The first of my own lessons peer-observed during this module was an afternoon class, which Elyse sat in on after I had observed her the week before. Quite a few of my peer-observed lessons have been afternoon classes because of scheduling necessities – to date, two out of four of my peer-observed lessons have been in the afternoon, as has my only assessed observation, meaning that despite making up only four out of 25 hours a week of my teaching, my afternoon classes have accounted for over half of my observed teaching. The small class sizes and non-defined syllabus give these classes an element of freedom for a teacher when compared with the larger, coursebook-driven morning classes. There’s more potential for learner-driven materials, less pressure to complete aims within a defined time frame, and I find the atmosphere generally allows more licence to teacher and students. Other pertinent differences, however, include lower energy levels, less varied interaction patterns (due to class sizes), and perhaps as a result of these, less inclination from students to engage actively in their own and each others’ learning. This can make my afternoon classes more teacher-focused than I would like them to be, especially given the aforementioned potential for student-driven activities and course content. When exploring the area of in-class autonomy in my reflective essay, I decided, amongst other action points, I would approach learner-driven course planning – the factors in play in my afternoon classes have given me a bit more insight on the context in which I should be attempting that.
Teacher-focused and student-centred classes are an issue that arose in more recent observations; this lesson was the first of my own lessons which was observed, and was extremely valuable in a different way. It did not provide food for genuine reflective thought and assessment of my own teaching as much as it produced some really useful insights about how best to use this process to facilitate these goals. In the mission to reconcile what I think I should do, what I think I do, and what I really do in class, this was an important step, as it helped me find out how to extract from peer observations as much insight, and as many revelations and fresh lines of inquiry, as possible.
It was, as usual, a mistake which yielded such valuable learning. We didn’t have much discussion before the lesson, and I didn’t ask Elyse to look for anything specific that I wanted to work on; in retrospect, there were quite a few things I could have brought up. I did mention graded language casually, as it’s a mixed-level class, but I didn’t give any serious thought to what I hoped to gain from this observation and what insights I needed from Elyse to achieve this.
As a result, our exploration of the observation some time after the lesson was less directly productive, reflectively speaking, than it could have been. Despite this, it was rewarding, and many of the topics of discussion which emerged have become points of focus for observations since then. As other feedback and personal reflection started to increase the amount of reflective ‘data’ at my disposal, I started noticing patterns, and some questions which came out of this observation form a part of some of these patterns.
One that ran as a focus through several weeks was graded language, and clarity of intructions. Elyse mentioned that some activities were not set up as concisely and clearly as they could have been. I had to clarify tasks with individual SS after the activity had begun, monitoring closely to make sure instructions had been understood. At this point we made an intersting connection between the clarity of instructions and the focus of monitoring. For ten weeks, the vast majority of my teaching hours had been with students of a B2 level and above. I know that I find it easy to slip into particular habits when teaching the same level for a length of time, so was aware that langauge grading would no longer come naturally to me with my A1/A2 afternoon class, which was the subject of observation in this instance. However, instead of actively and consciously working on my language grading for instructions – considering in advance how to set up tasks, for example, as I have done in the past – my way of countering this problem was through close monitoring to ensure instructions had been understood, enabling me to easily clarify. This is a band-aid solution which distracts the focus of monitoring from langauge use and potential for language upgrade in feedback to being ‘on-task’, making my use of time less effective. Also, I now believe that because SS knew I would clarify later if needed, less cognitive processing power was applied to decoding the instructions provided to them. This could be made into a useful L+1-input listening activity, with SS working together to confirm instructions, and relaying them to each other to check understanding. A case could be made for the development of in-class learner autonomy by means of this. SS would be being encouraged to independently apply their congitive capabilities in class, in order to maximise their learning opportunities from an activity; in addition, they would be being encouraged to notice the potential for skills development in all language exposure, not just during formal ‘activities’. I plan to start doing this in my lower level classes – it’s both good learner-training and a good way to keep my language grading sharp.
Another point raised by Elyse, which has since been raised at least in passing by every peer I’ve been observed by, was my attitude to phones in class. Although this point hasn’t yet become a specific reflective focus in other peer observations, it’s recurrence has caused me to reflect on it more and more often during day-to-day teaching, and to construct a clearer explanation and definition of my actions as a teacher in this area. During the class, Elyse noticed that a couple of students would be on their phones during a lull in their activity; if they finished a task before other students, for example. I do not see this as a productive use of their time when doing individual work. If a student is using their phone during an open-class activity, I see it as rude. However, I don’t see it as disruptive. There’s a distinct difference between something which irritates you, and something which genuinely interferes with the learning experience of other students in the class. The latter is what I define as disruption. If I act purely because something irritates me, I could potentially be disrupting my own lesson, distracting focus from the language or skills at hand, and possibly affecting classroom atmosphere and rapport – something I value highly, and view as a strength of my teaching. Being responsible for their own learning, students are free to waste their own time at the expense of benefiting from the full potential of a class or lesson. I encourage consolidation and extension of a task, reward engagement with upgrading feedback, and provide options for fast finishers – but I don’t order students to put their phones away unless, by not engaging, they are affecting the learning opportunities of another student. An example of the latter would be texting during a group communicative activity, a split reading, or another activity in which their input is a crucial part of another learner’s opportunities. Elyse made the very good point that lack of engagement from some students can be an affective factor in the learning experience of others, even if the others themselves are engaged – I try to remain aware of student attitudes and atmosphere within the classroom, and will intervene if I believe there are negative influences on these. If I don’t, I won’t. The only individual with ultimate control over a learner’s personal engagement with the opportunities they are presented with is the learner themselves. If other learners are engaging, I prefer to provide them with the best possible opportunities to do so than to focus on learners who, despite encouragement and opportunities, choose not to.
This proved to be the first installment in a longer subplot concerning phone use in classes, and I have since developed these ideas further. Graded language has also been the subject of quite a lot of dialogue and personal reflection. That was something of a theme for this observation; we discussed a wide variety of topics in dialogue after the lesson, and some of those have resurfaced in circumstances allowing much more thorough examination and evaluation. The main thing I learned from this, however, was the value of pre-meditated focus for a peer observation. It requires self-assessment and reflection beforehand, in order to prioritise particular elements of teaching and learning, which in itself is a beneficial process. As a result of this reflective preparation, feedback on these elements during the observation are more likely to be based on the observee’s considered and deliberate implementation of an approach, making any feedback more relevant to teaching beliefs and attitudes that can then be remodelled and restructured. In addition, by dint of being aware of the areas of focus during the lesson, the observee is able to compare their own perception of how they approached the areas in question with the observer’s, which throws the disparity between your perception of yourself and the reality of your teaching into light. Without pre-meditated goals and focal points, peer observations are far less able to provide these insights.