Boost Workshop Summer Series

Microteaching Feedback Session

Name: Clayton Mitchell
Date: July 29, 2021
Review of group 3’s presentation:
Strengths:
1. We presented factual material in a direct and logical manner which
allowed for a meaningful experience that inspired students. Both teachers
had knowledge of the content and explained the concept in detailed
clearly and in a humorous manner that made the learning climate
comfortable. For example, the opening activity stimulated thinking to open
a class discussion on Moles.
2. The students were able to question, clarify and challenge at anytime
throughout the presentation whether via talking or chat. Additionally, they
were courteous, cooperative Both were able to give constructive feedback
and assisted both groups with assigned questions when they were placed
in breakout rooms. The students were allowed to explain their answers and
the teacher provided a clear step by step outline as well.
3. Both teachers were courteous, mild-mannered, and kept students engaged
throughout the period. They gave measurable learning objectives which
were presented at the start. Additionally, they gave applications of how
moles can be applied and example calculations. They summarized the
main points at the end of each objective.
Areas of Improvement:
1. One of the evaluative activities (Quizizz) was not completed in class which
may have come as a result of too much time spent on opening activities.
2. A video could have been employed to lessen the time taken to complete
the two opening class activities and be just as effectives.
One way to improve:
Do a run through or time check of the presentation prior to class and prepare
contingencies (that can be done within class time) in case of unforeseen events.
Review of Group 6’s presentation:
Strengths:
1. The videos and simulation labs were an entertaining way of presenting the
content and allowed for meaningful discussion. The information followed a
logical sequence. The teachers involved the students throughout the lesson
by asking relevant questions.
2. The teachers used evaluation platforms effectively (i.e quizizz) to test
students’ knowledge of the lesson thus far. It allowed for students to think
for themselves without relying on help.
3. The teachers were knowledgeable of the concepts and summarized main
points after each objective was completed. Both teachers were courteous,
mild-mannered, and kept students engaged throughout the period. They
gave measurable learning objectives which were presented at the start.

Areas of Improvement
1. The choice of videos used were quite questionable. The first video was
monotonous, and the song was from a different cultural background. The
second video appealed to visual learners mostly because the lesson was
just written and not spoken. Which may have contributed to the following
discussion did not have full class participation.
2. The lecture did not flow smoothly, and parts of the class were skipped due
to time restrictions. The opening activity, technical difficulties may have
led to this hinderance.
3. The simulation could have been explained a bit more clearly. For example,
why does water have more potential energy than olive oil. These questions
may have left gaps in the mind of the students.
One way to improve
Preparing a clear introduction and summary under a strict time and content limit.
This, in addition to relevant activities and anecdotes/videos will make for a more
effective class experience.