# data[].attributes.body
1) I think we were able to realize the stages. However, we could express or explain things more explicity and clearly.
2) We tried to frame our lesson contextually by fostering intercultural awareness and critical thinking. I think our students could react these two. From the context, they could also understand the use and appropriateness of the targeted phrases.
3) Not really, because it was more like a systems lesson rather than skills lesson, perhaps because we couldn't manage our time effectively although we calculated and allocated minutes per teacher and task. Therefore, we could not implement the speaking section.

# data[].attributes.body
1) In my humble opinion:) the stage aims were realized. ,The main aim of the lead-in was to grab students' attention and activate their schemata. I think most of the students were quite engaged and eager to participate.
The main aim of the second  stage was to present new vocabulary items with their collocations and pronunciation to the students. However, we aimed to elicit as much as we could from the students and to make sure that they did not have any misconceptions. Therefore we asked many CCQs and again the students were very eager to answer.
The production stage was to enable students to produce the vocabulary items they learnt in a meaningful context.
2)  to be continued...

# data[].attributes.body
I think we managed to achieve the aims of the lesson. Although there was a lot to be covered, we were able to execute all stages in a very limited amount of time. The feedback we received allows me to think that we did a good job :) Since this was not a ‘normal’ teaching setting, the proof to look for was not really the language or skill improvement but our fundamental aim was to demonstrate a reading lesson in which pretty much of everything we have discussed so far in our lessons And reflection memos so far. Most of my colleagues said they would like to use both the lesson plan and the materials we used in our micro teaching. For me, this is the evidence which shows that we were able to demonstrate a useful lesson.
Whatever you do related to your profession surely contributes into your knowledge, attitude or the way you perceive yourself and your teaching. However, to be honest, I wish we had discussions on

# data[].attributes.body
1. Were the stage aims realized?
I think the lesson stages were realized. In the pre-reading stage, the students were engaged in the topic and discussed the  advantages & disadvantages of tourism on a growing city. Then we had pre-teaching vocabulary stage and we introduced the vocabulary to the students, but unfortunately we didn't have time to do a vocabulary exercise. This can be done after the listening stage finishes and as a revision the next day. The next stage was the listening stage. In the prelistening, we introduced the connected speech and asked the students to read the phrases  out loud, paying attention to connections between words. Then we had the while listening and post-listening, which could have been elaborated more.
2. If yes, how effectively were they realized? What evidence is there?
As the students were able to answer the questions related to the reading, I think it was effective, but as I mentioned in my reflection checking the answers could have been more detailed making sure that every student heard the answers.
3. Did the stage aims, tasks, materials, interaction patterns relate to the overall aims of the lesson?
I believe the interaction patterns were all related.
These practice lessons gave me an opportunity to revise all the stages of a lesson in a skills lesson. I loved the creativity of my colleagues :)

# data[].attributes.body
I once again felt the urge to plan ahead for the lesson and this is what I actually happen to abstain from or somehow miss. Also, the lead in part that I executed was quite satisfying because I could sense and see that the interest of the Ss into the topic was sparkled. I also think I was able to provide clear instructions. I also felt that my TTT was relatively lower because I spared more opportunities for Ss to do the speaking. Also, that was the first time I did teamteaching simultaneously so it was a challenging and at the same time intriguing experience to me. We couldn't have a chance to discuss my and my partner's session yet so can't say anything about that yet.
For the areas that need further attention in my teaching practice, I kind of went with the flow of explanations of the grammatical forms in a deductive manner first. However, we planned the sections of the grammar part to be inductive. Once I realized my mistake, I passed it  to my partner. I should have been more concentrated on the issue of induction. Also, we as a team had problems with time management, specifically regarding the time allocated to the grammar part. Unfortunately the lesson seemed more like a grammar lesson instead of a speaking one. Therefore, we couldn't achieve our plans to practice critical thinking in speaking. The presentation of the newly created countries with made-up rules by Ss couldn't take place at all, which means that almost none of the speaking focused/based stages/activities that we designated didn't quite find a room to occur.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I believe that the stage aims were realized in terms of vocabulary teaching, strategy training (skimming&scanning), relating strategies to real life, and summarizing the aims of the lesson.
2. I think vocabulary part was effective because we included pictures and concept checking questions, and students' responses revealed that they were clear about new vocabulary items.
With the skimming and scanning stages, students had checklists, and they were able to see what steps to take while utilizing skimming and scanning. The concept-checking questions about strategies were answered correctly by students , as well. Students' comments at the end of the lesson as to how they could employ these strategies also revealed that they were clear about strategy-use.

3. I think stage aims, materials (visuals in the pre-teaching vocabulary part, checklists in the strategy training part), and interaction patterns(peer discussion & peer checking, and open class feedback) related to the overall aims of the lesson. I wish we could have integrated group work, as well, in the production part; however, we had limited time, which is why we had to go with individual work and pair work.

I feel that this teaching practice added value to my teaching because I was able to see a lot of great performances by my classmates, to begin with, all of whom are so inspirational. My own teaching practice made me to reflect back on my own teaching practice as a not-actively-teaching-at-the-moment teacher about the way I use ICQs, CCQs, visuals, technology, my rapport with my students, etc. It once again made me realize that the actual classroom dynamics are really different than the classroom dynamics in a "pretend" class, and even with great students in my pretend class, there are things that might go unnoticed, and I should plan in a more detailed way and think deeper about what might come up in the lesson.

# data[].attributes.body
Kevser

# data[].attributes.headline
1) Was/were the stage aims realized? I think the stage aims were realized as a whole- of course, we were not able to complete the post activities, but we talked about them and it was possible. When the pre stage activities, let's say, is taken into consideration, we were able to activate schemata, teach vocabulary, made the learners become aware of connected speech, etc. Maybe, we could have allocated more time on the while and post stage, but under normal conditions in Sometimes while planning I focus too much on my  activities or what I should do that I totally forget the time I must allocate for each stage - this planning & execution of the lesson have given me the opportunity to re-think about what I must take into consideration before teaching. 

# data[].attributes.subject
1) Was/were the stage aims realized? I think the stage aims were realized as a whole- of course, we were not able to complete the post activities, but we talked about them and it was possible. When the pre stage activities, let's say, is taken into consideration, we were able to activate schemata, teach vocabulary, made the learners become aware of connected speech, etc. Maybe, we could have allocated more time on the while and post stage, but under normal conditions in Sometimes while planning I focus too much on my  activities or what I should do that I totally forget the time I must allocate for each stage - this planning & execution of the lesson have given me the opportunity to re-think about what I must take into consideration before teaching. 

# data[].attributes.body
It gave me power and the joy of discussing with peers who share the same passion but all have different experiences. I feel that I copied everyone’s experiences and pasted them onto my memory to be used later but at the same time with all the discussions, we created some new memories and experiences. It is like Artificial Intelligence; I took things I was given and added some more using the tips I found on the way 🥰

And for detailed feedback on the micro teaching:
1. In my opinion the stage aims were realized at every step. The activities designed directed the learners to realize the stage aims

2. All except one of them were effectively realized and the activities and student responses can be counted as proofs of that. Yet, in the stage where key language was explained on the board, there was too much teacher talk and the learners might not have effectively understood the goal of the activity. Instead of explanations, another collaborative activity could have been designed for learners to discover the rules themselves

3. All the aims, tools and materials had some parts from the overall aim which was writing a formal complaint email and model emails, video of a commercial, key language activity and the final activity to write the email were all related to the overall aim