Not-so-graceful knockout and more lessons

This was a long week, and there are lots of things to comment on. On the one hand, we received the feedback on our last week's lesson and, on the other, we had four more lessons conducted by our classmates.

I will start with our knockout. This is one of those times when you wish you never wrote a diary, because you feel like you would like to swallow up all your words. So bad, that it is even funny. Our teachers' and classmates' opinion on the lesson had little in common with my impressions. These are the things they liked:

• Our general attitude or style as teachers.
• The way we started the lesson, especially with the skirt full of pockets (there we agreed).
• The way we ended the lesson, with a farewell song.
• We only used English.

The list of things they didn't like was much longer:

• The quality of the audio in our story, the fact that we spoke too fast, and the difficulty of the language. Also, we got the impression that overall the video was perceived as being a bit tatty.
• The topic itself, whatever each is good at, was seen as not adequate by some. Also, introducing the structure "to be good at" was considered a bad choice.
• The story itself was difficult to understand.
• It would have been better to tell the story ourselves, without using audiovisuals.
• Asking children to fix their attention on what each animal in the story was good at was a bit too forced.
• Our explanations about what is to be good at something, the examples we gave, weren't understood by children.
• Children didn't understand our instructions about how to play the game either, although the picked it up when we started playing.
• They thought we helped children too much or too soon when they were doing the game.
• When each pair had their turn to solve a challenge, the rest got bored.
• Watching the video with the story didn't help children when it came to play the game. They used the cards we gave them with the animals to check what each was good at.
• Asking them to teach us a goodbye song in the end was a bit risky, because what if they had said they didn't?

I didn't have much time to think while they gave us the feedback, but two flashes came to my mind: first, "oh,my god, I have lost my judgement completely, being so happy and excited about the idea of finishing the degree has blurred my mind and I haven't seen any of this", then I felt guilty, because I had actually been the one who proposed to use this story, which had been created previously with another group of classmates. The worst thing is that when the four of us in the group met to discuss the feedback after class, we realised that we had similar opinions about the lesson, which differed a lot from the feedback. The only concern that we had when we prepared the lesson was the speed of our speech in the recording, which we couldn't change because we didn't manage to find another suitable song that lasted over 3 minutes in time to record the voices again. We were also aware that children wouldn't fully understand the story after watching it only once, and that is why the main purpose of the game was to actually be a means to understand the story, with the help of the cards we had given them at the beginning.

The feedback received from the English teacher of the class who came to visit also points out that the story wasn't clear, and adds that we worked on receptive skills but did little about production. It agrees with the feedback we had received in class on several positive aspects (good beginning and ending), as adds a few more positive things: we gave good input, the topics were adapted to the age of students, and the materials and resources were adequate.

The group that did their lesson after us, with the same group of children, received much more positive feedback, even though they didn't have a good impression themselves (funny world, the opposite that happened to us!). The emphasis was placed on how good their story was and how well they told it taking turns the three of them, which I totally agreed with.

Of course, it was a pity to end our group presentations in the degree with a failure, because the four of us agreed that this was the most negative feedback we had received so far, but I won't complain one bit about it, because I believe that failure is essential for learning. I was an undergraduate student at this university 25 years ago, and comparing to those times (I know it is almost prehistory for my current classmates), one of the few things that I feel has changed for worse is the fact that students are given very little opportunities to face failure nowadays. The other bad thing, and this has remained the same since back then, is that the university is an institution that has no will to learn; as a matter of fact, it refuses to learn and puts all sorts of obstacles to learning as an institution. But that is another topic altogether.

Thankfully, I have failed in all possible areas of life - personal, professional and academic - so I know it is not nice, but it can be good, if you learn how to deal with it. Also, I know that thoughtful teachers give negative feedback in the quantity that they believe the student can handle, which turns the whole picture into something actually positive.

Next, we will have to design a set of five activities or so before the end of the term, and describe the procedure to put them into practice in class. We were given the choice to link those activities to the lesson we had prepared, but considering the negative feedback we had serious doubts about whether we should continue with the activities we had already started to outline, or drop the idea altogether. On the other hand, this story was really inspiring for us, and it made us think of all sort of exciting activities which we thought were worth sharing. It is hard to draw the line between not giving up, and being plainly stubborn.

So, after discussing in the group during the week, we have decided to try to improve the story as much as we can, to finish designing the activities we had originally thought of, bearing in mind the aspects that were pointed out in the feedback, and we will also develop some ideas for activities linked with the lesson we prepared during the first term, which received far more positive feedback. A compromise between not giving up on our ideas, and acknowledging that when all the rest agree on something, and it is only the four of us who don't, no doubt they are right.

