While I was in the process of developing my idea’s for presenting the concept of blocking notation I realised that I have never attempted a lesson plan, or at least not of an acceptable academic standard. After a little research into several ways of presenting a lesson plan I decided to use a mind map accompanied by a more traditional table format. As I was new to mind mapping I felt that having two approaches would best serve my needs. During the process of compiling my plan I began to make sense of what I was trying to assemble. It was a relatively simple process and one I was already familiar with as it was closely akin to organising a production, though on a smaller scale. At least the organising and scheduling of resources was similar.
Andrew had already suggested that I organise a test run of my session prior to presenting it and Jamie had re-iterated this during my mentoring session. He also suggested that I use a different test group than the one that had volunteered. I immediately saw the sense behind the idea. I could pre-evaluate my class using student feedback and not compromise any of the learning that would otherwise have become ’spoiled’. Whats more I knew who I could count on to help, my 2nd Year SM students. Unfortunately I only had one session when we all could meet, the day prior to my assignment. This would give me little time to reflect on any feedback I received.
The dry run turned out to be a thoroughly positive experience. Instead of simply using it as a ‘Dress Rehearsal’ for the following day, we worked through the presentation minute by minute. The students stopped me whenever the felt an issue arising and, as a group, we all discussed it. This form of discourse continued and before long we reached a format in which all were satisfied. There were aspects of their feedback that I would never have seen myself. They became the mentors of their own learning, guiding me through issues of style, positioning and timing. I can honestly say, that after 6 years of teaching I have never felt so empowered as I was then. It was a strange feeling knowing that we had swapped roles in a sense, though I was still the tutor and they were still the students.
I jotted down every note they gave and at the end I had collated a sizable list to work on that evening. These notes ranged from ‘not wearing a hat’ to the sequence in which my delivery was to take. They seemed to be thoroughly enjoying the session as we were collaborating as never before. The group volunteered to help me set up for the session after classes tomorrow evening.
This form of experiential learning as outlined in Kolbs four stage learning cycle in which ‘immediate or concrete experiences’ provide a basis for ‘observations and reflections’. These ‘observations and reflections’ are assimilated and distilled into ‘abstract concepts’ producing new implications for action which can be ‘actively tested’ in turn creating new experiences. (Kolb 1984) At this point in the process I still required time to reflect before the next two stages could be reached; unfortunately my reflection, re-conceptualisation and direct action could also be termed as ‘micro’. Fortunately, the session with the 2nd Years had enthused me and I was ready (eager?) for a long night of development through reflection.
Balancing the emphasis on learning styles, using the VARK model (Flemming, 1992) almost seemed to fall into place naturally. I had incorporated all of the elements required by that model to satisfy inclusion and wider access policies. The problem I had was making a clear distinction between the Stage Management subject matter and Flemming’s model. Should VARK be part of the actual content (to be learned) or incorporate it as a series of support mechanisms (as it was designed to be) or both? I wanted the students to be aware of what I was trying to achieve i.e. use blocking notation as a vehicle to discover their own particular learning style. Every solution I came up with was either too complex or only served to ‘muddy the waters’.
In the end (at about 3am the night before) and after several drafts of my lesson plan, I opted to introduce learning styles at the beginning of the process and inform the students that these have all been catered for. The bulk of their learning would be based around notation and they were tasked to identify how they were being taught as they went along. I asked them to reflect on the process afterwards on their Word Press blogs and finally to fill in an online questionnaire, based on Kirkpatrick four levels of training evaluation (Kirkpatrick 1994). To guide them I asked four reflective questions that they may want to consider as they did this, they were:
- What did you find useful about this session?
- What did you do well and why?
- How would you apply what you have learned?
- What didn’t you do well and why?
The Student Lesson brief was as follows:
An Introduction to Blocking & Learning Styles
Lesson Brief
Aim: To introduce the concept of learning styles through a framework of discovery within a stage management specialist subject i.e. blocking and blocking notation.
Context: After a short introductory video we shall stage a small simulation of how blocking is used in rehearsals. You will be asked to notate a few lines of blocking as your peers act out a small scene. The roles will be reversed shortly afterwards enabling everyone gets a chance to try notation. Throughout the session a series of learning style (see over) have been designed into the session.
Outcome: At the conclusion of this session you should have a fundamental understanding of the basic techniques used in notating blocking and why this process underpins the rehearsal process. You should be able to identify a learning style(s) that matches your own learning needs.
Reflection: After the lesson is complete, you will be asked to reflect on your experience. Using your WordPress blog please consider some or all of the following questions while reflecting. These are simply guides to help you:
- What did you find useful about this session?
- What did you do well and why?
- How would you apply what you have learned?
- What didn’t you do well and why?
Evaluation: Feedback on your participation will be discussed openly as a group during a short evaluative session at the end of the lecture. Comments will also be left in response to your reflections on WordPress. Try to comment on each others blogs if possible. This form of peer support can often nurture any possible emerging learning community, it’s also nice to help your mates from time to time…
Revision: On Moodle you will find a number of resources to help you revise this subject more thoroughly in your own time. You will find:
2 Blocking Practice Animations
A Podcast of this evenings introductory video
A Podcast of this evenings lecture (Video)
An enhanced Podcast of this evenings lecture (Audio)
A short Quiz (non-assessed)
Learning Styles: In designing this class I have deliberately used the 4 most common learning styles found amongst students. These are:
- Visual Learning by watching and seeing
- Auditory Learning by hearing & listening
- Reading Learning by reading
- Kinaesthetic Learning by doing i.e. practical
By the end of the reflection process you will be able to identify which learning style(s) suits your learning requirements the best.
KOLB D A (1984) Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
Fleming, N.D. & Mills, C. (1992). Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11, 137-155
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1994). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler
