In reflecting on teaching, I’ve always been told to consider two questions: what went well and what would I change next time? I have to admit that I generally find these questions to be ideal points of consideration because they force me to acknowledge both the positive and the negative, to avoid an emotional evaluation of myself, and to immediately identify solutions rather than simply dwelling on weak spots.
What went well? I was pleased to hear positive feedback about the “starter ideas” that I had included with the prompt. These suggestions were actually a last-minute addition to this activity, one that I felt was required for this presentation since the perspective writing or textual intervention activity that we did in class had to stand independently from the other activities and discussion included in my lesson plan. I also was glad to see that the idea of approaching the text from the fringes seemed to be generally well-received, as I’d had some concern that focusing on this might come off as being too peripheral.
Thinking about my micro-teaching presentation, however, I have had trouble responding to the second question. What would I change next time? There are a few things that stand out, obviously: I’m afraid that the directions I gave for the activity were unclear and I really hated the fact that my timing didn’t allow for the every group to share their work with the class. These are small issues, though, and I feel pretty confident that, having identified these spots, I would be able to avoid them in future lessons. What bothers me more is the fact that I have still not seen my lesson play out in its entirety, with each activity used as a foundation upon which to expand. I recognize that this is just one of the pitfalls of having such a micro-teaching demonstrations, but I am dismayed to find that despite my careful planning, I still have a relatively untested lesson plan.