But, as I said, we have had four lessons during the week, so there is still a lot to comment on. We had two lessons on Wednesday, and another two on Friday, all of them with different groups of children. The first group on Wednesday had a real challenge: one of the groupmates fell ill at the last moment, which must have altered greatly their plans; the two teachers that accompanied the group of students kept on taking part in the lesson, which seemed extremely rude to me; the group was really loud, which was a big challenge; and in the first activity, their key wasn't attracted by the magnet, contrary to what would've been expected. I think they did very well overcoming those initial difficulties, to be honest. These are other things I liked:

• They gave English names to students, and children loved it. It didn't help much addressing students by their name, because they didn't have enough time to sink into their new identity in only one lesson, but it proved how good the idea is.
• Using science activities in the English class is a great idea. They were very attractive activities. Activities that involve manipulation are very interesting.
• The students were really engaged in all activities.
• Using the surprise factor, with one of the teachers entering the classroom with an urgent problem is also a good idea to use once in a while and break the expected routine.
• The materials that children could use were very clearly presented with large flashcards.
• They asked students to first explain how they would get the key out of the bucket, and then to actually do it; thus pushing them to produce output.
• The activities had a purpose for students, and not just for the teachers; students had to experiment and solve problems, and then explain their outcomes, and that was a wonderful idea.
• The lesson had a closing activity, where students received a diploma after having done so well, Again, if used in every lesson it would lose its strength, but it is a very nice thing to do, and will be especially helpful when the class is learning very challenging content, or is struggling with things that seemed easier. It's a resource to keep in mind when students' motivation and self esteem need a boost.

Among the things that could be improved or things that need careful attention, I would mention the following, and most of them are related to mistakes that I recognise in myself. Actually, more than feedback for our classmates, they would be notes for myself in case I decided to put their lesson into practice in the future:

• It was obvious that saying that touching the water was very dangerous in order to justify that the key couldn't be taken out of the bucket using their hands acted as a powerful magnet. I can't think of a better way to present the activity as a problem that students need to help solving, but maybe it would be more simple to just present it as a challenge with a condition: try to think of ways to get the key out of the water without touching the water.
• It is difficult to speak clearly while acting as being agitated, so children didn't understand what the teacher who came in with the bucket said. As a general rule, I think that if one can avoid acting agitated, it is better, unless the only thing that students need to understand is that one is agitated.
• If students had had access to manipulating the materials while thinking and writing down alternatives to get the key out of the bucket, they might have come up with more imaginative results. Also, it might be difficult for some students to postpone the manipulation until all the thinking and explaining is finished. That is something that the teacher will need to adjust to each group of students; it worked fine with this group, but it might not go that well with other groups.
• It would have been a good idea to give a time warning before finishing each activity ("you have 2 minutes left"). We tend to forget that even though we have a very clear idea of how the lesson is going to develop, students don't, and too often we forget to anticipate the change of activities to them. Just like we wouldn't like our teachers at university to give us an assignment and them telling us without notice that the time to finish it is over, we must try to get in our students' shoes and act the same.
• In general, the teachers' style seemed a bit bossy to me, but maybe it is because I come from the pre-primary education degree, and I guess that our classmates who are taking the primary teaching degree probably think that we act childish and a bit like clowns.
• One of the groups didn't get to come to the front and show the rest what they had thought of, because they were told theirs was very similar to the previous group. Children might have thought that it was unfair, because in reality all solutions were very much alike.
• After the students showed their solutions, the teachers explained another option to get the key out of the bucket, using only the magnets. I feel that this went against the task feedback circle that we have learned, in the sense that students were given a task (coming up with a way to get the key out of the bucket without touching the water), and they succeeded, so why did the teacher have to come up with another solution? Students might interpret that their solutions were not good enough, so it is something to use with care. The teacher could have proposed a new challenge instead: "seeing that you did so well, how about an even more difficult challenge: try to get the key out of the bucket using only one type of material".
• The problem of the key not being attracted to the magnet could have been avoided with rehearsal. Another graceful - but very difficult - way to deal with the situation would have been to say something like "I also would expect the key to be attracted to the magnet, should we try with another key?". I myself wouldn't have been able to come up with that solution then and there, but it's an idea to keep in mind for the future.
• As it was pointed out when our classmates prepared a lesson on magnets in the first term, it would have been a good idea to give different materials to each group, in order to create an information gap that would have made students more interested in listening to the other groups' solutions, in both of the first two activities.
• The third activity, going fishing, was very good too, but since our classmates were pressed with time, and it was more complex than the other two, students failed to understand the instructions at the beginning. I am sure that our classmates introduced this new activity so that it would be clear that they had worked on the proposal they did for the first term, but it wasn't necessary. Having three activities made then go over their time, and the lesson would have been just as good with only the first two activities.
• Finally, the quality of input could also be improved, partly with things that can be easily done, such as knowing all the vocabulary involved in the lesson (bucket, for instance).

