Attached below are my peer-feedback forms.
I think my micro-lecture went well, however I feel that I tried to fit too much content into 10 minutes. In doing this, I wasn't able to really interact directly with my peers, nor did I give them a chance to contribute / interact. I felt that the group was reasonably engaged, but I still felt like I was talking to / at them for 10 minutes. If I could do this micro-lecture again, I would included a Think-Pair-Share involving speculation about one specific archetype.
My peers agree that the lack of activity / interaction was an area for improvement. Additionally, from my own reflections, I realize that I used very academic language for this lecture. As such, I suspect this would have been difficult to access for English Language Learners. .
This micro-lecture taught me about timing. In a classroom I expect to be able to use my time freely - I want to leave some 'space' which will allow the class to pursue interests that might specifically attract them. For this reason, I'm apprehensive to try 'timing' my lesson plan. That being said, completing this activity showed me the value of associating 'times' with certain ideas. Knowing how long it takes to explain some new concept is valuable information and does not restrict the flow of the classroom. Rather, it will better inform me as I guide the class towards certain ideas.
In short: this activity showed me timing is a tool, not a structure.
No comments:
Post a Comment