Ban on "I don´t know" expressions

At the beginning of a course, I always find useful to explain to students that a creative teaching approach establishes a general framework. We can work in a relatively free and flexible way within that framework, but there are certain rules that should be respected so that the framework can support learning.
One of the rules is a ban on the "I don´t know" expression and its most basic equivalents. This ban can be either presented directly with an explanation that they have enrolled in the course in order to learn new things and not to practise a phrase well-known to everybody.
Or it can be introduced in a slightly more entertaining way. We can show students some of Catherine Tate´s "how much/how many"" sketches, such as:

 

Students are asked to note different ways of saying "I don´t know". Then, we ask them to work in pairs. One student prepares a question "Have a guess ..." and the other tries and resists having a guess as long as possible by saying equivalents of "I don´t know". When, the student has no more equivalents of  "I don´t know", they have to have a guess. Then, the pair swops roles.
Finally, the class puts together as many equivalents of "I don´t know" as possible. We discuss differences in their use (e.g. levels of formality) and explain that the most basic or well-known ones are banned from the course.

Note: It is never respected at the first or second sessions, however, once the teacher keeps reminding students, it is usually the fourth week when it usually starts working.
Of course, the ban is not an absolute one but it prevents students from an easy escape from answering questions at least.

Getting-To-Know-Each-Other Activity: A Wallet

This activity has been inspired by one of Robert Fulghum´s short stories from his book Maybe (Maybe Not). The story starts as follows:

….continues:

...

 and finishes with:

This activity follows the story.

First, we explain to students that the session will start with a short story which will be read to them. It is no need to read the whole story - only essential paragraphs (or if the language level of the groups is lower, we can paraphrase the story using simpler vocabulary and sentence structure). The reading should not be longer than 3-4 minutes.

After the story has been read, we suggest we do the same: We ask students to “take out their wallets (and purses and any equivalents of the money + other essentials holders) and place them on the table”.

Then, we ask students to take everything out, spread it on the desk in front of them and go through the items in a few minutes.

Finally, we ask students to say a few words (two sentences) about themselves based on what they have found – one idea related to something they would call “typical for them” and one idea based on something that has surprised them (something they did not expect to find, if there is such a thing).

This activity can be really great, however, there are five basic issues we, teachers, should be aware of:

1) There is always someone who does not have a wallet (either with them or simply does not use any) – in that case, we can ask them to take their diary or mobile and look at the entries or text messages, photos, phone numbers or anything else and base their introduction on that.

2) This activity takes usually longer than what is expected because (and I am always surprised it really works the same way as in the story) students are more than willing to talk. They usually want to comment on different things they have found or realised.

3) Students can react emotionally, such as go through the papers they have in their wallet and throw them all into the dustbin or bursting out in laughter because they simply recalled something really funny.

4) Students can sometimes get unexpectedly open, e.g. a male student commented once on a condom in his wallet saying: “This probably suggests, I am always ready.”, or a female student commented on her contraceptive pills saying: “This means, I do not want to have kids, just yet, I guess.” This means that we should try and make sure we can provide a safe and freindly environment where students can say whatever they want if they want to.

There can also be students of the opposite position – who do not want to share anything (it happens rearly), and there is no need to force them to share their privacy. Such a student can introduce themselves in a traditional manner.

5) Students can find objects of all types (from paper clips and coin jettons to scales or amulets) in their wallets and ask for “what this is called in English”, so, we have to be ready for that as well.

The great advantage of this activity is that students often remember a lot about their peers and that is why we can sometimes refer back to certain personal items or stories during the course, which can make the atmosphere in the group more personal.

Linking words

This is a combination of interconnected tasks that engages students in a complex situation. It allows them to build new vocabulary, use their existing knowledge and language competencies, and practise newly learnt words in different contexts.

The first stage consists of five parts:

1) Individual students write as many linking words they can recall as possible.

2) Students work in groups and categorise all the words they have produced into groups according to their function or meaning.

3) The whole class shares and discusses original categories with examples of linking words produced by the groups.

4) Students are provided with a material of generally accepted categories of linking words with lists of their examples, such as:

5) Both student-generated and teacher-provided tables are compared and discussed. Usually, both overlap to a certain extent, so it is useful to emphasise the student-generated contribution.

The second stage also consists of five parts:

1) Students are presented with a topic relevant to their field(s) of study or interest.

 (A slightly controversial topic usually helps to make some opinions more quickly.)

