# data[].attributes.body
List each stage you saw in the lesson

What made this stage successful?

What made this stage less successful?

# data[].attributes.body
Lead in - Lead in was kept within 5 mins. I feel it's a hard one to get everyone interested. nice use of questions. It's hard but reduce TTT in this stage.

Preteaching/ task 1 - instructions were short and sweet, Good demo students understood the task. WCFB is very nice. I like the annotations and the nice use of questions, for example, are you sure? The learner self-corrected and the asking why to check the learner knew.

Pre-teaching/ task 1 - Ss were good, Nice praising

Controlled task- Clear instruction, good use of CCQs, and a nice Demo. Unfortunately, Some internet connections make BRS difficult as they connect late. Nice monitoring, Seeing students stuck and giving them a little hint.

when a participant connection drops it may be better to add them to an existing group I think Naz looked confused.

WCFB- Very nice use of questions.

Free Task - Clear instructions, maybe give them more time to do this but I know it's hard to get all of this into 40 minutes.

Overall a good lesson Tim, well done. (I find it difficult to tell you what made things less successful as again I do not know this myself and will surely make all the same mistakes , making me a huge hypocrite lol)

# data[].attributes.body
One student was not assigned to breakout rooms and unfortunately did not take part in the discussion.

# data[].attributes.body
Good explanation of the grammar rules. Tim used a table with timelines and highlighted the main forms. For the grammar, he used Present Perfect Continuous, Present Perfect, etc., which is related to the level of students (C1).

# data[].attributes.body
To evaluate students’ understanding of grammar, Tim often uses many simple questions, which helps them clarify the topic more effectively

# data[].attributes.body
Kept positive, made Ss smile and remembered to praise Ss.

# data[].attributes.body
Good start. Lina began the lesson with a demonstration using a picture to introduce students to the reading topic.

# data[].attributes.body
Lead in - Clear instructions to start when asking students to read and having 1 minute.

After the initial task "Now I want you" I know it is difficult and I'm sure I'll make the same mistakes in my lesson when giving instructions but I know the Celta method doesn't like this.

Some abrupt approaches may make students feel a bit uncomfortable. ("Any way we don't say that in English")

Task 1/Controlled practice? - "Now what I'd like to do" may be more direct. In the slides the questions are direct so I guess you could just read them.

Good use of BR, Students seemed to understand the task, and I heard some good discussions.

Controlled practice - Nice use of demo( Fill in the gap), clear time limit. Good input when monitoring. Clear instructions. Good use of praising.

Free practice - Students asking meanings and technical problems threw off the timing a bit making the free practice feel rushed.

Overall good lesson :) It's a horrible lesson to teach as a beginner, Im scared to do grammar lol well done.

# data[].attributes.body
Lead in - lead in was kept concise and brief but not rushed. Sts seemed interested in the 'weird ways to say obvious things' topic.

# data[].attributes.body
The instructions seemed clear to me (this is where i started taking notes). Gave students enough time to read, maybe even too much time for a first read (and this level). Sts understood the task, and were able to answer the questions.

During feedback, sts were generally able to answer the questions, in enough detail. You managed this stage in good time. However, sometimes you don't engage a lot with what sts say and just say 'okay, that is good' - I think it is important to engage a little with what is being said (not always ofc)

# data[].attributes.body
Lina explained the task of completing the sentences clearly, avoiding repeating and a lot of TTT. However, Ss felt confused about the number of sentences and highlighted words.

# data[].attributes.body
+Explained the task, instructions good.

+You did do a demonstration and elicited the answer instead of just giving it.

-I think an ICQ might have helped here to make sure sts understood they can use words multiple times - that might have avoided the reading-interrupting question. Or add the two words before you start the lesson?

+Sts had enough time to read the text and fill in the blanks.

-Sts may have needed more time in BR rooms (at least in my room they weren't quite finished yet)

-/+Error correction for this task was certainly efficient. If a student doesn't know the answer, ask the rest of the class first before giving an answer. Some sts didn't use the right form of pron/form, good opportunity to highlight in fb

+When sts asked for clarification, you did address it, and also elicited some answers during.

# data[].attributes.body
+Instructions were again short and I think clear this time

-/+BRs not working is unfortunate, I think you handled it fine

-Would've been good if you recreated the BRs instead of using the same rooms (at least I was in the exact same room 3 times, maybe the others were different)

+/-Discussion time was a bit short but it's so difficult to get there in good time, it was for me.

