I began by establishing the tone for the classroom environment. I introduced classroom rules by writing them on the board and modeling them in English using imperatives like “Raise your hand” and “Don’t interrupt.” I made sure to explain each rule in simple English and used gestures to ensure understanding. Students copied the rules into their notebooks.

Then, I introduced the lesson objective: to recognize emotions in a story. I used a Big Book and gave students a worksheet with a list of emotions. Before reading, I pre-taught the vocabulary briefly, checking students’ understanding with gestures and facial expressions. While reading, I paused to emphasize emotions. I guided students to underline them as they appeared in the story and asked comprehension questions at the end.

Although the group had 34 students officially, only 28 attended. Most students were engaged, especially during the listening activity. However, a few students refused to participate or complete the worksheet, even with teacher assistance. This lack of cooperation from some made class management difficult. Still, the majority reacted positively to the interactive reading approach.

Teacher Trainee: Karla Alexia Mondragón Villa

Grade & Group: 1°D | Avg. attendance: 25–30 students out of 34

School: Secundaria No. 207 Guadalupe Victoria

Only 26 students attended today. Participation was decent. Several students were enthusiastic during the repetition and examples, while a few others showed no interest. It was already noticeable that some students would not engage at all, neither alone, nor with peer or teacher support. Grammar understanding was uneven due to inconsistent attendance.

Students then completed a worksheet with sentences to transform verbs correctly. I monitored their progress, answered individual questions, and gave corrections. I prompted peer checking by asking volunteers to share their answers.

I guided the game, modeled the expected responses (“Yes, she does,” or “No, he doesn’t…”), and encouraged turn-taking. I adjusted the pace depending on the group’s comprehension level and repeated examples for clarification.

Student engagement increased thanks to the competitive element of the game.

Around 27 students were present. Some teams were very motivated, while others remained passive. The students who had not attended the previous session struggled to understand the Present Simple structure, revealing the negative impact of irregular attendance.

Students worked on a matching worksheet to link example sentences with the correct social issue. I monitored progress, clarified misunderstandings, and gave vocabulary support when needed. We closed with a reflection question: “How do these problems affect people’s emotions?” and students completed an exit ticket sentence: “I feel ___ when I see ____.”

25 students were present. Participation was mixed. While some students gave thoughtful responses, others were distracted and unmotivated. There was a clear lack of follow-up from those who missed earlier sessions, and some didn’t seem to understand the vocabulary yet. A couple of students openly refused to do the written activity.

Afterward, I introduced the final project: a poster about a social problem including emotions, causes, and effects. I explained the steps and introduced the rubric for evaluation. I encouraged questions and gave a verbal summary of what would be needed in the next session.

Only 25 students attended. Most were interested in drawing and expressing emotions, but when I explained the final project, many seemed unmotivated, especially those who were already disengaged in previous lessons. A few students expressed concern about group work, which turned out to be justified later on.

I visited each group, gave feedback, corrected grammar and vocabulary, and encouraged peer discussion. I made adjustments to teams that were dysfunctional or had absent members. I noticed that only a few students truly contributed; most waited for others to do the work.

This session was particularly difficult. Some groups worked very well, especially those led by responsible students. However, at least two groups didn’t do anything, and even with support, the “problem students” refused to collaborate. It was frustrating that the same students always carried the workload. Group work was unbalanced, and several teams produced incomplete or low-quality drafts.

Students started creating their posters using colored paper and markers. I helped with layout suggestions, clarified grammar doubts, and provided sentence starters. I tried to reassign roles in new teams due to the reshuffling. Unfortunately, only the responsible students made progress.

This was the most challenging session. Six students were transferred in or out of the group, which caused major disruption. Some teams no longer had the same members. Others had to restart their work. Many students had forgotten the content due to the vacation. As a result, only a few teams completed their poster properly, mostly those with the same dedicated students. The rest either didn’t finish or did very little.

Teams presented their posters. I guided the Q&A session after each presentation, encouraged respectful listening, and gave feedback on pronunciation, content, and message clarity. I also facilitated a short reflection at the end, asking students what they learned and how they felt about the project.

Only five out of the original teams presented something meaningful. The others either improvised or didn’t present at all. The group’s instability (changes in group members, absenteeism, and lack of responsibility) heavily affected the final product. Despite this, the reflections shared by some students showed that they did understand the emotions and issues discussed. just not everyone had the motivation to follow through. The grading policy of only allowing scores between 8 and 10 also contributed to a lack of student effort.

Context: Out of 38 students, attendance was generally stable (35–37 students daily). However, the first two sessions were extremely challenging due to behavioral issues from eight problematic students. The situation improved dramatically after two of these students were moved to another group.

Tuesday: 2°A 10:40-11:30

1°D 11:30-12:20

2°A 12:20-13:10

Wednesday: 1°D 7:00-7:50

Thursday:

Friday: 2°A 10:40-11:30

1°D 12:20-13:10