with lots of practice.

The following extract of dialogue is presented as an instance of the pair work and it

involves S1, aged 8, at school with S2, her classmate, aged 8.

S1: “Hello, Valeria how are you?

S2: I am fine, and you?

S1: I am happy, because I was at the mall and I saw a beautiful tablet.

Has your sister got a tablet?

S2: Yes, she has. But has your mother got an iPod?

S1: Yes, she has. Has your father got a DVD?

S2: Yes, she has. Sorry!! Yes, he has. Has your brother got a computer?

S1: Yes, He has. Sorry Valeria I have to do my homework on the brother’s computer.

Bye.

S2: Good bye.” (dialogue between students)

Students established a basic social contact talking about what they like to talk, and also

it showed that these children were familiar with the basic question and answer partners.

Students used some greetings on arrival like “Hello” and some leave-taking like “bye”

or “goodbye” that allowed check a short social exchanges about their initial level of the

sociolinguistic competence.

Also some politeness expressions and phrases such as “please” and “thank you” were

used in the conversations to achieve the interaction in the classroom, the teacher gave

always for each single topic a specific structure to ask and answer questions. E.g.

“What would you like to drink?

I’d like to drink some water, please.

Here you are.

Thank you.” (Dialogue between students)

To implement pair work oral production strategies in the classes.

In the implementation of pair work oral production strategies the students had a

good time talking among them, this kind of activities could motivate the participation in

class and the use of the English to achieve the students’ necessities.

At the moment of make pairs they showed a different interest in the class, this kind of

activity liked them because they did not practice with traditional activities such as

complete sentences, match pictures with words, or only draw in order to remember a bank

of words.

The main goal in these activities was activate previous knowledge to ask and answer about

a specific topic in order to develop a simple conversation in pairs. For getting these goals

students applied some interesting oral production strategies that helped them to remember

the general idea in the interaction with their partners. E.g. I found out that when they did

not say isolated words they could internalize structures and put in context new words, for

this reason they always needed to express using complete sentences.

Also, students got a traditional strategy but pretty effective that is the repetition. When

students repeat or rephrase what they or the person has said. It was an important part in

order to get the correct register when they were speaking.

To monitor students’ progress during the implementation of the strategies.

During the students’ progress two important aspects in the implementation of the strategies

were found out.

In the first part the communication was achieved because students spoke and listened in

English in every class, students asked and answered to communicate their necessities,

followed instructions and pair work activities provided more opportunities for participate.

In the second part the social relationship brought interesting things such as students learned

to negotiate roles and accept differences and no discriminate others classmates, Pair work

encouraged students to work together and develop communication strategies (substitution,

repetition, paraphrasing), students knew the importance of collaborative and cooperative

learning, struggling students could learn from more capable students, students laughed,

interacted and had a good time.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found out that the students interact with basic social rules in short dialogues

using the question answer format.

Students can develop some important social relationships with their partners. In my

opinion, cooperative learning is important to achieve those social relationships together to

goal and foster the interaction in English. This kind of work is interesting in order to see the

impact of pair work in the sociolinguistic competence. However, teachers need to give a

good input at the beginning of the class in the warm up and before each activity in order to

get an appropriate output of the students when they have to interact with others students.

The analysis of students’ answers in the questionnaire showed that pair work oral activities

are fun activities for students, but teacher need to research some different techniques to put

students into pair and negotiate if you get any problem because they don’t sometimes want

to work with some student. Teachers could foster the work between girl and boy, by

category taking a paper, asking students to work with the person next to them, low level

students with high level students, with a game (rock, paper and scissors) or pick up a

number, this like a recommendation at the moment of get pairs.

Also, it could be an excellent tool to teachers at the moment of evaluates to use pair work

oral activities for two reasons. Firstly, this activity is more practice and secondly, you can

see the production that students are having. It is true that teachers required an extra effort

because they become a facilitator of the communication process and have to move around

the classroom all the time to listen.

Teachers should be during the production, but they cannot participate in the interaction that

students are having, only if students ask teacher for help. Of course, teacher needs to

correct mistake after students finish the dialogue in order to allow a fluency speech during

the interaction.

