# data[].attributes.body
Comment on MFP :

Comment on time management :

Comment on TTT vs STT

Comment on questioning technique

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: I know there was mixup in the ordering of your slides, but next time be sure to integrate the MFP portion.

Time Management: Your Lead-In was 17 minutes long, which set your lesson behind. Consider giving the students less time in the breakout rooms and not placing them in breakout rooms for every task.

TTT vs STT: Your TTT has improved, but it could still be reduced. Unnecessary speech can be eliminated, and necessary speech can be simplified.

Questioning Technique: Good job eliciting responses and nominating the students!

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: short explanation of Each lettered vocabulary item's Meaning is good but needs student elicitation during exercise 2

Time management: Time in breakout rooms can be reduced by 1-2 minutes for Lead-in exercise. Excessive BOR usage.

Watch lead-in time

TTT vs STT: TTT high but good student response elicitation during lead-in/exercise 1 . During exercise 2 could have gotten the students to say the name instead of just saying the corresponding letter to the image to help reinforce the vocabulary. Ex. "and what is the name of this mode of transportation ?"

Questioning: Keep CCQ simple and keep the CCQ Relevance to the vocabulary to reduce confusion. Don't add if the tram can fly keep it to the ground.

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: Don't forget to integrate next time ;)

Time Management: Try to think of lead-ins as a seperate entity from the other stages. At most, it should take about a minute or two. You only need to nominate 1 or 2 students at that point of the lesson. Time spent in the BOR could have also been a bit shorter. Go at the pace of the lesson time vs. the time it takes the students to complete the activity. It is fine if the students don't have all the answers by the time the BORs end.

TTT vs STT: TTT could be reduced when responding to a student's answer. With the amount of time given, there is no need to elaborate or justify the validity of the answer unneccessarily. Compared to the advanced level students, providing too much information to the students will only confuse them. If they are confused, guide them to the answer by prompting more questions.

Questioning technique: Always a great job with nominating students. During the vocabulary section, you did a good job utilizing CCQs to elicit the answer for some of the questions that students had gotten incorrect at first.

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: Got a couple in for MFP but due to time consumption could not get to the rest.

Time management: less time for BORs.Remember to switch the BOR time to leave to 10 seconds so you dont lose a minute. This is not on you but catch if the student read the text or not and if they didn't find one who did because it will eat time waiting for that student to read the text again to catch up.

TTT vs STT: Student elicitation was good and you kept to minimal talking by only tacking on a little extra information per answer given by student.

questioning: Good follow up questions to check for reading comprehension from the students for the given text.

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: Though you started to run out of time, your Clarification stage was strong. Budget time better next time, and keep it up!

Time Management: Your colored reading task was clever, but the execution could have been planned better. Consider sharing a document in the chat that the students can use for all the readings and tasks in the lesson.

TTT vs STT: You made good use of STT by nominating a student and giving them the opportunity to demo the task for the rest of the class.

Questioning Technique: Good job eliciting understanding of the tasks. Overall, your CCQs, ICQs, and Elicitations have improved.

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: the text's M was clarified nicely in the True/False section with the follow-up CCQ questions. P was nicely gone over in the following section.

Time Management: Class went over by 10 minutes, so keeping the stages shorter is a priority. Time in the BOR could have been reduced, as there was points where some of the students were sitting in silence after the activity was finished. There was no need to send the students to the BOR during the inital speaking task/lead-in.

TTT vs STT: TTT was greatly monitored, and even during the silent moments you gave the students the space to think and provide their answers. Asking students to justify their answers was a great way to increase STT during the lesson.

Questioning technique: During the True/False question, there was a great usage of CCQs to prompt the students to give answers!

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: Great job with conveying meaning and form. You let people pronounce the sentences as well. I appreciate you letting everyone say the sentence and then you call on a specific person to say it.

Time Management: I would nominate a student almost immediately after you ask a question or nominate somebody after 3 or 4 seconds of silence. Nominate a specific person to save time.

TTT vs STT: Great job with allowing for STT.

