Thanks to Lesley and Jacky for two great micro-teaching sessions on Wednesday.
My apologies for forgetting the observation forms; as promised the form can be down-loaded from here.
In a sense the two sessions represented two ends of a continuum, and one which probably has more relevance to PCE and adult education than other varieties; we've talked about it in Unit 1, but this illustrated it.
Lesley's session--on getting an uncosncious person into the recovery position, to remind you--came clearly under the heading of "training": she had clear objectives and desired outcomes, which were to do principally with performance, and the assessment would have been direct, and based on observation. As we discussed, the basic lesson plan (we noted that she had to amend it to fit the slot) has been honed and polished over the years. There may be scope for some individual variations in the way in which it is taught but those are minor glosses on a standard package.
And of course it is important that it is done in that way. Creativity is not the object of the exercise--safety and effectiveness are what matter. As we discussed, it was necessarily a teacher-centred and -directed session. What we didn'r really touch on, though, is how important credibility is in this kind of session. You asked Lesley many questions, all of which she could answer readily (and very honestly, in relation to when she has not practised what she preaches!) In most cases you probably asked them out of sheer interest, but it's worth noting that they also function as tests of the teacher--does this person know her stuff well enough to be trusted? In many practical and professional areas, that question is central to being accepted as a teacher.
The session also illustrated the integration of prepared material in the presentation, using simple graphics and layout to enhance impact, and interactive board-work, with of course the practical demonstration, and practice opportunities.
Jacky's session--on the appreciation of a poem--represented quite a different tradition. It too was planned and structured, but with far fewer constraints. Indeed, many hard-liners might have complained that Jacky could not be precise about the outcomes, and that those outcomes might have been different for each member of the group. In that sense it was a riskier session and more difficult to evaluate, although it was clearly effective. It got people talking, and did indeed achieve a major aspiration in Lucy's case at least in getting her to appreciate what poetry was about.
In discussion we looked at the issue of selection of the poem, at the demands it places on the reader (or listener, as discussed the differences), and how different members of the class might relate to it. Jacky described factors she had taken into account in choosing it, and that was related to the sensitivities of the students and their baggage. We talked too about the balance between the technical discussion of the poem, and the terms Jacky introduced at the end, and the personal response. I'm sure that Jacky was right to stick with the personal responses, and to concentrate on reflecting them back and opening them up through her questioning, and then to turn to the technical apparatus, as it were, separately at the end. To have tackled them together would have closed down the more personal aspects prematurely; but in order to go anywhere with this kind of exercise does involve recognising the need for specialised terms, such as metaphor and even inter-textuality!
So the two sessions exemplified training vs education (following Dewey's definition) and to a certain extent the convergent/divergent distinction. Both matter.
We'll include a session on PowerPoint later in the term, as well as on referencing, and any other "matters arising".
My apologies for forgetting the observation forms; as promised the form can be down-loaded from here.
In a sense the two sessions represented two ends of a continuum, and one which probably has more relevance to PCE and adult education than other varieties; we've talked about it in Unit 1, but this illustrated it.
Lesley's session--on getting an uncosncious person into the recovery position, to remind you--came clearly under the heading of "training": she had clear objectives and desired outcomes, which were to do principally with performance, and the assessment would have been direct, and based on observation. As we discussed, the basic lesson plan (we noted that she had to amend it to fit the slot) has been honed and polished over the years. There may be scope for some individual variations in the way in which it is taught but those are minor glosses on a standard package.
And of course it is important that it is done in that way. Creativity is not the object of the exercise--safety and effectiveness are what matter. As we discussed, it was necessarily a teacher-centred and -directed session. What we didn'r really touch on, though, is how important credibility is in this kind of session. You asked Lesley many questions, all of which she could answer readily (and very honestly, in relation to when she has not practised what she preaches!) In most cases you probably asked them out of sheer interest, but it's worth noting that they also function as tests of the teacher--does this person know her stuff well enough to be trusted? In many practical and professional areas, that question is central to being accepted as a teacher.
The session also illustrated the integration of prepared material in the presentation, using simple graphics and layout to enhance impact, and interactive board-work, with of course the practical demonstration, and practice opportunities.
Jacky's session--on the appreciation of a poem--represented quite a different tradition. It too was planned and structured, but with far fewer constraints. Indeed, many hard-liners might have complained that Jacky could not be precise about the outcomes, and that those outcomes might have been different for each member of the group. In that sense it was a riskier session and more difficult to evaluate, although it was clearly effective. It got people talking, and did indeed achieve a major aspiration in Lucy's case at least in getting her to appreciate what poetry was about.
In discussion we looked at the issue of selection of the poem, at the demands it places on the reader (or listener, as discussed the differences), and how different members of the class might relate to it. Jacky described factors she had taken into account in choosing it, and that was related to the sensitivities of the students and their baggage. We talked too about the balance between the technical discussion of the poem, and the terms Jacky introduced at the end, and the personal response. I'm sure that Jacky was right to stick with the personal responses, and to concentrate on reflecting them back and opening them up through her questioning, and then to turn to the technical apparatus, as it were, separately at the end. To have tackled them together would have closed down the more personal aspects prematurely; but in order to go anywhere with this kind of exercise does involve recognising the need for specialised terms, such as metaphor and even inter-textuality!
So the two sessions exemplified training vs education (following Dewey's definition) and to a certain extent the convergent/divergent distinction. Both matter.
We'll include a session on PowerPoint later in the term, as well as on referencing, and any other "matters arising".
No comments:
Post a Comment