2) Each student forms an opinion on that issue and writes that opinion in one sentence on a sheet of paper.

3) Students send the papers with their opinions to the person sitting on their left or right (if we are in a computer lab or if we want students to move a little, it can be students who change places moving from paper to paper or from computer to computer). Each student reads their colleague´s statement and writes some reaction that starts with a linking word. Then, they send the texts in the same direction as before and perform the same task. This procedure is repeated several times. The only requirements are:

(a) each new sentence has to begin with a linking word;

(b) no linking word can be repeated in one text.

Note: The task is getting slower and slower with each change because students need more time to read the whole text written by their peers. Four to five changes are usually enough for the purpose of the task.

4) All texts return to the authors of the original statements for analysis. The original authors underline all linking words (all sentences with the exception of the first one should start with a linking word) in the texts and identify a flow of argumentation. In other words, they should be able to say which sentence supports their original statement, which refutes it and which develops the argumentation in a different way. (The categories from the stage number one coul help.)

5) Students write a synonym for each underlined linking word in their texts that is suitable in the given context.

In this way, students meet linking words in different situations:

1) retrieve from their memory what they already know individually;

2) categorise linking words – it may be useful especially with students with no formal linguistic terminology background, they usually give "original labels” to the categories;

3) the discussion and comparison with the “generally accepted” categories and examples are important because they make students think about the idea that those words not only exist but they have also some function;

4) students can be engaged in an active use of the newly learnt words in different contexts;

5) and they can also think about the use of synonyms in the given contexts.

At the end, it can be useful to stress the importance of linking words for a smooth flow of argumentation and ideas in academic texts. On the other hand, it is important to emphasise that not every sentence in a real text starts with a linking word - that linking words should not be overused.

De-personalisation of academic language

The aim of this activity is to let students find out why it can be useful to de-personalise academic texts. It can show the importance of being aware of different perspectives we can adopt and consequent changes in work with language. It can be based on any type of film that is related to students´ fields of studies, ideally, a film, topic or situation most of them are not familiar with.

First, we show students a short part of a film. The instruction is just to watch the sequence, no title, names, characters or context are mentioned or explained before students watch that.

                                                                                                         (Hotel Rwanda, 2004)

Second, students are asked to write down a few sentences describing what they have seen. Then, they discuss their versions: first in pairs and then together with the rest of the class. All ideas, perspectives, points of view and types of expression are appreciated.

Third, students are given a text that offers a brief context to the situation. They are given time to read the text. It can also be useful to discuss some language issues or the meaning of the text. Some important information may be added to make sure everybody understands the context. For example:

Rwanda Genocide

Rwanda’s population of seven million was composed of three ethnic groups: Hutu (approximately 85%), Tutsi (14%) and Twa (1%). In the early 1990s, Hutu extremists within Rwanda’s political elite blamed the entire Tutsi minority population for the country’s increasing social, economic, and political pressures. The Hutu remembered past years of oppressive Tutsi rule, and many of them not only resented but also feared the minority.

On April 6, 1994, a plane carrying President Habyarimana, a Hutu, was shot down. Violence began almost immediately after that. Under the cover of war, Hutu extremists launched their plans to destroy the entire Tutsi civilian population. Political leaders who might have been able to take charge of the situation and other high profile opponents of the Hutu extremist plans were killed immediately. Tutsi and people suspected of being Tutsi were killed in their homes and as they tried to flee at roadblocks set up across the country during the genocide. Entire families were killed at a time. Women were systematically and brutally raped. It is estimated that some 200,000 people participated in the perpetration of the Rwandan genocide.

In the weeks after April 6, 1994, 800,000 men, women, and children perished in the Rwandan genocide, perhaps as many as three quarters of the Tutsi population. At the same time, thousands of Hutu were murdered because they opposed the killing campaign and the forces directing it.

Policymakers in France, Belgium, and the United States and at the United Nations were aware of the preparations for massive slaughter and failed to take the steps needed to prevent it. Aware from the start that Tutsi were being targeted for elimination, the leading foreign actors refused to acknowledge the genocide. Not only did international leaders reject what was going on, but they also declined for weeks to use their political and moral authority to challenge the legitimacy of the genocidal government. They refused to declare that a government guilty of exterminating its citizens would never receive international assistance. They did nothing to silence the radio that televised calls for slaughter. Even after it had become indisputable that what was going on in Rwanda was a genocide, American officials had shunned the g-word, fearing that it would cause demands for intervention.

