Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 3.1
Analysis of lecture processes according to B
onsch [
16
]l
1. General: Comparison of the observed lesson with the lesson plan
Was the lesson carried through according to the lesson plan? If not, why not? Which unexpected
events were observed?
Were the objectives set too high or too low? Was the content already familiar? Were the
methods and media appropriate for the objectives/content as well as for the students?
What could have been done differently?
Were the lesson's objectives achieved? Was this tested or can it only be conjectured?
2. Specific: lessons are always complex contacts of people how strong (and annoying) was the
teacher's domination? (Proportion of speech, style of leadership)? To what extent were all
students involved in the discussion? To what extent were discussions possible? Was the
domination of some students annoying or inspiring?
What did spontaneous aids by the teacher (encouragements, etc.) look like?
To what extent were students involved in decisions of the definition and achieving of
objectives?
To what extent were independence and participation possible?
3. Specific: Lessons always aim to initiate, control, and create successful learning processes
How were the students motivated? Which problems were chosen?
Which individual learning processes could be observed? (general learning processes are not the
same as individual learning processes) Was individual learning possible? Were the starting and
ending point of the student's learning processes documented and as a result, can individual
learning progress be determined?
Is the learner more an object of organized learning or are they more the subject within the
meaning of participation in decisions on learning objectives, contents, methods, media, tests?
Which kind of learning processes was intended, which kind was achieved?
Which kind of media was used, for which purposes and with which effects?
4. Specific: Chemistry lessons are experimental lessons (see Chap. 5 “experiments”). Did the
students understand the problem of the experiment? Was the performance of the experiment
successful? Did the students draw a picture of the experimental design? Did they understand it?
Did the experiment support the problem-solving process? Which questions remained open?
Were the observations viewable for all students (if applicable using a projector)? Were the
instructions for group and student experiments complete and comprehensible? Was the
experiment analyzed on the basis of observed phenomena and measured values?
Did the students have time to write down performance, observation, and analysis of the
experiment? Were measurement errors discussed?
5. Specific: Chemistry lessons and the use of models (see Chap. 6 “models”)
Could the students understand philosophy and purpose of the use of models?
Did they understand all representation ideas of the model? Were all irrelevant additions of the
model made clear to the students, for example, through the comparative use of two or three
structural models for the same issue?
Did the students have the chance to comprehend the submicroscopic structure of matter by
building structural models, like packing of spheres, space lattices, or molecular models?
Were structural and bonding models only explained verbally? Or did they become apparent for
the student through sketches, space models, or other media? Did the students discuss the media
regarding the features of depiction and the features of shortening? Were experiments and
models correlated?
€
