Shulman (1987, as cited in Killen, 2013, pp. 27-28) stresses that teachers have to develop pedagogical knowledge specifically for the subject they teach, in that the use of various strategies in the learning process can organize the content and make it understandable for the students. More importantly, in addition to explaining the content, teachers are also responsible for teaching the skills for the subject. For example, the Year 11 Economics curriculum in Western Australia (School Curriculum and Standards Authority, 2014, pp. 8-9) lists research, interpretation and communication as the three compulsory skills that students have to acquire, so appropriate pedagogical skills are essential. This paper reviews three teaching skills, namely lesson
…show more content…
4-5). it is necessary to differentiate the level of the questions and use high order questions such as analysing and evaluating to strengthen students’ critical and creative thinking (Questioning, 1987, pp. 53-54). Three out of the four questions asked in the first lesson required students to apply the concept and explain a news article, and last one was based on a scenario and test the students’ common sense. Therefore, there were no high order questions asked. In the second lesson, three of the six questions were testing the knowledge and two asked for explanations of personal choices. The last one was a high order question which required the students to evaluate if a SmartRider Card is a type of money. Students need to base on their understanding of the function of a SmartRider Card and differentiate its nature from that of cash. My own reflection is that as the subject of economics is about human behaviour and the real world, I should incorporate more high order questions to stimulate students’ critical thinking if more time is …show more content…
9) and teachers should further build the knowledge based on students’ answer, whether it is right or wrong (Suffolk Advisory Service, 2001, pp. 19-20). When designing the questions in the lesson plans, I predicted the possible answers and connect them to the discussion that follows. I also prepared for the explanation if the answer to a yes-no question is wrong. This made my transition between questions and instruction smooth and ensured students would understand how the questions were connected to the content. However, back to the question about the SmartRider Card, when a boy gave a correct answer that it is not a type of money, I did not manage to specifically comment on his analogy that ‘the card is a key while the processing machine is a lock’. His concept was correct but irrelevant to the idea that the class was discussing and, more importantly, as the reason why a SmartRider Card is not money. A better skill that I should have applied would be probing, which helps the students think more deeply (Killen, 2013, p. 147) and makes sure they are on
4-5). it is necessary to differentiate the level of the questions and use high order questions such as analysing and evaluating to strengthen students’ critical and creative thinking (Questioning, 1987, pp. 53-54). Three out of the four questions asked in the first lesson required students to apply the concept and explain a news article, and last one was based on a scenario and test the students’ common sense. Therefore, there were no high order questions asked. In the second lesson, three of the six questions were testing the knowledge and two asked for explanations of personal choices. The last one was a high order question which required the students to evaluate if a SmartRider Card is a type of money. Students need to base on their understanding of the function of a SmartRider Card and differentiate its nature from that of cash. My own reflection is that as the subject of economics is about human behaviour and the real world, I should incorporate more high order questions to stimulate students’ critical thinking if more time is …show more content…
9) and teachers should further build the knowledge based on students’ answer, whether it is right or wrong (Suffolk Advisory Service, 2001, pp. 19-20). When designing the questions in the lesson plans, I predicted the possible answers and connect them to the discussion that follows. I also prepared for the explanation if the answer to a yes-no question is wrong. This made my transition between questions and instruction smooth and ensured students would understand how the questions were connected to the content. However, back to the question about the SmartRider Card, when a boy gave a correct answer that it is not a type of money, I did not manage to specifically comment on his analogy that ‘the card is a key while the processing machine is a lock’. His concept was correct but irrelevant to the idea that the class was discussing and, more importantly, as the reason why a SmartRider Card is not money. A better skill that I should have applied would be probing, which helps the students think more deeply (Killen, 2013, p. 147) and makes sure they are on