Questioning: Same thing from time management. Nominate a student after a few seconds of silence or immediately nominate somebody. Make sure to either let anyone answer a question before a few seconds or nominate a specific person. I would personally nominate a specific person to save time. I like how you clarify the instructions with specific nominations to make sure the students understand the exercise.

Technical notes: Make sure to share the screenshot of the activity in the Zoom chat to EVERYONE before you put people in breakout rooms. I tried putting sending the activity screenshot in the chat in previous TPs after I put people in BOR but depending on what BOR I was in it would only be seen in that BOR chat. This kind of thing should be ironed out anyway if there isn't already a way to fix this in Zoom settings.

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: Good job having them pronounce the different travel items. Meaning and form were eloquently conveyed through each slide showing the different travel items.

Time Management: Good pacing amongst all the stages.

TTT vs. STT: Great STT. There was a lot of focus on the students.

Questioning: Good job asking people some reasoning questions for some of the travel items.

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: Meaning was very well understood throughout the lesson. They were able to stay on task at all times do to how you got them to understand the verbs and tenses. For form, all was done well, but if I had to add anything I'd say you could benefit from showing the formulas for a longer time. It could help the understanding soak in more. Pronunciation was very well done. Even with over-zealous students you excelled.

Time Management: Very well done. Nominating quicker in dead spots of STT would help with flow, in terms of length and stage division everything seemed quite well rehearsed.

TTT vs. STT: You let the S shine and gave them many opportunities to speak up and be part of the lesson. Use your ability to ask these kinds of questions in order to reduce the time you take to explain the tasks. Asking the class questions that prove they understood helped greatly even when an explanation ran a little long.

Questioning Technique: ICQs and CCQs were great for elicitation. All questions were sequenced well. Task-based questions were also laid out nicely. Overall, a strong showing of how to question.

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: The vocabulary choices were done well and presented well. The pronunciation was done well and executed in a well timed manner. Try to elicit more of the ideas from the students through discussion questions.

Time Management: The lesson was well timed. Appropriate timeframes were used for the BORs. You were conscious of how long each part of your lesson was and it showed. You showed a good ability to be able to stay on task even when students were overlapping answers and questions.

TTT vs. STT: You were able to let the students talk freely and gave them all opportunities to speak. Asking more questions and keeping them short and simple will allow for more STT. Being able to relate to them helped them really open up in the freer practice.

Questioning: Questions were asked well, and any questions you had that weren't immediately understood were given follow up questions that were simpler and more palatable. Some of the students with weaker speaking habits were unable to talk in the BORs in one case, so I would try to go over the instructions through more questions.

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: Good job asking questions for meaning and form. I liked the CCQs you asked, they were very simple for pre-intermediate students to understand. Also good job with the pronunciation as well.

Time Management: Try nominating students shortly after asking a question. This will cut down on time. The long silence after you try to illicit a question should be cut down to perhaps 3 to 4 seconds. If a student doesn't answer, nominate them.

TTT vs. STT: There was slightly more TTT than STT.

Questioning: Try nominating students more. There's too much silence after you illicit questions from them. You also wait for students to answer the questions, and then after a few seconds of silence you answer them. This was from a few instances that I have noticed.

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: The MFPs were exemplified very well. There were many words that you helped the students understand in regard to directions and travelling. You worked with the students to help with anything they were unsure about grammatically. Try adding in more pronunciation lines.

Time Management: You were able to keep everything timely and did a great job moving along the tasks. The presentation went for just the right amount of time. BOR sessions were also timed very well, giving the students the right amount of time to talk.

TTT vs. STT: The students had a great time talking through these tasks. Give them more of these opportunities by limiting the explaining you do as much as possible. You spread out the STT nicely between various students and gave many of them good chances to contribute.

Questioning: Your CCQs were well organized and complimented your lesson quite nicely. Keep asking questions whenever the students have confusion, and let yourself be their guide to get there.

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: Nice job with the MFP. I enjoyed the pictures and the approach. You clarified things quite nicely. I liked how you clarified the form of the words all at once at the very end.

