Webinar 2

Created: 6.10.2022, Last edited: 20.10.2022

In our second webinar, our team (Group 3) focused on the topics of "Pedagogical Models" and "Teaching Methods". The planning and preparations went really well in the beginning. We were progressing rapidly and came up with a pre-task to "Fold an Origami Flapping Bird and teach it to someone". We also had a small survey to collect information on how the teaching happen. We kept our 5:00 AM morning routine for the meetings, which we will have to change to 5:05 AM because I managed to trigger the alarm at my workplace and was visited by the guard during our session...

While planning the theoretical part we ran into some difficulties. We each had conflicting ideas about which pedagogical models to choose and we went back and forth for some time. In the end we selected the following:

  • Constructivist​
  • Cognitivist (apprenticeship)​
  • Collaborative ​
  • Inquiry-Based

In hindsight this proved to be a good idea because, during the webinar, I could link my presentation to what others said during their sessions (my presentation was the last). I felt this helped with transferring new information. However, we were still editing the slides past the deadline, and I'm not sure how I feel about that... One one hand, I'm happy to see my team working hard to improve the quality, but a deadline is a deadline and should be respected.

We then chose 3 teaching methods to focus on, which we believed could be linked to the previous pedagogical models in a meaningful way. These methods were:

  • Problem based learning
  • Collaborative learning
  • Inquiry-based teaching

PRESENTATION

We had a discussion based on people's preferred learning styles (see results of the survey summarized below) and I then pointed out the fact that each student having a learning style suited to them is a mith [1, 2 and 3]. However, that does not mean students do not benefit from content presented in different ways. The origami model, for example, could be taught in a way that mixes the visual component (seeing someone demonstrate the technique), the aural component (hearing someone comment on a specific step), the kinesthetic component (following along with own sheet of paper) and the reading/writing component (having written instructions / diagrams nearby). This combination would be ideal for beginners, however, an expert could learn a new model more efficiently by studying the crease pattern (personalization is still important).



I then moved on to the theory, but instead of following the slides directly, I decided to tailor the presentation so it relates more to what others already said during their sessions. I tried to do this seamlessly, by switching slides in a non-linear way and jumping to a specific slide number when I had to (no going back and forth). I feel this made a difference when we had the discussions. The padlet was supposed to help with that, but it didn't behave as expected. People were not able to write in their respective rooms and the results were hard to group together. This was my mistake. I didn't test the padlet created by my teammate because I remember using padlet during the previous webinar with no problems and I assumed it will work the same (it didn't).

In the end I made another mistake which forced me to skip the Kahoot game. I used my work phone to see the remaining time and it had a 5-minute offset, so, I was already over-time when I wanted to start the Kahoot and my students pointed that out. I use my work phone quite rarely, so I never noticed this before... but all I can say is it will never happen again.

OTHER PRESENTATIONS

The other three learning sessions I participated in were really interesting. First we focused on collaborative learning, we learned about group dynamics, how to promote student teamwork skills and resolve conflict in teams. I especially liked the discussion about conflict and conflict resolution techniques. I later had something to add during my teaching session, where I said that conflict could be seen as an oportunity to get the product (presentation) closer towards the general audience. I also enjoyed the discussions about the differences between offline and online teaching.

The second presentation was about learning techniques. There were some things I didn't agree with, like that people have learning styles suited to them. This is something I had counter arguments for during my presentation. However, the presentation was otherwise great, and I was amazed by the ability of the teacher to work in difficult circumstances (laptop breaking, and immediately switching to phone). The presentation had also a record number of different activities/apps:

  • menti *new to me
  • word wall *new to me
  • kahoot
  • padlet

Third presentation was about guiding methods. It was great, we were guided to acomplish different tasks during the whole session, starting with working together on developing a cake recipe and presentation and ending with figuring out at who different teaching methods are targeted at. For the last task we used miro, with is another app I learned about today.

REFLECTION

I decided to use what I have learned so far during my pedagogical studies and analyse one of my recent video lectures from a different perspective: a pedagogical one. I chose the video below because it is quite recent, but already my second-best performing on YouTube so I want to speculate on what could be the reasons for that.



The video quickly starts off with a hook: how to win a bet. I believe this increases the motivation of those watching and is why this video has an above typical audience retention (see image below). Most viewers click away quite soon after the video starts as described in this other post [4].



Then, I present a non-intuitive answer to a seemingly simple problem: how to cut a large hole in a piece of paper. I believe this phase establishes the lecture as good (teaching something new already), and continues to captivate the viewer. I find this part, of making lectures captivating to always be the most difficult and time consuming, but if it is missing, the content won't be enjoyable and will only be watched by those who need to pass a course or something like that, not just for the joy of learning something new.

The pedagogical model is constructivistic, building upon existing, intuitive knowledge and the teaching method is problem-based. The lecture switches focus from one problem: 'how to cut a large hole' to another: 'how to maximize the area', with the second problem building on top of the previous one.

The complexity of the lecture slowly increases, moving from a visual proof with kinesthetic components (playing with beads) to an interactive simulation made on a computer: a software I built myself [5] with the purpose of making the video animations but also increasing interaction. This simulation is public, so, viewers can play with it even if they don't have beads lying around. This increases interactivity and facilitates learning - it is not 'just' a video with visual and aural components (as they typically are), but contains a kinesthetic component as well. One that viewers can experience without the need to purchase any equipment.

I will try in the future to make this kind of analysis before planning a new video. Maybe then these results don't just happen by accident :-)

Now, reflecting on group dynamics within our own study groups, I believe our tutors 'scanned us' at the beginning of our studies and divided us so we complement each other. In this way we have a lot to learn between ourselves, and we also have potential for lesser conflict if we recognize each-other's expertise. But that is not always the case: we are people, after all, and conflict is part of nature. The important thing is to listen and understand. So far I think we're doing great!

Group work can seem like a burden, it often feels like the task could be solved in a fraction of the time if I work alone. However, I know that if working alone the end result is heavily biased towards my own preferences and expectations. When planning a session it is important to think about the students. When designing the lesson in a group, the outcome moves towards an average: a lesson fitting to a more general group, not just myself and others like me. I think our group work is the actual learning experience in this course and that working by myself, I would learn almost nothing at all.


REFERENCES
  1. R. Dunn, J. S. Beaudry & A. Klavas (2002). Survey of research on learning styles. https://ve42.co/Dunn2002​
  2. C. Riener & D. Willingham (2010). The myth of learning styles. https://ve42.co/Riener2010​
  3. B. A. Rogowsky, B. M. Calhoun & P. Tallal (2015). Matching learning style to instructional method: Effects on comprehension. https://ve42.co/Rogowskyetal​
  4. https://karelia.fi/2021/12/entertaining-programming-lectures
  5. https://radufromfinland.com/projects/circlemaxarea