How student-centred was the lesson?

My thoughts after viewing Story 1:

Overall

Degree: 9. The teacher had promoted student-centred learning to a large extent based on the following examples from the case. 

1. The teacher provided the necessary guidelines for the research (eg. the categories) while students generated their own knowledge by searching information online. 
2. The teacher joined in the forum and modelled some questions and answers to guide the students when the students were asking irrelevant questions.
3.  During the redesigned lesson, teacher modelled how to use the mindmap software (Inspiration) and decision templates to correct their mistakes made in the first attempt.
4.  In the redesigned lesson, the teacher made the presenters to go around the class to answer any doubts by the other students. By doing so, the teacher is creating an environment for students to work together and share their knowledge.
5. However, the lesson was too structured in the first attempt as the teacher moved from one stage of learning to another quickly (from the mind mapping to the forum and ending abruptly) without taking into consideration the students were still not ready to moved to the next stage. This was improved subsequently in the redesigned lesson.
6. The decision making process was rather structured. Students had to make use of the standard template. The criteria for decision making had been listed out by the teacher. The teacher could possibly list a few examples and allow students to come out with their own criteria.

Student roles

Degree: 8.

1. Each student takes responsibility and plays his or her own role and learn to work with others (the presenters working in a group to come out with the PowerPoint / working in pairs to create mindmaps). As a result, they learn different skills (eg. research, presentation skills, communication skills in relaying information to their partners, and using mind-mapping tools to summarise, learning to discuss and expressing their opinions on forum, decision-making skills).The students were keen to participate and engage in co-operative learning. Although at times, they were too phyiscally engaged with the technology than in the actual learning.
2. There could be little learning in the first attempt for those who were doing the mind mapping as they were simply trying to complete the task by putting as much information they heard during the presentation into their mind maps. There was likely to be little understanding and thinking taking place. They were not informed how the mind mapping tool would be useful in helping them to make decisions. As a result, the students fail o develop their competence fully.This was improved in the redesigned lesson as students were given time to think and draw. Students also learned to ask the presenters questions if necessary and this allowed for co-operative learning. As a result, presenters had an additional role as peer tutors.
3. In the redesigned lesson, learning was no longer so structured as the students did not have to worry about the time constraint. Students continue to learn even after class as they were free to express their comments and share their views on forum anytime. As a result, students get to learn more and at their own pace.

   Curriculum characteristics

   Degree: 6.

   1. In the first attempt, learning seemed to take place in a sequence (from collect information to presenting information to summarizing information to discussing information and finally decision making).
   2. Although the curriculum was still rather structured in the redesigned lesson, the teacher was more focused in ensuring that the students were learning instead of getting the tasks done.  

   Learning goals

   Degree: 7

   The teacher had her own specific learning goals in mind for each task and the tasks were done in a sequence. However, the learning goals were not conveyed to the students.

   Types of activities

   Degree: 9

   A wide range of activities had taken place: From independent internet research, group project presentations, questions and answers session (in the redesigned lesson), hands on mind mapping,  discussion forum, decision making. The only suggestion is that the decision making template could be too structured. Students should be allowed to come out with their own template.

Assessment strategies

 Degree: 7

The way the teacher assessed the results was not clearly stated in the story. I inferred that the assessment was likely to be based on a range of outputs: their presentation, the mind maps, the discussion forum and the decision template. Measures is likely to be different for different students (presenters were likely to have different measures as the rest).The assessment was likely to be based on her own checklists rather than having clear distinction between what is a right and wrong answer. She had based on the quality of the mind maps and discussion forum to determine if her students had truly understand lesson.

Use of ICT

Degree: 9

1. Internet search was used to enable to collect information from a wide range of sources instead of simply pulling out information form the textbooks.
2. Microsoft powerpoint was used a s a tool to convey their understandings and present their views on the topics to the rest of the class.
3. The first attempt was more learning the technical skills of how to use the inspiration software. The students were only typing in word for word what the presenters had said instead of using IT to aid their learning. In the redesigned lesson, students made use of the software to illustrate their understanding and aid in their decision making.
4. The discussion forum served as a platform for students to share their ideas and learn from each other.
5. The online poll was used to capture the students decisions. 

 Overall

Overall the lesson was conducted very well. The students were engaged in their learning and did learn the required curriculum  by generating their own knowledge with the teacher as the facilitator only and not so much of the “traditional teacher”. They enjoyed their lesson while learning and teacher stepped in to control and guide the class only when necessary. She had managed to make use of IT to crate an environment that is condusive for student-centred centred learning. I would give it a 8.5 score overall.

Advertisement