A Personal Reflection on My Educational Practice

Introduction

As a teacher, one of the latest instances that come to mind is when I organised and conducted a youth seminar that intended to empower youth to participate in social issues that impact their communities. Looking back at this activity, I am attracted to the achievements and difficulties that I encountered. In this journal, I am reflecting critically on the seminar, considering my position for delivering it, what went wrong, and how it has impacted me to shape my future teaching practice. I will be using Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle (1988) to structure my reflection, considering what happened, how I felt, and what I can do differently.

Description

My youth seminar, which I had planned, was meant to assemble 30 teenagers, aged between 16-18, for a seminar on social justice problems. We split the activity into a mix of workshops, group discussion, and guest lectures. I handled content and proceedings for the seminar with a view to developing a culture of critical thinking and cooperation. But at the seminar, there were a few members who seemed out of touch, especially at the lecture-like parts of the programme. Some students also had difficulty articulating themselves well in group discussion, which impacted the flow of conversation.

Feelings

Initially, I was enthusiastic and optimistic. I had thought a lot about creating activities that I wished would encourage passionate engagement and meaningful discourse. But as the seminar progressed and I saw some of the attendants begin to lose interest, I began to become frustrated. I questioned whether my preparation had been good enough at addressing the diverse needs of the students. I was concerned, particularly for the quieter participants, whether I had done sufficient in making the room inclusive where everyone was heard.

Evaluation

Looking back, the seminar had both positive and negative aspects. On the downside, the few discussions that did take place were stimulating, and the guest speakers provided richness. The students appeared to appreciate the diverse topics and the opportunity to listen to people with practical experience. There were, however, clearly discernible problems. The lecture-style segments, while informative, failed to engage the students as I had hoped. This highlighted a key issue: I had not made such a comprehensive evaluation of the group’s diversity of communication style and comfort levels. While I had anticipated diversity in the subject matter, I had not differentiated my facilitation styles enough to cater for varying confidence and participation levels.

Analysis

I learned the importance of differentiation in teaching from this experience. The seminar participants were diverse, and the concept of one-fit facilitation style did not work for all. As Tomlinson (2001) posits, good teaching has to address the different learning styles of students. The group discussions, which I had assumed to be a core element of the seminar, were difficult for some participants due to their varying comfort with communicating in groups. I also identified that the lecture components of the seminar failed to engage the students at any level. This is consistent with research by Bain (2004), suggesting that excessively didactic methods are detractors for student engagement.

The lack of engagement by some students served to compound the necessity for inclusive teaching mechanisms recognising different approaches to communication. Gay (2018) believes that culturally responsive teaching is instrumental in empowering all students, regardless of background, to feel secure in offering contributions. I realised that employing multiple means of communication — i.e., visual materials, written work, and smaller group discussions — would have made a difference. These changes would allow students to express themselves in formats most convenient for them and maximally taking advantage of their strengths and inclinations, enhancing their sense of participation and engagement.

Additionally, seminar group dynamics insisted on active facilitation. Brookfield (2017) argues that facilitation is effective if a facilitator remains keen to group dynamics and actively regulates participation. I was also unable to adequately observe group interaction or call an issue to attention as it arose, and this was evident in the seminar’s inclusiveness. At this point, however, I might have utilised strategies such as think-pair-share or small group discussions so that every member who was present would have an opportunity to be heard and to speak. These approaches, as Freeman et al. (2014) have hinted, are bound to trigger participation and critical thinking than the conventional lecture-type training.

Conclusion

This reflection has helped me identify areas of strength and areas in which I need to practice more. While the seminar produced useful insights and offered avenues of constructive interaction, I can now appreciate the limitations of my own approach. The challenges I faced in leading group dynamics and getting all participants comfortable to engage with the subject matter have made me more attuned to the need for inclusive and responsive teaching approaches. In the future, I shall ensure that students with different learning styles are accommodated and more opportunities for interactive engagement are available. I shall also be more cognizant of group dynamics and actively ensure that everybody gets a chance to contribute their voice.

Action Plan

Henceforth, I will include several changes in seminars. Firstly, I shall include differentiation by offering a wider range of activities designed to suit different communication styles. For example, I will include more visual aids, written work, and individual thinking time to ensure all students have a turn to respond. Second, I will clearly define expectations for working in groups and established roles to ensure everyone participating knows they have an investment in the success of the discussion. I will also monitor between-group interactions more attentively, intervening if necessary to contain any issues that arise. Lastly, I will include more active learning strategies such as case studies, role-play, and debates to inspire the students and encourage critical thinking (Prince, 2004). Through these adjustments, I hope to create a more welcoming and engaging learning environment where all the attendees feel assured that they are able to contribute and connect meaningfully with the material.

References

Bain, K., 2004. What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press.

Brookfield, S.D., 2017. Becoming a critically reflective teacher. John Wiley & Sons.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. and Wenderoth,

M.P., 2014. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and

mathematics. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 111(23), pp.8410-8415.

Gay, G., 2018. Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers college

press.

Gibbs, G., 1988. Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education

Unit.

Prince, M., 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of engineering

education, 93(3), pp.223-231.

Tomlinson, C.A., 2001. How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Ascd.