Friday, 16 November 2012

ICC lesson reflection; Talk, talk! Hugs and hellos

Oh, gosh. This lesson outcome was not what I expected. Lots of things went wrong. This is my reflection.


Student profile: This is a class of about 35 students at a 5th grade level at a public Elementary school. ACTFL level  speaking, novice low to upper ; Listening Novice low to upper; Writing Novice low to mid; Reading, novice low

Summary of the lesson
The students were presented two ICC tasks. One that involved non-communicative language and greetings and body contact around the world.
Goals of the lesson
To have the students think about think about how important non-communicative language is, and how other people greet each other around the world.

Form used: Presentation of Microteaching self reflection form.
The quality of classroom life is poor. Why? Do the students actually know the why of what they’re doing?
2. My style in this video as compared to other videos is drastically different. I feel that I am talking too much. I can account for this by not knowing how to teach a cultural lesson. Unlike previous lessons, I did not know how to deliver the material that was needed.  The students were definitely not engaged, and, I have a feeling were put off by my first comment that I would be teaching a culture lesson.
Having read Moran’s framework, makes it much easier to define the different parts of the lesson that need to be realized by the student. The how, self, interpretation, and the why. With this framework, I would have taught it differently.
3. as far as communicating within this classroom, I cannot see it being comfortable at all. The students were not engaged at all, for the reasons I’ve mentioned above. I tend to think that the students do not understand the reason for the lesson at all, hence no motivation to listen or speak.
4. I did intend to use the blackboard, as a way to list the students favourite pop groups. With regards to MIC, I have made some effort to put a screen shot of what the form that the students would be listening to and filling out would look like. After I’d shown the slide on the LCD screen, I had explained what I wanted to do with the form.  Those students that hear the instructions did actually follow them. I feel I would have had more participants if the class was quiet and focused on the teacher. As it was, they were disinterested and frankly, bored. I think that I should have presented a lot more at the beginning of the lesson, and probably introduced the subject of their favourite pop groups, not through words, but elicitation through pictures. That way the meaning is 100% clear.
5.  some of the students did talk as part of the talking activity about their favourite pop groups, but this aside, there wasn’t much student output at all. My thoughts are that the input on the task was not comprehensible, even to the best students. I feel that it wasn’t the question, but the concept behind the question was not understood. I should have broken up the big question into smaller questions to lead the students up to that point. Perhaps, Did you win your argument? What was the other person like to speak too? Did you feel angry when you spoke to the other person? If yes, what made you angry? A specific line of questions would have made my students think about this fact.
6. there were times where I spoke a lot and that was during the presentation stage and instruction giving. Deeper planning must be given to plot the results of the stage. In doing so, written questions can be put down on paper and followed. From this the flow of the lesson can be attained. In addition to this a reduction in TTT means that a communicative classroom approach must be taken. Give the students as much opportunity to talk as possible. This leads me to the last point…
7.  Communicative TT vs evaluative TT.  I would say that a good portion of what I spoke was communicative, but monological. Once again, deeper thought into the process of the said stage at the time must be given. However the answers to closed referential were confirmed by a nod or smile. I’m still deciding on whether this is judgemental or not.
Some selected moments from the video:
1:16 do you know any pop groups? This is a good question, but the classroom interactions could have been made more communicative in that the students should be talking to each other! The teacher can then ask the students since they have had a chance to talk, and, think about their answer.
12:54 instruction giving for the talk, talk, talk! Activity. ICQs are needed, even if the students repeat or paraphrase the instruction that would be sufficient.
24:46 how Kiwis say hello to each other. Oh dear, the student has missed the subtlety in this action. I tend to think more explicit instructions on observation is needed.  If the student is supposed to be looking, be more explicit on what he is supposed to be looking for. The task can also be done just as well with just the teacher and the class observing. Less pressure on the individual student, and the whole class  could then see it.
27:41 questions and answers. The students have answered some open display questions and I’ve responded with a confirmatory ‘yep’. As an alternative, more vigilance should be should on responding to student utterances. Keeping the ball rolling onto the next picture or stage is a skill that can be practiced if thought about before and conceptualized.
32:17 Giving instructions for hellos task. Good, task before material. No ICQs given though. Have the students repeat your instructions every sentence? That way they will remember the instruction.

A Richard and Lockhart’s question:
Would you teach the lesson differently if you taught it again?
Very differently indeed. I would have presented the subject, not by openly stating what it is, but by presenting a selection of K-pop groups that the students would know. This then would attract interest. I would have made the NZ hello a solo demonstration. The feedback task at the end of the hellos and hugs part of the lesson needed questions.
MICs need to be thoughtout better, with the outcomes of each stage needing to be thought out and conceptualized. An expanded line of questioning to bring the students train of thought around to the right mindset of contemplation.

Summary
More in depth thought should be given not so much about the stage, but the outcomes of questions, and what is going through the students minds.  A side note is that the students needed a longer presentation, something that would attract their interest.
Work on MICs should also be done, pictures, dual coding, and clearer questions. Looking at the concepts appropriate for the level of learner is also a good start too. Scaffolding by in this case, breaking up the questions so that the students train of thought are lead in a certain way

No comments:

Post a Comment