Evidence of Reflection Class II

When I participated in the course of Teaching Bilingual Education I delivered a lesson taking into consideration the theory analysed in class. Here I share my reflection on that lesson.

I consider that the lesson was effective in terms of students understanding of content. The most significant aspect which helped students understand the information better was the activation of prior knowledge. As Petty (2006) claims, “to make progress in ‘understanding’ means linking to prior knowledge”. Because there were so many instances in which students worked on content, it was easier for them to comprehend how to use it in the main tasks. First of all, the video gave them an idea on the topic and offered them more information about water. Then, the use of pictures and labels triggered students’ knowledge of vocabulary which was known or stored somewhere in their minds. Together, they worked out the lexical items they needed for the lesson. Besides, they had to think of the links of those concepts to the topic in question. After all these interventions, students were ready to tackle the texts without difficulties and to use the data included to understand maps, which also gave them more information to build their own conclusions and hypotheses. I think that the lesson run smoothly because there had been enough activation of prior knowledge and scaffolding so that students could work out the text autonomously. Mehisto, Frigols & Marsh (2008) consider that we need to anchor the information into our prior knowledge in order to move it into our long-term memory so that it can be recalled at a later time.

However, I think that time constrains have been an issue in this first lesson I was observed. I was so concerned about giving students opportunities to access prior knowledge that there were many questions students asked and time was not enough. Then I had to rush through language, so content and language focus had not been properly balanced. This understanding is essential to me as a practitioner because I think that next lesson needs to have fewer activities, but more effective ones so that there is no need to activate knowledge with three different tasks and there is more time to dedicate to the comprehension and production of language. Because I was not yet confident about the lesson format I couldn’t handle timing properly. I will now need to organize the activities coherently, bearing in mind time sequences so that I can work on both content and language simultaneously, since content and language acquisition go “hand in hand”. (Mehisto, Frigols & Marsh). This could be important to students because it could have a better impact on their learning of both content and language progressively and systematically, in a meaningful way.

Another aspect I would like to improve for the next lesson is the kind of questions I ask students during the lesson. I noticed that most of the questions I pose are questions that guide, questions that lead and, in a smaller degree, questions that hook. Yet, I did not include enough essential questions, which are open-ended, thought provoking and intellectually engaging (Mc Tighe & Wiggins). Acquiring this skill is significant for me as a practitioner since essential questions aim at stimulating thought, provoking inquiry, sparking more questions, thus, demanding for higher order thinking skills. Because I am not yet confident about this topic, I will need to plan thoroughly the type of questions that might be asked to trigger students understanding.