Teaching Practice
at the Vocational School of Ylivieska Region
Oona Tikkaoja // Teaching practice report 2 // May 2004
1. Before the Course– The Learning Objectives
2. Course Structure
3. The Students
4. Methods and Student Assessment
5. Evaluation of the Teaching Practice
In this report I will not consider my concepts of learning etc. because they have not changed since the first teaching practice report. Now I focus on drawing a picture of this particular course - Communication, Color Theory and Composition in a vocational school.
Within this course I hope I can
- make the students familiar with the basic issues on visual communication
- exercise the students' personal visual communication skills
- exercise the students' ability to discuss and give / receive feedback to
/ from each other
Connections to Curriculum
The course is a part of the basic vocational studies of media assistants, located
in the first study year. The 2 cu course gives information and skills needed
in all the following visual entities they will study during their education
-from web design and photography to theatre lightning.
What would I like the students learn?
The contents of the course include basic information of composition, colors
and visual communication (see the handout
given to the students).
I want to attach the general content tightly to the vocation of media assistant
by planning a user-interface design task in which the students will apply
the general knowledge (see the handout for further information about the
assignment). This task continues through the whole course: we will advance
the designs from one phase to another synchronized with the theory and smaller
tasks of the course. So my aim is to construct situations for learning general
principles through working with particular, strictly anchored task.
Course Themes
The content was divided into six themes or phases which were chosen on the
basis of curriculum and the course objectives. We advanced first from theme
to another (see the list below), but at the latter half the themes were blended
because the students had to consider all the information in order to develop
their user interface designs. The themes were:
1. Human Being as a Receiver of Visual Messages
·
How do we percept and interpret phenomena?
2. Visual Messages
·
Features: why, how, when, to whom the message is addressed
·
Introduction to semiotics
3. Visual Composition
·
Basics of composition
·
Basic elements of a picture
·
Visual effects
4. Color Theory
·
Basic information about colors
·
Colors in communication (color systems and psychology)
5. User Interface Design (the assignment)
· Usability issues
· Paper prototypes
· One’s own artistic working
6. Critic
· Discussion of the works done
Timetable
Timetable of the course was quite flexible, because I it is always hard to
estimate how much time is needed in different tasks when teaching a course
first time. The time is a problem when doing artistic work: there is always
a group of people, who will do the given task much faster than the others.
I have been strict with the time limits: if I have promised for example three
lessons time for a task, I can’t shorten the time if there is one student
who isn’t ready yet, because s/he might have planned the artwork in terms
of the time given.
There is still a problem with the fast ones: of course I can try to make them to continue with their works, but sometimes the works really are ready: there is no sense to demand a student to continue a work, if s/he for example likes minimalist style which doesn’t take so much time to complete. There, unfortunately, always are students, who only try to get easy way through the task and are fast because of not concentrating. I have tried also giving extra tasks, but it doesn’t function very well, because there is no reason to the students to do these tasks, if the only goal is to pass the course. Passing is the main purpose for the students who are not so motivated – i.e. the ones who work with the minimum level of effort. I usually stress the importance of effort in the course as an assessment criterion in order to make the students understand, that it isn’t indifferent how the tasks are made (see Evaluation in chapter 4).
Characteristics of the Student Group
The group size was about 25 students. They were first-year media assistant
students, mainly from 16 to 20 years old. The group was active and participated
well. I hadn’t taught them before, but I came to know them to a certain
extent, because I gave many lessons to them during the six-week period I
visited in the school.
Methods Used in the Course
The working was divided into five types of activities:
1) Individual tasks
2) Small-group activities / discussions
3) Sharing the results of working
4) Whole group discussions
5) Lectures
Most of the working methods used provide external activity, because it binds the students better to the learning process. When solving concrete tasks the students have to concentrate on the activity and content. That is why they really have to process the issue they are, for example, drawing a picture of. Therefore, I am subscribed to the opinion that physical and psychological activities can enhance each other.