The second group that morning changed their lesson compared to the proposal for the first term. It was also a lesson around science activities, so all the positive aspects pointed out for the previous group on the topic are also valid for this one. This time, it was a lesson around density, floating and sinking. One of our classmates had done her school placement with the group of students, so we expected them to feel very comfortable and spontaneous. The things I most liked from this lesson are the following:

• They used an autobiographical story, which sparked students' interest (well, maybe not that much this particular group of students' interest, as they seemed quite a challenge in that sense, to be honest).
• Our classmates stayed each with one group of children, monitoring, giving input and helping them.
• They involved students in the activities, although maybe they could have given them more leading and protagonist roles.
• There was group discussion and teamwork involved in some of the activities.
• All activities were very well linked with each other, in the sense that each lead straight into the next; as a matter of fact, so directly that it seemed too much of a coincidence, but I will come back to that in the end.
• Students got to manipulate objects after having expressed their hypothesis, in order to test if they fulfilled or not. Again, chances to manipulate are a great source of interaction in the classroom.
• Even though the video about the experiment of throwing a bowling ball into different waters was difficult to understand by the students, the task that was proposed to them (identifying the types of water bodies where the ball was thrown into) was achievable. As a matter of fact, even if students didn't understand a word that had been said, they could still answer.

I would point out the following as aspects to improve or to bear in mind when putting into practice a lesson like this:

• The autobiographical story was only partly believeable, as some of the objects are not usually carried in a handbag (a stone, clothespins). Making the autobiographical story as truthful as it can be is an important aspect in my opinion, because otherwise students can think that the teacher is pulling their leg or taking them as very gullible persons.
• No time warning to finish the activities was given, and it would have been very helpful.
• Some of our classmates sounded a bit bossy, but my impression could be linked to what I explained above.
• Even if students did the testing on the first activity in groups, they were given an individual sheet to complete a table. That could have been done in groups too, leading to more interaction and negotiation among them.
• Students hardly participated, produced very little output, and showed no enthusiasm at all. This surprised me, as from what I have seen in my school placement the last cycle of primary is when students start producing much more, after having worked on their receptive skills for some years. But maybe that only happened in the school where I was, and is not a general thing.
• Students had no purpose of their own to do the activities, except for maybe the first. It was more a collection of demonstrations conducted by the teachers than activities where the focus was on students. Students were like the magician's helper in the circus.
• It would have been nice to have a more formal ending activity. Maybe there could have been something that made them return to the opening story, as a way to close the circle, or something like that.
• This group also went over the time limit set for the lesson. The lesson could have been just as good with one less experiment, really.

Finally, it was a bit awkward to see that even though students participated and produced little, when they did, it was with exact terms in response to very open questions. Students answered "sink", "shape", "density" and "Dead Sea" to the open ended questions almost immediately and, at the same time, they didn't seem to be fluent at all in English. It seemed like they had either worked on this topic before, maybe in their regular Basque lessons, or they knew beforehand about the lesson they would be doing. Some of us in the audience had the same feeling but. of course, we could be wrong, and maybe they felt especially shy for some reason, and didn't show how fluent and accurate they really were. Even if the lesson was a repetition of something they had already worked on, or if they had received prior information, that wouldn't change the fact that the activities were very good and could easily be put into practice making students the protagonists. I find more intriguing what would bring a group of very good classmates, capable of designing an excellent lesson, to try to have a perfect lesson. Would something like that happen if you got too carried away by the experiments you came up with, and tried to do them all in the same lesson, thus needing perfect transitions and having to do them all yourself not to waste any time? would it be excessive pressure to produce a lesson where everything comes out well? excessive competitiveness towards your classmates?

The first lesson on Friday morning was prepared by a group of three classmates. They maintained the topic chosen for the first term (things we are good at, and things we are not good at), but only partly, because they also introduced the circus topic. These are the things I most liked about the lesson:

• They had three corners in the classroom, and each corner had a different activity lead by each of them. Therefore, children were doing different things at the same time. This is a very interesting idea.
• Our classmates introduced a drawing activity to synthesise and express what had been learned during the lesson. This is a very good idea too: having a final activity that will round up what has been learned, and using means other than writing to summarise. For the younger students, drawings offer a great support to later on explain ideas with words, because the rest of students have a visual source of information which complements what is often hard for the student to express orally.
• Students were encouraged to interact with the audience, thus multiplying the opportunities to receive input during the lesson, and to produce. That was a very good idea.
• Those students who had finished drawing started to rehearse for the show, while the rest were given time to finish drawing. Having an activity for those who finish early is also a very good idea.
• They had a formal ending for the lesson, with the show they put up for the audience.
• The topic, a circus show, is very attractive and rich. It offers opportunities to design an awful lot of activities around it.