+You managed to elicit some good answers from the sts

-/+sharing the screen with the questions on it helps during feedback (was also asked for)

# data[].attributes.body
+Laser sharp - instructions were clearly thought out ahead

-/+It went by so fast it's hard to make more observations...

# data[].attributes.body
+Again, clear and concise instructions. We were doing the task 7 minutes in so on schedule.

+Good elicitation

+/- might have been a good idea to have sts write down their predictions so they don't have to remember it

+/- sts answers were a little brief, maybe couldve pushed them a bit (but time is a thing)

# data[].attributes.body
Lead-in was presented with a demo of a picture and Ss had an opportunity to discuss the topic. Not too much time for discussion in BRs, but enough for a start.

# data[].attributes.body
+Set up was clear, instructions too

+I like the highlighting of key words in instructions

-/+sts in my BR focused solely on the prediction questions and not question nr 1

-(if time) wouldve been good to not just ask sts whether their predictions were wrong but also what they did gather from the audio

+Natural answers, good elicitation

# data[].attributes.body
+Pictures were spot on. I loved the MP reference ;)

+ managed to get students to get students to the meaning of the words without just spelling it out

+/- I wonder if saying the sentence out loud would have been interesting, because intonation is important as well for these. You wouldn't say 'this book is 'great'' the same if you were being ironic. Especially since this is a listening exercise, I think some focus on pronunciation would maybe have been beneficial

# data[].attributes.body
Good giving instructing, checking if students understand them and follow them. Explaining the vocabulary with demonstration and CCQ.

# data[].attributes.body
+Instructions were clear

+Having sts screenshot/get the handout before starting the recording was smart, so they could go right into BRs

+Having pretaught irony and understatement to clue sts in that the language is not meant literally made this exercise quite clear - the fact that the whole class answered the demo'ed question shows that

-/+On that note, I wonder if this task was almost too easy for these sts - would there have been a way to provide more challenge? (for example, have students change the quotes into literal statements that the people could've said) (but of course, time)

# data[].attributes.body
+Instructions were good, although it seemed less scripted as the others (lots of 'and', 'and', 'have fun')

-Did not check understanding of instructions

+Managed to get some good answers despite the time to discuss being limited (the perennial struggle of arriving at the end in a timely fashion...)

# data[].attributes.headline
(Lead in) --> Pre-listening --> Listening for Gist

# data[].attributes.subject
(Lead in) --> Pre-listening --> Listening for Gist

# data[].attributes.body
+/- not sure if you needed the first slide, since you were following from Joshua

+/- instructions were clear for the most part but it would have been good to find a way to get all pictures on one slide with names so that it is clearer who's who

+Handled technical issue well

+/- I wonder if there could have been a way to structure the predictions in a way where it's not pairs of two people but just all people at once, since we don't know any of them at all so it's hard to give a different answer for any of the pairs. Or, write some idea starters to have sts think about, like 'are they co-workers?' or 'who is the boss?' --> this helps sts focus their discussion more

+Timing was good

+Elicitation in the feedback was good, though feel free to respond more to what sts are saying

# data[].attributes.body
+Instructions were clear

+/- labeling different words/phrases in a matching exercise with (A-B-C | 1-2-3) makes your life easier because then you can just ask students '[name] do 1' and they can say 'it's A' without everyone having to read the whole thing out loud every time.

-If you want sts to remember something from the audio, and they can't, instead of telling them, maybe have them read the transcript or play a clip from the audio with just that sentence.

-TTT was noticeably higher here, elicit/ccq instead of explain.

+I do like you using a personal anecdote to illustrate meaning if used in conjunction with the above

# data[].attributes.body
+Instructions were concise and clear

+/- maybe give sts a bit more time to read the questions before playing the audio, otherwise they will be reading instead of listening

+Sts had sufficient time to do the task and also discuss their answers properly, so timing was fine

+Feedback was good, I like that you addressed misunderstandings and mistakes you heard, that was spot on

# data[].attributes.body
+/- not enough time really to have sts discuss, so it was prudent to not send sts into BRs

+did elicit some good answer sfrom sts despite limited time

+not a lot of TTT here

# data[].attributes.headline
FOR EACH LESSON YOU OBSERVE PLEASE COMMENT ON AND NOTE ONE EXAMPLE OF:

# data[].attributes.subject
FOR EACH LESSON YOU OBSERVE PLEASE COMMENT ON AND NOTE ONE EXAMPLE OF:

# data[].attributes.body
1. Elicitation

2. Instructions

3. Clarification of language

4. Error correction

5. ONE TIP FOR YOUR COLLEAGUE

# data[].attributes.body
Observed instructions:

"I want you to look at these two sentences and find the differences between the two."

