Simulated teaching is done!

After observing my coursemates struggling on their simulated teaching, my turn was up on 26th March. I started creating my set induction and exercises at 10 AM when my turn was at 3.00 PM. I finished everything at 2.00 PM and went for photocopy at Sri Serdang and arrived to the tutorial class at 5 PM. After 5 of my coursemates have presented their teaching, Miss Kasthoori call upon my name for the last. I had difficulties at first with the audio system of the PC in the class then Jeremy offered his help and it was fine as usual. For my set induction, I showed the students a video of a scene taken from Alexander film where Alexander the Great leads his fighting men in a battle field against the Persians. The purpose of showing the video was to show the characteristics of a leader (king) that Alexander the Great has when fighting against his enemies. After 5 minutes, I asked the students’ thoughts about the video and a few of them gave me the characteristics that they could see from Alexander such as powerful, courageous, and fearful. Then, I related the video to my lesson which was The Characteristics of Oedipus the King.

After that, I distributed the handouts to the whole class and began my lesson (nervously). For my Pre-Reading stage, I gave them an extract taken from Scene 1 and instructed them to highlight the characteristics they could find in Oedipus and Teiresias when I read the extract aloud. Next for the While-Reading stage (Task 1), they had to list down the characteristics they’ve highlighted in the extract in a box provided. Then, they had to state the connotation of each word. For the While-Reading Task 2, they had to match phrases taken from the extract and match them to the correct characteristics. I called upon a few students to write their answers on the board and they seemed to understand the instructions well and gave the correct answers. Lastly, for the Post-Reading stage, they had to write an essay based of their opinion about the statement Sophocles does not portray good characteristics of a king in Teiresias in about 120 words. I asked them to complete the task at home and then I finished my lesson.

Miss Kasthoori commented on my teaching as the first. She said my set induction was good but the duration was a bit too long. For my Pre-Reading and While-Reading, she said my teaching was good but she said I did not look at the students while teaching. Well, I do agree with her because I really did not look at the students because I was busy writing the answers on the board. Lastly, she said she really liked my Post-Reading task because it challenges the students’ understanding towards my lesson. That’s all she commented about my teaching. It was good but could be improved.

Similarity & Differences between Simulated Teaching and the Real Teaching

In my opinion, simulated teaching does have its similarity and differences with real teaching. In terms of similarity, teachers in schools would relate certain things to the story in a way to introduce the story to the students. There are some differences as well. In simulated teaching, we encourage students to discover things but in schools, teachers usually spoon-fed the students. In schools, teacher would go straight to the teaching of the content. Unlike simulated teaching, where we ask the students to highlight or identify certain things from the text. Besides that, the classroom environment is different. In simulated teaching, students are more cooperative since they are my course mates. However, that is not the case in real-life teaching. Students can be uncooperative so teacher needs to handle the class effectively and make it more enjoyable. So, in real-life scenario, teaching is quite different than simulated teaching. However, simulated serves as a good platform for a teacher-to-be like me as a preparation before entering the real classroom.

The Strengths in My Simulated Teaching

There are a few strengths that I myself have indentified from my simulated teaching as well as from Miss Kasthoori’s comments. First, my voice projection was loud and clear. Students had no problem hearing my instructions because of my voice projection. Apart from that, they also seemed to pay more attention when I rose up my voice. My set induction was also attractive and appealing. The video of Alexander the Great fighting in a battle field made the students interested to learn my lesson Miss Kasthoori liked the way I introduced and connected the video to the lesson which was teaching about the characteristics of Oedipus the King. Miss Kasthoori also commented on the task I created for my Post-Reading activity and she said it was really good because it challenged the student’s level of understanding and made them appreciate the play (Oedipus Rex) more. I think the way I involved the students in my lesson was also effective because I asked them to come forward and write the answers on the board rather than asking them to just stand up and voice out the answers to the whole class. The way I involved them in my lesson helped them to build their confidence and made my simulated teaching more effective. I think in my future simulated teaching, I would maintain my strengths to make my lesson effective and more enjoyable to the students.

The Weaknesses in My Simulated Teaching

There are a few weaknesses that could see in my simulated teaching based from the peer evaluations given by my course mates and the comments given by Miss Kasthoori. First, the video for my set induction was a bit too long. The duration of the video should’ve been for about 3 minutes only but then the video played for 4 minutes and it affected my set induction a bit. My language was also not too interactive. Students could detect some of my grammar inaccuracies and pronunciation. Apart from that, I did not approach the students during the While-Reading activities. Miss Kasthoori said I need to approach the students and guide them through the activities because they might struggle to complete the tasks due to their level of proficiency. Miss Kasthoori also commented on the way I taught in front of the class. I didn’t really look at the students when I did my explanations because I was reading the appendix and busy writing the answers on the board. She said, the lesson should’ve been student-centred so that they could understand and enjoy the lesson better. I think the reasons of my weaknesses are the lack of preparation and I was rushing to finish my lesson within 40 minutes. So in my future simulated teaching, I will make sure that I am physically and mentally prepared so that I would not commit do the same mistakes again.

