The first lesson we went to, was the same as Ginny’s, I have to agree that the students were engaged and very excited. Students were taught how to analyse advertisements and certain film conventions. They were then assigned to come up with something of their own ( find pictures and advertisements of their own), revolving around the themes of power, chance, ( and 2 others which I can't remember).
Each group had one student stationed, while the other group members rotated among the other groups. And the group representative would explain and sell their ideas or how they conceptualised it, kind of “selling” their idea, and one of the boys even sounded like a very convincing salesman. (remember, guys? ) This is good because students learn to articulate and learn the art of “persuasive speech”. I was also glad to see that classmates supported and encouraged each other and listed attentively when their classmates spoke.
Yes, the teacher would have built very good rapport with the students because she could control the class without too much effort, and although when the boys were excited at times, it was still well under control .
The second lesson, was just a presentation the students had to do based on their research of the cultural revolution in China during Mao’s rule. I think it served to let students know the cultural context and background of the book they are/were (?) reading, Mao’s Last Dancer. It was just the students presenting the information they have gathered. Although, one student was creative, and instead of listing “facts”, he pretended he was Chairman Mao and gave a speech about “his” plans for China.
It was pretty much just a presentation and there wasn’t much teacher input.
I personally feel, the third lesson is the most interesting. Students were required to come up with a political poster of their own, using any Singaporean political party of their choice ( how apt, since it was the height of the elections). [most used PAPs, with a few WP and one NSP, I think] So students were asked to think about the layout of their poster, the symbols they used, explain their choice of colour and font size and the word choice. They were required to write a 1-2 page report on this together with their A3 poster.
Students were also required to do an oral presentation and verbalise the idea and concept too.
The poster designs were varied and some were very interesting, some looked a bit messy, some used computer graphics while others settled for water-colour and hand-drawn posters.
In addition, students were also given a rubrics so they knew what was the “standard” required of them.
After each presentation, the teacher would comment on the points mentioned by the students, what she didn’t like about it, what she liked about it, how they could improve on it and their grades. And, some students (as most students would), jumped up and shouted, ”YES!”. If they received a good grade. Those who didn’t do well, also took it in their stride. Thus, the teacher provided on the spot feedback in front of the class and also on their written reports.
As part of the project, students were also required to write a detailed account of their contributions to the project and exactly what they did ( determines a % of their grade).
In addition, when marking, the teacher marked it against their rubrics and clearly marked it according to the section whereby they fulfilled the requirements and wrote individual comments for each members.
Most importantly, you could sense that the students really enjoyed the lesson too.
Since we were on the HCI trail together...
ReplyDeleteI agree the first teacher had good rapport with her students. They were very motivated, scooting around yet very much on task. And it shows on the students' faces, beaming with pride as they shared their ideas with us. She made the 'connection' with these students.
The second class was... (like you said) not very engaging. Personally, I could hardly keep up with the presentations. Guess the weather didn't help either. We were cooped up in the tiny classroom (it seems smaller than usual), the words on the slides were too small. Though clear instructions and rubrics were provided for the students, it seems they didn't quite understand/ learn. Even though it was the second time they were presenting the material, it didn't quite seem so. I believe it would have been better if the teacher could have given instantaneous feedback. I thought she glossed over a few teachable moments, but she was probably time conscious + it's their second attempt (opportunity costs?).
I loved the last lesson! The classroom dynamics was different and I believe it has much to do with the teacher's personality. There was chatter, adding on to the liveliness of the discussion but she was in full control. Also, there was negotiation in the classroom. Students had opportunity to voice their desires, and the teacher gave them options to choose from. AND THEIR POSTERS WERE REALLY PRETTY! As they spoke about their brilliantly crafted designs, I could see our FUTURE MPs in the making! Likewise, students were marked against rubrics but in this classroom, the students received verbal feedback immediately after their presentation, and I believe that increases the 'absorption rate'. At the end of the lesson, to the teacher's "horror", they enthusiastically asked if they could mount their posters and publicly display them! I think this is what a successful lesson looks like.