Teaching Evaluation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Teaching Evaluation

on

  • 219 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
219
Views on SlideShare
219
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Main  Command(WARM-UP, MOTFIS,
  • Blooms Taxonomy A Method of how information get retained, by the inclusions of Cognitive (Think about it whilst doing it.) Affecitive (bring in the analysis of the information) Psycho Moto ( Doing it)Fitts and Posner  is similar to blooms in assessing how information becomes permanent in our mind. However it is more related towards sports /dance/physical exercise by the inclusion. It starts with cognitive again, but then refers to the analysis as refining the movement, and finally ends with the ‘doing’ however now in the context of a performance. Example – Seen later on in the placement talk about which section we are going to rehearse, go over the movement, clean it up, perfect it, perform it.
  • Teacher allocated time – amount of time we spend teaching them the skills, movement.Student Engaged time – how motivated are they? Are they constantly focused on a task to do?Student success rate – if they can succeed in the movements they will be motivated to keep trying.Task Difficulty – if the task is too hard they will automatically give up and switch off.Individuality – each pupil has different levels f motivation/abilities.Found we spend a lot of time going over movement due to student missing, which meant it was hard to keep all of them engaged at the same time. Towards the end this got better as everyone knew everything and students started to help each other keeping busy and on task.At the beginning because it was new to them all of them kept saying ‘I Cant’, and would make them switch off. But with positive feedback from us and encouragment they improved and started to enjoy challenging themselves. Also noticed that one pupil was weaker with picking up movement and another with confidence, so when putting pairs together we would mix them with the stronger pupils to help push them and balance the class out.

Teaching Evaluation Teaching Evaluation Presentation Transcript

  • L A U R E N C A V E N E YTEACHING EVALUATION
  • MOSSTON M & ASHWORTH (1986)TEACHING STYLES• Command• Practice• Reciprocal• Self Check• Inclusion• Guided Discovery• Convergent Discovery• Divergent Discovery• Leaner Designed• Learner Initiated
  • LEARNING STYLESFLEMING – VARK(1955)• Visual• Aural• Read/Write• Kinaesthetic
  • WHAT I USED
  • STAGES OF LEARNINGBLOOMS TAXONOMY (1956)• Cognitive Phase – mental skills (knowledge)• Affective Phase – about values• Pyscho-Motor Phase – manual or physical skills (skills)FITTS AND POSNER MOTOR LEARNING (1967)
  • RATES OF LEARNING• Teacher-allocated Time• Student-Engaged Time• Student Success Rate• Task Difficulty Level• Individuality
  • CONCLUSION
  • BIBLIOGRAPHY• Davies.D(2010) http://www.physical-literacy.org.uk/Teaching-Styles.pdf [On-line]Retrieved 10 March 2013• Atherton J S (2011) Learning and Teaching; Blooms taxonomy [On-line: UK] retrieved 10March 2013 from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/bloomtax.htm• Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The CognitiveDomain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.• Anon. (2013) http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html [On-line] retrieved 10March 2013• Fleming, N.D; (1995), Im different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiaryclassroom, in Zelmer,A., (ed.) Research and Development in HigherEducation, (HERDSA),HERDSA, Volume 18, pp. 308 – 313