Time Management: Well done, ending right on time and moving from task to task quite easily. The lesson had a nice flow and the students were very well behaved throughout. Remember to check the breakout room countdown time! haha

TTT vs STT: Very nicely done, Chris. You did a good job asking the students to justify their answers, increasing overall STT. Your slideshow presentation was also very colorful, but still neat and tidy.

Questioning Technique: You questioning was very good. You consistently asked CCQs and ICQs to clarify instructions and justify answers. You nominated the students successfully without leaving too much "dead air". Occasionally, I would suggest writing more precise CCQs. Make it very easy for the students to know what you're asking. Overall, great job! I really enjoy your lessons!

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: clear and concise. Your post teach vocabulary went well. Could have gone with one by one elicitation after pronunciation practice to check with a couple students and use maybe a follow up CCQ: Could you say a [insert separate fruit] is also juicy? Could you say that it could also be succulent? Missed word stress. other than that the MFP stage overall went great.

Time management: Your stage-stage flow went well and you were able to complete all your stages in a timely manor. DEC was excluded

TTT vs STT: your TTT decreased well. You even decreased your time for your explanations when students asked for further explanation.

Good balance achieved

Questioning technique: Your CCQs were kept appropriate to the learner level and i believed the students comprehended your questions and gave the appropriate/expected responses.

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: M was clarified nicely during the true/false task activity and the vocabulary section with the CCQ's to the ss. During the freer practice, a lot of the students were using the F of the Q's, which was a nice inclusion. There was a nice, smooth transition to P! It definitely did not feel forced or injected in. Since the ss talked over each other a bit, you could also probably try to nominate a s to check their P individually as well.

Time Management: In retrospect, the lead-in could have been a bit shorter, (so ss would have more time in the freer practice) but this lesson was overall a great improvement from the previous one in terms of pacing. It was most likely an issue with the BOR taking up time to close more than anything (since that will eat up a lot of time)

TTT vs STT: The way you asked follow-up questions to the ss was a great way for them to increase STT, as well as check for comprehension. Your language was also graded very well, which also reduced TTT overall.

Questioning Technique: Great job on utilizing CCQs with students who had trouble understanding the content/instructions (and quickly adjusting your form of questioning to adjust to the individual s's needs!) without compromising lesson pace.

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: Good focus on the grammar in question during reading of sentences. Helps students focus on the word in question when that word is stressed compared to the rest of the sentence.

The meaning was explained well for talking about the use of probably and possibility. Could have simplified better and associated it with the word "maybe". To get the rough meaning across synonymous/similar words could work out well but can also cause reliance on the easier to understand/use word. Students demonstrated understanding towards context needed to using the correct grammar.

Time management: Good stage flow and you were able to maintain a good time for each practice. Could feel a little bit of time crunching around the controlled practice. Did not reach Delayed error correction but pronunciation was the main problem I noticed with words outside of the grammar in question. You did great in your explanation of the grammar. DEC missed

TTT vs STT: TTT high from interjection STT semi low but you gave them adequate time to flesh out their response and aided them along to the correct conclusion.

Questioning Technique: Need better ICQs and to demo your controlled practice with students first. CCQs were straightforward and kept the focus to the grammar in question

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: Because the presentation slides only had text, students may have had a harder time understanding the concepts being presented (but this can be difficult with lessons like this) M could have been clarified with more CCQs (rather than explaining). To make things easier for the students, try to drill P not by sentences, but with chunks of words!

Time management: You nominated less ss during the lead-in, which was great, and it sped up the lesson. The pacing this time around was greatly improved.

TTT vs STT: During the lead-in and first activity in particular, your TTT was high, which slowed down the pacing of the lesson. One way you can reduce TTT is to nominate students to read out the questions rather them read them aloud to the class. If the answer to a question is correct, you can simply move on to next one, rather than try to clarify its correctness by repeating the sentence aloud once more.

Questioning technique: You began to question/utilize more CCQs towards the ss as the lesson continued, which is a great improvement from last time. Whenever there are ss that lack understanding (or give the wrong answer) try to ask questions that will allow them to realize their own error, rather than simply providing the solution. Don't be afraid to let the class be silent as you give the ss more time to think and ponder their responses!

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: Good job clarifying MFP and I noticed you did most of it in the 4th stage.

Time Management: I've noticed long bouts of silence. Probably best to keep the lesson moving between STT. Good job with allowing students to talk enough while letting other students speak.

TTT vs. STT: I've noticed a lot of STT by eliciting students to talk as well as adding plenty of opportunities for BOR.

Questioning: Good job giving ss opportunity to speak while dispersing opportunities well amongst the students.

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: Nice job with the grammar. The CCQs could be more precise and clarifying.

Time Management: Very nice stage flow and good pacing overall. Great improvement from last time! Don't forget to leave room for the delayed error correction :)

TTT vs SST: TTT was a bit high and could still be lowered. You did give the students time enough to get their responses and justifications out, but next time try to eliminate any unnecessary speaking and clarify what you do choose to ask the students with more precision.

Questioning Technique: You used CCQs more than last time, so nice improvement and great job moving toward a more student-centered lesson.

# data[].attributes.body
MFPs: You did a god job going over the meaning of the target language. Your CCQs did a good job of eliciting information to the S and helping them better understand. The post-teach vocabulary section showed this. You did a good job with trying to get individual students to pronounce the language, so try to be more confident in making that happen next time, even when the S all chime in.

Time Management: The lesson was paced well. Time ran a little long but you managed the lesson well. Keep refining the transitions to be smoother and quicker. Well done with timing each stage appropriately in relation to their parts in the lesson. You managed BOR time and countdown time very well.

TTT and STT: You gave them many opportunities to speak and use the target language. Try grading your language a little bit more so they can understand even better and speak more. You engaged many different S which was very well done.

Questioning technique: Your questions were good and fit the material well. CCQs were able to draw more speaking from S. Implement some more ICQs because you have good ones. Find more ways to elicit answers instead of giving them.

# data[].attributes.body
MFPs: You did a good job for meaning, form and pronunciation. The students clearly understood what the language meant, and in moments where they didn't you were able to quickly course correct.

Time Management: Very well done. The lesson was excellently paced and the transitions were smooth and timed well. Every aspect of the lesson ran for the proper amount of time.

TTT and STT: You were able to significantly reduce TTT over the course of each lesson. The students were very willing to talk and had the confidence to ask questions or speak freely in BORs. The presentation allowed them to speak using the target language with enthusiasm.

Questioning technique: Your CCQs were very good, especially when having to answer questions on the fly. The language you used was proven to be graded well based on their understanding. Make sure to take feedback when they get sent to the BORs.

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: Good job with focusing on meaning and form.

Time Management: Great pacing all around you segued the stages in a timely fashion. Each slide blended nicely into the next and kept students engaged.

TTT vs. STT: You nominated students very eloquently and kept the questions going.

Questioning: Great job nominating specific students to answer questions and letting them talk.

# data[].attributes.body
MFPs: Great work in all the aspects of helping the S understand the language and clarifying the MFPs. Your CCQs and ICQs played a key role in this.

Time Management: You were very efficient in managing each task and making the best use of time for each part of the lesson. The transitions were smooth. Time spent in BORs was well timed and effective.

TTT vs STT: You did a great job at maximizing STT throughout the lesson. Many different students were given the opportunity to speak at various points. Your line of questioning helped this out very much.

Questioning technique: Your ICQs and CCQs were sequenced very well. All lines of questioning were easy to follow and understand. You kept students engaged by having the right questions to ask.

# data[].attributes.body
MFP: I am very impressed with your CCQs in your clarification stage. I really liked how to switch it up a bit and to further engagement amongst students, you went from doing pronunciation as a class to nominating a specific student. For example, you said "Now Veronica, (question here)". Your CCQs were very well planned and it showed from how you had the answers to your CCQs on your slides and would go through them as the students were answering.

Time Management: Your time management was great in how you kept the engagement going while staying orderly with time.

TTT vs. STT: You allowed a good amount of STT by nominating students to speak or answer a CCQ. The students felt very engaged and happy.

Questioning: CCQs as mentioned in my MFP section explain my thoughts on your questioning, but I'll say here that they were very well thought out.