Thursday, 13 October 2011

12 October: Session 4

(No blog relating to last week, because I was away.)

Many thanks to Rebecca for kicking off the micro-teaching, and for such a well-chosen topic which tuned into everyone's interest in one way or another, both those of you concerned with prison education, and those of you contemplating a visit. (And apologies that, having not yet got into the routine, I fogot to pass on the camera card with the recording on it--I'll burn it onto a DVD in time for next week's session.)

Incidentally, if you are going to bring in a card to record your session onto, it needs to be an SDHC card, class 4 or above, because the camera is HD; 2gb should be enough. If you don't bring your own card, I'll burn it onto DVD for you, but obviously there will be a delay before I can get it back to you.

Rebecca's session raised some interesting points, which we discussed. As I commented, it is testimony to the effectiveness of the session when it is difficult to concentrate afterwards on the actual teaching process, because you want to carry on talking about the subject matter!
  • She used a sorting task to get over what can and what can't be taken into the prison. What came across clearly that relevant though such tasks are, their actual content is only half the story--it was the way in which it promoted discussion which was key to its effectiveness as a teaching activity. It would have been quite different if it had been set up as a quiz with items listed and alternative answers to tick; that would have been an individual activity initially and would probably have yielded a score, and might have led on to the discussion afterwards if permitted/encouraged by the teacher.
  • ...which makes the important more general point that different teaching strategies lead to different kinds of learning, and are suited to different groups and students. This came up when we discussed Rebecca's use of the group to read out the text about the prison, in turn. The other Rebecca pointed out that the method would not have suited a group with literacy issues (and I mentioned dyslexia and inclusivity), whereas it was fine for this group. 
  • I didn't mention at the time, because of time, that it might also not have suited a group of students with "baggage" about a poor experience of school, because it is also a fairly common classroom technique there.
  • Rebecca explained that she chose that method partly because of its low-tech nature, but also because of the participation it elicited. Certainly the alternatives we talked about--a straightforward talk and a presentation, would have created a more passive audience.
  • The sorting exercise, again, required and produced participation and engagement. It was highly appropriate to this class, because it--like the Is it Education exercise a couple of weeks ago--it used concrete objects to get at questions about general principles*. (See below.) But would it have been good on, say, a training course for prison officers on gate duty, for whom general principles are less important that a clear understanding of what it and is not contraband?** It is just possible that a presentation, although boring, might have been the most reliable way of getting the information into their heads (or would it?)
  • Related to this is the issue of the appropriate use of technology. Rebecca had clear reasons for not using it on this occasion. The kind of technology you use also "sends messages" about learning and the role of the teacher and learner; if you are interested you can read about it here and here.
Hastily--we decided to amend the observation schedule to create more open questions and to add one concerning individual student support.

And in view of known absences, there will be just one micro-teaching session next week (sorry, I didn't make a note of who it would be, but you know who you are!), complemented by a session on the reflective journal and how to go about it.

*  The sorting exercise is an illustration of Bruner's "levels of experience" and also of the "principle of variation"--see David Perkins' paper on video here (it is over an hour and may presuppose more than you know at this stage of the game, so don't worry about it!). Pushed to the limit it is the basis of Personal Construct Psychology.

** And of course you will recognise this is a different level of Bloom's taxonomy.

No comments:

Post a Comment