# data[].attributes.body
Steps

After studying the range of interactive activities provided and watching the previous screencast, which suggests a way of analysing and classifying the practical benefits of each, in groups (allocated by the online facilitator) carry out your own classification of all the activities suggested. Get your own views straight on how and when the activities are best used.

Feel free to use the Padlet wall that your online facilitator will share with you or any other tool you and your colleagues prefer. Please make sure you have signed in to Padlet, so that your name appears next to your answers/posts.

In groups in the Teaching oral interaction discussion forum, discuss variations on, and improvements to, the suggested activities, and suggest additional, different activities which promote effective interactive language use.

Each group should aim to provide two or three additional activities.

# data[].attributes.headline
Feedback on Acitivities to prepare students for the oral

# data[].attributes.subject
Feedback on Acitivities to prepare students for the oral

# data[].attributes.body
Informal chat -

Benefits: Builds confidence in speaking; encourages fluency and spontaneous responses. It is good for warming up less confident students.

Disadvantages: It is not structure and it is usually not focused on stimulus based analysis.

Discussiion in Group Formats -

Benefits: This activity encourages multiple viewpoints. Smaller groups help all students contribute.

Disadvantages: Risk of passive students in large groups; may deviate from focused stimulus analysis unless it is strictly monitored.

Discussion Systems -

Benefits: It is highly structured yet student-centered; encourages deep thinking, careful listening, turn-taking, and referencing ideas—skills central to the IOC.

Disadvantages: Requires training in discussion method. It can be time-consuming.

Formal Debate -

Benefits: Encourages structured argumentation, evidence use, and clarity of expression and it builds confidence in defending a position.

Disadvantages: It can ve a bit too rigid for the IOC’s spontaneous, personal interaction.

Stimulus-to-Interaction -

Benefits: This ativity simulates IOC format exactly and it guides students to extract key ideas, build response from stimulus, and develop critical thinking.

Disadvantages: It must be well-prepared (strong stimulus, good comprehension questions). There is a risk of focusing too much on comprehension and not on discussion.

Role-Play and Prepared Interactions -

Benefits: It reduces affective filter and encourages use of advanced vocabulary in context. It is excellent for rehearsing arguments or perspectives.

Disadvantages: It may distract from the personal/reflective voice needed in IOC if overly scripted.

# data[].attributes.body
I've had a go at classifying the oral activities suggested in the notes. My aim was to group them in a way that makes sense for the IB English B Internal Assessment journey, thinking about when and how each activity is most beneficial.

Here's my proposed grouping:

Group 1: Building Fluency & Foundational Interaction

This is all about getting students comfortable and confident speaking English frequently in a low-pressure environment. I use them early and throughout the course. Great for warm-ups, quick tasks, and establishing a relaxed classroom atmosphere for oral practice.

Informal Chat: Pure, spontaneous everyday conversation.

Discussion (Pairs, Small Groups): Maximizes individual speaking time, great for brainstorming and initial idea sharing.

Group 2: Structured Discourse & Critical Thinking

I grouped these activities together since they focus on developing methodical discussion skills, deep analysis of texts or global issues, and engaging with multiple perspectives in a more formal, organized way. I have only tried some of them but I think it's better to use them mid-stage of the course, once students are more comfortable speaking, as these push them to articulate more complex ideas and engage critically with content.

Discussion (Whole-Class Groups)

Spider Web Discussion: To promote equitable participation and connected ideas.

Socratic Seminars / Harkness Teaching Method: For in-depth textual analysis and inquiry-based learning.

Panel Discussion

Panel of Experts (Information Gap): Encourages deep research on a specific aspect of a topic and then sharing that expertise.

Group 3: IA Simulation & Performance Practice

I think these activities can be used to practise the structure of the Internal Assessment, as they focus on preparing and delivering structured responses, handling direct questions, and sustaining a focused discussion. They can be used at a late stage of the course, as the IA deadlines approach, to build confidence.

Stimulus-to-Interaction

Student Presentation + Q&A + Discussion: this activity can be a full mock IA experience, covering the initial presentation, direct questioning, and the broader discussion.

Formal Debate: Excellent for practicing structured arguments, anticipating rebuttals, and responding to "questions from the house."