Notes:

+Instructions have been planned and written out in advance; Lina also sticks to the script, so the instructions aren't overly long

-/+ Try not to be too minimalist with the instructions, like "Look at this" --> what is 'this'? Better to be specific and say the word table

Or "I stop share. Breakout rooms." I think it is important that, given that these are C1 sts, the language we use is clear but still natural.

+Instructions are usually scaffolded well; the different bits of information come in a set order (how to do task, which questions, alone/pairs, how much time), so it's easy to follow them

+/-At the end instructions were a bit rushed

+/-Not sure if I heard ICQs / Demos for every round of instructions

# data[].attributes.body
Observed elicitation:

Notes:

+Getting answers from sts is usually streamlined and straightforward. Lina in most cases clearly nominated a student, so there wasn't as much sts talking over each other

-Sometimes the elicitation of the answer hinges too much on giving sts a choice between two words provided up front by the teacher, allowing sts to guess more easily. Perhaps the first question should be more broad, and if sts then cannot answer, then begin giving hints, instead of starting with that

+Eliciting a correct answer from another student instead of just correcting, that was good

# data[].attributes.body
+Lina corrected sometimes when sts mispronounced the TL, on the spot

+At one point, Lina, when a st gave an incorrect answer, first asked the class to help out, and this generated the correct answer

+/-No time for delayed error correction

# data[].attributes.body
Observed CL:

"Does words to that effect refer to exact words or similar words?" --> giving sts a binary choice, then pronunciation.

Notes:

+ Lina chose to do pronunciation before form. You could make a case for either order, depending on the lesson aims (if speaking, then pronunciation is probably more important). It's good that you thought about this though

-I wonder how necessary it is to dissect fixed expressions word by word ("stuff like that" noun + ... etc.) since the expression is pretty much always used as a language chunk. To save time, maybe focusing on the grammatical function of the chunk - not the individual words - would be better, and only focus on form of the individual words if those words also change, like in semi-fixed expressions.

# data[].attributes.body
+/- There was just one person in one of the BRs but Lina managed it and moved two more people to have a discussion.

eliciting answers and explanations was good. Lina allowed another person to explain the meaning to someone who did not know it.

enough time to do exercises

# data[].attributes.body
1. Elicitation- Good ccqs but I haven't heard much eliciting However, the students are good, so Lina can get through the lesson nicely.

2. Instructions- Clear, although "I want you to" could be more direct. nevertheless, Students understood the lead in fully. I was told last session that reading the task instructions is unnecessary and I thought that's a good tip to share. Clear instructions and time limits before sending to BR. As the lesson progressed instructions became direct.

3. Clarification of language- I think drilling individually would be good. The students seemed to understand the target language. I think Sazyie may have not understood the expressions. could have been worth going through meaning or asking more ccq, everyone else understood.

4. Error correction- Ask Saziye if she is sure, allowing her to self-correct

# data[].attributes.body
Since you did run out of time at the end, look at how you can streamline the earlier tasks (especially the first activity); did everything that was clarified need to be clarified for this level of student? It's important to trim the middle part of this lesson because it's about 'expressing yourself in an inexact way', so sts should have more time at the end to use the target language

Then again the next lesson was speaking so not having too much speaking isn't that big of a deal

# data[].attributes.body
Observed elicitation:

Notes:

+Clear nomination of sts to give answers

+/- There could've been some more elicitation, for example if you demo a task, or during task set up

+Lots of speaking at the end, sts had lots of answers

# data[].attributes.body
"How do you understand it? Can somebody help me with the explanation."

"We will listen again, and your task is to write down the expressions."

Notes:

+Instructions were clear and for the most part followed something that was scripted in advance

+Did use ICQs occasionally to clarify

+/- Make sure you don't repeat instructions twice in a row, even if the second one is rephrased - cuz of what Aida said last week, lower-level sts might misunderstand it as two instructions

-/+ for the work alone task, maybe modeling an answer could've been an idea (so they know the format of what to write, how to work in the prompted TL) - In my BR there was some confusion about how to do the task so not everyone had understood the instructions.