                                                              (Adapted from: http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/genocide_in_rwanda.htm)

Forth, students are asked to contextualise their first texts. In other words, they should re-write their original pieces of writing using the information from the Rwanda Genocide text.

Then, types of changes are discussed. Students should exchange their ideas in pairs or groups and then share their ideas together in class. We focus on the differences between their text number one, based only on watching a segment of a film, and the text number two, based on watching a segment of a film with a context of the situation.

Students come up with a lot of different ideas but there are always some changes relevant to academic context that we can highlight, such as:

- improvement of accuracy: people → Hutus, Tutsies; in Africa → in Kigali, Rwanda;

- improvement of sentence or paragraph structure: forming full sentences or introducing a topic sentence at the beginning of their short text

- improvement of style: some say they try to be more formal (even automatically)

- higher responsibility: feeling "a higher level of fear” of making mistakes

- attempt to create a “more objective” description of the situation

This discussion can but does not have to have a concluding character. We can engage students in one more activity to offer them a more complex view on reasons for de-personalisation in the academic context.

In this part, students are given roles. In this case, they can include:

It is 12^th April 1994, Kigali, Rwanda.

You are a European tourist at a hotel. There is a brutal civil war going on in this country and you are being evacuated.

It is 12^th April 1994, Kigali, Rwanda.

You are a United Nations peacekeeping forces general. Your order is to evacuate citizens of foreign countries from Rwanda. You know you are safe because Rwandan Hutu militias kill only Tutsies or Hutus who help Tutsies. You know the hotel is full of Tutsies and other refugees. If you and your soldiers leave, the hotel residents are very likely to be killed soon.

It is 12^th April 1994, Kigali, Rwanda.

You are a United Nations peacekeeper. Your order is to evacuate citizens of foreign countries from Rwanda. You know you are safe because Rwandan Hutu militias kill only Tutsies or Hutus who help Tutsies. You know the hotel is full of Tutsies and other refugees. When you leave, the hotel residents are very likely to be killed soon.

It is 12^th April 1994, Kigali, Rwanda.

You are a humanitarian organisation worker. You have brought a lot of Rwandans to the hotel to be evacuated. Being a foreigner, you can be evacuated but the children and other Rwandans you have been trying to save are forced to stay. The United Nation peacekeepers will not help Rwandans; moreover, they prevent you from helping them more. You know the hotel is full of Rwandan refugees who are very likely to be killed soon.

It is 12^th April 1994, Kigali, Rwanda.

You are a Hutu Manager of the hotel. You have to manage the process of evacuation of all foreigners from the hotel. No United Nations peacekeeper will help you to save the locals. You know the hotel is full of Rwandan refugees and you all are likely to be killed by Hutu militias.

It is 12^th April 1994, Kigali, Rwanda.

You are a Tutsi employee of the hotel. You would like to be evacuated with all the foreigners but the United Nations peacekeepers stop you. You know if you stay in the country you all are likely to be killed by Hutu militias.

…there can be many other characters…

When we make sure students understand which “role” they take on, they are instructed to watch the film segment again. They should watch it from the perspective of their role. In other words, they should see the situation from a specific point of view (of an insider of the situation). After watching this, students are asked to write a new description of the situation.

Then, we proceed in a similar way as in the step with contextualisation. We ask them to identify differences and changes made between their texts number three and texts number two.

Again, a great variety of different ideas appear, but usually, many students share three issues that can be emphasised: students

1) get “deeper inside” the situation;

2) focus on their own perspective only;

3) focus on details (not he wider picture) relevant only to the particular perspective and ignore the rest.

In this way, students have been guided to a deeper understanding of why de-personalisation can be useful: They may experience the difference of a personal involvement and more de-personalised perspective. When they are personally involved, they may go deeper into the situation but, at the same time, they can take only one perspective and focus on some details while ignoring other issues. On the other hand, when they are given some context or adopt a wider picture, they may introduce more accuracy, precision and responsibility in their writing.

A comment on feedback

Today, we had a very interesting discussion with students about the importance of feedback. Some of them claimed it was really difficult to express themselves in words and suggested it could be easier or simply better to express themselves by different means.

They were slightly surprised when I produced three versions of feedback I use in my creativity courses and asked them to give feedback in a different way. First, they laughed, then, they concentrated on the task and the atmosphere changed - it resembled their normal work on word-based feedback.

We discussed the differences between different types of feedback then and majority of those who were in favour of “different” types of feedback before preferred the word-based one after that experience.