Group 4: Language Input & Listening Comprehension

This group specifically refines important receptive skills. Strong listening comprehension is vital for the IA, as students need to fully understand the teacher's questions and comments to respond appropriately. It also provides excellent authentic language exposure.

Video/Listening Comprehension + Discussion

# data[].attributes.body
This is a suggestion for an oral activity I use quite a lot for Individual Oral Commentary (IOC) Practice. It is called: "Speed Dating"

This class activity specially focuses on analyzing a literary extract within a time limit. It creates a structured, high-energy environment for refining both presentation and active listening skills.

It works in this way:

Setup (The "Dates"):

Listeners (Fixed): Half of your students form a straight line, seated. These students remain in their seats for the duration of the activity. Their primary role is active listening and note-taking. They are given a checklist (e.g., for key IOC elements like evidence/quotes, literary devices, effects on the reader, author's intention, structure, tone) to guide their feedback. They do not speak during the analysis phase.

Speakers (Rotational): The other half of the class sits directly opposite the listeners, forming a second line. Every speaker is given the exact same literary extract to analyze.

The "Rounds":

Initial Analysis: When the timer begins, each speaker delivers their analysis of the literary extract to the listener directly in front of them. This "date" lasts exactly 4 minutes. During this time, listeners are attentively taking notes using their checklist.

Rotation: Once the 4 minutes are up, the timer sounds. All speakers then move one position to the right (or a designated direction) to face a new listener. The listener line remains stationary.

Repeat: The timer is reset, and the process begins again with the speakers delivering their analysis of the same extract to a new listener.

Feedback:

Option 1 (Immediate): Students can give quick, focused feedback using their checklist immediately after each 4-minute "speech" before the next rotation. This provides instant reinforcement.

Option 2 (End-of-Activity): Alternatively, all feedback can be collected and delivered at the end of the entire "Speed Dating" session, once speakers have presented to multiple listeners. This allows speakers to focus solely on delivery during the activity.

I think speed dating is great for IOC practice since it provides students with:

Intensive Repetition: Speakers get multiple chances to deliver their analysis, refining their arguments, language, and timing with each new listener. This builds fluency and confidence rapidly.

Time Management Practice: The strict 4-minute timer forces students to be concise, selective, and manage their time effectively – a critical skill for the actual IOC.

Active Listening Focus: Listeners are explicitly tasked with critical listening and using a checklist, which sharpens their analytical skills and ability to identify key components of an effective oral commentary.

Varied Feedback: Speakers receive diverse feedback from multiple peers, offering a wider range of perspectives than from a single teacher or partner.

Low-Stakes Environment: While timed, the peer-to-peer setting can feel less intimidating than presenting to the teacher, encouraging more experimentation and risk-taking with language.

Efficiency: Allows a large number of students to practice presentations in a relatively short amount of time.

Has anyone else tried a "Speed Dating" for oral practice, or something similar? I'd love to hear if you've used it for the IOC, and how it went for your students!

If not, do you see yourselves incorporating it? And if so, how might you adapt or vary this activity to best suit your students' needs or a different assessment focus? (e.g., different time limits, specific feedback points, using different types of stimuli). Share your thoughts!

# data[].attributes.body
Here are some examples of interaction activities that I have used in the past to get students active in oral expression. I find that all of the examples from the module can be adapted to whatever theme so the advantages and disadvantages can be endless based on how they are used or guided and the personalities that make up each class group.

“Culture Shock Café”

Objective: Share and compare real or imagined cultural misunderstandings.

Instructions:

Students pair up.

One shares a short story involving cultural confusion or adaptation.

The other asks follow-up questions and relates it to their own culture.

Prompts:

“Tell me about a time you felt out of place in a new environment.”

“How do people in your culture react to lateness vs. in the culture you're describing?”

Problem-Solving Dialogue – “Design a Better School”

Scenario: You and your partner are on a student council tasked with redesigning your school to improve well-being.

Language focus: Giving suggestions, agreeing/disagreeing, justifying choices.

Prompts:

“Let’s consider class schedules. Should we start later?”

“Would adding more creative subjects make school better?”

Mini-Debate – “Tech: Help or Harm?”

Task: In pairs or small groups, students argue different sides of a tech-related issue.

Examples:

“Is AI a threat to creativity?”

“Has social media improved communication or made it worse?”

