Module 3 Summary and Reflection

I enjoyed Module 3, with its introduction to sociocultural theory, which I believe is an important way of viewing how we structure our classes. I particularly like the TARGET approach, which gives the instructor a framework on which to plan and evaluate lessons. I found that framework to be particularly helpful when it came to planning my own lesson; it provided me with clear-cut method for structuring my lesson and for evaluating that structure, in order to determine whether I would be able to meet the various needs of the students. I can see that perhaps in some instances -- as we covered in our discussion -- TARGET would not work in certain classrooms, but I think that most of us could find some general applicability for the sociocultural theory.

Looking back on it, and looking at what I am doing in the classes I am teaching now, I can evaluate my classes as follows:

T(ask): One of my classes by its very construction is mostly unidimensional and undifferentiated, because the class must progress at roughly the same rate together. However, I try to permit some flexibility even in this class with how they structure their assignments. My second class, however, is far more multidimensional and differentiated, as students are working on a variety of tasks all at different times, and in different ways. Some students are ahead, because they have taken portions of this course before; others are moving more slowly because they are still gaining familiarity with the software. And I have utilized T(ask) further in the planning, as I have planned further units to become increasingly differentiated, so that students can work at their own pace and on the project of their choice.

A(utonomy): Again, in the one class, the students have less autonomy, because it is a basic computer course. However, I have tried to provide them with some autonomy when it comes to making choices within their assignments -- style and color, for example, or which graphics to use. Because of their lack of experience -- and in some cases, lack of language skills -- it is simply not feasible to provide them with more choice. The second class, however, has a high level of autonomy, as they are exercising their own creativity in generating the assignments; as well, as the course continues, they will have increased autonomy as to choice of assignment.

R(ecognition): This is where I seem to fall down a bit in both classes, but the public nature of the computer screens in general means that the students frequently get peer feedback and teacher feedback on their work. All work is clearly visible, so the peers surrounding each student often critique, assist, and provide a variety of feedback, as do I as I circulate throughout the classroom.

G(roups): Group work is not as easy in a computer lab setting and in the courses that are currently structured, because the skills they are learning are quite individualized. However, I have planned future group activities in the one class, as the skill levels increase.

E(valuation): I evaluate the students' work, of course, but I also provide opportunities for them to evaluate their own work, requiring them to choose their five best examples to submit, or requiring them to justify in writing why they chose the examples they did. Each assignment of this nature requires the student to evaluate their own work and develop criteria mentally which they feel are important features of the assignment.

T(ime): We work both within the limits of a class period (56 minutes) and within the constraints of a semester system, which is broken into quarters. The students are for the most part cognizant of the time constraints, and aware that they have to turn their work in on time in order to get credit for it in the quarter. I provide them with some flexibility with regard to time, however, as the range of skill levels means that some students work ahead, and other students work more slowly.