Mini-Lesson Reflection

What Happened?
I opened the lesson with a brief review of the questions history students should ask about a source. The questions were presented on a Powerpoint slide and I briefly read them out, before moving on to the new question for the day, which was “What is my attitude?” This question was designed to get students thinking about their own perspective and how it affects their interpretation of a historical source.

The lesson activity involved considering the same quote, as though it was spoken by a number of different historical personalities including Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Martin Luther King, Jnr., Germaine Greer, and others. The activity progressed well, with almost all of the students contributing a view on one or more of the subjects. Their views varied sufficiently to illustrate the extent to which our individual opinion of a speaker influences our interpretation of their quote, actions and motivations.

After discussing the hypothetical speakers and unveiling the true identity of the source (Adolf Hitler), I asked the class to pair up for sixty seconds and brainstorm some of the factors of their life that contribute to their individual perspective. After the minute was over, I asked students to name some of these factors. Fortunately most of the factors named were ones I had prepared for my next slide; although I had a couple that the class did not name, such as our chronological context (referred to in the lesson as ‘time’ or ‘era’) and nationality (though this was touched on in terms of ‘place’).

Following the brainstorm, I asked students what good historians, when considering a source, should do with the factors that make up their perspective. We agreed that you could not get rid of them entirely, but I suggested that they “pack them away in your prejudice box” in an effort to be as objective as possible. At this point I ended the lesson.

What worked?
My repeated linkage between the activity, the quote and the overarching unit of Revolutions was good for reiterating for students the relationship between concepts.

I responded well to Steven's "bowel movement" comment about Andy Warhol, and the ensuing laughter. By laughing along with the students and thanking Steven for using a euphemism, as well as rephrasing his comment to suggest his opinion of Warhol’s art influenced his perception of the quote, I did not allow a minor disruption to become a classroom management issue.

Similarly, I recast Tom’s comments about Constantine to reflect his opinion of the quote – that is, his skepticism of the quote being attributed to Constantine.

My response to Tahlia’s comment on Martin Luther King, Jnr. worked to lead her into continuing to explain her position. Rather than moving on to the next student, I allowed her time to further explore her thoughts on King’s actions and get a little deeper into her perspective on King.

Two students made unexpected contributions to the discussion about Hitler, noting that his definitions of “popular” and of “human” differed from those we would expect from other speakers, such as Martin Luther King, Jnr. The students’ knowledge of Hitler’s actions clearly affected their interpretation of his language, on a word-by-word basis, which was a perfect example of perspective for this exercise.

The class was clearly surprised to learn that the quote was in fact from Hitler’s manifesto Mein Kampf. This reaction was exactly what I had hoped to elicit by showing them how positive and inspiring the quote can sound when attributed to someone that the average Australian has respect for (such as Martin Luther King, Jnr.) and how manipulative and ambitious it sounds when attributed to someone that we are taught to deplore, such as Hitler.

Since the class had fortuitously also been presented a mini-lesson on Nazi propaganda before my mini-lesson, I was able to link the subject quote to their prior learning a number of times, particularly when discussing the totalitarian leaders Mao Zedong and Hitler. This was not a planned link, but one that I was able to make on the day in much the same way as I would in a real classroom, linking to units that I was aware the students had covered, not only in SOSE but in any other discipline area or in their everyday lives.

When I asked the class to pair up and discuss their perspectives, I gave them a time limit of only sixty seconds. This was deliberately short, as I only needed each pair to come up with one or two factors that affect their perspectives, and I wanted to ensure they stayed on-topic and that their discussions did not have time to stray beyond the task. I find that students are often given too long to discuss content in groups, and after the first minute or so they begin to get off-topic. I would rather ask after sixty seconds “Are we finished?” and be asked for longer, than to let discussions ramble on for five minutes with no deeper learning achieved.

I made a positive statement in response to most student’s contributions to the class discussion, giving them recognition for their contributions and thanking them for their comments; however, I need to broaden my variety of responses beyond “Very good” and “excellent”, which I over-used.

Giles made an interesting observation about how our “immediate context” affects our perspective. I asked him “Can you elaborate on that?” which I think was a good response to encourage him to clarify and expand on his comment. This sounds better, to me, than “What/how do you mean?”

