In response to my peer review, (see full document in Appendix) I will reflect on previous comments below:
Presentation:
Through my current presentation, the overuse of text is distracting & confusing for many students, especially ESL. Including this information as an additional post-session handout would be more successful in supporting future student learning. By cutting down on text in-session and replacing each slide with a visual diagram to aid learners, I would aim for a reduction in confusion & better understanding in-session. Going forwards, I would cut out these slides & draw my own diagrams for each stage of binding. Using the step-by-step text as a digital handout for referring back to at a later date post-session.
Hands-on Activity/ Demo:
It was noted that the difference in pacing in the group caused some friction. E.g. fast-paced learners waiting around. I have written more about changes I could make in Case Study 1, but essentially, shifting my focus from teacher-centered learning to student-led and collaborative learning would help with the pacing of the session, giving students more autonomy and confidence to continue developing their skills outside of the classroom. For instance, grouping students in mixed skill level pairs or threes to support completing and understanding the process, as well as fostering a community within the cohort.
Additionally, to refocus students who are not paying attention to the demonstration, and therefore fall behind, I could adjust my language around the timed structure of the session. By focusing on distinguishing ‘watching’ and ‘doing’ time, students would hopefully be more likely to stay on track during the process. For instance, I could spend 2 minutes demonstrating 3 steps and then give 5 mins for students to complete this process. Once everyone has completed these stages, we would move as a group to the next set of steps.
Alba also mentions asking questions during steps. For this workshop, I could ask whether students know what the next step might be, or ask a more confident student to demonstrate for me. This might encourage comprehension & (again) peer-to-peer learning.
Participation:
It was noted the sleepy/unmotivated nature of my group. The time of day (Fri morning) definitively plays a part in this. To activate my group prior to the hands-on making, I could introduce OBL as an icebreaker tool at the start of the session. By offering examples in front of them & having them discern information about the materials, construction & context in small groups, this might awaken some more interest in the process & make them more comfortable to speak up during the presentation aspect of the session. Additionally, by asking more questions during the introduction of equipment e.g. can anyone name this tool, this might encourage students to more actively participate.
Alba’s suggestion about having an informal discussion about non-related topics or even easing into the topic by discussing favorite book-related artists interested me to encourage student participation. I agree that I do not think they lack interest, but I do think confidence plays a role since they are all 1st year BA students.
Additional notes:
Leaving some time at the end to share results & have a small group discussion on the processes e.g. challenges, parts they enjoyed would help in concluding what they have learnt. I could bring the session back to the learning outcomes to ensure they are clear on what they have learnt, or if they will need to see me again for additional understanding.
Appendix:
Review of Teaching Practice Form – Chelsie Coates – 6th Feb 2026