I am a great believer in the power of social learning and therefore I used quite a lot group work. Still most important is to choose the working methods according the to the contents and goals. Group work is well-suited to certain issues and viewpoints, but some other tasks have to be done on one’s own.
I wanted to reduce the amount of teacher’s speech and give more space to the student’s own explorations and opinions. In art and media issues there is not only one right answer. Thus, it is a fruitful territory for a discursive teaching style. I had noticed in my previous courses that if I rose questions and addressed the whole group, there are maybe only few ones who join the discussion. I think that when no one feels responsibility for participating, it’s easier to be silent. A big group can also frighten some of the students. That’s why I have now usually structured the discussions. I divide the class into small groups, which now have the responsibility for producing results. In my courses, small group or individual tasks are always shared and discussed with the whole group. After sharing the small groups’ conclusions we already have quite a lot of material, and so it’s easier to talk in the large group.
Student Evaluation
The assessment was based on
1) The level of concentration and effort put on the exercises
2) Activity in the lessons, discussions etc.
3) The quality of the user-interface design assignment
4) Ability to listen to the instructions
5) The amount of exercises done (so a student can’t only be physically
present at the lessons without doing anything)
I tried to list the criteria in an order of importance, even though every issue of course affects the others. I think that the most important criterion is the amount of the students’ effort. It is connected to his/her will and awareness of the fact that he/she must really work for his/her own learning. I also highlight this to the students.
The students got numeral evaluation (1-5). The assessment was also given orally through the whole course. I commented the students’ works on the sharing occasions, which we had after every assignment. I tried to make the students also comment on each other’s works, but that did not succeed well. Peer feedback is still one of my permanent goals in teaching, as is also the giving of continuing feedback.
Course Evaluation
I have three types of material at my disposal for reflecting and assessing
the course: 1) the student evaluation questionnaires (initial exam and final
evaluation sheets) and 2) my own observations (I filled a diary sheet after
every lesson). Compared to “ordinary” courses it is nice advantage
to get 3) feedback also from my supervisor Kaija and Eija-Maria who was taking
part in one teaching session.
Student Feedback
The feedback given by the students was mainly positive. The source material
used here is 1) the initial exam and 2) the assessment sheet of the course
both of which can be found as attachments 2 and 3. Both sheets were answered
anonymously. I wanted to obtain honest opinions and emphasized to the students
that they don’t have to be afraid of giving also negative feedback.
Answering was made safe by anonymity.
From the initial exam I got information about the motivation and preconceptions of the students. The sheet was filled before I presented the course content. Virtually none had previous experiences concerning usability design, which was asked in the first question. The expectations of the course content were not very specific; a typical answer was “something about culture, art and media”. Also the answers to the question of the skills they would like to learn in the course were very vague, something like “everything the course has to offer”.
In the last lesson I asked how the course succeeded and how the students felt about the quality and effort of their own work. I asked about the motivation: did it change during the course? Most students answered that their motivation remained at the same level as in the beginning. Somebody had studied quite a similar course before, and the observation that the content was familiar decreased the motivation. A few students wrote that their motivation increased, because the course was more versatile they thought. Some expected more artistic work and didn’t like the emphasis on the media. On the whole, the course members regarded their own working and effort in the course as “proper enough”. I, on my part, certainly agree about this opinion.
An aspect of the course that was considered negative, mentioned in least in half of the answers was too large an amount of the teacher’s talking. I think this revealed something, because I really have the problem of being too a dominating teacher. I have learned during my working as a student or teacher at school that a teacher has to be active to earn his/her salary. So, despite my aims, I didn’t dare to be as much on the background as I actually considered being recommendable. I kept talking when the students worked with their assignments using the working time for reviewing the lessons for those who had been absent and clarifying the background of the task. Students said that it was very hard to work, as they didn’t know whether they should focus on listening to me or doing the task. Many experts in active learning refer to the problem of being a new teacher, when the old models are simultaneously dominant in one’s experiences.
