I’ve learned some very interesting and useful teaching techniques from the members of my PgCert learning set today:
- dressing up/playing/acting/picking up a persona as a clown (not sure if this is what Richard would put it though) to give instructions to group members to throw ball, deliver an abstract to each other, nicely. This is to understand how creativity emerges (e.g. have a good aim/point of arrival, attitudes, soft catch of the ball, point of departure).
- running an experiment for understanding communication processes and any problems that might occur during any communication processes: 1) everyone takes a piece of blank white paper 2) close the eyes 3) fold the paper into half, and tear the top right corner 4) repeat step 3 three times 5) open the eyes and compare the paper held in each person’s hand – are they appearing the same? If not, why aren’t they looking the same? Didn’t everyone follow the same instruction? (So the answers should be around whether the instruction is clear enough, whether we are given the right tools e.g. right tool to tear the paper and our eyes, and the individual differences)
- Two members of staff from faculty of engineering delivered some scientific theories/concepts by drawing equipments or concept maps on flip charts. The drawing and talking feels like a real-time animation. (And I guess this inspired our tutor to advise us to look at http://prezi.com/ for presentation and teaching.)
I delivered a short talk on citizen journalism to demonstrate my event-based style of teaching.
The tutor of our learning set commented that we demonstrated “quiet authority” and “quiet confidence” in our micro teaching. But I wondered whether that’s because the members in the learning set were much more mature than our “real” students, and the learning set is much smaller than the size of cohort I’m teaching. I think that the “quiet authority” only co-exists with mutual respect between the learners and the instructors.