What I would do differently:
At the opening of the lesson, I should have involved the class in the review of the previous lesson, by asking them to contribute the questions they should ask about sources. Each of the four questions I had on the Smart Board could have been contributed by one of the students, rather than me, which would then have made this introduction a chance for formative assessment of the previous lesson.

I feel that I need to be more physically animated and project my voice more. In a well-behaved university group, my voice is fairly audible; but in a normal secondary school class I would expect more background noise to be competing with my voice. I also need to make an effort with my body language to create a more engaging and interesting “performance”. I had my hands in my pockets quite a lot, which gave the effect of me looking unenthused with the subject matter, which is not the case.

My mini-lesson lacked a substantial conclusion, which I have known is a fault in my teaching since my first practicum placement. I seem to find it hard to conclude effectively, and my lessons seem to end quite abruptly. Part of my lesson planning in future will have to include a concluding statement to help prompt myself and train myself into a habit of properly concluding activities and lessons, reviewing the contents of the lesson, foreshadowing the next lesson, assigning homework or raising anything else that needs to be discussed before releasing students.

My Thinking
This mini-lesson on Perspective was designed with both the ACT’s “Every Chance To Learn” curriculum framework, the “Problematic Knowledge” component of the Quality Teaching Model (McLeod & Reynolds, 2007, p. 51) and the National Curriculum’s history skills in mind. The activity, which calls on students to examine how their own attitudes affect their interpretation of historical sources, was designed to encourage students to think about their own thinking, and learn to analyse their own thoughts as well as source materials. This analysis would form part of their growing metacognitive ability.

The lesson was developed in order to present information in a variety of modes – verbally, written and with visual images, and through both whole-class and small group discussion. This was not designed with an eye to catering to different “learning styles”, as criticized by Scott (“The enduring appeal of ‘learning styles’”, 2010), but rather with the intention of creating an interactive and engaging classroom dialogue.

The lesson required minimal resources. It was delivered with a Powerpoint presentation projected onto the classroom’s interactive whiteboard, but the entire lesson’s activities could have been performed without ICTs if they were not available. Photocopies of the quote could have been distributed; and images of the hypothetical speakers were intended only to help prompt students’ memories in case the names were not enough, but were nonetheless included as supplementary, rather than necessary, material, and as such could have been omitted if resources were an obstacle.

The group discussion depended upon a certain level of prior knowledge amongst the students for conversations about the various historical personalities to successfully take place; however, it was designed to form a part of a unit of work on Revolutions which would have introduced many of the personalities mentioned. I also chose personalities whose place in history I felt I could “sum up” for the students in a single sentence if they were unfamiliar with the personality. The repetition of the activity also allowed for skipping a personality entirely if students could not contribute to an informed discussion about the hypothetical speaker, and the activity could easily be edited to include more recognizable speakers if required, for instance in a mixed-ability class that lacked the prior knowledge, or if students lacked the cultural capital to take part.

The whole-class and small group conversations were intended to take place within a quality learning environment (McLeod & Reynolds, 2007, p. 46) in which students felt they were safe, respected, and that their opinions were valued. The concept being taught, “Perspective”, was also chosen to support the values promoted by the Quality Teaching model, such as “recognition of difference” (McLeod & Reynolds, 2007, p. 46). The concept also provides an opportunity to develop and encourage the values promoted by the “Values for Australian Schooling”, particularly that of “Understanding, Tolerance and Inclusion”, and also reinforcing the value of “Freedom” as defined by that document. (Australian Government, Department of Education, Science & Training, in McLeod & Reynolds, 2007, p. 139) The use of hypothetical speakers such as Mao Zedong and Adolf Hitler serve to strengthen students’ value of democracy and freedom by providing a contrast to the Australian way of life.

Sources
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2009). Draft Australian Curriculum. www.acara.edu.au

Australian Capital Territory Department of Education and Training. (2010). Every Chance To Learn: Curriculum Framework for ACT schools preschool to year 10. http://activated.act.edu.au/ectl/resources/ECTL_Framework.pdf

Marsh, C. (2008). Studies of Society and Environment: Exploring the Teaching Possibilities. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

McLeod, J. H., & Reynolds, R. (2007) Quality Teaching for Quality Learning. South Melbourne, VIC: Thomson Social Science Press.

Scott, C. (2010). The enduring appeal of ‘learning styles’. Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 54(1), 5-17.