My prior knowledge from the school handbook has ameliorated my surprise at the school’s teeming offerings, so that I could probe into the student development in those electives. Hypothetical reasoning indicates the formal operational stage of that age group in their cognitive development. The ability to work on bars to create artifacts is a clear sign of that stage. For social development, students have inured their trust and autonomy in those workshops, for any gauche behaviors will jeopardize safety. In addition, volunteering in painting cars for community members manifested their moral development.
I had to temporize, skipping the math class because of what I observed in the EAL class. The substitute teacher of the day has been constantly reminding the students of her temporary status by saying words like “your teacher wanted you to write a manuscript” and “your teacher will give you some feedbacks later”. Just as discussed in class, estranging the learners impacted motivations, as some students indulged in cellphones while some others became peripatetic.
Since some scaffolding observed resembled my previous observations, I would like, instead, to focus on planning instruction and facilitating complex thinking. Due to the students’ international status, it is assumed that the provincial curriculum framework and guide do not apply, thus the teacher had to formulate their own learning objectives. From the cognitive approach, from general to specific, it is hard to envisage the long-term goal, of Grade 11 students, to write transcripts on “ordering food in the cafeteria” or “two friends getting angry at each”, especially when verbal exchanges with some students disclosed an inconsequential semester project of “introducing Victoria to your friends” for which students do not have much prior knowledge to rely on. Also, the behavior goals of this semester objective are difficult to inspect, for they are not condition-specific and describable in terms of minimum level of acceptable performance.
G12，还在讲 How are you.课程设置及老师的教学看不出任何有想帮助这些学生的努力！
In the class activity, students were provided handouts containing words and phrases useful for the writing the conversational transcripts. However, one pair of students, a Chinese and a Kazakhstani, could communicate in English to compose a 10-year story and performed it before class, meanwhile, a Japanese and a Pilipino were having only four jejune lines after more than 40 minutes. Those are clear signs that students were not seen as sources of instructional goals. Later, the teacher did not try to bridge the curriculum goal with the student’s prior knowledge, as there is no modeling as presentation or demonstration. There were also no constructive, stratified feedbacks, or tackling on the emergent curriculums, since after each pair performance of the transcripts, merely mellifluous comments like “good job” and “excellent” were almost automatically given. Bloom’s taxonomy will see this activity at the level of application, but there is clear ample space to push forward, as Vygotsky would say, to create a zone of proximal development to make things reachable for students
It is just lacerating to see the juxtaposition of a halfhearted, feckless program and shopping trips advertisements, enervating international students’ development.