Mini-teach 2.0: Lesson Plan and Reflection
I re-taught my lesson on beer-making to my Penn colleagues with a few conscious changes that I based partially on the feedback from last time and partially on my experiences in the field. Whereas last time featured a power point presentation followed by a question and answer session, this time followed the format of a "What Do We Already Know?" activity followed by a prop-assisted lecture, followed by a question and answer session.
I went from Power Point to a more low-tech lecture because I personally find power points to be distracting; people often tend to pay attention to either the visual or to the person talking but not always both. They are a useful outlining tool to help the person speaking, but it is easy for the person speaking to lose the human element of the presentation if he's being guided by a machine. That happened to me last time; I was so focused on making sure to cover everything that I rushed through the topics and the slides, covering everything in a manner too quick to allow full comprehension of the topic by the audience. Power points also have a way of creating an environment that is entirely teacher centered, which is something that's useful at times but not ideal if relied heavily upon in a field like English where student practice is so important. Many of my colleagues in providing feedback this time around suggested that I should have a power point to help them better follow along with the lecture. I respectfully disagree for the above reasons.
However, I do agree with them that more visuals would have increased engagement and comprehension. That was why I brought in props, specifically a sample of barley and some devices used in home brewing. People learn better when the lesson can be a visceral experience for them. The issue was that I did not have time to acquire nor arm strength to carry all of the elements necessary for a fuller demonstration of the beer-making process. To supplement the props I did bring, I searched online for a video, but unfortunately every video I found either left out crucial information or was exceedingly boring.
One piece of feedback from the original lesson concerned the speed at which I speak. I tend to get excited when explaining things and end up talking quickly without realizing it. This time I made a conscious effort to speak at a slower rate, stopping to illustrate certain points with examples. It was still too fast for a colleague or two, but I received far less criticism in this area this time around, so overall I consider it progress.
Much of the positive feedback this time around showed support for the "What Do We Know?" introduction in which I recorded information about the topic provided by my colleagues before proceeding to say anything myself. This habit of beginning by connecting the material to the knowledge and experiences that students bring to the table is important to me but sometimes difficult to do. I have met teachers that scoff at the notion as needless pandering to an audience when the material should be important enough to not need this infusion of interest, but they scoff too quickly because the process of drawing on student knowledge does more than just pander. It gets them to begin thinking about the topic before you even start teaching it, which in turn results in more intelligent and passionate discussion. It also helps them to grasp why the lesson is important by exploring how it relates to their world. Lastly, it can be empowering for students if the information they provide during this time is confirmed by the teacher and referenced back to later.
Beyond all of the above, the re-teaching of this lesson further emphasized for me the fact that teaching is never really complete, is never really perfect. It is something that must be constantly evolving if it is to continue to be effective. Such an acknowledgment helps me to humble myself before my students and to feel empowered to try new things, knowing and accepting that flaws are inevitable. Being able to accept this makes teaching more fun and, provided the teacher does continually look for ways to improve, ultimately more effective.
I went from Power Point to a more low-tech lecture because I personally find power points to be distracting; people often tend to pay attention to either the visual or to the person talking but not always both. They are a useful outlining tool to help the person speaking, but it is easy for the person speaking to lose the human element of the presentation if he's being guided by a machine. That happened to me last time; I was so focused on making sure to cover everything that I rushed through the topics and the slides, covering everything in a manner too quick to allow full comprehension of the topic by the audience. Power points also have a way of creating an environment that is entirely teacher centered, which is something that's useful at times but not ideal if relied heavily upon in a field like English where student practice is so important. Many of my colleagues in providing feedback this time around suggested that I should have a power point to help them better follow along with the lecture. I respectfully disagree for the above reasons.
However, I do agree with them that more visuals would have increased engagement and comprehension. That was why I brought in props, specifically a sample of barley and some devices used in home brewing. People learn better when the lesson can be a visceral experience for them. The issue was that I did not have time to acquire nor arm strength to carry all of the elements necessary for a fuller demonstration of the beer-making process. To supplement the props I did bring, I searched online for a video, but unfortunately every video I found either left out crucial information or was exceedingly boring.
One piece of feedback from the original lesson concerned the speed at which I speak. I tend to get excited when explaining things and end up talking quickly without realizing it. This time I made a conscious effort to speak at a slower rate, stopping to illustrate certain points with examples. It was still too fast for a colleague or two, but I received far less criticism in this area this time around, so overall I consider it progress.
Much of the positive feedback this time around showed support for the "What Do We Know?" introduction in which I recorded information about the topic provided by my colleagues before proceeding to say anything myself. This habit of beginning by connecting the material to the knowledge and experiences that students bring to the table is important to me but sometimes difficult to do. I have met teachers that scoff at the notion as needless pandering to an audience when the material should be important enough to not need this infusion of interest, but they scoff too quickly because the process of drawing on student knowledge does more than just pander. It gets them to begin thinking about the topic before you even start teaching it, which in turn results in more intelligent and passionate discussion. It also helps them to grasp why the lesson is important by exploring how it relates to their world. Lastly, it can be empowering for students if the information they provide during this time is confirmed by the teacher and referenced back to later.
Beyond all of the above, the re-teaching of this lesson further emphasized for me the fact that teaching is never really complete, is never really perfect. It is something that must be constantly evolving if it is to continue to be effective. Such an acknowledgment helps me to humble myself before my students and to feel empowered to try new things, knowing and accepting that flaws are inevitable. Being able to accept this makes teaching more fun and, provided the teacher does continually look for ways to improve, ultimately more effective.