Numbered heads

This week I started to prepare the students for their oral exams by using a make shift version of the "Number Heads" activity from  MacPherson (which is found in sugarsync).   This was my first attempt at using the activity, and although I thought the exercise went well, there are still some bugs that need to be worked out.  As per MacPherson, I set the class up into groups of 4-5 and had the students practice the conversation topics which we have covered during the semester in their group.  While in GW, the students were allowed to use their notes  to ask and answer questions (for 15 minutes) as to practice their speaking and listening.  After the practice time was over, I had the groups randomly pick another team from a "hat" in which they had to ask a question to.  Each team member wrote their name on a sheet of paper and I secretly assigned each team member a number (or letter).   So for example, if "Team A" picked "Team B" from the hat, a student from Team "A" had to call out a number.  The student from "Team B" whom was assigned that number  was then asked a question by the student  from "Team A" that chose him/her.  If the  "Team B" student answered the question correctly, their team would get a point.  The team with the most points at the end of the game received extra HW credit.  If a student missed a question, I allowed another team to answer the question so that they could receive a game point.  In order for students to practice their listening skills,  questions were only allowed to be asked once (unless the question was not  clear when originally asked).  Only the group that was asking the questions were allowed to use their notes, every other team had to have their books and notebooks closed during the question answer phase.

I felt that the game went fairly well. The students were motivated to learn since they wanted the extra credit, and many of the higher skilled students helped their less skilled team members during the practice stage.  The game was low stress, and the students asked some unique question during the production stage (although there were times when a student was a bit TOO creative with their question, which made some of the question unclear).  Furthermore, the students affective filter seemed to be lowered during the game, and the class didn't have to worry about the "expert" language teacher hovering over them and correcting their grammar during the practice stage.

I learned an interesting thing about myself after watching this video which I must have ignored in the past.  I often tell my class that speaking and understanding  what is being said is the goal of class. As long as a student  can reply to a question by using sentences (as opposed to one word when replying) then we are in the right direction  After watching the video however, I noticed that not only did I require the students to reply in full sentences, I also corrected their grammar when mistakes were made.

I will try this game again next week, although I  I will tweak the point system a bit so that students will get credit for answering a question. regardless of the grammar mistake. However, I will write any grammar mistakes in my notes and then write a revised version of the question (as to not pinpoint any particular student) on the WB after this portion of the game is over.  I will then ask students if they see anything wrong with the statement on the WB.  When a WB question is corrected by a student, their team will then earn an extra game point.  With the WB revision added to the game, I can both serve the lower skilled students (by not embarrassing them if they made a mistake) as well as serve the higher skilled students, since they will have identify the mistake and will have a chance to to earn a point for their team by correcting the WB sentence.