Finally we as teacher should be careful at the moment of give instructions because if

students don’t understand the activity, they will be use the time for doing another activity

different to English and you can lose their personal and lesson aims. Teachers need to give

instructions before each activity and involve other students to give a demonstration before

the activity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berčíková (2007). Teacher’s Role in Pair Work (Master's thesis)

Retrieved from:

http://is.muni.cz/th/199495/pedf_m/diplomova_prace_Teacher_s_Roles_in_Pair_Work.pdf

British council. (2010). working in pairs and groups. Primary. September 22, 2010,

Retrieved from:http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/language-assistant/primary-

tips/working-pairs-groups

Brown H.D. 2003. Language Assessment. Principles and Classroom Practices. Longman

Brown, H.D. and Hudson, T. 1998. The Alternatives in Language Assessment. TESOL

Quarterly, vol.32, No. 4 p.p. 632-675

Brown (2007). Teaching speaking. (third ed), Teaching by principles an interactive

approach to language pedagogy (pp. 322-325). New York: Pearson Longman. San

Francisco State University.

Brown (2007). A methodical history of language teaching. (third ed), Teaching by

principles an interactive approach to language pedagogy. (pp 13-37) New York: Pearson

Longman. an overview of methods (adapted from Nunan, 1989a) San Francisco State

University.

Byrne, D. 1989. Techniques of Classroom Interaction. Longman Group UK Limited

Council of Europe (2011) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:

Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Council of Europe.

Dillenbourg P. (1999) What do you mean by collaborative leraning?. In P. Dillenbourg

(Ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. (pp.1-19).

Oxford: Elsevier

English version by María Esmeralda Navas (2012). Bilingualism in our philosophy. In:

Colegio El Rosario’s Website. Proyecto educativo institucional. Bilinguismo. English

version. Retrieved from:

http://www.aspaencolegioelrosario.edu.co/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i

d=168&Itemid=72 12/11/2013

Fernández, (2008) Mejorar la producción oral de estudiantes de inglés como lengua

extranjera en el centro de idiomas de UABC-Tijuana. Mexicali, B.C., Octubre 30 y 31

See appendix # 1

1. QUESTIONNAIRE 1

Objetivo: Proporcionar retroalimentación al profesor para conocer el impacto que el

trabajo en parejas causa en los niños de tercer grado.

Instrucciones:

Lee atentamente cada pregunta y responda honestamente

1. Considera que trabajar en pareja es:

Excelente Bueno Regular Deficiente

2. ¿Cuáles de los siguientes aspectos se evidenciaron en tu trabajo en pareja?

Participe mas Resultaron clases

divertidas

Se logró el objetivo

de comunicarse en

ingles

Discutí con mi

compañero

No realizamos el

trabajo

Recordé con

facilidad el tema

Mi compañero no

quiso trabajar

El profesor no dio

suficiente asesoría

Otras: __________________________________________________________________

3. ¿Te dio temor hablar en Inglés con tu compañero?

Sí, al principio No, nunca sentí temor Solo cuando el profesor me

escuchaba.

4. ¿Cómo te sentiste trabajando en pareja?

Relajado Aburrido Motivado Ansioso

Otros: __________________________________________________________________

2. QUESTIONNAIRE 2

El propósito de este cuestionario es brindar retroalimentación de la actividad.

Gracias por tu participación.

Lee atentamente cada pregunta y marca con una X la respuesta que consideres

correcta.

Nombre de la actividad: _____ actividad numero: _____

1. ¿Cómo fue tu participación durante la actividad?

Con fluidez poca fluidez no pude participar

2. Las instrucciones fueron dadas en inglés. ¿las entendiste desde el principio?

Si, entendí las instrucciones desde el principio _____

Entendí la idea general de la actividad _____

No entendí las instrucciones hasta que observe a mis compañeros participando

_____

No entendí las instrucciones y estuve confundido durante la actividad _____

3. ¿Encontraste la forma de decir lo que querías así no conocieras todas las

palabras? Si _____ no _____

4. ¿El material fue apropiado para estimular la producción oral?

Si _____ no _____ por que: _____

5. ¿Qué cambios le harías a esta actividad?

____________________________________________________________