Third week: The (pleasant) outcomes of the 1st Self-access activity

On the day I wrote the previous post, I had already attended the lesson in which the learners had done their  self-access activity, but since I had had no time for analysis, the post had to be postponed.

The activities observed during this first self-access activity were highly rewarding:

• The learners sent the corresponding exercises on the self-access activity on time, a very significant indication of motivation and commitment.

• Though it had not even been suggested, they prepared a PowerPoint presentation for the 5-minute presentation they had been assigned as the extension task of the activity, and they were really interesting!

• Their engagement in the debate was lively and they acted their role in a very credible way, which indicates they took the activity seriously.

There were, however, some things to improve and reflect upon:

• The extension activities had been initially considered part of the self-access task, which was a mistake my tutors made me realise. The fact the writing task amounted to 50% of the task might have led to misunderstanding the seriousness of this stage.

• The results I had initially expected for the reading comprehension tasks, based on the learners' profiles, were much more optimistic. These were their scores: 7/9 and 11/18 for one student and 6/9 and 7/18 for the other. In ou next lesson, I will analyse each one of the tasks to identify reasons for misunderstanding which might have led to these results.

Next steps
On the other hand, they were asssigned the second self-access activity and we discussed the structure and purpose of the next kind of academic essay: cause-effect. On this occasion, they had to choose an environmental issue to present it in class, justifying its importance.

Some additional (mathematical!) issues

 

Apart from having made me realised the mistaken inclusion of the writig task as a core component of the self-access activity, my tutors also helped me realise the importance of including mathematical rigour to our project. We read two chapters of the book by Norton (2009) to find a sensible connection between the data we are collecting and a statistical way to approach it as the basis for the forecoming conclusions. This is a prticularly sensitive item since I have not been involved in this level of mathematical reflection in years, so I need to catch up as soon as possible with it.

There is no more to say for now. Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

Víctor Lugo

References

Jadranka. (Photographer). (2008). Sometimes I think that I don't know that much - But math sucks!. [Online Image]. Retrieved on September 28, 2009 from http://www.flickr.com/photos/stonkinja/2914788579/sizes/o/.

Norton, L. S., (2009). Action research in teaching and learning: A practical guide to conducting pedagogical research in universities. Oxon, England: Routledge.

Optick. (Photographer). (2006). Interference with a rainbow. [Online Image]. Retrieved on September 28, 2009 from http://www.flickr.com/photos/optick/116793142/sizes/l/.