Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Software Engineering Session
Size of student group: 13
Observer: Mikolai Berg
Observee: Corey Ford
Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.
Part One
Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review:
What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum? How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
The students are learning software engineering. They need to think about planning their code using a type of diagram called UML. They are given a series of games and need to inspect the code and try to reproduce UML diagrams from this code. This is the third week teaching this group, as their main lecturer.
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
The students will complete a research task where they find different advances and place these together onto a Miro board – creating a timeline of types on the history of computer science.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
From what I’ve heard from colleagues they are a quiet class. I’m curious to see how this activity goes in terms of fostering student’s discussion. Attendance has been poor, and I pushed them to attend the class two days ago for a guest lecture, so I expect them to be tired at this point in the term.
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
I will tell everyone at the beginning.
What would you particularly like feedback on?
Nothing, in particular.
How will feedback be exchanged?
E-mail.
Part Two
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
Introduction
Session on Unified Modelling Language (UML) software engineering
13 students present
Pre-session
Corey informed me that the unit is quite delivery heavy in the first few weeks so students at this point (some weeks into the unit) may be tired and that’s an element to be mindful of in terms of participation, attainment and outcome expectations.
Session content and design
Timings
Intro to activity 5-10 minutes
1 hour for main task
20 minutes for follow up task
Group-based activities throughout the session.
The tasks
In the first task the students are asked to choose one of 5 computer games, classic ones such as ‘Snake’ and produce key words that correlate to create a code aligning with the structure of the game. They must also identify coding coherence between the three different stacks such as ‘dependents’ and ‘associates’.
In the second task they are asked to do the same but with a different game. This time the task is timed, and the timeframe is shorter.
Session delivery and resources
Corey introduces the task in an approachable way, providing thorough instructions and the planned activity process.
Once the activity has begun Corey provides further instruction to each group and where needed, re-iterating on a personal level with the student in question.
Whilst the students are working on the task, Corey takes turns with each group, following up on their progress, providing further direction for their WIP.
Once the first task comes to an end, Corey gets the students attention and introduces the second task, reminding them that this task structure could possibly be expected of them in their assessment, but in this setting, they will be asked to solve the task each by themselves.
At the end of the activity Corey provides the students with result sheets expressed approval of the students processes and outcomes. He finalises by providing information on the following session.
Resources
The physical resources used was the activity outline and information sheet and the results sheet. In terms of digital ones, a Miro board was projected over four screens presenting the different groups’ task progress.
Reflection and suggestions
The atmosphere of the session was not pressurised and the groups of students seemed well informed and started working on the task immediately after the activity outline. Developing their processes on digital post-it notes seemed to work well for the group progress. Corey’s attention to all groups facilitated the process and the hour’s task seemed to go very fast!
The Miro board worked well as a collective digital resource where students could see their own and the other groups’ progress, which possibly also served as a challenging and competitive element. I had not seen the Miro board in such use before and will certainly apply this to my own session in the future, as it was effective in many ways.
The group activity model worked well in this setting but I’m wondering if it could have been useful to apply an individual work approach in the second activity? I’m aware that the students were possibly tired due to previously demanding sessions but an alternative to the groups could have provided that additional challenge for the higher achieving students.
In our conversation after class Corey did draw attention to that some students in the groups seems to do the majority of the work, so applying the individual approach could possibly also challenge the less active students to work on their own. After witnessing the process in a group setting, they could have also found this approach less complex. Such a structure could also refine the newly gained skills of the more diligent students.
Another suggestion would possibly be to make the attention central again through the course of the session. As the Miro boards were presenting everyone’s WIP perhaps it could have been useful to share one groups’ process as an example to the whole class, at one point? Could this have been useful for the whole class and provided a small breather in their processes, as well as a moment for collective feedback?
Lastly, could it have been useful to allow time for reflections and possibly presentations of the process and outcomes in front of the class? Verbalising activity outcomes could have provided another element of reflection and engaged the attention of the group to the specific decision-making strategies applied.
Additional observations
At one point a student raised their voice aiming to get Corey’s attention. Corey did not respond immediately and provided just the right amount of attention to the student and by doing so re-enforcing necessary student/teacher boundaries.
Corey also applied an interesting digital-physical approach, using physical post-it notes that he’d stick on a student’s laptop with a fun symbol or a smiley face, ‘checking in/on’ with them in a humorous way. Very effective and uplifting!
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
Thank you for the generous and constructive feedback. I reflect on your comments below, prefixed with MB. My responses prefixed with CF.
MB: [Miro] “possibly also served as a challenging and competitive element.”
CF: This is an aspect I hadn’t thought about with Miro, but naturally I suppose showing the work together at once will encourage students to ‘play’ against each other. I wonder whether this is helpful for all students e.g. will quieter less competitive students feel pressure to perform? I might consider ways to use this to its advantage and make the sessions more gamified and competitive?
MB: “I’m wondering if it could have been useful to apply an individual work approach in the second activity”
CF: I agree! I noticed that the contributions to the board were unequal after class also, reflecting on the outcomes, and from some reading (see Blog Post 3) feel that having areas where individuals can show their contributions will be incredibly helpful.
MB: “After witnessing the process in a group setting, they could have also found this approach less complex.”
CF: This also makes sense, to scaffold the initial running of the task in groups for some peer-peer learning before leaving people to work individually. I will be adopting this sequence in future.
MB: it could have been useful to share one groups’ process as an example to the whole class, at one point? Could this have been useful for the whole class and provided a small breather in their processes, as well as a moment for collective feedback?
CF: This is a common theme in my feedback. I’m often corned too much with pace and keeping activities running, that I often forget to leave space for reflection. Focusing on one of the stronger groups will help to give examples to the others, again facilitating some peer-peer learning. I will try this in future.