It should be emphasized that this method of delivery by thetraining organization Ideas Together it was not an arbitrary choice but induced by the impossibility, as well as the prohibition, of holding lessons ex cathedra for well-known reasons. Contrary to popular belief, the descendants (target audience) They were favorably disposed toward this delivery method, probably because there was no alternative. It should also be noted that this favorable predisposition did not eliminate the understandable initial distrust of the innovative method.
CONSIDERATION AFTER THE EXPERIMENTATION
Below I report the reflections deduced, grouping them into specific themes.
starting off on the right foot...
It was thought to start the experimentation with virtual classroom sessions with all interested teachers. This had a dual objective: the easily understandable one of allowing them to familiarize themselves with the technological tool used; the other, not obvious, that of collecting reactions, ideas and suggestions precisely by those who were to subsequently hold the course and who on that occasion felt, more than teachers, like students of a virtual lesson.
The teachers, all with long-time experience In the traditional classroom, they expressed initial disorientation due to the lack of human contact, resulting, in their view, in a lack of control over teaching activities. However, the opportunity served as an opportunity for them to provide insights and ideas to address the deficit they declared in a lively discussion among the participants. This moment is significant considering that public school teachers have been catapulted into DAD (distance learning) Without any discussion, they say, about the teaching methodology to use. Perhaps the luckiest ones were educated on the use of technological tools, but they certainly intended to transpose, tout court, the ex cathedra lesson to the distance learning one.
the first time...
It immediately became clear that the teacher had to monitor the channel by informing the students of at least two fundamental rules:
- silence the microphone. This eliminates annoying background noise
- deactivate the webcamThis saves bandwidth and therefore improves the enjoyment of the lesson.
However, it was essential that the teacher, unlike the students, be present on the screen at all times, as he or she was the focal point of the lesson. If students had any questions, they could request them through the chat. (tool integrated into the virtual classroom). This allowed the teacher to manage the booking and therefore give the floor to the students, one at a time, avoiding them speaking at the same time. Experience has shown that the student's question should be accompanied not only by the necessary activation of the microphone but also of the webcam so that the teacher could not only hear but also see who was asking the question. This allowed for the creation of a good relationship between teacher and student, both being able to see each other. Good practice The lesson began with each student presenting their video and then deactivating their webcam.
during class...
Each teacher found that keeping the floor without caring if the students were "active" It would have been almost soporific. After ten minutes, maximum fifteen minutes it was necessary to ask for feedback, not only as he would like Roman Jacobson (phatic function) to verify the contact between sender and recipient ("Can you hear me? Are you following me?, Is everything clear? Are there any questions? but going further by urging the students, such as: "Who has ever encountered this problem?","What does this topic suggest to you?" "Who does this exercise?..." Of course, a teacher who's already accustomed to doing this in a traditional classroom will have found it almost natural to do so in a virtual classroom. But that's precisely the point: here it becomes necessary!!! Speaking of channel control, it was a great help to the teacher to have, on a sheet of paper, the list of participants, writing down, next to the name, many "x" How much that student's input was involved. Conversely, he could immediately visually recognize the student who hadn't interacted or had interacted little and, in that case, encourage their participation.
speaker or television director?...
Continuous discussions between teachers and instructional designers have helped us understand that the role of the speaker in a virtual lesson takes on different contours. Beyond the didactic management of the topics to be covered, this new modality requires that the role of the speaker is similar to that of a notes of a live television broadcast (forgive me the hyperbole), at least as far as classroom management is concerned. Ultimately, a director's ability is defined by keeping alive attention of the viewer. Frequent breaks between one student and another, deciding who gets the floor and the video, define a rhythm that, if well managed, makes the lesson engaging. Certainly, a good teacher in traditional classroom It would do the same, but in this case, as I said before, it's essential. An example is worth mentioning: the exerciseAll virtual classroom platforms allow the presenter to give the student the ability to share their screen and display it to all participants.
A sheet of paper excel on which a student practiced showing the calculations he had performed (in a task previously assigned to him), can become a topic of debate for the whole room:
- the student explains as reported by realizing what Benjamin Bloom he argued in his taxonomy (ability to grasp the meaning of information and know how to transform it);
- la correction it is in plenary or shared (strictly shared);
- the teacher directs and coordinates the interventions of each individual participant.
PROJECTED IMPACT
The virtual classrooms created to date have provided for a maximum number of 25 participantsThis number seemed appropriate for the type of educational objectives set. However, a smaller number of participants increased the level of interaction and therefore involvement. This allows us to suggest the ideal number, or 20.
The satisfaction of the participants was good, in some cases excellent, but not enough to exclude a regret for the traditional classroom. A meticulous work of didactic planning was necessary that took into account not only the traditional didactic framework (division into units, definition of learning objectives and assessments, teacher's teaching materials, methodology used in information processing) but also, as a sort of storyboard, of the classroom climate (methods of interaction, pace of the lesson, student involvement, etc.).
The future remains uncertain as to the most effective modality to use: traditional classroom or virtual classroom?. Surely the answer lies in the type of training which is intended to be provided.
It must also be recognized that the situation of sanitary emergency, if nothing else, has the merit of having allowed an acceleration of innovative teaching methods, often announced but never tested. Contrary to those who claimed they were consolidated but needed experimentation.
A personal reflection of mine concerns the desire to understand teaching, not only at this moment, as a subject in constant evolutionA good teacher doesn't apply the same model but continually refines it after each lesson, learning from mistakes. Furthermore, in the dilemma between virtual and traditional classrooms, what better answer than to ask a further question: "why not think about a blended model for the same course??" (but that's another article...)
“We are seekers of truth but we are not its possessors” KARL RAIMUND POPPER
(Vincenzo Di Prisco - Head of the Management Process at Idee Insieme Training Organization)