+Gave clear time-frame in which tasks were to be done

# data[].attributes.body
"Dawned on her"

Notes:

+/- did hear some good CCQs, but the TTT was also somewhat high during this clarification. Also, gotta do Form and Pron too if you highlight a word

# data[].attributes.body
+/- I don't think there would be a lot of error correction during a speaking lesson necessarily, focus is on fluency

+Nataliia did do some delayed EC at the end of the lesson

# data[].attributes.body
Try to make sure your speech remains natural throughout. I noticed that sometimes you pause mid-sentence (maybe you are mid-thought or setting up BRs/sharing screen etc); or sometimes the volume goes down significantly, and the energy changes. Especially for instructions it is important that they are audibly distinct from the rest.

PS: I may be guilty of this as well, so it's easier said than done for sure

# data[].attributes.body
1. Elicitation- Good student nominations. didn't see much eliciting.

2. Instructions- Areas of clear instructions but there were times when you over-explained for example Before the second reading task, you said the instructions twice, But good Icq to make sure they understood.

3. Language Clarification- Nice clarification of "dawned" I like the hand gestures and the ccqs. I know you're supposed to do the full MFP, but I like how you just quickly pre-taught not to lose time, as your lesson was reading and not vocabulary.

4. Error correction-

5. One tip- Try to give your example in one simple sentence Read X and answer Y for example. (Easier said than done)

# data[].attributes.body
1. Elicitation - Nice questions asking "why?", "Have we all been?" when students were not getting it Kept calm and kept asking questions until they worked it out.

2. Instructions- Very clear. Concise. Good ICQ before the first reading task. In general, your instructions are good.

3. Clarification of language- Good use of ccqs. Nice pronunciation drill.

4. Error correction-

# data[].attributes.body
Instructions:

Clear and straightforward

Concise and objective

Managed to briefly explain the task for late students (Claudia)

Elicitation:

Tim elicited the answers from the students

Nominated the students

Encouraged the students to extend their answers

He asked do we all agree/disagree with X and why

Effectively praising sts

Clarification:

Tim encourages questions and gives one or two options to clarify things

Tim used CCQs to clarify the meaning “does Alex uses simple or complex style?”

Drilled the words and asked for the placement of the stress, ex “colloquial”

Tim spend a bit more time in the task (which element A-C)

Error correct

Correction on the spot, pronunciation (informal)

Tip for your colleague:

Try to give more time for the productive task (The struggle is real for all of us)

# data[].attributes.body
Lead-in

+/-''Ok....ok, if you haven't ideas, ok''

''You are doing ok? Yeh?''

+/-Repeating instructions twice, at the beginning and at the end of explaining.

Elicitation

+Good elicitation.

+ A lot of CCQs

+/-During the first BRs there was not enough time to discuss the question.

+ One student arrived late, but Tim quickly explained what to do and added to the BR. Great job, everyone is actively engaged in their work!

+/- Paying a lot of attention to MFP of language. Do we really need it in Reading?

+/- ''What is colloquial? What does it mean?'' (Sts might have no idea what it means)

+/- In one BR sts weren't sure about discussing highlighted or not highlighted words.

+Good error correction. Questions for checking the understanding. Well done.

# data[].attributes.body
Keep doing what you are doing! You are doing very well!

Consider giving your students more time for discussions during BRs.

# data[].attributes.body
"Does this make sense?"

Notes:

+Good nomination and elicitation of answers from sts

+I noticed you are more comfortable letting a silence fall when you ask something, instead of immediately filling it with TTT

# data[].attributes.body
Notes:

+Instructions are clearly planned in advance, and concise/clear. Most of them also boil down to a single core sentence.

+/- At one point you let the slide give the instructions - I'm in two minds about whether that's always good or not, but I get it cuz of your feedback from last week

+/- not all instructions on one slide, or the words that were necessary for the gapfill

-Don't show text while giving instructions because they'll start reading immediately. I think it's better to put it on a separate slide or as a handout, and then when doing fb have a slide with the text on it (this is what I did not do for my lesson and I shouldve done that)

+In my BRs, sts had for the most part understood what the assignment was.