There were almost no complaints about the working methods or the teaching themselves, which makes me very happy. Couple of students didn’t like the large proportion of group working in the course, but they were really a minority. That was also the only methodological aspect mentioned as being negative. The overall conclusion of the feedback was strongly positive; almost the only broader problem was my uncertainty about my role as a teacher. I’m happy about the feedback, because it is a good help for paying attention to this aspect and improving it.
Feedback from the Supporting Teachers
I got feedback from two experienced teachers. One of them was my teaching practise
supervisor at the Vocational School of Ylivieska Region, lector Kaija Koivusaari
and the other a teacher trainer from Vocational Teacher Education College
of Jyväskylä, Eija Maria Teikari who visited my lectures.
Kaija Koivusaari read the course plans and visited a three hour teaching session we had with the practical nursing students. According to her, the teaching plan was clear and enough variety was offered in the tasks. The session she observed went well according to the plans, but still there was enough flexibility. In her opinion, I had good skills to communicate and verbalize my professional knowledge. The course contents were relevant and they can be utilized in the work with different kind of patients as far as practical nursing is concerned. About the methods she writes that the lessons were activating, but it is still possible to develop the working so that the students would participate more. The aim to wake intrinsic motivation could be seen in the tasks (see the feedback given by Kaija).
Eija Maria Teikari also observed a three hour session. The lessons she visited were actually a part of a course called Fine Art and Culture, which I used as my development project teaching experiment course. The methods used were similar in these two courses and that’s why I think Eija Maria’s comments are relevant concerning this course also. She observed the functionability of working in small groups and suggested a more structured way for the formation of the groups (co-operational methods). In the course, the groups were constructed mainly by the student’s own selection. She also stated that the working still was very teacher-centred despite of my student-centred plans.
Even though the overall feedback given by the supervisors was positive, both
of them mentioned defects in the student-centred teaching and the level of
activating. I agree with them because I feel I couldn’t properly get
rid of the long tradition of teacher-centeredness.
My Strengths and Developmental Needs
To my mind my biggest strength is the ability to create positive learning atmospheres.
I have got quite a lot feedback from different kind of students about my positive,
friendly and equal attitude towards the students. It’s important to be
genuine, relaxed and sensitive when teaching.
I am not satisfied with my way to give feedback –my feedback is too positive in nature. I would like to learn to say something about the worse areas of the artworks too. I also have to be aware of taking account all students, not only the social and friendly ones. Being equal is one of my “important principles” but I’m not really sure if I am always acting equally – a hostile student can be frightening to me. I don’t (un?)fortunately have experiences in extreme cases, but still I have sometimes found it difficult to handle negative students.
How Am I Going to Develop My Teaching?
I think that the course with all its possible defects was still one of the
best courses I have taught. The direction was right, but the implementation
didn’t meet the plans in two aspects: the teacher’s role and
the students’ freedom to participate in the course planning were insufficient.
The most difficult problem is to be a new type of teacher and find one’s
own role in the class. It’s too easy to slip back to the conventional
teacher’s role. Another problem in this context is to rely on young
students. On the one hand, I have learned from previous experiences that
vocational students need relatively strict guidance, but, on the other hand,
they can’t learn independence if they don’t have opportunities
to develop it. I should have trusted more the students in order to fill the
preconditions of real active learning. I noticed that I had planned the course
too strictly beforehand and pre-structured the assignments too tightly. Now
the students could only choose from the options I had prepared, and so they
didn’t have real power over the course and their own learning process.
The learner-centeredness was left only ostensible in its essence.
Still I think I have a potential to develop and to become really an activating
and motivating teacher. One problem was now that I was teaching this kind of
course the first time and so large a proportion of my energy went to managing
the contents and the time. If I teach the same content once again, it will
certainly be easier to organize the assignments so that there will be more
freedom of choice (in terms of methods and topics) for the students.
Concrete tasks for the improvement of my work are 1) to get familiar with all
the different teaching strategies and styles in theory and 2) to continue experimenting
and applying different ideas into practical teaching. I also have to listen
to myself and observate my actions in the classroom in order to find a my own
teacher personality.