Teaching Literature
Assignment 2
Student name : Imane Chouitar
Student number : 500724288
Femke Kitslaa – Dick van Santen
Placement school: Het 4e Gymnasium
HvA, FOO
17-06-2022
,Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Introduction:..........................................................................................................................................3
Changes after Feedback.........................................................................................................................3
Evaluation..............................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................5
Bibliography:......................................................................................................................................5
Appendices........................................................................................................................................6
Appendix 1- Adjusted lesson plan..................................................................................................6
Appendix 2 - Feedback Micro teaching........................................................................................30
Appendix 4- observation from filled in by my coach:...................................................................36
,Introduction:
In the previous assignment I have designed a lesson plan based on my learners’ needs for
literary education. In this assignment, I will evaluate the design and implementation of the
classroom project after receiving feedback and optimizing the original lesson plan. I will first
present the changes I have made to my lesson plan; I will then evaluate the implementation of
the classroom project, and finally, I will reflect on my Theory of Practice.
Changes after Feedback
After receiving feedback from my tutor, I have presented my lesson plan in micro-teaching
and obtained written feedback from my peers (appendix 2). I have decided to incorporate
some of the received feedback before teaching the lesson. One of the main changes that I
have done concerns work forms. In my previous lesson plan, one of the during-task activities,
was to ask the whole class to predict the end of the story. I have decided to incorporate this
feedback because asking such a question to the whole class might result in me having a
discussion with one student, which does not make the thinking of all students visible to me
and to their peers (Perkins & Ritchhart, 2008). Therefore, I have decided to make them work
in pairs and share their predictions with the class using Lesson Up.
“I like your lesson; I do however have some questions concerning work forms. This mostly
concerns doing certain activities with the whole class.” Femke.
I have also decided to skip some pre-reading activities that according to my tutor do not
support my students learning (appendix 1). Further, I have decided to adjust the post-
reading activity and the work-form I intended to use. After letting the students read the
whole text and have a dialogue with it (Van der Knaap, 2019) and then discuss the
essential question in groups in the post-reading activity, I have decided to ask the students
to work in pairs to write an alternative ending to the story (Collie & Slater, 1987). In the
Lottery, the townspeople ignore Tessie when she starts screaming about the injustice of the
lottery and they stone her to death. Nobody dares to speak out because it is an old tradition
and it should be followed despite its cruelty. My students had to imagine an alternative
ending where one of the villagers dares to challenge the majority. My peers have advised me
to make the students work in pairs instead of groups of three, which I have done. Further, I
have added a prompt and clear instructions to support the students in their writing, as my
placement coach suggested. This was lacking in my original plan.
, Evaluation
According to the obtained feedback, the activities that I have designed are fully aligned with
the learners needs and with the civic, personal, and language aims of the lesson.
Upon analysis of the lesson taught, the pre- and post-activities were successful. The during
activity, on the other hand, was less successful in my opinion. The students enjoyed doing the
pre-task which involved a creative prediction activity. During the pre-teaching of the topic-
knowledge I was pleased about how they shared their personal opinions about the pressure to
fit in. In the post activity, the story sparked a great discussion and the students were able to
discuss the essential question in groups and share their ideas. And by completing the creative
writing task, the students could put themselves imaginatively into the target situation which
enabled them to engage in a reflection on the dangers of blindly following tradition. This
according to Colli & Slater, gives learners the maximum chance of entering the universe of
the text (1987). However, I found it difficult to turn the during-activity theoretical ideas into a
concrete activity. What I described in my lesson plan and what the theory says about this
phase is that the activities should support and not test the students’ understanding. One way
to achieve this as described by Van der Knaap, is to let the students write down questions of
things they find strange or unclear while reading the story and then discuss the questions with
their peers (2019). I am aware that this is a good way to make the students have a dialogue
with the text and others which helps them interpret the text and be more involved with it.
However, I noticed that the majority were not actively doing this while reading. Thus, this
task was not successfully accomplished. As an alternative action I reflected on the possibility
of providing some scaffolding during this phase to help them formulate the questions and also
find a way to make their thinking visible to their peers, by sharing their questions on a Padlet
for instance.
My theoretical position regarding teaching literature has changed after completing this
module. I was skeptical about the possibility of teaching literature without focusing on
comprehension questions. The way I used to teach literature was similar to what Collie &
Slater describe as ineffective; a step-by-step comprehension exercise led by the teacher,
where the personal investment and interpretation of the students is limited (1987). After
experimenting with this new way of teaching literature, that is mainly based on the principle
of ‘dialogical learning’ (Jansen, 2009), I believe that this is the didactic approach that I would
like to adopt in my literature lessons. By teaching this lesson, I have noticed that it is more
valuable to ask authentic questions that foster critical thinking, because that makes the
students more involved and invested in the literary text. In my future lessons I will invest
more time in finding texts that are relevant to my learners and that can evoke emotional
responses from them. Furthermore, this module has taught me that the best way to make
pupils invested in the text is by designing activities that are centered around the text and that
are accomplished collaboratively (Collie & Slater, 1987), this is something that I was not
aware of before. Last but not least, I have learned from teaching this lesson and the module in
general that one of the issues I have been struggling with throughout my teaching experience
can be solved by adopting this approach of teaching literature. I have always found it difficult
to reduce my role in a way that makes the lessons more student centered. During this lesson I
was very pleased to see that the students were more active than I was and that my talking
time was lessened. My role in this lesson shifted from content expert to content facilitator
Assignment 2
Student name : Imane Chouitar
Student number : 500724288
Femke Kitslaa – Dick van Santen
Placement school: Het 4e Gymnasium
HvA, FOO
17-06-2022
,Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Introduction:..........................................................................................................................................3
Changes after Feedback.........................................................................................................................3
Evaluation..............................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................5
Bibliography:......................................................................................................................................5
Appendices........................................................................................................................................6
Appendix 1- Adjusted lesson plan..................................................................................................6
Appendix 2 - Feedback Micro teaching........................................................................................30
Appendix 4- observation from filled in by my coach:...................................................................36
,Introduction:
In the previous assignment I have designed a lesson plan based on my learners’ needs for
literary education. In this assignment, I will evaluate the design and implementation of the
classroom project after receiving feedback and optimizing the original lesson plan. I will first
present the changes I have made to my lesson plan; I will then evaluate the implementation of
the classroom project, and finally, I will reflect on my Theory of Practice.