If I Were to Deliver the Similar Lesson Again

If I were to deliver the similar lesson again, I would make some changes for it. I think that I could have done better with more attractive set induction to introduce my lesson and make adjustment on the way I present my teaching. I would not exceed the 5 minutes provided for my set induction so I would use a video which its duration is less than 3 minutes. Apart from that, I would also project my voice louder than before so that students could understand my instructions better. I would approach the students and guide them throughout the activities so that they would not struggle and find the tasks too challenging.

I would also make sure my lesson is student-centred by facing them when I teach so that they could understand the lesson better through my explanations. I would also improve my grammar accuracies and make my language more interactive than before. As for the activities, I would make sure they are within the students’ ability, relevant and connected to the lesson. Lastly, I would be more prepared in the future so that I would not rush and do the same mistakes all over again because if I am fully prepared, I would be more confident to present my simulated teaching. The peer evaluations and comments given by my course mates and Miss Kasthoori have made me realize that there’s always a room for improvement and I hope I would be able to overcome my weaknesses in my future simulated teaching.

Questions I Still Have Regarding My Simulated Teaching

After I have presented my simulated teaching and saw my course mates presented theirs, I have only 1 question regarding my simulated teaching. The question is, do I have to distribute the worksheets all at once or do I have to distribute them according to the sequence of stages? Throughout my observation of my course mates’ simulated teaching, I could see majority of us distributed the Pre-Reading, While-Reading and Post-Reading worksheets all at once after they introduced their lesson. However, I didn’t do the same thing. After I did my set induction and introduced my lesson, I distributed the Pre-Reading worksheet first then I asked the students to complete the task. Then, when I did the discussion on the answers, I continued my lesson by distributing the While-Reading worksheets and let them complete the tasks within the time given. Lastly in the last few minutes of my lesson, I distributed the Post-Reading worksheet and asked the students to complete the task at home. The reason why I didn’t distribute the worksheets all at once is because I want the students to fully understand the lesson first. I wanted to give the students time to complete the Pre-Reading task first because it serves as an introduction of the play. Then, the students can concentrate on the While-Reading activities after they have understood what the play is all about. If I reflect upon my simulated teaching for my poetry class, we are not allowed to distribute the worksheets all at once. We need to distribute the worksheets according to the sequence of the stages. Therefore, to resolve this question, I think I would ask the question first before I deliver my simulated teaching in the next semester and I hope the lecturer/tutor could help me with the answer.

Does Blogging Contribute Towards My Learning in This Course?

Yes, blogging does contribute towards my learning of EDU3217. Having a blog helps me to put my reflections into words and a good way to express my opinions about certain topics regarding my learning process of this course. Blog serves as a platform for me is to state my opinions and questions. Another thing I like about blog is I can read my course mates’ views and opinions. Their views also contribute greatly because their views me to understand better about the artistic world of theatre and also help me to appreciate theatre more. Besides that, I can also view my course mates’ blogs. Their thoughts are different than mine and I am inspired by their opinions and feelings towards the course and lessons. I would like to thank Dr. Edwin for the idea of having a blog to express our thoughts and views about the lesson and also the plays we need to read and analyse in this course. Will I continue blogging after this even though the semester is coming to its end? Apparently yes. Maybe I would continue blogging about my experiences on watching local plays or watching movies at the cinema. I would not stop blogging because blogging is really fun. On 19^th April, I will be watching the play Air Con at KLPAC and Dr. Edwin shall be there. I’m so looking forward to watch the play after I read the synopsis and heard the positive buzzes about the play. I hope my journey to watch the play would be successful and fun and I’m looking forward to do a blogging about it. Wish me luck~!

The Secret Love Life of Ophelia

On 8th March 2009, I went to KLPAC to watch the play by Steven Berkoff, 'The Secret Love Life of Ophelia'. Accompanying me was Renuga and Kirubayini. We went there by commuter from KL Sentral and as soon as we arrived at the Sentul station, we grabbed a taxi to the destination. We arrived 15 minutes before the play started.