Language Functions:

Expressing doubt: “I’m not so sure that’s true…”

Making predictions: “In the future, we might see…”

“What Would You Do?” Crisis Simulation

Scenario: Students are part of an international team responding to a global crisis (e.g., climate change, pandemic, refugee crisis).

Objective: Collaborate to develop a culturally sensitive solution.

Focus: Negotiation, empathy, making decisions under pressure.

I also include a list of vocabulary based on the groups language level and theme for them to try and incorporate throughout the activity. Some students attempt using the vocabulary while others just focus on expressing themselves clearly due to stress or anxiety related to speaking in front of groups or a lower language level. All in all, expectations can be adapted to HL or SL groups.

# data[].attributes.headline
Classification of Oral interaction activities

# data[].attributes.subject
Classification of Oral interaction activities

# data[].attributes.body
This exercise took me a long time as I had to think of an actual activity for each of them to imagine the pros and cons of each exercise. After reading Constanza's contribution to the classification, I find it much more accessible. Thanks for posting your response!! Seeing other people's work helps me see different interpretations of the learning engagement exercises and seeing where I've gone wrong with my answers. Thanks all!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Language B oral expression classification

# data[].attributes.body
Informal chat

Advantage: More at ease, good for setting the scene and for assessing previous knowledge.

Disadvantage:  Due to its freer nature, it can easily digress and students might start talking about less related issues.

Discussion, group formats

Advantage: PW is ideal for discussing ideas and peer instruction, for shyer students it is less stressing. Group work, it is a richer discussion as more points of view are being discussed. Easier for shy students to express their opinions. Whole-group, A good practice for tolerance of different points of view and to wait for your turn of speaking.

Disadvantage: The more people in the group, the worse it is for quieter students to join in the discussion. Nevertheless, the more practice they get in smaller or whole groups, the more confident they might feel later.

Discussion, systems

Advantage: In these more structured systems, students are required to reflect on the topic in a deeper way, in some systems it is required that students have read before what will be discussed, so they have a contribution as a starting point. These group discussions involve deep thinking and analysis.

Disadvantage: I don´t see a disadvantage to them, only, teachers should be aware that this type of activity requires a good preparation and anticipation of results.

Formal debate

Advantage: Highly structured and it should be very well prepared and practiced. Students will learn to organize their ideas in a logical manner and respect the rules of turns to speak. This interaction teaches quick thinking and mastery of the language, as well as confidence and respect for other people´s opinions.

Disadvantage: If the preparation is adequate, I don´t see a disadvantage about working with debates with students.

Stimulus-to-interaction

Advantage: This activity can be more on the light side of the rules. It requires a bit of preparation (in video comprehension) in the sense that we want students to get information, and we want to guide them to discuss some points later. The second interaction which suggests that they should make notes to ask questions about the classmate´s presentations is a great way to make them focus.

Disadvantage: The stimulus questions should be well formulated to be conducive to the discussion stage, not only to check understanding and comprehension.

Role-played interactions

Advantage: The role play interactions are ideal for students who are more self-conscious, they could feel more distant in the “character” they are playing. Depending on the interaction, it could be more prepared or spontaneous.

Disadvantage: Not ideal if you intend to have a more structured activity and/or work with more formal language, as these patterns of interaction are more for natural and spontaneous language.

Prepared interactions

Advantage: Students can reflect on an issue from different perspectives and work on their clear organization of ideas.

Disadvantage: The stances or experts should be very well prepared in order to defend their “point of view” at any cost.

# data[].attributes.headline
2 oral activities that i designed, please check

# data[].attributes.subject
2 oral activities that i designed, please check

# data[].attributes.body
1. Photo/Visual Prompt Discussion Practice (IO-style)

How it works: Students select or are given a culturally relevant image related to one of the five themes (e.g., Identity, Experiences, Human Ingenuity).

Why it works: Closely mimics the IO structure, encouraging description, interpretation, and global issue connection.

Supports: Speaking fluency, theme-based vocabulary, spontaneous development of ideas.

2. Role-Play Interviews

How it works: Students take on roles (e.g., journalist and artist, immigrant and immigration officer, doctor and patient) and conduct unscripted interviews.

Why it works: Focuses on context, purpose, and audience, while encouraging natural conversation and register variation.

Themes: Identities, Social organization, Experiences