+/- Well yeah, the missing demo but you already addressed that yourself, so no comment

# data[].attributes.body
+Love the images as always. I totally won't shamelessly steal for next lesson :)

+Nice focus on M, then FP. I liked using example sentences on the board to have sts choose the correct answer

+Appropriacy covered when it was, indeed, appropriate. Getting sts to notice that "that's nonsense!" really depends on intonation was really good

+/-Did take a lot of time, but it all depends on lesson aims of course

+/- The question mark ;)

# data[].attributes.body
+Good on the spot correction where necessary during the Language Clarification stage

+/-I don't think there was a lot of EC during the later part of the lesson, and no time for delayed EC/LC

# data[].attributes.body
Despite how wonderful the pictures were, the language clarification did eat up the biggest chunk of this lesson, which led to there being less time for the later stages (productive task fb, and delayed EC), so I guess my tip would be the same as for Lina, really see how much of the clarification is necessary for this level of student

(a piece of advice I will take to heart myself for sure, since I'm teaching vocab next week)

# data[].attributes.body
Don’t worry, you’re doing great. Stay calm and try to pay more attention to your student’s questions. Don’t ignore them, even though I understand time is limited.

# data[].attributes.body
There were a few technician problems, however, Joshua could manage all these issues.

# data[].attributes.body
Instructions:

clear, sharp and concise

Used nice visuals so no way for students to get confused

Monitors the BRs and provide guidance

Elicitation:

praise and appreciate sts answers (fantastic/ nice)

Asking for clarification (why/how?)

Clarification:

Ask students to repeat the expression

Uses visuals to help understanding

Error correction:

Tip for your colleague:

Remember to nominate sts to make sure they all participate/ not dominated by strong sts

Regarding the last task you could have given them 3 minutes to discuss their options rather than 5 minutes in the BRs. Sts spent more than enough time in the BRs and short time for discussion

# data[].attributes.headline
Time & class management + don't double explain Instructions

# data[].attributes.subject
Time & class management + don't double explain Instructions

# data[].attributes.headline
To practise explaining grammar. TTT, CCQs.

# data[].attributes.subject
To practise explaining grammar. TTT, CCQs.

# data[].attributes.body
+Good interactions at the start of the class while sts were coming in

+Instructions were definitely short. Though, the inevitable "I want you to..." that we all struggle with...

* One way to reduce TTT is to not narrate things that are common knowledge/very straightforward like 'we will not spend much time reading this text because you already read it last time"

+Asking a lot of questions, eliciting information, instead of telling them the information

*However, though having more questions is good, I would be cautious with abstract questions like 'what about sentence length and structure?' That's hard to answer.

*Another piece of advice I got as well is to make sure the answers to your questions aren't simply something sts can guess from the question itself (at least, not always). For example, having more wh-questions can help generate more STT because the sts can't just echo the answer from the teacher.

*Do you think there was a way to do the text analysis in a way that is less T-central? Maybe something like create an exercise that sts can do in BRs themselves and then FB in WC after that

-If you want sts to discuss a question, a good way to help them get started is to demo/model or provide speaking prompts.

*It's clear that you created a very tight time schedule for the lesson. And while it is good to stick to that so the lesson doesn't go off the rails, I would caution against being too strict with timings (like cutting off a st mid-sentence during discussion because you want to move on) - If you feel like you have to rush, try to find ways to give yourself more flexibility during the planning stage?

*Emil can read comments too ;)

*If you want sts to analyze a particular aspect of the writing, I would list those aspects on the board again

+I think you did a good job setting the stage for writing. Sts clearly knew the format of what they were going to write and the comments they wrote in chat were lovely as a result, so great job

# data[].attributes.body
Lead in. Nice and clear, good use of questions and nominations. Nice use of silence to get students to talk. Do this more.

As Tim pointed out, you can reduce TTT by not saying things like "We will not spend too much time on this as we did this last time"

Maybe you could have done the first task in groups. I think that would have been more Ss-centered.

Using prompts to help students will get them using TL and keep them on track.

I don't think reading everything (the questions/ Tasks) on the slides is necessary as they are clear on the screen.

It would be good for the students to go into BRs and discuss each other's sentences in groups rather than WCFB and maybe give them more than 2 minutes. I know writing is typically an individual task but the class seemed very quiet. In areas where they are not writing try to do group/pair activities

.

# data[].attributes.body
Nice reassurance that they are not wrong if they do not see you writing.

Great demo.

Nice CCQs during first tasks feedback. You're not saying more than you need.

Asking are you sure, when Ss gets it wrong. This encourages Ss to talk more.

After the second task, Ss spoke more than you. Addressing of errors after hearing them in BR, good eliciting of answers.

# data[].attributes.body
I heard Ccqs rather than explaining, which is good!(We have to be careful when explaining as it eats up TTT) Nice use of annotations, lowering TTT. Nice use of questions, keeping the students talking.