These are the things that could be improved or I would bear in mind for the future:

• Having no name stickers for children was a pity, because it didn't allow to personalise the lesson and diminished the interaction among teachers and students.
• Acting agitated at the beginning of the lesson caused the message not to be understood, especially because it had to be inferred by the part of the telephone conversation we could hear. As a result, students didn't understand the purpose of the activities they were about to do during the lesson. I would chose another way to explain the problem in a simpler manner.
• Students changed activities with no time warning, and too quickly. The result would have been just as good if they had remained in one activity all the time, because they would have spent more time on it and in the final show they would have been more eager to see what the other groups had been doing.
• It would have been a good idea to have a song for the rope jumping activity. That would have also helped get the right rhythm, as it was a bit too fast for children.
• Asking students to repeat parts of a sentence they don't understand, like they did in the final show, doesn't help them much. The teachers could have acted as master of ceremonies, and it would have been just fine.
• The lesson had too many focal points; it would have been better to concentrate only on the topic of what we are good at and what we are not that good at, or on the circus, but trying to go for both was to much.
• The amount of activities seemed excessive; students had too many stimuli, and they had difficulty choosing where to focus their attention. Some of the activities could have been saved for further lessons, and it would have been fine too.
• One of the students was left standing for some moments, waiting to perform her hula-hooping, which created a bit of an awkward moment. This proves that it is difficult to distribute duties when several teachers are conducting the lesson, but it usually seems like a bigger deal to adults than it does to children.

The last lesson of the week was prepared by four other classmates. They didn't repeat the topic of the first term exactly, but it was linked to food and based on manipulation all the same, so the essential idea remained. This is was I most liked about their lesson:

• They had a solid structure for the lesson: a warmer to review parts of the body, another warmer to review names of fruit, and an main activity where the vocabulary reviewed would be used. All that in a very creative framework.
• They had both calm and lively activities, with a lot of changes in the rhythm during the lesson.
• The main activity was very creative and manipulative: making a face with pieces of fruit.
• Students were distributed in four tables, standing, with the help of one teacher per table, and doing the main activity in groups of 2-3. It seemed like a very good grouping to me, because making only one face in a group of 4-6 would have been too crowded.
• They had planned to show the result of the activity to each other, so each small group would explain how they did their face, following the model given by the teacher ("a kiwi for the eyes"). They also asked questions letting students fill in the gap ("what did you use for the ...?", pointing to the nose).
• Part of the content was probably known by the students, such as the names of parts of the body and some fruits. That helped students feel confident, as the lesson built up on what they already knew. Introducing some things they already know, and some which are new is very important.
• They had a song with parts of the body to end the lesson, which was very appropriate.
• Getting to eat what they had built was great.
• Students were encouraged to interact with the audience, offering fruit.

The things I think could be improved, or I would take into account in the future are these:

• It was difficult to calm students down after the two initial games, which were increasingly exciting. It is ok, but it just needs to be taken into account.
• It would have been good to review the names of fruits before beginning the second game, because students only used the names of the fruits they already knew. Also, it would be better to play that game on the floor, instead of sitting on chairs, as students get very excited and can hurt themselves.
• It could have been nice to show a model of the face made up with fruit. As a model made with the exact fruits they were given would most probably caused all of them to copy it, another kind of model could have been offered, in order to promote challenging solutions, such as any work by Arcimboldo:

• It was difficult to show the face done to the rest of the class, because if the plates were tilted, the fruits slid. If there were several lessons on the topic, the teacher could take pictures of the faces, put them all up, and then have students presenting them.
• Students didn't pay attention to the presentations of other students. Maybe each group could have created a different part of the body, to introduce an information gap. Alternatively, all students could have been asked to leave their plates on a table, sit down on the floor in a circle, and then have each group present their work.
• Not all groups had the chance to present their work. Maybe the lesson could have had only one warmer, and use the main activity to introduce and review the rest of vocabulary, so there would have been more time for presentations.
• Towards the end of the lesson, teachers introduced a new topic (the number of pieces of fruit we are meant to eat everyday). Students didn't understand the question, as it wasn't related to what they had been doing during the lesson. It would have been better to leave it for another lesson, as the lesson itself was already great.
• Some of the teachers didn't know the final song, which could have easily been prevented with rehearsing.