Shiwei

The arrangement of settings was similar to a "U" and it was quite different from the previous lecture. I came a little late and I wanted to choose the seat in the last line but I was told the seats in this line were not permitted to be seated. I felt a little sad because I did not want to seat at the front of the lecture. I always had such feelings if I seat so close to the teacher, I must be nominated. Afterward, the lecture began. We were introduced to the requirements of assignments and matters regarding this. Besides, Dr. Lina linked previous knowledge and did a recap session to improve our retention. She covered "thinking tool", Kolb's learning cycle, DigCompEdu, comprehensible input, "subconscious learning" and others. To be honest, I really learned a lot of theories and I am interested in them. Then, she even linked the SIOP to the dialogic pattern. I was shocked because I had never thought they could be intertwined before. Through her detailed explanation, I truly understood it. The SIOP model contained 8 components (lesson preparation, building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice/application, lesson delivery, review/assessment)  and 30 features in total. Subsequently, we started the pair activity. My pair was Patrick (I have to admit that he was a really interesting and friendly person😆). We had a hot discussion. After this, Dr. Lina randomly nominated people to repeat 8 components of SIOP. When she glanced at me, at that time, I also had eye contact with her (Oh my god, I am so panicky and I am praying in my heart, please do not call me💀). It was so embarrassing and funny. 

  During the tutorial, we analyzed Luna's lesson plan and had a hot discussion. After that, we shared our ideas and thoughts. Dr. Lee was invited to attend this tutorial. He talked a lot about the ABCD model of writing objectives, the year 4 program, and ideas about the SIOP model. I gained some new perspectives and thoughts toward it. It was quite an intriguing and impressive tutorial for me. 

  Honestly speaking, I used to write lesson plans based on the SIOP model. I found it hard to choose the appropriate verb when writing specific language objectives and content objectives. Based on this reason, the most impressive part for me is "verbs for writing Content and Language Objectives". All in all, these two sessions were intriguing and impressive, and I also learned a lot from both sessions. 

  Kolb's learning cycle (experimental learning cycle) has four components including concrete experience (CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC), and active experimentation (AE).  It detailed explained the learning process through experience. During the lecture session, I gained a new perspective on it and I found we had already applied it in our learning. The CE related to our learning experiences in both sessions (eg. our hands-on activities, Think pair share activity, and Jigsaw activity.....💭). The RO related to our reporting as well as responding in reflection based on the 5R model. Through the reflection, we first described our experiences, then analyzed the experience, considered the outcomes, and thought about feelings and reactions. In this process of writing reflection, students were provided with invaluable insights into experiences ( Isabelle et al., 2017). The AC was related to relating and resonating in reflection. Through the two processes, we could make sense of experience and relate it to existing knowledge that we have so that we could form concrete concepts of abstract concepts and theories. The AE was related to the reconstruing in reflection. Through planning and reconstruing, we could test and apply what we have learned from previous learning in practical situations. Honestly speaking, I had never realized it could be applied to our learning. Nevertheless, after the detailed explanation from Dr. Lina and thinking, I gradually realized that we had already applied it in our learning process without knowing it (eg. teaching activities, and the reflection after the teaching sessions💭). Besides, several studies have shown its effectiveness in learning such as improved knowledge and confidence (Watson et al, 2019), enhanced comprehension (Barker et al, 2016), and enhanced learning outcomes (Konak et al, 2014). Therefore, we are supposed to understand this process and actively reflect on ourselves to enhance comprehension as well as critical thinking. Most importantly, our metacognition will also develop as we reflect on ourselves. Besides, we also need to proactively apply it when designing curriculum in the future to help students' overall development. 

