It feels like we're at a transition point of our ICT course. I handed in my individually-written lesson plan today with a bit of fear and trembling since my group's lesson plan kinda sorta got butchered. Not exactly fun being pointed out to three entire classes as a "bad lesson plan" to learn from, but at least we had a lot of fun doing the group work...
Anyway, it feels like a transition because suddenly we are expected to come up with a draft proposal for an entire SCLA package in ten minutes, as if lesson plans dropped into our brains like manna. Sigh. Do you know how long I mulled over my individual lesson plan? How many times I threw out my drafts and started again for one reason or another? Lesson plans do not come naturally to me. And now I have to think of another one.
It is never the ICT that intimidates me. It is being a teacher...
---------
My group presented Hot Potatoes today. I thought our group worked very well together and did a good job. Well done Ruva, Si Min and Donna! On my part, I felt that I was talking much too quickly, without any idea whether anybody understood a word I said. Sigh. What to do. Want to be teacher, must talk and must be clear. I wonder when I'll be good at this...
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Lesson 6: e-learning week
Perhaps it is because I'm just ditzy, but I always overlook the second page of the PDF instructions file. I just skim through the first page and think that is all there is to the task. This is the second time I'm doing it already. Hence, this post is a little later than normal...
1. From a learner’s point of view, how was this week’s activity related to the previous weeks’ activities? How do you think it is related to what is to come?
We wrote a 500-word article online collaboratively this week. It was an interesting process because, one, I'm not used to doing process writing; and two, I'm not used to doing process writing over email. It brings "collaborative learning", a key aspect of student-centred learning, to a whole different level.
One of the difficulties about working collaboratively over email is that you cannot respond to the body language cues of your group mates. In an office situation, where there is a clear demarcation of roles and hierarchy, it is easier to work over email. In a group of peers, where everyone is equal, it seems harder.
For me, one of the best things I took out from this collaborative process writing process was being able to see my group mates' work. Although it was the same material, they thought of things I didn't, and phrased things in a way that I wouldn't. That helped me broaden my ideas about student-centred learning, especially since that I've been thinking about SCL so much that what I think is getting stale.
2. From a teacher’s point of view, how do you think your instructor designed this task? Why was it designed this way? What considerations did he possibly take into account? What can you take away from this experience?
The imposition of a 500-word limit forced our group to collaborate further. It is pretty ingenious to use a tangible requirement to encourage a student-centred learning approach. I think this works much better than stipulating that the group "collaborate over the internet" or using any other contrived instructions.
The instruction to create our own wikis also allowed us to go through the process and troubleshoot the issues that come up, such as passwords, access, etc. There is a subtle shift from being participants in a wiki, to being creators of a wiki; and this is similiar to the shift from being students in a classroom, to being teachers.
The timing of this task is appropriate. We're about mid-way through our course, and we know our group mates better now than two weeks ago. One consideration a teacher has to have is whether it is a good time in the year to introduce certain tasks, especially when it involves collaboration.
I think that for this task, the process is more important than the content. As a teacher, I need to be aware of the processes—as that is where students learn—rather than focusing only on "project deliverables".
1. From a learner’s point of view, how was this week’s activity related to the previous weeks’ activities? How do you think it is related to what is to come?
We wrote a 500-word article online collaboratively this week. It was an interesting process because, one, I'm not used to doing process writing; and two, I'm not used to doing process writing over email. It brings "collaborative learning", a key aspect of student-centred learning, to a whole different level.
One of the difficulties about working collaboratively over email is that you cannot respond to the body language cues of your group mates. In an office situation, where there is a clear demarcation of roles and hierarchy, it is easier to work over email. In a group of peers, where everyone is equal, it seems harder.
For me, one of the best things I took out from this collaborative process writing process was being able to see my group mates' work. Although it was the same material, they thought of things I didn't, and phrased things in a way that I wouldn't. That helped me broaden my ideas about student-centred learning, especially since that I've been thinking about SCL so much that what I think is getting stale.
2. From a teacher’s point of view, how do you think your instructor designed this task? Why was it designed this way? What considerations did he possibly take into account? What can you take away from this experience?
The imposition of a 500-word limit forced our group to collaborate further. It is pretty ingenious to use a tangible requirement to encourage a student-centred learning approach. I think this works much better than stipulating that the group "collaborate over the internet" or using any other contrived instructions.
The instruction to create our own wikis also allowed us to go through the process and troubleshoot the issues that come up, such as passwords, access, etc. There is a subtle shift from being participants in a wiki, to being creators of a wiki; and this is similiar to the shift from being students in a classroom, to being teachers.
The timing of this task is appropriate. We're about mid-way through our course, and we know our group mates better now than two weeks ago. One consideration a teacher has to have is whether it is a good time in the year to introduce certain tasks, especially when it involves collaboration.
I think that for this task, the process is more important than the content. As a teacher, I need to be aware of the processes—as that is where students learn—rather than focusing only on "project deliverables".
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Lesson 5: Lesson Planning — Getting our hands dirty
This week we learnt how to translate the theoretical into the practical.
Theoretically, lesson plans should have observable and assessable objectives, employ student-centred learning approaches, and if applicable, use appropriate ICT. (See last week's post.) All this theory is very sensible, but I found that it is actually quite difficult to fit it all together in a coherent lesson plan.
What ICT should I use to re-create which aspect of a student-centred classroom for the purpose of what kind of objective?
The mind gymnastics required is quite daunting.
I admire experienced teachers who can look at a topic and formulate a student-centred, modern, engaging lesson plan in five minutes. It is a certain way of thinking that I must learn, I think; similar to the way I learnt how to "see" the outline of an essay I want to write: "intro, statement, evidence, conclusion" is kinda similar to "objective, pre-activity, activity, post-activity". But I just don't "see" in that way yet.
It helps to brainstorm in a group and to read other groups' lesson plans. Listening to other points of view breaks me out of the insular thinking that I sometimes get trapped in. Prof Tan's particularly pertinent question about whether the ICT we wanted to use aided low-level thinking or high-level thinking shed a lot of light on my thinking. (Out of the window goes my idea for assignment 1, sigh.)
If anything, it is comforting to know that I can only get better; theoretically, that is.
Theoretically, lesson plans should have observable and assessable objectives, employ student-centred learning approaches, and if applicable, use appropriate ICT. (See last week's post.) All this theory is very sensible, but I found that it is actually quite difficult to fit it all together in a coherent lesson plan.
What ICT should I use to re-create which aspect of a student-centred classroom for the purpose of what kind of objective?
The mind gymnastics required is quite daunting.
I admire experienced teachers who can look at a topic and formulate a student-centred, modern, engaging lesson plan in five minutes. It is a certain way of thinking that I must learn, I think; similar to the way I learnt how to "see" the outline of an essay I want to write: "intro, statement, evidence, conclusion" is kinda similar to "objective, pre-activity, activity, post-activity". But I just don't "see" in that way yet.
It helps to brainstorm in a group and to read other groups' lesson plans. Listening to other points of view breaks me out of the insular thinking that I sometimes get trapped in. Prof Tan's particularly pertinent question about whether the ICT we wanted to use aided low-level thinking or high-level thinking shed a lot of light on my thinking. (Out of the window goes my idea for assignment 1, sigh.)
If anything, it is comforting to know that I can only get better; theoretically, that is.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