Good use of a diagram, this lowers TTT

# data[].attributes.headline
I missed most of Tim’s lesson as I was writing my SE. However, I heard some EC on the spot and students were nicely engaged in the lesson. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I missed most of Tim’s lesson as I was writing my SE. However, I heard some EC on the spot and students were nicely engaged in the lesson. 

# data[].attributes.body
-Started from slide 4-

*Timelines are always a good tool, they help visualise information. You could also co-construct timelines with sts to increase student focus and reduce TTT

*Hacer...

*CCQs alongside timelines were solid. In general you were asking a lot of questions from sts which helps reduce TTT

*I wonder with the grammar if you could have also done test-teach-test, to find out to what extent sts understood the perfect aspect (hopefully a little since I also taught this ...) - that way you can judge how much Language clarification is necessary and you don't have to go over all five marker sentences

*With grammar, what I learned from teaching it is that you want to move away as much as possible from the theory and get sts to focus on context. I wasn't observing before so I'm not sure what the context was for the sentences, though

*I think less is more: shorten the exercise so you can get sts to zero in on fewer examples with more exposure instead of 11 examples where it takes a while to give sufficient attention to all (unless all sts just nail every single one). Definitely if you want to check if they're not just guessing, which from observing the BRs I know some of them were doing. Of course when editing the exercise you get to pick the more interesting examples to focus on.

+TTT in FB for the controlled exercise was much better

* I think you did a good job clarifying 'only just', although that did take more TTT. It's hard because you need to come up with a way to clarify on the spot. My tip would be, if you anticipate something like that becoming an issue, edit the exercise and remove it so that the focus is on the perfect aspect, instead of the 'only just', which saves precious time

# data[].attributes.body
• Good use of CCQs to elicit answers and reduce TTT

• Timelines helped you explain, reduce TTT

• Great to see you nominating students to engage them in the lesson

# data[].attributes.body
*Instructions overall were clear, you did not repeat yourself a lot.

*except "I will put you in BRs - "So again, I will put you into BRs"

*Check BRs before you open them ;)

*I like that you added starter prompts for the first discussion. In my BR they immediately started using them

*Hacer is actually a really good exercise for class management and you did well there

*Started FB to first task at min. 14 - for a writing lesson you may not have that much time. I think you definitely efficiently managed the FB though, that didn't take much time at all.

*Unfortunately that left less time for the sentence structure slide which could have been helpful I think to touch upon a bit more, since for writing, which is something Aida commented on my LRST assignment (I had included a writing task without much setup), is that sts need enough exposure to the format that they are about to write.

*From a time-management perspective, good call to write them out in chat later, since that would've taken too much time

*Efficient with throwing screenshots in chat, they're always on time

*Good job reassuring the sts before a writing task

*Set up to the writing task was good, sts were able to do the writing and came up with some good opinions; in my BR there was an interesting follow-up discussion going on as well, which was great to see - so sts were definitely engaged by the topic

# data[].attributes.body
You use less TTT which is good. I liked the way you were interacting with students. This TP was more S-centred. It was not easy to start the lesson as it looked like Ss forgot a bit of text from the previous TP, but they quickly came into the learning environment.

# data[].attributes.body
Good explanation of idioms and eliciting from the students.

The demonstration is clear.

Ss are involved in the process.

Well-prepared material for Ss.

+/- As for me, instructions were clear enough, however, some Ss asked to repeat.

A lot TTT during the feedback.

When you give CCQs during feedback, you ask one question, do not always listen to the answer, and ask the second question. Try not to hurry up and let Ss think for a moment.

# data[].attributes.body
• Clear instructions/no repetition

• Nice and catchy lead in

• Student know exactly what you ask them to do

• I don’t think you have any problem regarding instructions. Keep it up!

Regarding time:

• I don’t think you needed the BRs discussion for the lead-in (wasted time here) you could’ve just asked them direct questions in the main room

• long time for a lead in resulting in you rushed out in the FB and took one student opinion (Haja)

• I usually prepare the answers before the lesson to avoid writing them during the lesson and waste time/ not writing them at all

• I believe in a writing lesson, sts should spend more time “produce writing”. You gave them 5 minutes for all activities (including writing)

• Talking about time, do sts really needed 5 minutes to read the text?

• It’s a great lesson as usual, just avoid to be so generous with time

Classroom management:

• Nicely managed

# data[].attributes.body
Excellent demo as usual.

Instructions were clear and short.

I like how you worked with a student who didn't join BRs.

Not a lot of TTT