Well, the play started off with a woman and a man (with long hair) in the middle of the stage. Most of the time they were writing letters or calling each other expressing each others desire. And of course, speaking of desire, passion is included. There was a part where the lovers expressed their desire to make love, and touch every tingling parts. There was a part where the lead man (Hamlet) put his hand under his pants as the lead girl (Ophelia) expressed her fantasies towards him. Maybe this is something we shouldn't be watching, but art comes in all forms. As the play went on, the lovers faced obstacles from each others status and life.

Towards the first 50 mins, I noticed that it started to get a little bit boring from all the talking and expressing. Somehow, I wished there would be a big bang at or something scandalous happened. But nothing happened. Anyway, what happened in the play was what any couple would go through. It stopped being about lust and started getting serious. In the end, Ophelia ended her life. From my point of view, its because her love for Hamlet was too much too bear. Yet, it hurts so much that he killed her father. She was left to choose, from the father of her blood or the man who wish to father her blood. The play ended with Ophelia walking into a dark opening on the stage indicating how she left the earth. Overall, I think the play was intricing and enjoyable. Both actors delivered their lines flawlessly, with appropriate inflections, accents, and pauses. 7/10 from me. =)

Oedipus The King (1967)

During the past few weeks, we have been spoon fed by Dr. Edwin with his DVDs of the Elizabethan films such as Elizabeth The Golden Age and Hamlet. Then, on 10/03, we went back to the Greek era and watched Philip Saville's Oedipus The King. The film was released in 1967 and involved legendary performers such as Christopher Plummer, Lili Palmer and Orson Welles. However, this film was not widely released and given the promotion it deserves that only like only 20 people have watched this film. That's the reason why I couldn't find the DVD that I could download from Torrent. Thanks to Youtube, I could download the film in 17 parts and merged them into one single film. Eventhough it is in low quality, my course mates and I did enjoy watching it.

After watching the film, I think the film is a well-adapted version of the play. Christopher Plummer quite simply dominates this version of Oedipus Rex. Various characters look 'Greek" enough for me, and the removal of the traditional masks that were found in Greek plays works out. Why? Well Plummer fits the part of the play's namesake. He obviously did well researching or getting into the 'mind' of Oedipus. Watching him speak, his expressions are much better than somehow finding 'hubris' from a mask that is frozen into place. The rest of the cast compliment well, but above all is Plummer. The cinematography and the costumes are exquisite. If you are going to show a film version of Oedipus Rex in a drama class, this is the version. It's easy to understand and updated for a culture that would find little interest in watching frozen masks walk around. I am amused that the film has not been marketed intelligently by the studios and remains unseen by many who'd have loved to see the film. I wish this film was released widely on DVD and not only available at insane high prices on an educational website. I would give this film 7/10. =)

Zeffirelli's Hamlet ~ Exactly as Shakespeare planned

On 3rd March 2009, I joined my course mates watching Franco Zeffirelli's version of Hamlet which was released in 1990 and involved great actors such as Mel Gibson, Glenn Close & Helena Bornham Carter. In my opinion, it is a wonderful movie, an almost line-for-line version of the famous play. I think both Mel Gibson & Glenn Close were great in this version. Glenn played the role of Gertrude so convincingly that you couldn't help but love her. She showed what the play could not: that Gertrude was still a good person and a wonderful mother. The audience couldn't hate her after that wonderful performance. Mel Gibson's version of Hamlet was great,too. He's perfect for all the wide-eyed and bewildered scenes. No one could have done a job anywhere close to being as wonderful as his. The costumes were original, the whole cast was smashing, and the plot line stayed true to that of it's namesake. What more could you ask for? I would give it 8/10. =)

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

On Tuesday (24/02), I got the chance to watch Elizabeth: The Golden Age starring Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush for my drama class. In this movie, Cate Blanchett reprises her role as 16th Century Virgin Queen Elizabeth I in director Shekhar Kapur's sequel of sorts to Elizabeth (1998). This movie centres on an older Elizabeth and her trials and tribulations around the time of the imminent threat of Spain, and the imprisonment of her Catholic cousin Mary Stuart. Another theme which is frequently addressed, is the Queen's love life and her virginity. She isn't getting any younger, and is yet to marry or produce an heir to the throne.

In my opinion, this movie was one of the best historical movies I've seen. It changed my views of the Queen Elizabeth of England. Although this movie is not exactly historically accurate, they made the war with Spain amazing and absolutely striking. Cate Blanchett does an amazing job as the queen for she is powerful, forceful, amazing, and weak at times when necessary. Although the camera angles are OK, the movie has some blurred focus effects that do not add into the overall appeal of the movie. I think the best scenery in the movie is when Queen Elizabeth places the ring back on her finger and walks out the camp, barefoot and climbs up to the edge of a cliff and watches the whole Spanish Armada sink and burn. The scene shows a scene that kind of looks like a scene from Pride and Prejudice starring Keira Knightley.