One of the conclusions of that discussion was that it is not the form but the content of feedback which is difficult: If they want to give a good and complex one, they have to invest some energy. It does not have to be necessarily hard work, but some effort must be made….. 

BRIDGE (critical thinking, vocabulary, academic style)

This set of tasks has been inspired by team-work activities. We changed its focus and concentrated on language skills. We developed it for a series of critical thinking courses in Czech, English, French and Spanish in 2009. It has been used in a variety of courses for different purposes since, for example for creative thinking, academic writing style, communication patterns or vocabulary building, but I believe it can be adjusted to a great number of other purposes.

The activity is divided into three stages: pre-session; in-session; and post--session, where pre- and post- activities can be easily done online. The in-session part is manageable in one 90 minute session, but it is preferable to have more in-class time to achieve better results. So, we can use it in a series of sessions, and we could even build a whole course around it.

Pre- session part:

This part can focus on different language skills and its aim is to prepare students for the insession activity. There are  a lot of areas we can work with. All students can get the same task or each student can work independently. Here are some examples:

Task: The following session is going to address the topic of bridges. Conduct small research and find out:

I. PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVE

I.1. as many definitions of “bridge” as possible;

I.2. as many type of bridges as possible;

I.3. as many materials used for construction of bridges as possible;

I.4. as many construction methods of bridges as possible;

I.5. best sources for bridge construction;

I.6. a journal article on the bridge construction topic you like most;

II. LANGUAGE PERSPECTIVE

II.1. as many synonyms to the word “bridge” as possible;

II.2. as many adjectives frequently associated with the word “bridge” as possible;

II.3. as many verbs / activities associated with the word “bridge” as possible;

III. PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE

III.1. choose a bridge you personally like most (can be because of its beauty; parameters; personal experience; etc.) and share a picture or link to the picture of the bridge;

III.2. write a piece of text (350 words max.) that explains why this particular bridge has been chosen.

Share results of your research with the rest of the group.

Some students´ reactions (some usually need to be carefully sorted and explained):

Different types of bridges:

"I was shocked by number of types of bridges, for example: cold, crane, erection, highway, pivot, resonance, protective, solder, segmental, lift, lighting, magnetic, ore, hydrogen, induction, suspension bridge, cantilever bridge, viaduct, rope bridge, humpbacked bridge, arched bridge, mobile bridge, funicular bridge, railway bridge, overpass, eco-duct,…"

Definitions:

a) "Bridge is defined as a structure spanning and providing passage over a gap or barrier, such as a river, a roadway or a valley. We also often use an explanation as bridge in its abstract form, to connect different ideas or attitudes to reach reciprocal understanding.

Bridge is also the card game, usually played by four people in two partnerships.

Wikipedia says that there are six main types of bridges: beam bridges, cantilever bridges, arch bridges, suspension bridges, cable-stayed bridges, truss bridges or retracting bridges, and then that designs of bridges vary depending on the function of the bridge and the nature of the terrain where the bridge is constructed."

b) "When you say "a bridge", the first thing that comes to my mind are the lyrics of a great song named Like a bridge over troubled water, especially and among others song by Johny Cash. Without having those human bridges people use to drown in feelings of helplesness and fear. Bridges are constructions that hold two safe and solid places together, help you to overcome places of instability and obstructions. They connect known and unknown, make from unknown familiar. They are crucially important in everyday life."

c) "Bridge could have many different meanings, if I´m builder, bridge is for me an object connecting mostly one side with the other side e.g. over the river, highway...but bridge could be also for visitors at parks and gardens to admire their beauty, watch fish, water plants...Bridge can also have humanity meaning if organisations and groups form an airbridge to send aid to the people who needs it as after earthquake on Haiti.Love can bridge arguments, or different opion of family members.U can burn your brigde, if U split up with your ex and is really painfull and hurts your feelings. As a gymnast you can do bridge as a part of your performance and exhibition or show. If you don;t look after your teeth your dentist probably suggest you to have an bridge to save ur teeth. Most of the yachts have bridge for a captain to see over the horizont, when yacht sail."

Personal stories:

"First, let us consider some technical parametres: Located in Busan, South Korea, it connects parts of the city in the second largest city of Korea.The length is almost 7.5 km; it is the second longest bridge. Its construction began in 1994 and was finished in 2002. It cost billions of wons (Korean currency). It was first used during the Asian Games 2002, but officially opened a year later, in 2003. In the night you can see the bridge as a brightly shining long snake. Sailing on the boat underneath is amazing.

