24 Jan 2008.
The afternoon session was conducted by William.
The students were less than the expected number. Another team of lecturers attended the session. Some came late, and those early sat at the back. The lecturers didn’t present a commanding presence unlike the morning team. Most of the students in this group brought their own laptop. While William was explaining the SMARTBOARD tools and calling up volunteers, we have other students doodling away with their new tool.
William was skilled in using the SMARTBOARD. It was obvious the way he positioned his laptop.
The laptop was put next to the LCD projector. Where he put the laptop reflects that he didn’t need to use laptop to manage the SmartBoard functions. He amazed the students with his jutsu(s) e.g. the cloning jutsu. His hand was pretty fast.
Similar to Fenny, he did call for student volunteers. The difference was the lecturers were not invited to volunteer. One striking characteristic that William had during the training was the ability to humour. I presume he hold firm to the belief that activity conducted should be fun. Well, he had the audience laughing which was good. People tend to snooze off or mind-wander off in the afternoon.
Before I forget, pre-test forms were distributed. Period. I did glanced briefly at some comments on “why you want to be a teacher?” This group had also the usual comments similar to the morning session but TWO stood out which share the same feedback:
–Teaching is an iron rice bowl.
The afternoon session did have the group activity. Unlike Fenny, William did not emphasise on the time limit, group name, slide limit, how many minutes for a presentation. Would William have interpreted being fun would mean do whatever you want as long as you utilised the SMARTBOARD? Would that be the main objective? Yours truly did remind him to do that and also added Learning Objectives as the purpose of their activity. It was also interesting to notice that William decided the group for them, and he almost wanted to name every group.
Now let’s move on to the presentation.Feedback was given to every group by William. How to use the Smartboard as a tool for teaching was loosely connected. There was no invited feedback from the lecturers.
The first one was the PRESTO group. No LOs. Nothing was mentioned about who the activity was designed for.
Another group didn’t have LOs, target audience, let alone rubrics.
Interesting concept of food chain. Unfortunately, it was not potrayed correctly. Some of the images used were merely for decorative purposes. The group has lackadaisical attitude.
The following group has half-hearted attitude. No LOs. Nothing was mentioned about who the activity was designed for though the concept of the activity was agreeable. The issue on MONEY was brought up because it was something that this batch was not happy about. They were given an RM300 to spend every month which they felt was an insufficient amount.
Again, I assumed the activity was meant for their group. GRIN ><
Activities presented in both sessions gave this obvious HINT that a lesson or an activity will fail in terms in achieving the learning outcomes without proper context or content no matter how good the tool is. The phrase SUPPORTING TOOL is apparent during the whole training.