Although there were some unnecessary blood and violence in this movie, the overall effects were great. However, I'm a little disappointed in how they conveyed the virgin queen. They focused so much on her faults and her weaknesses rather than her strong points and did not show how Philip of Spain at first wanted to be with the Virgin Queen and after she denied him and went to Mary Stuart of Scots. I would give this movie 7.5 out of 10. =)

Oedipus Rex : Why was Tiresias cursed?

First, who is Tiresias in the play? In Greek mythology, Tiresias was a blind prophet, the son of the shepherd Everes and Chariclo. A variant spelling of his name is Teiresias. During Dr. Edwin's class a couple of weeks ago, he did ask us to find the reasons on why Tiresias was cursed by the Gods. After I did some research on the Internet, here are the reasons ~

Tiresias was a priest of Zeus, and as a young man he encountered two snakes mating and hit them with a stick. He was then transformed into a woman. As a woman, Tiresias became a priestess of Hera, married and had children, including Manto. According to some versions of the tale, Lady Tiresias was a prostitute of great renown. After seven years as a woman, Tiresias again found mating snakes, struck them with her staff, and became a man once more. As a result of his experiences, Zeus and Hera asked him to settle the question of which sex, male or female, experienced more pleasure during intercourse. Zeus claimed it was women; Hera claimed it was men. When Tiresias sided with Zeus, Hera struck him blind. Since Zeus could not undo what she had done, he gave him the gift of prophecy.

Tiresias's background was important, both for his prophecy and his experiences. Greek mythology contained other hermaphroditic (a person, animal or flower that has both male and female reproductive organs) figures such as Hermaphroditus (the child of Aphrodite and Hermes) but Tiresias was fully male and then fully female. Also, prophecy was a gift given only to the priests and priestesses. Therefore, Tiresias offered Zeus and Hera evidence and gained the gift of male and female priestly prophecy. An alternative and less commonly told story has it that Tiresias was blinded by the goddess Athena after he stumbled onto her bathing naked. His mother, Chariclo, begged her to undo her curse, but Athena couldn't; she gave him prophecy instead. =)

Theatre VS. Cinema?

When it comes to discussing the culture of a particular country, at first glance it seems to be unvarying phenomenon. However, as can be easily noticed, culture can be divided into various branches. At least two of them can be distinguished as well-known and those which attract attention in almost every country in the world - theatre and cinema.

I would like to compare them by taking into account three main aspects: structure, history and range of the subject matter. Firstly, both of them are connected with actors, script, plot and music. Regardless of where we spend our spare time whether in the theatre or in front of the cinema screen, each of these points will be present. Obviously, they will differ in some aspects such as language used by actors, music which is being played in the background, structure of the plot etc. It is also worth mentioning the difference between the effort which must be put and experience of the actors when it comes to playing in the movies and in the theatre. I think it is obvious that playing in the theatre requires years of practicing your memory and improving your abilities. In my opinion, being a theatrical actor is a bigger challenge than playing in movies.

Secondly, both cinema and theatre have the same history and roots. In the beginning, there was a theatre which took its first steps in Ancient Greece. Tragedy, comedy and satire plays were the earliest theatrical forms in the world. As far as the technology was modernized, people were looking for something new, state-of-the-art. In the 1860s, the first two-dimensional images in motion were demonstrated. After many years of improving and innovating, a lot of breakthroughs were introduced which are altogether called special effects. However, many viewers aren't attracted by them and choose spontaneous, old-fashioned theatre with a specific sense of realism. To me, what we have to remember is that both cinema and theatre have the same origin which makes them strictly connected with one another.

Finally, one of the many differences between these two art-forms is that cinema has a much wider range of subject matter than theatre which is usually based on literature. Movies present almost every aspect of our life, bring up topics and histories which may concern almost every viewer, unlike theatrical plays which are usually based on literary works. To conclude, we can see that theatre has been changing for centuries. Nowadays, we can distinguish two main branches: film and theatrical production which are similar when it comes to their roots, origin and structure including actors, music, script, plot etc. However, one of the differences between these two forms is that movies range of subject mater is much wider. Despite similarities and differences, both cinema and theatre have their true followers (I'm a true follower of both!) who are attracted by their originality, charm and entertaining values. =)