During the lecture, Dr. Lina also detailedly explained the relationship between the dialogical pattern and the SIOP model. I had not realized this before. After thinking about and comparing them, I found they were intertwined with each other. Previously, I had talked about the dialogical pattern in the Week 2 reflection and I would choose one part to show their similarities. For example, the comprehensible input. The comprehensible input was associated with language acquisition theories and it refers to utilizing language input that is slightly beyond students' current level of proficiency to enhance language input. While the cognitive knowledge supply refers to providing content and information to establish a concrete foundation for learning. However, comprehensible input is more effective when it fits into the learner's (or EFLs' ). We could provide background information and content to build the foundation for understanding new language input. Several research studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of applying dialogic patterns such as higher-order thinking skills, increased self-regulation, and problem-solving skills (Wegerif, 2011; Mercer & Howe, 2012; Chapin et al., 2009). Besides, the SIOP model was known for its effectiveness based on numerous evidence-based research for EFLs. Consequently, it is imperative to incorporate them when teaching to further enhance students' development. 

  During our tutorial session, the questions from Dr. Lina and Dr. Lee to students reminded me of the implementation of IBL (actually, numerous teaching strategies and methods were applied and I chose IBL to explain because we just learned it from the lecture). IBL as a pedagogical methodology emphasizes student-driven exploration (eg. questioning students to lead them to explore like Dr. Lina and Dr. Lee💭) and investigation (eg. leading students to search for answers through collaboration, discussion, and group activities💭). IBL encourages students to actively engage in the learning process by questioning and through this process, students are encouraged to be active learners. This reminded me of the week 3 blog because I wrote the parallel between interactive teaching and cooperative teaching, and I also mentioned one important difference named active learners. As a consequence, this strategy was frequently applied in interactive teaching. Additionally, several studies have demonstrated its effectiveness in education such as increasing motivation (Bayram et al., 2013), comprehension and retention regarding subjects as well as critical thinking (Prince & Felder, 2013). This also reminded me of the motivation theory. Through the questioning, students' intrinsic motivation to search for answers as well as explore new things is activated, which improves their learning and performance (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Vansteenkiste et al, 2004). In addition, according to the comparative research of Ali (2014), students who received IBL significantly outperformed students who received traditional teaching in higher academic achievements. Hence, we should make full use of this pedagogical method when teaching to foster student development. There is also one thing that we need to bear in mind, it is important to design open questions that stimulate students' thinking to enhance students' development and avoid closed questions. 

  To sum up, many pedagogical theories and knowledge were covered during both two sessions. We as future teachers, should clearly understand them and make full of these theories. For example, I will ask some open questions to arouse students' interest and lead students to think critically. Besides, I also noticed one theory named gamification was covered in the tutorial and I previously talked about it in the week 1 reflection. I will also design and apply more fun games for students to simultaneously enhance their overall development while they are playing in the classroom (eg. pictionary, hands-up competition......💭). Most importantly, incorporating the dialogical pattern and teaching techniques (eg. think pair share activity......💭) when designing the curriculum to improve their metacognition development as well. We are supposed to not only teach students but also cultivate students to be independent as well as life-long learners. We as future teachers or educators, not only need to understand these educational theories but also need to appropriately apply them in teaching to maximize the growth of students. This is the most important takeaway message I've learned from this week. 

Thank you so much for seeing the blog here!

Hope you have a good day. 😆

Reference List:

Ali, A. (2014). The Effect of Inquiry-Based Learning Method on Students' Academic Achievement in Science Course. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 37-41. 

Barker, D. J., Lencucha, J., & Anderson, R. (2016). Kolb's learning cycle as a framework for early fieldwork learning. World Federation of Occupational Therapists Bulletin, 72:1, 28-34. 

Bayram, Z., Oskay, O. O., Erdem, E., Ozgur, S. D., & Sen, S. (2013). Effect of Inquiry-based Learning Method on Students' Motivation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 988-996. 

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definition and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.

Vansteekiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating Learning, Performance, and Persistence: The Synergistic Effects of Interisic Goal Contents and Autonomy-Supportive Contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246-260. 

Watson, M. K., Pelkey, J., Noyes, C., & Rodgers, M. O. (2019). Using Kolb's Learning Cycle to Improve Student Sustainability. Sustainability, 11(17), 4602.