Changes after Feedback
After receiving feedback from my tutor, I have presented my lesson plan in micro-teaching
and obtained written feedback from my peers (appendix 2). I have decided to incorporate
some of the received feedback before teaching the lesson. One of the main changes that I
have done concerns work forms. In my previous lesson plan, one of the during-task activities,
was to ask the whole class to predict the end of the story. I have decided to incorporate this
feedback because asking such a question to the whole class might result in me having a
discussion with one student, which does not make the thinking of all students visible to me
and to their peers (Perkins & Ritchhart, 2008). Therefore, I have decided to make them work
in pairs and share their predictions with the class using Lesson Up.
“I like your lesson; I do however have some questions concerning work forms. This mostly
concerns doing certain activities with the whole class.” Femke.
I have also decided to skip some pre-reading activities that according to my tutor do not
support my students learning (appendix 1). Further, I have decided to adjust the post-
reading activity and the work-form I intended to use. After letting the students read the
whole text and have a dialogue with it (Van der Knaap, 2019) and then discuss the
essential question in groups in the post-reading activity, I have decided to ask the students
to work in pairs to write an alternative ending to the story (Collie & Slater, 1987). In the
Lottery, the townspeople ignore Tessie when she starts screaming about the injustice of the
lottery and they stone her to death. Nobody dares to speak out because it is an old tradition
and it should be followed despite its cruelty. My students had to imagine an alternative
ending where one of the villagers dares to challenge the majority. My peers have advised me
to make the students work in pairs instead of groups of three, which I have done. Further, I
have added a prompt and clear instructions to support the students in their writing, as my
placement coach suggested. This was lacking in my original plan.
, Evaluation
According to the obtained feedback, the activities that I have designed are fully aligned with
the learners needs and with the civic, personal, and language aims of the lesson.
Upon analysis of the lesson taught, the pre- and post-activities were successful. The during
activity, on the other hand, was less successful in my opinion. The students enjoyed doing the
pre-task which involved a creative prediction activity. During the pre-teaching of the topic-
knowledge I was pleased about how they shared their personal opinions about the pressure to
fit in. In the post activity, the story sparked a great discussion and the students were able to
discuss the essential question in groups and share their ideas. And by completing the creative
writing task, the students could put themselves imaginatively into the target situation which
enabled them to engage in a reflection on the dangers of blindly following tradition. This
according to Colli & Slater, gives learners the maximum chance of entering the universe of
the text (1987). However, I found it difficult to turn the during-activity theoretical ideas into a
concrete activity. What I described in my lesson plan and what the theory says about this
phase is that the activities should support and not test the students’ understanding. One way
to achieve this as described by Van der Knaap, is to let the students write down questions of
things they find strange or unclear while reading the story and then discuss the questions with
their peers (2019). I am aware that this is a good way to make the students have a dialogue
with the text and others which helps them interpret the text and be more involved with it.
However, I noticed that the majority were not actively doing this while reading. Thus, this
task was not successfully accomplished. As an alternative action I reflected on the possibility
of providing some scaffolding during this phase to help them formulate the questions and also
find a way to make their thinking visible to their peers, by sharing their questions on a Padlet
for instance.
My theoretical position regarding teaching literature has changed after completing this
module. I was skeptical about the possibility of teaching literature without focusing on
comprehension questions. The way I used to teach literature was similar to what Collie &
Slater describe as ineffective; a step-by-step comprehension exercise led by the teacher,
where the personal investment and interpretation of the students is limited (1987). After
experimenting with this new way of teaching literature, that is mainly based on the principle
of ‘dialogical learning’ (Jansen, 2009), I believe that this is the didactic approach that I would
like to adopt in my literature lessons. By teaching this lesson, I have noticed that it is more
valuable to ask authentic questions that foster critical thinking, because that makes the
students more involved and invested in the literary text. In my future lessons I will invest
more time in finding texts that are relevant to my learners and that can evoke emotional
responses from them. Furthermore, this module has taught me that the best way to make
pupils invested in the text is by designing activities that are centered around the text and that
are accomplished collaboratively (Collie & Slater, 1987), this is something that I was not
aware of before. Last but not least, I have learned from teaching this lesson and the module in
general that one of the issues I have been struggling with throughout my teaching experience
can be solved by adopting this approach of teaching literature. I have always found it difficult
to reduce my role in a way that makes the lessons more student centered. During this lesson I
was very pleased to see that the students were more active than I was and that my talking
time was lessened. My role in this lesson shifted from content expert to content facilitator
