Students’ responses to the new structure of in-class work (individually → as a group → individually) were better than I had expected. It was the first time during the semester that I noticed some students changed their seats around the table to work with their group. For one thing, the new structure allows students to figure out what they need, to be able to solve the problem through the slope-deflection method. They got the main steps of the solution and developed their flowchart/step-by-step strategy based on their own experience from the in-class examples. Then, they used it while solving the next in-class example.
The new structure also helped students better understand the procedure for applying the slope-deflection method. The students’ understanding is evident in the number of students who did excellent and good in part B and C of the homework assignments. Moreover, the new structure made students more vocal during the second and third in-class example group work sections. Therefore, if I had the opportunity to make changes to this course (CE 461), I would design similar in-class activities for other units.
In my second practicum session, I saw students engaged completely in their in-class work until I reminded them that the class time is over and they can leave the class. It was somewhat unexpected since students usually start to wrap up their work and pack their stuff during the last two minutes of a class. I argue that the students liked the new structure of the in-class activity and it helped me to have a student-centered classroom. The COPUS results for my second practicum session implies my arguments, as the students’ group working time percentage increased in the second session.
Aside from all I learned about different teaching methods and active-learning and student-centered approaches during my practicum, I found that a short (less than 5 minutes) physical activity during class time may improve students' mental vitality, particularly in early morning classes. This is one of the experiences that I will take with myself to my future teaching opportunities.
I can sum up my ideas into three categories. First, considering the COPUS results, I would like to design the course material differently so that students’ listening time during the class decreases; in contrast, their thinking time increases.
Second, I was frustrated with my experience using MOLA Structural Kit. I should design better material for this part of my practicum. The students looked at the kit as a playing tool and in spite of the fact that students’ performance in the achievement of learning objective 3 was excellent, I should design a better in-class activity for the next time.
Finally, as it is mentioned in the course background, students from both civil engineering and architectural engineering disciplines with different educational backgrounds and diversity take this course. I, as the instructor, should consider this issue and use a variety of teaching methods to ensure all students have equal access to participation. As an example, one of the non-native students who was very quiet during class time became excited and started to talk with his table while I was playing the stretching video, since the video was in his mother tongue. Then, it is my responsibility to design the course material in such a way to better engage a person like him.
Overall, I learned a lot from this practicum. I gained some valuable experiences that will help me in my future teaching opportunities. I realized that how frequent use of formative assessment can help me, as the instructor, to address the students’ weakness points and my misunderstandings about their learning during the next sessions of the semester. Also, I practiced the backwards design process and experienced that students can benefit from a student-centered approach much more than a teacher-centered approach.