# data[].attributes.body
●        I would like to integrate more helpful ICQs – especially here where the instructions are a bit more complicated.

●        Continue improving CCQs, building on last week’s success.

●        Nail the timing.

# data[].attributes.body
1) Use more high-quality CCQs. CCQs are written out on the lesson plan and will be in the slideshow notes. Following the elicitation of MFP, I plan to ask CCQs to check the learners’ comprehension.

2) Use more high-quality ICQs. ICQs are written out in the “procedure” section for each stage of the lesson. I plan to cater each question to the learner, only asking either (a) when I deem appropriate, or (b) after I have modeled a task.

Of course, using more C/ICQs would be great, but my main aim is not to merely raise the quantity of questions asked; instead, I wish to consistently ask high quality questions. Relying on the above will hopefully reduce TTT.

(also note: i am very very very underprepared)

# data[].attributes.body
Reduce TTT

Increase STT

ICQs- Shoot for brevity and clarity

CCQs- More leading- less open ended

Timing

# data[].attributes.body
TTT seems rather high. The first task didn't have a clear sense of direction, which was why they had a hard time selecting the correct headline. Additionally, a student joined the class during a task and wasn't given any information or instruction, so she was lost until the start of the next task. Conversely, you are catching yourself and making corrections as the lesson goes on, which is good.

# data[].attributes.body
TTT is high. There are times where you're checking in with students unnecessarily, but leaving them alone when theyre lost in breakout rooms. The clarity is improving, I think brevity is too, its just about picking when to use TTT now I think.

# data[].attributes.body
TTT has been quite high. The first task didn't have much clear directions, and there were no clear or meaningful ICQs that could have helped the students understand what they were supposed to be doing. You integrated the CCQ of "which is longer: burning the midnight oil or pulling an all nighter?" I think that they would have learned more if you'd integrated more CCQs. A few times you just asked "what do you think that means?" when you were having them match with the terms. Later you added, "match it to the bottom" which helped them out. You adapted the question "what starts each idiom?" To "What part of speech are these words (listing the verbs at the beginning of the idioms) and that was more helpful. It seems like you're catching yourself in some questions that are difficult for students and fixing them. Perhaps scripting all of these questions beforehand would help so that you say exactly what you'd like to say in the way you'd like to say it to cut down on TTT.

# data[].attributes.body
Admittedly, your "start at the beginning" joke made me laugh. Good self-correction on putting the task image in the breakout room chats (though obviously beforehand is better). I'm hearing good-quality CCQs, even though they're not getting immediate answers in all cases.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Your ICQs were helpful, good progress made. I appreciated the thoroughness in ensuring students understood.

2. CCQs are making progress but could still use some work in my opinion.

3. Timing felt more undercontrol, and you hit the notes you needed.

# data[].attributes.body
Your CCQs were very good for the unblocking language. They were not open-ended and also did not just ask if it is the definition. Especially for mouth-watering and overpriced.

Your ICQs seemed intentional and helpful in clarifying the instructions, especially for the final student task.

# data[].attributes.body
ICQs used were good, but not always necessary. I see that you want to ask more quality questions to reduce TTT, but unnecessary questions can increase TTT.

# data[].attributes.body
1. CCQ quality was improved, seemed well prepared. Sometimes missed the mark but not by much.

2. ICQs were probably asked more than needed, would limit it to clear issues in understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
ICQs are improved, but they are still a little overused. Your CCQs are also improved. Even though you said you felt super underprepared, you didn't give off an air of being unprepared or not knowing what you were talking about. You were honest with Farhad when you didn't know the answer to his question which I think is good to let them know that even native speakers don't always know (or especially native speakers).

# data[].attributes.body
Make ICQs more Concise

Refine CCQs

Smoothen Transitions

# data[].attributes.body
●        Ask ICQs where necessary

●        Ensure instructions on slides are concise

●        Lower TTT

# data[].attributes.body
●        If students don’t have an answer right away, I want to be less afraid of silence and give them the time and space to answer.

●        I want to better utilize CCQs throughout the lesson

Keep TTT Low!

# data[].attributes.body
ICQs were pretty good, though there were times you could have nominated a student to answer rather than shooting the question into the air. Instruction stacking was nonexistent.

Good CCQs and elicitation questions. A few questions were a bit open ended, but overall you're still making great work with your CCQs.

I noticed no hiccups in regard to your transitions between activities; all activities flowed rather smoothly. One transition that particularly stood out to me was when, upon noticing that Maria had not answered the lead-in question, you asked her opinion and used that as a springboard to the next activity. That was cool.

# data[].attributes.body
Good ICQ's in the beginning (where you are in the lessons as I write).

Again, your style is very relaxed and approachable/

Clever to put the CCQ's concepts right on the slide - (this on or that one)

And I like "do you agree with..."

# data[].attributes.body
I think the video was very fast - but having said that - good authentic material. -

# data[].attributes.body
You did a good job at giving students time to formulate an answer. During the lesson, there were few moments where students hesitated to answer, but you handled each well!

CCQs and ICQs were pretty good. A few were slightly more open ended than likely intended, but they were generally high quality. Great work there.

I think TTT was a bit high this lesson, but that's of course going to be something that we will work on over the course of our careers. Not all TTT is bad though; I think you had a lot of good TTT, especially as some comments you made toward your students really seemed to raise your rapport with them.

# data[].attributes.body
in the first task - Farhad answered your question incorrectly (he said to find the meaning)- and they had to figure out that it was about matching the picture The slide was clear - but the instructions didn't match

I think you TTT was up from what its been.

Loved the shredded money listening and how it tied into the lead in

# data[].attributes.body
The ICQs were definitely up, but I think you could still ask a few more. The ones I did hear were pretty good; ultimately, I think it's fine as long as you're cognizant of the learners' comprehension.

In general, this was a well put together lesson. While the topic was slightly rarefied, I think that you nicely integrated it with more pertinent issues such as eco-friendliness.

TTT was a bit high, but not too high. Nice work!