I adore those millions of lights, flashes, lamps and neon lights but, at the same time, I am also aware of the fact that such an amount of energy could be used differently. I am sure it could supply a small city with light.

I have also chosen the Gwangan Bridge because I have nice memories connected to that particular bridge. A beach party with Korean people, who did not speak any English, and me with five Korean words was amazing. We were singing, dancing and performing because it was the only way to comunicate with one another. I hope I will be able to come back and enjoy the bridge again in the future."

In-session part

This practical section provides students with an opportunity to use language in a realistically communicative situation: they have a goal and they have to communicate effectively in order to achieve that goal. Students can use the preparation from the pre-session activities; but this experience is also essential for all post-session activities. 

Task:

The aim of the BRIDGE activity is to build a construction that will connect two river banks (two desks) in a given height and will prove it functionality by a car drive trial.

 

                                      (Adapted from National Geographic´ "The Golden Gate" documentary)

 

Time:

1) preparation phase max. 30 minutes

2) material distribution max. 5 minutes

3) construction phase max. 30 minutes

4) construction test max. 5 minutes

1.1. PREPARATION PHASE

Prepare your plan for the bridge construction. Decide about each participant’s responsibilities, about the material use and organisation of the construction. The material and two river banks (two desks) can be investigated but not changed in this phase. The car can be tested.

1.2. MATERIAL DISTRIBUTION

Divide your group into two teams – each will be working at one river bank. This division is irreversible. You will get the material on request at the beginning (no other material will be provided later). The material will be divided according to the needs of each team. The material division is irreversible.

1.3. CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Participants are building the bridge. There are some limitations for the construction phase:

COMMUNICATION LIMITS: The language of the bridge construction is English: any use of other languages will be penalised by cuts in the allotted time.

WORD IN OTHER LANGUAGES THAN ENGLISH:                  10 seconds

SENTENCE IN OTHER LANGUAGES THAN ENGLISH:          1 minute

SPACE LIMITS: Each team can operate on one river bank. This means none of the constructors can enter the space between the two desks. The only person who can enter the river (the space between desks) is a “diver”.

DIVER: Participants choose the diver before the construction phase. The diver is one person. This only person can enter the river (the space between the desks) as many times as they want but can stay in the area between the desks for 3 minutes max. – all enters together. The diver can do any type of activity in the river.

CONSTRUCTION LIMITS:

a) The bridge construction must be situated minimally 15 cm above the river banks (the desks).

b) The bridge construction can be constructed, erected, tilted or moved in any way but cannot go over the bank borders.

c) Once the construction touches the bank border, the connecting operations can be done by any participant(s) working on the given river bank.

1.4. CONSTRUCTION TEST

The construction quality is tested by the car. The test is successful when the car crosses the river on the construction in the following way: the car must start before the construction on one river bank, then go on the bridge across the river, and finish on the opposite river bank, off the construction.

1.5. Reflection of the Task 1.

Discuss the activity and its results from as many perspectives as possible (personal feelings, quality of the material used; quantity of the material used; the team expertise, the team cooperation; the methods used; time management; results; consequences).

I

Post-session part 

This part depends on the original purpose of the whole activity. We can finish whe whole experince with a reflexion of what was going on (in-session part - 1.5.), or we can develop one or more tasks based on students´ experience.

 

Task 1 React to the following email of a friend of yours in the field:

Hi …. ,

How are you? I’ve heard you had a bridge construction session – what was it like? Did you enjoy it or …? What did you do? Have you learnt anything? Let me know since I think we are going to do a similar thing so, I’d just like to know what to get ready for.

Cheers,

Paul

Task 2 Write a short newspaper article to the local news that comments on the construction of the bridge. (The deadline: …. The word limit: …)

Task 3 Work in pairs. Write a report on the construction of the bridge. (The deadline: …. The word limit: …)

Task 4 Work in groups. Write a research article reporting on the construction of the bridge. (The deadline: …. The word limit: …)

Task 5 Role play – Panel discussion

Work in the group. Prepare for a panel discussion on the topic of the construction of the bridge. You will be divided into three groups: panel members, audience, organisers. Each participant will prepare their role (choose your own perspectives or professional expertise and use all the information based on all the research articles, newspaper articles and reports written in this course). The panel discussion will take 60 minutes.

Task 6 Reflect on what you have learnt.

