In this lesson, I was proud of the outcome. For some time, I was unable to really make sure my students had sufficient time to speak. This meant students had opportunities to practice their speaking compared to just listening to the teacher. However, I felt this week was different, I left the instructions very concise and detailed. I chose to leave all the autonomy for the students. When it came time for questions and answers, student led the discussion, and not the teacher. It made me think about the shift of dynamic once instructions or words were simplified in front of them. On the slides, there were less than half a sentence each, and so explanation time needed was slimmed to a minimal. To my surprise, the involvement of students were extremely high and they reflected well during the exit ticket portion of the lesson.

I thought overall the flow was fluid, and language was kept appropriate to their level. I felt the language which I used did not focus primarily on the difficulty of the words rather the times I said it. From keeping it short and concise, I did not have to repeat instructions and ask students if they understood it. Actually, immediately immersing them into the activity, and checking once we began. All seemed great, as they were knowing and participated almost right after I explained the instructions. I would say that next time keep this sense of mystery in the lesson. This meant that the students don’t know the order beforehand. Have them anticipate and react when the activity begins.

Lastly, I would commend the teamwork my partner and I had in the lesson. As always, we worked well. When she presented, I would prepare the materials for her. The same occurred when I taught. It improved our time-conservation skills. However, we were asked to give a lesson plan, and I felt a bit thrown-off from the request. By “thrown-off” I meant that I was astonished that a team-teach lesson plan can exist. For me, I always took lesson plan as an individual thing. To include the other partner into the plan made confused me, and made me think of coherency. I am not discrediting team-teach lesson plans, but perhaps it would make little sense if a portion of a lesson was split in two. A great example was the lesson we usually create. Being split 25 minutes each for my partner and I. Being fair, we decided to split it beginning half and ending half. One of us picked to begin or to end. However, a part in between exited which we both used simultaneously. In certain cases, it was difficult to write a description on half of a portion, and kept its relation to our remaining half of the lesson. Let alone the entire lesson plan had to be cohesive and all-related (begin relates to the end). Also, in the past, my partner and I taught by slides. And so, our deliveries were so intertwined, it would be impossible to split the lesson plan equally and made sense out of it. In the beginning, I had requested to our sponsor teacher about formulating lesson plans. As team-teach is far more complex than we expect, she insisted that we take “baby-steps” to develop these plans. My partner and I became mindful that our lesson slides must reflect the tools we would use and how we wanted to complete a task. That in ways became our lesson plan. In conclusion, I would say that lesson plans are a great method to gauge where the lesson might go, but we should’ve thought about the what-it scenarios.

The following are slides of lesson: