Hello again!
In this reflective post of my first practicum, I discuss the process of my lesson preparation, my experience during my lesson, and my post-lesson check-in with my mentor, Brett. Please note that I paraphrase any conversations we had.
About a week before my first practicum, Brett and I met briefly via Zoom, where I asked him a few questions about the dynamics of his class (EOSC 110 – The Solid Earth: A Dynamic Planet) to prepare for my lesson. Brett informed me that in addition to quiz questions he asks students throughout the lesson he also includes a participatory learning activity. The activity is normally uploaded onto Microsoft Teams for students to annotate. I was (and still am) unsure on how to fully use Microsoft Teams, but Brett suggested that I create an activity using PowerPoint slides which he would then upload for me on Microsoft Teams for the students. I asked Brett things I should consider when preparing my lesson, and he mentioned that the students are non-majors, most students have English as their second language, and all students are unfamiliar with geology jargon. This was very helpful to me so that as I created my lesson I was conscious about avoiding non-essential jargon, and when introducing new ideas or new jargon to check-in in with the students by implementing quiz questions to make sure they understand it before moving on with the lesson.
A few days before my first practicum, Brett sent me two items: a lesson on the rock cycle and igneous rocks that was being taught the day before mine, and a list of learning objectives with a few slides that were taken from a version of the lesson he taught last year. He decided to split the original lesson (which was the different types of volcanoes, and their explosivity, shape, products, hazards, and global distribution) into two separate lessons, so it was up to me to modify the materials he gave me to create a lesson that focuses on volcano shapes, explosivity, and products, and create quiz questions to and a participatory activity for that lesson. I appreciated Brett sending me materials taught in the lesson prior to mine so that I could see what the students knew about igneous rocks and processes and reference back to that material to help the students connect how processes discussed in that lesson relate to the processes that would be discussed in my lesson.
Some of the CATL teaching and learning theories that I tried to implement in my teaching plan included the Theory of Constructivism, Active Learning, Assessment, and Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Regarding the Theory of Constructivism, I tried to create a context for the lesson and building knowledge from previous experiences with volcanoes by getting students to reflect and post their answers by prompting them with a few questions. I also encouraged students to build knowledge from the previous lesson that Brett taught by asking a couple quiz questions relating the material of the previous lesson to the current lesson material. From this, I noticed students were quite responsive throughout the lesson and were not afraid to contribute when I asked students to help create definitions for new ideas on some blank slides. For Active Learning, students worked in pairs and discussed prompted questions amongst themselves and then drew and annotated two different types of volcanoes with their partner. From this, I saw students implement elements from the lesson into their drawings and creating a story, showing how processes at different scales affect the shape, explosivity, and products of volcanoes; this may touch on Experiential Learning Theory, but I’m still working on my own understanding of the theory. To assess students’ progress throughout the lesson, I incorporated quiz questions to see if they were meeting the LOs. This allowed me to see when students were understanding an idea, or when they weren’t quite understanding it. This helped me gauge where students needed more help or when an idea needed to be re-explained. Lastly, I incorporated a bit of Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Throughout the lesson, I wanted to draw attention to how microscopic (small-scale) processes affect macroscopic (large-scale) processes, for example, how silicate content in a magma affects its viscosity, and in turn, the shape of a volcano and the explosivity of a volcano. Not only did I echo this during lecturing, but it was also incorporated into the learning activity. The results of the learning activity and the quiz responses showed me that overall students were building an understanding of how to think about volcanic processes. However, I think I would have gotten a better sense of how students were affected by this if I facilitated a class discussion where students discussed how the processes they learnt about affect each other.
I chose to approach the lesson from the point of view of how humans are impacted by volcanism because (1) it is easier to become motivated about a subject if it impacts you in some way, and (2) this lesson was preparing students for a more in-depth lesson on volcanic hazards. I think this was successful because this allowed students to personalize the meaning of the lesson to them, thinking about how volcanoes have or could impact their lives. Students were very responsive to my questions regarding their thoughts and feelings about volcanoes with respect to society and themselves. Throughout the lesson, I was trying to teach students how to relate different magmatic processes at different scales. To help guide students, I chose to start from small-scale processes (silicate concentrations affecting magma composition and viscosity) to large-scale processes (volcano shape, explosivity, and products). I think this approach was successful because most of the students were successfully meeting the learning objectives for the lesson. I think that the lesson could also be taught successfully from going large to small. I simply chose to go from small to large scale processes because their previous lesson that was related to this material was talking about small-scale processes, so I thought it would be easier for students to build up (scale-wise) from that. To help students apply what they learnt outside of the context they learnt it in, I asked students to look at a map of the Earth’s active tectonic plate boundaries with current active volcanoes and consider questions such as (1) Do people often live near active plate boundaries and volcanoes? (2) What types of volcanoes occur near you? Near UBC? (3) What types of hazards should these people be aware of in these settings?
If I did the lesson again I would definitely keep the learning activity, however, I would fine-tune the instructions and provide a sample for each step of the activity to help guide students. I looked at their drawings and most were on the right track but there were some common key elements that were missing in most of their drawings (i.e., the correct shape of the volcanoes which is caused by different viscosities which is attributed to the concentration of silicate in the melt). I think another fun idea could be to get a group of students to draw one type of volcano and another group a different type, and then each group could teach the other group about the volcano that they drew. Something else I would change would be my example photo for a volcano with rhyolitic lava since it was not as accurate as it could have been. It was a stratovolcano but should have been a dome and it is important for students to not mix those up. I think this mistake stems from my own lack of exposure to seeing photos of rhyolite domes throughout my education, and I don’t want to repeat the cycle! Regarding videos I incorporated in the lesson, I would make sure to maximize the videos (theatre mode) and add the video link on the slide under the video. I didn’t realize that some students were watching the lesson off their phones or small-screened devices, so not maximizing the videos must have not been very useful to them. Lastly, I would like to ask for student feedback after the lesson via a quick < 5-minute survey, just checking what points were clear and not clear and why, and if students felt if they were motivated and felt included and why/why not.