Scanning Strategies with Sheep

When asked to scan texts, students often apply one strategy they know. Some are good at it, others not. When we have a mixed class it can be useful to discuss different approaches, so that the less successfully scanning students can learn from the more successful ones.

In this activity, we work with pictures of numbered “sheep” (or clouds or any other objects you like). Students are given two minutes to find as many sheep as possible – starting with the number 1 and going on in a numerical order. If, for example, they have all numbers from 1 to 15, their result is 15. However, if they have all numbers from 1 to 15 with the exception of the number 6, their final result is 5.

After those two minutes, we ask those who found the highest numbers to explain how they proceeded – in other words, to share their strategies. We should try and elicit as many different individual strategies as possible, since learning about a variety of approaches is the aim of the task.

We can also use a second task. This time, students are distributed a text and given two minutes to scan it a find some specific information. Then, we can discuss if they tried and used new ways of scanning they learnt from their peers. We can also compare and contrast scanning of objects and scanning of texts.

Sometimes, students insist, they would like to know the places of all numbers, so they can either be told to find them in their free time (and most do), or we can send them to this video:

Languages and Codes

This activity was developed for a group of students who had big problems with understanding texts, but it has also been used for translating skills, originality, elaboration, critical thinking or team work since, so now, it is difficult to say, what exactly it focuses on. Let´s say it is “multi-focal” and we can choose.

The basic idea behind is the idea that may be clear to us, language teachers, but may be hidden to some language learners: the idea that language is actually a system of codes that are constantly being encoded and decoded, and learning a language can basically be a “breaking-the-code” experience.

Activity:

1) In this activity, students are first shown the picture below and asked what they think it could be.

They usually come up with all types of responses but in all groups so far, there has always been someone who relatively soon suggests it could be a story. When we know it is a story, students are asked what they think the story could be about. We usually get bits of the story – whether they are close to the original or not is irrelevant, since this is just an introduction to the whole activity.

2) Students watch the original (a section from Rives´ “A Story ofMixed Emoticons” TED talk) and see if they were close to the original at least in some parts.

3) Students work in groups. They are asked to:

3.1. create their own original story;

and

3.2. write it down in their own invented “coding system”.

- The criteria for codes can vary. Normally, there is no need to limit students, but if they ask what they can or cannot use, we usually tell them they can use letters of all alphabets, digits, pictograms, icons, emoticons, sings, pictures, lines, simply anything; the only rule should be, if letters, digits or other well-known things are used, they should not form know words or should not be used in the way they usually are in an everyday life. Unless we test originality, students do not have to respect these limits, usually they are creative enough to invent something that is not directly clear to the reader, which is the point.

- We have tried this activity with groups of all levels. It works with both beginners and advanced. Only the complexity of ideas in the original stories differs.

4) Groups exchange their stories and try and decode them.

5) The same groups are given a complex text difficult to understand.

6) The difference between the work with text and “coded story” is compared.

This activity can be used for different purposes and that is why it can be stopped after any step.

We can use only point one to stimulate discussion;

we can move to the point two for the purposes of comparison or language use;

we can focus on the point three to activate students´ original thinking;

we can enjoy the point four to illustrate principles of encoding and decoding;

or we can go through all points to show students what barriers may prevent them from being effective language users.

Actually, points 4-6 were the original focus of this activity.

Every time we do it, the procedure is more or less the same: Students have great fun when decoding texts invented by other students – they usually laugh, are full of energy and come up with a positive response, I mean, they usually say something like “...we are not sure but, we believe that it is about this or that”. They present their version and are not afraid of being wrong.

However, when a complex (especially academic) text is given to the group, the energy drops down, the work is silent, involves no laughing and very often, students come up with a negative response, I mean, they say something like “...sorry, we do not know what it is all about, it is too difficult...”. In other words, they are afraid to be wrong and do not want to present their version.

This comparison is essential – when this difference in approach occurs (which is, unfortunately, in too many cases, in my opinion), it is a great start for two types of questions:

1) Why did you enjoy decoding a system you saw for the first time in your life (invented by your colleagues now); did you look for positive solutions; and were you not afraid to be wrong?

and

2) And why did you not apply the same strategy to a system you know much better (any learner at any level of language is always better in that language than in that invented coded system of other students); why is it not fun? Why are you afraid to be wrong?

This discussion usually opens an area of all types of barriers to not only creativity but also language use. The reward is, when students get the point, a change of the whole atmosphere in the class and of even whole students´ attitude to language learning in some cases.