May 18

Closing remarks

18th May

During the first session we engaged in a discussion around the prompt “what I want to get from this module”. In doing so I identified a number of initial thoughts to take forward during the module that relate to my current practice and educational development on the course. As noted in the first blog post, these are as follows:

  • Student influence on the development, selection and implementation of materials
  • Successful augmentation of materials
  • The impact of/on assessment
  • Evaluating the authorship of materials and their hidden curriculum
  • Teaching of sensitive or taboo subjects and the lack of materials on such
  • Archiving and retrieving materials

Throughout the module I returned to each of these on occasion, referring the development on the module through class discussions, input, and readings to these thoughts in relation to my context. During the former half of the module I was teaching and therefore utilised opportunities to apply the development in my classroom. Further, a lot has been reflected on and conceptualised in preparation for summer when I am responsible for a large number of teachers and their development. Working in an environment in which course materials are pre-set with little room for augmentation or adaption, it has been interesting to explore materials in a way not approached before.


Upon completion of this module there are a number of thoughts that I will carry forward into practice and further academic and professional development. In the rare creation of my own materials I often blindly followed the structures of my usual courseware, possibly informed largely by the apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975). Through the critique of materials, I have edited such to reflect a clear methodological framework which utilises concepts of learning theories such as task-based learning (TBL). On the thought of TBL, I too have had chance to evaluate such on many occasions and reflect on its use by both myself and my teaching staff in practice. It was identified that whilst the pre-task and task stages were usually very successful and encompassed language learning, the reflective stage was often skipped and hence students had no chance to reconcile their learning within that lesson.


This module has been hugely stimulating in its discussions and sharing of practice. I believe that the development made on this module, in an area that was previously unscathed by myself, will truly continue as I develop in my career.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociolinguistic Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Posted 18th May 2017 by Ricky Dagnell in category Reflections

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *