1.
Looking back at last weeks post, http://stacyreyerse.weebly.com/blog/final-semester-week-11-valuing-student-response, I was promted to brainstorm some ideas for avoiding restating my student's responses. Here's what I came up with:
1.
1 Comment
Due to testing in several grades, all of the UTRPP residents had an opportunity to join together in our classroom for a week of professional development. I, as well as my colleagues, was asked to bring in a video of myself teaching a lesson. I had to watch my video, and focus specifically on questioning, collecting data for at least 5 minutes of the lesson. I wrote down the exact questions that were asked to my students, aside from those regarding procedures, and was asked to analyze whether or not they were higher order questions, and if not, how could I change them to make them higher order questions. This was an activity that served as purposeful to me, as I really had to think about how I could restate a few questions so that they became rigorous, rather than just simply yes or no questions.
The most meaningful part of the activity for me was not so much analyzing my own lesson, and working through those questions, but the discussion we as a group were able to have afterward. After watching our videos, all of the residents were separated by schools and paired with our PRT for a discussion. Here's where the interesting part comes in. After a few minutes of discussing our questions, our PRT asked how many of us noticed that we often restated a students response when they answered a question. Surprisingly, it was unanimous. We were all guilty. She then shared with us that research shows that restating or repeating a student's response devalues their answer. It gives the impression that what they said was not valued, or not exactly what we wanted. I was overwhelmed with guilt, as I believe that I do this quite often. The next step was evaluation of my practices to figure how to rectify the situation. The first thing I needed to do was collect data, in hopes to discover why I do this, and under what circumstances and in what environment do I do it most. For my next lesson, I had my CT document how many times I restated a student response, and what the original question was. I noticed that I in fact do repeat responses often. The most common reason was that students did not say their answer loud enough. Other factors were that another student was not paying attention, or that it was not exactly the answer I was looking for and I used it to segway into another question in order to clarify. Now that I've found the problem, I will brainstorm strategies for avoiding this terrible habit, and hopefully decrease the number of times I do this in a lesson. I truly do value what my students have to say, and I want that to be clear in my actions. After 2 weeks off for spring break, we are back at it for a very short time before graduation. In addition to content coaching, we also have a critical friend to come in and observe us to help us collect data on our content goal for the current cycle. My critical friend is also in a departmentalized, 5th grade, Math and Science classroom. This is very beneficial to me because she is already familiar with the content and my lesson plan, since we plan together as a team, and can focus solely on my goal when collecting data in my classroom.
My science goal for this cycle is based on student learning and my ability to appropriately assess my students. My main focus of assessment, at this point, is the students' notebook stops. I am trying to increase the number of notebook stops per lesson and provide different media for their notebook stops. For example, I might have them do their first stop on an index card and turn it in. Then their second might be done on their Moodle account on the student tablets. Then their last might be actually done in their notebook. I feel like the more methods of collection I have, the better chance I have at identifying misconceptions, student strengths, new wonderings, etc. My critical friend came in to observe me and was able to count the number of notebook stops that were included in my lesson, the media in which I had them post their notebook stops, and compare the number of stops completed to the number of stops in my lesson plan. Having a critical friend is extremely beneficial when trying to collect data. It gives an outside perspective and allows you to focus on teaching, rather than collecting data on your own. I found it very useful to be able to teach my lesson as usual and then analyze my data afterward. Another use for critical friend, that I might try to recruit her for next cycle, would be to have that person come and observe me for the purpose of helping me create my content goals. Sometimes have a different perspective on my instruction can help identify an area that I might need to improve on. As beneficial as critical friends are, they should, in my opinion, be used any time their is opportunity. After many weeks of trouble shooting to get our tablets up and running, my science content coach and I were able to successfully create a Moodle account for all 58 of my students. The courses are divided up by subject and then by AM or PM, since I have 2 groups of classes. I also have a MathHR course for my homeroom because we don't switch into our specialized math groups on Mondays. There was some initial stress in getting the kids on the tablets. It took a long time to find a tablet for each child, since I only have 8 chargers and 22 tablets. We had to turn them all on individually and hand them out based on the level of charge they were holding. Also, we have to teach the kids how to log on to the tablet, how to log on to the school wifi, and how to log on to the moodle account. I have already thought about how I want to make changes to make these procedures easier, faster, and more organized.
Talking with my content coach, and my CT, I've developed some key procedural things that should make it easier to get the tablets ready to go for a lesson. First of all, I'm going to assign a tablet # to each student. In the morning, each student will come in, grab their tablet from the cart as they get all the rest of their materials, and place it in a bin on their tables. Then, the afternoon group can place the tablets back on the chargers in the cart on their way out to the lab at the end of the day. The cart has already been placed at the back of the room where they line up for easy access. I've also decided to type up step by step directions for logging on to each different component of the tablet and place it inside the tablet case cover, so that students will have access to it and would not have to wait on whole group directions for logging on. Now that the students have logged on to their moodles and completed their first assignment, I finally have some data for my inquiry. In fact, I might have more data than I know what to do with. I have determined many different ways to collect and compare data just based off what I learned from the completion of one assignment. My students and I are going to create a 3 point rubric for their entries. I will grade both their electronic entries, as well as their science notebook entries with the same rubric. This will allow me to compare their hard copy work to their e-copy work. I will also be able to compare their progress over time, compare their entry to other students, and provide them with immediate feedback on their entries. I can also monitor how much they log on at home by assigning optional moodle homework, and I can collect data on how and when they reply to their classmates discussion posts. I have so much data that I almost don't know what to start with. Some other interesting things that we noticed today was that the tablets have an autocorrect feature to correct spelling and grammar, however, some of the students either didn't know that the tablets had this capability, or they did not know how to use this function. I think that giving a bi-weekly survey to the students will help narrow down some of the technology pieces that the students are not aware of, or are having trouble with. Overall it was a great first experience and I love how excited the students are to get to work. I'm hoping that we will soon see some improvement in their assessments after the implementation of this technology. At this time in the semester, I am focusing on creating some new goals in relation to student learning. One area that I feel I need to improve in is collecting formative assessment data in order to better support my students. On of the easiest ways for me to do this in my classroom seems to be taking anectdotal notes while the students are problem solving. I can note which steps they are taking, where they're getting stumped, who is excelling, and who doesn't know where to start. As I taught one of my Math lessons this week, my CT was kind enough to sit and observe me and collect some data on my lesson. I didn't know what she was watching for, and I don't think she did either. She watched carefully and waited for something to catch her eye, and it proved to be very helpful feedback for me. As I was teaching, I circulated around the room, looking for students who could share their strategies with the class. I looked for students who used different types of models, to show that not everyone's model looks the same. I also looked for students who might have made a simple mistake, to see if the class could use their accountable talk strategies to correct a problem. Student learning really revolves around the conversation that the kids have with each other, so I wanted to make sure they had something meaningful to talk about. I looked very strategically for anything that might prompt a conversation regarding models in the division of decimals, and give opportunities for students to correct their own misconceptions.
As I circulated, my CT drew a diagram of the room and tracked my movement through the room. She drew lines with arrows to show my paths, and marked the students spot in the room with a + if I offered them support, and a line if I asked them a question. When the lesson was over, I was able to see a visual of what I did throughout the lesson. This was so important for me, mostly because I'm a visual learner, but also because it showed me the gaps in my technique. We have 2 students that sit at the front of the room at a single desk instead of a table. They are directly to the right of my ELMO, and they work in a pair. In my CT's diagram, you could clearly see that I neglected them in my rotation. She noted that I called on them to answer questions, but I did not approach their desk to question them individually or offer support. This was something that I did not notice myself during the lesson, but that was evident on the diagram. When thinking about how I might have Lately I have focused a great deal of my planning on Higher Order Questioning techniques. I have tried my hardest to to create meaningful questions within my math lessons to force the students to make meaninful connections between what they are learning in class and the real world. I thought that this would ultimately increase their success rate on unit assessments. To my dissappointment, I was wrong. Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure my questioning did them no harm, but I can't be sure that it provided the best result. My students are still lacking that connection to the real world that allows them to be flexible with numbers and reason within the context of a real world scenario. I thought they were going to be much more successful on this last unit assessment, and they actually scored much worse than previous assessments. I think to myself at this point, what can I do to help them make these connection? What can I do to make math meaningful and relevant to their lives? Although I'm not sure that it is something I can implement this year, so late in the year, and in someone else's classroom, but I surely plan on doing it my first year teaching. Call me ambitious, but I think the solution to my problem is implementing a classroom economy. This would give students an opportunity to use math in a real, meaningful way. They would get experience with addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions, decimals, algebra, and much more. They could interact daily with numbers in a way that was reasonable and made sense to them, because honestly, who doesn't understand numbers better when it comes to money? It would also be a way to hold them accountable for being correct, without the pressure of grading them. If they miscalculate, then they lose money, and if they budget appropriately, then they have opportunities to purchase items from a treasure box which becomes an incentive for correct computation. This is something that they can connect to their future, and they can really see the benefit of learning. This should give them incentive to concentrate on because it's relevant and useful. How much of what we teach can children actually make real world connections to? Can they make the connections without us pointing them out? Do they feel like what we're teaching will be useful to them in their future? Probably not. They can't see what we see. They don't know what we know, after having lived it and wished we'd payed better attention in school. We can't just tell them about how useful these things are and expect them to see the relevance. We ave to provide opportunities for them to see the benefit themselves. I know I will have so much to do my first year, but a classroom economy is something I would really like to implement and measure it's benefits and challenges. I want my students to see for themselves the importance of holding on to the mathemematical concepts learning at the elementary level.
This week was my first official content coaching cycle. Our content coaches are experts in their particular subject area and are a support for us in content as well as instruction. Coaching cycles provide residents, such as myself, with opportunities to ask questions and access resources as well as receive support in the form of a pre-conference, observation, and post-conference.
During my pre-conference is when I first noticed the benefits of the dreaded 5 page lesson plan that USF provides for us to complete prior to coaching lessons. Although my Math content coach did not require me to complete the 5 page lesson plan, although I am familiar with it from previous lessons, she asked me some questions about my lesson that were very similar to those listed on the 5 page plan. These questions, which seem much more important in the context of the conversation we were having about my plans for student learning, really caused me to stop and think about WHY I was doing things in the order I planned, but also, WHO was intended to benefit from my plan. The pre-confrence really helped me to modify my plan slightly in order to better differentiate for my students and allowed me an opportunity to ask questions about the content from an expert! The next day was my observation, although I don;t really want to call it that because my content coach was much more of a support for me than an observer. Because of her familiarity with my plans from our pre-conference, she was able to really provide support for me, help me with questioning the students, and provided support for small groups of students while I was teaching whole group. Her providing support to my students was really where we crossed the line from observation to co-teaching, and although I was the lead, I was much more confident in my own teaching knowing that I had such awesome support. Something that I might like to change though, after watching my lesson video, would be to plan better for how much time I allow students to solve the problems I give them. Although I considered how much time they may need to solve, I did not formally write it in my plan, and found that I did not stick to my time predictions within the lesson. Although some instances I provided enough time for them to solve, there were instances in which the students did not finish solving before my timer went off. We are really trying to push our students to work on their timing, as most of them spend much more time than they should on one problem when taking their unit tests, and I think this was the reason I opted for shorter times, however, it did not prove to be beneficial for the students because they were unable to solve in time, which had quite the impact on their group conversations. Next time I plan, I intend to try to find a middle ground between how long the students currently take to solve problems, and the shortened time I provided them in this lesson. I also intent to write these times on my plan so that I can stick to them consistently throughout the lesson. I have not yet had my post-conference for this lesson, but after watching my video, I feel that my content coach will give me some of the critiques that I gave myself. I am however interested to see if maybe she noticed anything that I didn't. Overall this was an amazing experience, and now that I have truly participated in a content coaching cycle, I am able to see the many benefits of this process. This week has been a very new experience for me, but has ultimately showed me the importance of collecting student data and tracking progress. Our Math students for the 5th grade have very large achievement gaps, which make it difficult to differentiate within one classroom. In order to best accommodate students' individual needs, as a grade level we have collected data on our students and grouped them based on their Math formative and Unit assessment performance. The students with the same needs, instead of attending their usual Math class, are now separated among three of our grade level Math teachers. My CT and I have the group of students who are closest to proficiency. Another teacher has a group that tests between 40%-60% on Unit assessments, and the last has the group that is well below level and needs specific, targeted, direct instruction.
This is a challenge for me, but also provides good practice on my questioning techniques, as we are trying to push our students to proficiency by planning for specific higher order thinking questions in our lessons. This switch has given me an opportunity to really focus on what types of questions i ask during a typical lesson, and what types of questions I SHOULD be asking. From a previous blog post, I pointed out that I tend to ask more yes/no questions to begin with before asking HOT questions, which sounds like a good scaffolding technique, but is really over scaffolding and not providing an appropriate challenge for the students. For our first week in this configuration, my CT is going to take the lead in both classes and allow me to work with small table groups during her lesson as an extra support. I plan on taking this opportunity to practice increasing the rigor of my questions in a small group setting in preparation for my whole group lessons that are soon to come. I think coming back after holiday break was just as hard for me as it was for the kids. We really had to do alot of work getting them back in learning mode and helping them focus on what needed to be accomplished in this last half of the year. For myself, I know that my goal for this last part of my final internship is to really focus on student learning, specifically discussions and conversations between students, and how collaborative efforts promote deeper learning for students as individuals. Since my week in the classroom was a little short, due to trainings, classes, and what not, I decided to spend this week mostly as an observer. I wanted to watch my CT for specific strategies that promote student collaboration. I feel that using strategies that my CT uses will help me learn how to better watch for and promote student learning, but will also help me by allowing her to support me in something that she, and the students, are familiar with.
After my CT's observation, she was introduced to a strategy that would help students collaborate to solve problems in Mathematics. The strategy is called a consensus map. In a consensus maps, student groups, usually of 4 or less students, work on one piece of chart paper, divided into equal sections plus one empty box in the center of the chart paper. Students are then given a real world problem to solve. For 3 minutes, students work independently in their own section to solve the problem using suggested strategies, or any strategies they are comfortable with (depending on the purpose of each particular lesson). Then the students are given 3 additional minutes to discuss their findings with their group and come to a consensus of what the most reasonable, or correct answer, is. The students then write their agreed upon answer in the blank box in the middle of the chart paper. Since this strategy is new to me, I wanted to document some pros and cons that I noticed about the consensus maps during the lesson. For the positive, it gave opportunity to collaborate with others, which is ultimately what we want from our students. It also provided students opportunities to solve using their chosen strategy, but then compare their work to others, sometimes convincing them to use a new, more efficient strategy based on the arguments of their teammates. A consensus map is also a great way to differentiate instruction for our students. For this particular lesson, my CT was able to group students based on ability, and provide problem solving problems appropriate for their level of mathematical understanding. We were able to see how students solved in their groups, and then based on their work, some students were regrouped to either provide more support, or more enrichment. There were so many grouping possibilities, and since the students were not aware of which questions other groups were solving, they were not able to tell which ability group they were placed in. This strategy also provides great opportunity for formative assessment throughout lessons. Now for the negative, I noticed during discussions, that some students did not defend their work in order to suggest its placement in the consensus box, they would simply suggest that the "smart" kid's answer go in the box. This did not happen in all of our groups, but in some of our lower level groups, students lacked confidence in their work, and therefore were not willing to share with their group, but simply agree on whoever's work the group chose to go in the box. This is something that we want to avoid. The other thing I noticed, is that students will sometimes explain their strategies to others, and the groups will come to a consensus, but the students do not use strategies to check their work for accuracy. For example, when multiplying 1/4 divided by 4, students could use the inverse operation to check their work when discussing with their group, however most students will agree with each other quickly without asking for proof of accuracy or explanation. Usually myself and my CT rotate around the room and how the students questions like "How do you know?", and "How could you check to see if you're correct?", but the students usually will not use this type of questioning behavior with their groups or partners. Based on what I observed from this strategy, I would like to try to use it next week in one of my lessons, with a few modifications. I want the students to be able to self check their work, so I intend on giving them an additional 1 minute during the stage when they come to a consensus. During this 1 minute, I will require the students to use 1 strategy to double check the answer they come to a consensus on. They can use any double check strategy they know, but I want them to put their original answer as well as their proof in the consensus box. I think the students need to become habitual in double checking their work, and I think this addition to the process will also produce some additional conversations within the group. This reflective post shows evidence of my achievement towards the following FEAP(s) goals: (a).1.c- Designs instruction for students to achieve mastery. (a).1.d- Selects appropriate formative assessments to monitor learning. (a).1.f- Develops learning experiences that require students to demonstrate a variety of applicable skills and competencies. (a).2.h- Adapts the learning environment to accommodate the differing needs and diversity of students. (a).3.b- Deepen and enrich students' understanding through content area literacy strategies, verbalization of thought, and application of the subject matter. (a).3.c- Identify gaps in student students' subject matter knowledge (a).3.f- Employ higher order questioning techniques (a).3.g- Apply varied instructional strategies and resources, including appropriate technology, to teach for student understanding. (a).3.h- Differentiate instruction based on an assessment of student learning needs and recognition of individual differences in students. (a).3.i- Support, encourage, and provide immediate and specific feedback to students to promote achievement. (a).4.b- Designs and aligns formative and summative assessments that match learning objectives and lead to mastery. After my midterm conference with my PRT and CT, we decided that it should be a goal of mine to focus less on management skills, and more on student learning. I believe that asking purposeful questions is a key element of promoting student thinking and assessing student learning, so for this Science lesson, I collected data on the types of questions I asked within the lesson. I wanted to first focus on specific question types, so while watching the video of my lesson, I took tallies of the number of times I asked yes/no questions, questions with 1 word, or 1 correct answer, and open-ended questions. The results are as follows:
Yes/No: IIIII IIIII IIII 1 word/1 correct answer: IIIII III Open-ended: IIIII IIIII Upon analyzing this data, I noticed that I asked more yes/no questions than any other type of question. Fourteen is a large number of yes/no questions, however, in comparison to the number of open-ended questions I asked, I don’t feel like the number of yes/no questions is overwhelming. When I asked yes/no questions, they were typically followed by an open-ended question. That is a scaffolding strategy I’ve built in to try to guide some of my ESE students. I do think though, that I need to increase the number of open ended questions I use and try to incorporate some question stems to make my open ended questions a higher level of complexity. Also, my data may not be completely accurate due to the fact that I could only here the conversation I had with the group directly in front of the camera. During the entire lesson I circulated the room and questioned all of the groups, but I could not hear those questions on the video and therefore could not collect any data on those questions. I was asked by my science instructor to begin class with a blog post about the Great American Teach In and its connections to our Nature's Classroom Experience and an article we read on informal learning. "Informal learning is defined as voluntary learning that takes place outside the traditional classroom environment"(Melber, 2000). I, for one, am a huge advocate for informal learning experiences. I feel like a change of scenery can really rejuvenate your students and give them an alternate perspective of new learning, or help make connections to something previously learned. Unfortunately for my science instructor, we did not have the privilege of seeing a scientist yesterday, but we did have some awesome experiences with speakers that highlighted other subject areas. We had many speakers and activities throughout the school yesterday, but the most meaningful for my students was a presentation given by two lovely ladies from Target's Human Resources Department. This presentation was planned to help give meaning to the student's learning over the last few weeks. Our 5th grade is planning a field study at J.A. Biztown. The curriculum for this trip has been intense for our students because many of the skills they're learning, such as balancing a checkbook or applying for a job, are skills that they have never seen or done before. Although you can "tell" students how to apply for a job or conduct themselves in an interview, it is more beneficial for them to have the experience. The ladies from Target provided the students an opportunity to watch and participate in an actual Target interview, which was successful in helping them complete their job applications to us in the classroom for J.A. Biztown. Although this experience is very relevant to my students, some of the others were not. Some of our other speakers and guests did not provide pertinent information to our students, or did not provide age appropriate or content appropriate information. On our informal learning experience at Nature's Classroom, our guide stressed to us the importance of visiting a site before hand, and doing your own research, before taking your students. Although the Great American Teach in was an on campus informal learning experience, I can see how lack of research on presenters provided some confusion for us as teachers, as well as a lost opportunity to really reinforce some things that our students were learning in their course work. Although the day was successful, it could've been much more meaningful even if we had just met with some of the speakers before had and discussed some possible connections they could've made for our students. The next time I participate in the teach in, I feel that I will be much more prepared to be active in selecting purposeful speakers and presentations for my students to extend their learning.
This week I was able to teach my STEM math lesson, an assignment from my math course, in my partnership classroom. I was very unsure of teaching this lesson. First, because there are alot of components that must fall into place in a short period of time. Second, because I was unsure of whether the students would prefer this type of project based learning, or if undesired behaviors would be an issue.
During this lesson I tried to focus on some new goals that were developed during my midterm conference with my CT and PRT. One focus was behavior management; I needed to make myself revolve around the room so that I could more easily notice undesired behaviors and address them before the made and impact on the lesson. Another focus, was on student learning and engagement. I feel as though learning and engagement go hand in hand; If they're not engaged, they're not doing their most meaningful learning. With lesson plan in hand, I introduced the lesson with a video on how to make a lemonade stand. I then provided the students with the request for proposal. The purpose of this lesson was for students to add and subtract decimals; what better way to do that then have them deal with money. Their goal was to create a lemonade stand for J.A. Biztown. This is very relevant to the students because they will be taking a field trip to biztown in early December and will need the skills learned in this lesson to be successful on this filed trip. The students were required to make a menu with prices including whole numbers and decimals, a budget plan, and a business plan, and apply these three things to 2 different real world business scenarios. I cannot explain to you the excitement that my students had knowing that they were in charge of their our design, menu, money, etc. They asked questions like, "can we make coupons?", and "can we have flavored lemonade?". I was so excited to be able to respond that YES, they can create their business and menu any way they wanted, as long as they followed the criteria. The criteria was that they must have at least 3 items on their menu, they must create a business plan, budget plan, and menu, and they must include at least one item price that included both dollars and cents. I really saw a difference in the quality of student work when they were so excited and engaged to produce a meaningful product. They were working collaboratively, having meaningful discussions about how much to charge, and how they could make the most profit. They were debating whether their prices were reasonable for the type of customers they might have, and including coupons and buy one get one deals. As you can see from the criteria, none of these tasks, such as coupons etc., were required by me, but were created by the students in an effort to make legitimate business decisions. I rotated around the room while asking questions and addressing the class, making sure not to stay in one spot too long. The purpose of my movement was to detour undesired behaviors, but that was absolutely not needed during this lesson. The students were so engaged that the only trouble I had was actually getting them to stop working when class was coming to and end. At the end of the lesson, I took a very informal thumbs up, thumbs down survey about whether or not they preferred this project based learning as opposed to their traditional classwork. I got a 100% thumbs up on this survey and couldn't have been happier. Planning this lesson was extremely difficult and time consuming, but was well worth it. My students were able to produce work that they were proud of, took ownership of, and that was meaningful to them. Their processing of the mathematics was much better than I expected and I think this was because of the collaborative nature of the lesson. The students were teaching each other how to add and subtract the money and there was so much learning going on that I genuinely want to teach STEM lessons for the rest of the year. Lesson Plan Lemonade Stand This lesson, I would have to say, was by far one of the hardest I had ever taught. And after teaching it, I realized, that there are so many factors that must fall into place, in order for students to do any real learning. I started planning for this lesson by using a backwards planning model. I began by asking myself, what do my students need to be able to do when I am finished with this lesson? What I wanted them to know, or be able to do, is to recognize the comparisons between the mass of an object and it's volume. They should be able to tell me, after some investigating, that just because 2 objects have the same mass, does not mean that it will have the same volume. They should also notice the inverse, that just because 2 objects have the same volume does not mean they have the same mass. In addition to this, they should know that just because an object is "large" compared to another object, does not necessarily mean that it will have a greater mass or volume. After considering what I wanted them to learn, I modified an AIMS lesson called Massive Masses to guide the students in these discoveries.
After planning the lesson on my own using a Science Resource Lesson Guide, I brought it to my CT for feedback. She pointed out to me that it might be a possible issue that the students do not learn to calculate the volume of objects or containers until the end of the 5th grade year. At this point we discussed that we may need to have a mini math lesson within our science lesson to teach them the mathematical portion of volume, so that they could correctly calculate the volume of their provided objects (boxes) and compare the volumes to the masses. It turns out, that when learning about volume in Math, later in the year, a similar goal is present. "The goal here is for students to realize that volume does not dictate surface area" (Van de Walle, 2013). Since this is something that they will revisit in the future, we felt that it was a good choice to invest the time in teaching them how to properly calculate volume for these comparisons. So, with everything we considered together in planning, I also wanted to appeal to student's differing modalities by making this a lesson that involved a total physical response. I created stations, 1 box at each station, and had the students calculate mass and volume of that box at their station. After collecting their data in a data table in their science notebooks, they would rotate to the next station and repeat. Also, for my ESE and ELL students, I created a graphic organizer for them to record their data so that they would not spend so much time creating the table, but really be able to spend time in the investigation. When I arrived at school in the morning, I was an hour early so that I could gather balance scales, and do the investigation myself. I always like to perform the investigations before my students, hoping to identify any problems or possible misconceptions in advance. This turned out to be a wise choice since when I performed the investigation, I discovered that we only had 2 working scales, but I planned for 4 stations in my lesson. When my CT arrived I notified her of the problem, and we decided to place the scales at an alternate location and have the groups switch their measurements. So while group 1 and 2 were finding the mass, group 3 and 4 would be calculating volume, then switching roles. In theory it sounds reasonable, but in reality it created way to much traffic. There was too much distraction in walking back and forth from the scale to the workstations, and then walking to a new workstations. When the timer went off, some members of the groups were rotating without the rest of their groups, and others were rotating in the wrong direction. Although I thought my directions were very explicit, I was immediately proven wrong. In addition to the traffic problem, we came back to the issue that the students still, after my modeling of filling a container with unit cubes, and discovering a formula for finding volume, were still unclear on how to find the volume of their containers. This confusion kept myself and my CT tied up at some of the workstations and distracted us from assisting other groups. After a long, hectic first period, we broke for lunch and reflected on this disastrous experience. During lunch we talked about what modifications we could make to help our afternoon group's investigation go more smoothly. My afternoon class has the majority of my ELL's and ESE students. This usually means that we spend alot more time modeling and have to be very explicit in stating our procedures. My CT recommended for this group that I have one of the students repeat the directions back to me in front of the class before we start the investigation. Since this was a focus for our second group, and I had the pleasure of having my PRT come to observe me, I asked her to collect some data about our classroom discourse that would show whether or not I adequately explained instructions and had the students repeat them back. We also decided, to avoid traffic issues, that we would still have stations, but that the students would not rotate. We decided to let them find the mass and volume for their container, and then we would have them share out, and record the data on an anchor chart so that we could discuss the comparisons as a whole group. The time came that the students arrived, and I felt much better prepared, but to my disappointment, the lesson still did not go as planned. The traffic issue was solved, and the students behaviors were much better with the limited distractions. The students also followed procedures better after having to repeat them back to me. However, we still had a lot of trouble calculating the volume of the containers, even with thorough modeling. What I concluded from this lesson is that the students were just not ready and able to learn about calculating volume this early in the year, and in such a short period of time. If anything, the math lesson on volume should've been done as a full lesson in advance, and not crammed within a science lesson. They never really got a full grasp of the concept, and ultimately this affected their ability to make the comparisons between mass and volume, which was the goal, because we had too much trouble just calculating the volumes. If I had to teach this lesson again, I would still model for them what volume is and how we find it, but I would not leave them to calculate volume independently. I would provide them with the volumes of the containers, and have them find the mass as part of the investigation. They have used balance scales in previous years, and have also had a few prior lessons on mass and how to find the mass of an object. I believe that asking them to find the mass would be a reasonable request, but calculating volume would not be. I ultimately wanted them to be able to compare mass and volume, and they can very easily compare the two if the volumes are provided for them. By trying to cram too much content into 1 sixty minute lesson, I defeated the whole purpose of the lesson which was for them to make comparisons. Lesson learned! Below you will find links to the notes from my observation, as well as her feedback, the graphic organizer I provided for my ESE and ELL students, and my written lesson plan. PRT Notes PRT Feedback Lesson Plan Side 1 Lesson Plan Side 2 Graphic Organizer This reflective post shows evidence of my achievement towards the following FEAP(s) goals: (a).1.b: Sequences lessons and concepts to endure coherence and required prior knowledge (a).3.c: Identify gaps in student knowledge (a).3.d: Modify instruction to respond to preconceptions or misconceptions For the next three weeks, I will be focusing on planning and teaching Science, as this aligns with my content coaching cycle. In this lesson, I was the lead planner and lead co-teach for both our AM and PM classes. For this lesson I had several focuses. First, I used the USF 5 page lesson plan template to thoroughly plan my lesson. I wanted to use this not only so I could get feedback from my content coach, but so I could better understand the components of planning that are behind the shorter planning templates we used. I also wanted to focus on the 3 legs of science: content, process, and nature of science. Lastly, I wanted to think back to a timing strategy that I used in a previous post, and to apply and test this strategy during my lesson.
For planning, I started by building my own content knowledge. I sought the help of my Science methods instructor, and used an article that she provided me, titled What's the Matter with Teaching Children About Matter? This proved to be a helpful resource not only to build my own content knowledge, but to help me address possible misconceptions that my students might have, which coincidentally is one of the components of the 5 page USF Lesson Plan. With the help of this article, and the National Geographic Teacher Edition, I was able to brush up on the properties of matter and think about my own misconceptions as well as the ones my students might have. This article also gave me a sample of an activity that I was able to modify and use in my classroom that provided an awesome hands on investigation for my students. Also in this plan, I wanted to make sure that I included the 3 legs of Science from Weinburgh's article titled A Leg (or Three) to Stand On. This article states that " The three legs on which Science instruction rests are the content of science, process of science, and the nature of science. Each leg performs its own function and need not be competitive with the others. Rather, the legs should work together" to produce balance (Weinburgh, 2003). I wanted to make sure that my plan, as well as my delivery of the lesson, showed very clearly, each of the 3 legs. For this lesson, the content revolved around the properties of matter. The processes were observing and sorting, which were probably the simplest to identify. And the nature of science is that science demands evidence, which means that students must provide evidence for the claims they make. After planning and teaching my lesson I realized that I included only one nature of science in my plan, but taught two in my lesson. During the lesson, I found an opportunity to incorporate the nature of science that science is social, so I just went with it. It was fitting, because the students were actively comparing their observations to those of their classmates, and discussing similarities and differences. For the actually lesson, I planned for transitions/activities that could be timed, to encourage the students to stay on task. I did this because of a previous blog entry from Semester 4, Week 8: Force and Motion, which helped me notice that my students had difficulties staying on task, unless they were being timed. During the exploration, the students were timed. They were told for both parts of the investigation that they had 15 minutes, on a timer, to complete their observations or classification. For transitions, I used the countdown strategy, in which I would tell the students to "bring it back in 5,4,3,2,1". Each of these timing strategies were successful. The students stayed mostly on task, and were able to transition smoothly, following my timing expectations. I feel like this is a great success! When the students are on task, and stay within their time limits, we get so much more time to actually investigate and explore. I am still awaiting feedback on my 5 page lesson plan, however I have placed a link at the bottom so that it can be viewed. Overall, planning was very in depth and productive, and this lesson was one of my most successful yet, as far as student engagement and behavior goes. I am proud of my students for their hard work, and myself for my continued reflective practices! Lesson Plan: Properties of Matter This reflective post is assisting in the completion of FEAP(s): (a).1.e: Uses variety of data, independently and in collaboration with colleagues, to evaluate student learning outcomes, adjust planning, and continuously improve the effectiveness of lessons. (a).3.a: Deliver engaging and challenging lessons. (a).3.c: Identify gaps in students' subject matter knowledge. (a).3.g: Apply varied instructional strategies and resources, including appropriate technology, to teach for student understanding. (b).5.a: Designs purposeful professional goals to strengthen the effectiveness of instruction based on students' needs. (b).5.c: Uses variety of data, independently and in collaboration with colleagues, to evaluate student learning outcomes, adjust planning, and continuously improve the effectiveness of lessons. (b).5.e: Engages in targeted professional growth opportunities and reflective practices. I will start by being honest and saying that Math is my favorite subject to learn, but is my biggest fear to teach. I am slightly uncomfortable with all that has to be successful in a succession of Math lessons in order for students to retain what knowledge they'll need to move on to the next concept. As my CT had her formal observation this week, I played mostly a supporting role in the classroom. Not until Friday did I take the lead in a lesson, only after watching my CT teach it to our first group of students, and basically mirroring her lesson for our second group.
The review was fairly simple, but I almost feel like it was too simple. Mirroring my CT's lesson meant that I did the same review with the second group. Our review was based off of the homework that they completed the night before. We chose to review these specific questions, because there were several questions that would be similar on their upcoming assessment, and we wanted to make sure that the students fully understood those concepts. When watching my video, I noticed that the students were responding to my questions, but most were also playing around with water bottles, talking to their neighbors, making faces, or many other very distracting things. What was confusing to me was that even though they were clearly not engaged, they were still able to provide me with correct and/or reasonable answers for my questions. This is the evidence that I am using to make the claim that the review was not challenging enough to keep the students engaged. At this point, is when I started thinking about the purpose of a review and what that means for the students. I don't believe that a review should be excessively challenging. If the concepts are taught well in the initial lessons, then the review content should be fairly easy. So if making the review content more challenging is not the answer to increasing student engagement, then what is? After considering something I did with my 5th graders last year, I think I may have found a solution. Students like to compete, show what they've learned, work in teams, and challenge themselves and each other. I did a science review with my group last year and used an online resource, jeopardylabs.com, to create a jeopardy board review of important concepts. I split the students into teams, and they worked together to not only complete a review, but to compete in an engaging game of jeopardy. This makes me think that the next time I teach a review, I should plan to make some kind of competition out of it in order to increase engagement. I'm not sure that jeopardy would be the most appropriate for math, but maybe I could just split them into teams, give them word problems to solve, and time them to see which team finished first and could explain their reasoning. This would also give me some data regarding the students' math fluency, which I could record and use for future planning purposes. Although I don't feel that the lesson was a great success, I do feel that I learned quite a bit about how I can improve future similar lessons. I think that being able to reflect on the experience and notice flaws can sometimes be just as beneficial as just having a successful lesson. This reflective post is assisting in the completion of FEAP(s): (a).1.e: Uses variety of data, independently and in collaboration with colleagues, to evaluate student learning outcomes, adjust planning, and continuously improve the effectiveness of lessons. (b).5.a: Designs purposeful professional goals to strengthen the effectiveness of instruction based on students' needs. (b).5.c: Uses variety of data, independently and in collaboration with colleagues, to evaluate student learning outcomes, adjust planning, and continuously improve the effectiveness of lessons. (b).5.e: Engages in targeted professional growth opportunities and reflective practices. This week, I video taped myself teaching a lesson on force and motion. I wasn't sure exactly what I was looking for when I decided to review the tape, so I just tried to watch with an open mind, and tried to notice things about either myself or my students that didn't make sense, or could be an area for improvement. I found my focus within minutes of starting my video. I noticed how incredibly long it took my students to transition from Math to Science, and decided that this is an area for needed improvement; on the part of the teacher(myself), as well as on the part of the students. And so, I began collecting some data on my video.
First I counted the number of transitions in the entire video/lesson and recorded the amount of time taken from when I gave an instruction, to when the students actually completed that particular transition. The results are below, and you can find a link to a photo of my actual raw notes at the bottom of this post.
For transition 2, they were given instructions for completing a guided inquiry. I gave directions, and then told the students they would be given 10 minutes to complete the activity. I also told them that I would be setting the timer on my phone for 10 minutes, and they would need to have completed the entire investigation in that time period. I said "go", hit the timer, and watched the students eagerly go to work. They were moving very quickly, talking with their group mates, and reading the inquiry book for steps to be taken during the activity. The students were so focused and on task that they actually completed the inquiry with 2 minutes to spare. I noticed that I heard alot of talking toward the end and asked my CT if I should wrap it up because they were talking, but she pointed out to me that although they were a little loud, that their conversations were actually perfectly on topic. So I made the call to pull them back together 2 minutes early so that we could continue their conversations in a whole group setting. This led us into transition 3. For transition 3, the most successful of all, I told the students, "o.k., we're going to bring it back in 5,4,3,2,1". This is a strategy I've seen used by several CT's when bringing the group back together. It worked beautifully. By the time I got to 1, the students were sitting quietly, most of them in LLP, and waiting for instructions. This allowed us to very quickly begin our whole class discussion. Transition 4, was alot like transition 1. I was moving the students from our whole group discussion, into our independent practice. I told them to open to page 250, gave them 34 seconds, which seemed like an eternity, because they already had their books out directly in front of them, and should've easily been able to open to that page. After the 34 seconds, I moved on to the next task which was setting up the notebook for our entry, only to hear a student ask, "what page do we turn to again?". So after repeating the page number, which I should not have had to do since I wrote the page number on the ELMO when I gave the direction, I continued with the notebook entry. So it actually took the students 59 seconds to get their books opened to the correct page. The transition was immediately after that which should've been them opening their notebooks to await instructions on what I wanted them to write for their entry. After I finished the instruction of what they were to write, there were still students without their notebooks ready. After the last student had their notebook out, 2 minutes 20 seconds had passed. Based on this data, there was definitely excess wasted time during transitions. I noticed however, that when I used a timing strategy that the students transitioned much quicker and with less distraction. Counting down by five proved to be effective, the students were prepared when I finished my countdown. Also, telling the students that they would be timed proved also to be a great help. When they knew that I set the timer, they began their activity immediately. For future lessons, I will integrate into my plan transitions, and how much time I will allot for them. I will also plan to use a timing strategy in order to stick to my timeline, and will record data to see if the timing strategy is effective, and how much time the students take to transition in comparison to how much time I allot in my plan. I'm interested to see how my next lesson will go! DATA/Notes This reflective post is assisting in the completion of FEAP(s): (a).1.e: Uses variety of data, independently and in collaboration with colleagues, to evaluate student learning outcomes, adjust planning, and continuously improve the effectiveness of lessons. (a).2.a: Organizes, allocates, and manages the resources of time, space, and attention. (b).5.a: Designs purposeful professional goals to strengthen the effectiveness of instruction based on students' needs. (b).5.c: Uses variety of data, independently and in collaboration with colleagues, to evaluate student learning outcomes, adjust planning, and continuously improve the effectiveness of lessons. (b).5.e: Engages in targeted professional growth opportunities and reflective practices. For my focus this week, I had to integrate into my planning a way to engage my students in mathematical practice #6, attend to precision. I found this especially challenging, because when I think of being precise, I automatically think about assigning a specific unit to something. After some discussion in my math course, and some discussion with my CT, I now realize that there are many more ways in which students need to attend to precision.
Since our current unit of study is on adding and subtracting fractions with unlike denominators, my CT and I discussed the importance of the students, as well as myself, to use precise language when discussing fractions with our peers/classmates. My CT and I made a list of specific vocabulary words that were especially important for discussion, and it was my job during the lesson not only to use the language appropriately, but to monitor student conversations, and hold them accountable for using this language. These words were part, whole, numerator, denominator, fraction greater than one, and mixed number. During my lesson, my CT sat down and took notes, stating my language, and then the students language. This was very useful for me in the way that I was able to see if I was actually noticing and correcting student language throughout the lesson. She used arrows to show my response in relation to a students response, and vise versa. I noticed that I was correcting my students language indirectly by using questions. I see many of our mentor teachers doing this in their practice, and I can see how it can be very beneficial for students to self-correct, and discover mistakes without directly being told what they should say. In this way, they are constructing lasting meaning of these vocabulary words and can continue to use them throughout this unit and into whatever unit of study comes next. This week was my first opportunity to substitute teach for my CT. I had an amazing day, with very few humps, and was proud to say that I made it through the day and accomplished most of what I needed to accomplish. I video recorded my math lesson with my afternoon group, and watched it back later in order to reflect upon my experience. There were 2 specific perspectives I wanted to attend to when watching my lesson. First, I wanted to view it with a focus on Math content. Math is a content area in which I am a little uncomfortable, so I always try to place focus on it. The other perspective I wanted to focus on was a management viewpoint. This was my first opportunity to be alone in the classroom with my students, and I was focused on managing behavior issues alone, without the support of my CT.
Regarding Math content, I focused on one specific goal while I planned my lesson. I wanted to facilitate the engagement of the students in SMP 6 (attend to precision), so I planned to take every opportunity I could during planning and during my lesson to use specific and accurate vocabulary and to encourage the students to use this same vocabulary. When watching my video back, I was so proud to notice that I consistently use the correct vocabulary throughout the lesson and was able to pose questions that re Inquiry Monday is a busy time in the classroom. It is the time designated to concentrate on STEM fair, design challenges, and so much more. This is an opportunity for students to get curious and "inquire" about anything they desire to investigate. For Monday, September 22, Inquiry Monday's focus was on a specific part of the STEM project requirement; Hypothesizing. Inquiry Monday lessons are sent from the district, and provide a very scripted and detailed plan for what to include while teaching. From this scripted plan, I was the lead co-teacher for this lesson, and did my best to include all of the pertinent information about hypothesizing for my students.
My PRT once again took some notes for me, and suggested that I analyzed my lesson based on 1 of 3 scenarios:
I have chosen to view this lesson based on #1. According to the district plan Part 1, teaching of component, should've taken 5-10 minutes. Part 2, the teacher model, should've taken 5-10 minutes, and Part 3, student work time, should've taken 25-35 minutes. According to my PRT's notes, my part 1 took about 3 minutes. This seems short, but my CT began the introduction to the lesson before we went to lunch, and she spent about 5 minutes doing so. So we were definitely within the recommended range for part 1. Part 2, the teacher model, took me approximately 13 minutes. Part 3, student work time, took about 28-30 minutes. I noticed that my teacher model was a little over the recommended time alottment for that section. When looking back on my lesson, I realized that I did not have a clock, timer, or watch to keep track of my time. I just included all of the recommended material in the lesson, and it just so happened to work out for me time wise, except for on part 2. I tend to lose track of time a lot when I'm teaching, and I definitely need a way to keep myself in check. I understand that sometimes adaptations need to be made, but for the most part, it is important to stick to a schedule, so that the students don't miss out on any other content areas. When looking at the 2 minute sweeps that were done in the note taking process, I notice that I spent about 6 minutes at each table I went to when helping the students with their individual STEM work. My CT spent only about 2-4 minutes with each student or group of students she helped. This leads me to believe that I am giving the students too much guidance and not letting them discover and work independently enough. If my CT can satisfy their needs in only 2-4 minutes, then I know that they are capable of working and problem solving with very little guidance. Not giving students enough time and opportunity to struggle is something that I still need work on. When looking back on previous blog posts, I noticed that letting the students struggle has been a goal of mine in the past, and has been hard for me to do. I experienced a very similar scenario, relating to mathematics, in the post Semester 2, Week 2. After reviewing this lesson, and previous posts, I believe that removing myself just a little, and letting students work more independently, or with less guidance, is a goal I need to revisit. This blog post contributes to satisfying FEAP(s) (b) 5.a. Designs purposeful professional goals to strengthen the effectiveness of instruction based on students' needs. PRT Lesson Observation This week provided an opportunity to take the lead in a science lesson about electrical energy and how it can transform into other types of energy. I focused heavily on science these past 2 weeks so that I could get as much help as possible from my science content coach. I had my PRT come in to observe my lesson, and while she was in the classroom, she focused on taking selective verbatim notes so that we could analyze my language and compare it to my instructional goals.
My current goals are to try to find ways to maintain engagement and reduce behavior issues during a lesson. I find that the students tend to start chatting when they lose interest as well as during transitions and I want to make myself more aware of their behaviors as well as be organized enough that my transitions go more quickly and smoothly. With these goals in mind, I analyzed the transcript of my lesson by highlighting mine and my CT's language and then comparing the 2 for similarities and differences. Since my main focus was engagement and behavior, I looked at this from a management lens and tried to identify instances when we corrected and/or praised certain behaviors. The link at the bottom, titled Sparkie's Light Kit, is the transcription and notes from my PRT regarding this lesson. It has been coded so that I could easily analyze the data within the transcription. The first step to coding the data was clearly separating mine and my CT's language throughout the lesson. Instances in which I'm speaking are highlighted in yellow. Instances in which my CT is speaking are highlighted in blue. The next step was to identify, from a classroom management perspective, what the purpose of our language was at the time. A green + means we praised positive or desired behavior. A black - means that we corrected an undesired or negative behavior. The word EXPECTATIONS in red indicates that we either explicitly stated an expectation or we posed a question to make students think about whether or not they were behaving appropriately based on previously established expectations. The words ATTENTION GETTER in green indicates that we had to use a strategy to get the attention of the class. After coding the transcription in this way, I went through and tallied the number of times that each one of these things was done. Me CT Stated expectations IIIII I (6) IIIII II (7) Praised Desired Behaviors I (1) III (3) Corrected Unwanted Behaviors IIIII (5) IIIII IIIII IIIII (15) Attention Getter I (1) II (2) Expectations Stated as Questions I (1) II (2) Explicit/Direct Expectations IIIII (5) IIIII (5) Correct Undesired Behavior w/ Q's III (3) Correct Behavior as a Statement IIIII (5) IIIII IIIII II (12) (Directly or Indirectly) From this information, my CT and I identified some similarities and differences in our language with the student. First of all, we noticed that I did not correct any behaviors in the form of a question, my behavior corrections were all statements. I also spent less time praising desired behavior than my CT did. We also noticed that most of our documented language was used correcting behavior. In the six pages of notes on our lesson, we had to correct a negative or undesired behavior, a total of 20 times. When discussing how we each approached some of these situations, I mentioned that I noticed the both of us using judging statements to praise or correct behavior. This is the exact opposite of what I intended to do in the classroom after reading Choice Words this Summer. I want to use language that does not judge, but that motivates students intrinsically. My CT discussed with me that she feels it's important, and more effective, to praise desired behavior than it is to correct negative behavior. We both agreed to try harder to praise good behavior, but to remove judgement from our statements. So instead of saying "I love that quiet hand over there", I might say "Thank you, I notice that you raised you hand very quietly." There was also an incident, that is marked in the transcript as a key point in management, where a student takes off the safety goggles and refuses to put them back on. When I asked her to put them on, she rolled her eyes and refused. This appeared to be an instance where the student was displaying power seeking behavior. According to Linda Albert's Cooperative Discipline, "teachers can prevent much power seeking behavior by giving students options from which to choose (you may do this or that), delegating responsibilities to them, and granting them legitimate power when appropriate." I gave the student 2 choices. She could either give up her materials, or she could put the goggles on. This gave her the power to choose which to do and I thought it would force her to consider her behavior, instead of me just walking over and taking her materials, or yelling, as I so often see done in the classroom. My CT has made it clear in every investigation prior to this, that any student not wearing their goggles would not be allowed to participate. I was just trying to follow through with my CTs expectations, without yelling at or embarrassing the student. My CT walked over to the student after I gave her the choices, whispered to her, thanked her, and moved on. My CT mentioned to me in conversation that she had this student the previous year, and had finally figured out how she works, which is why she had a private conversation with her. This is an advantage for my CT, because she taught 4th grade last year, and now has most of those same students in this years class. She knows them very well. This is obviously a disadvantage for me, because I know the students less, and have to fully rely on research based strategies, and theories. I also notice that I correct behavior less than my CT, and I feel that this is because she is so quick to respond to her students. She automatically corrects, without any time needed to think about it, and I rarely get a chance to address behavior before she does. This is amazing for me because I can concentrate on the content, rather than getting too caught up in behavior management. I feel like the students were actively engaged during this lesson; all but maybe the last 5 minutes. I was able to also integrate a piece of mirroring technology that I beleive increased the level of engagement of the lesson. The number of times we had to get their attention was only 3, and each of these times was really result of them being excited about their investigation. Even though they were engaged, we still had to correct behaviors quite often. If I could make a claim from these observations, it would be that engagement helps, but is not directly improve classroom behavior. For future lead opportunities, I will speak to my CT before hand and see if we can identify to potential behavior issues and develop plans to head those off before they become real issues. I will also be speaking with my CT regarding any behavior issues students may have had last year, so that I can be prepared to handle those appropriately. Sparkie's Light Kit Some student's names were present in the original document. Those names have been blacked out for their safety and privacy. This post reflects my progress toward achieving FEAP(s) goals: (a)2.b.- manages individual and class behaviors through a well planned management system (a)2.c.- conveys high expectations to all students (a)2.g.- integrates current information and communication technologies (b)5.a.- designs purposeful professional goals to strengthen the effectiveness of instruction based on student needs (b)5.b.- examines and uses data informed research to improve instruction and student achievement (b)5.e.- engages in targeted professional growth opportunities and reflective practices. I have have the amazing benefit of being departmentalized this year. It has been quite a blessing to be able to see my CT teach a lesson, and then to be able to teach that same lesson for the second block of the day. This has been tremendously helpful because I could focus specifically on instruction and concentrate on establishing myself with the students as a teacher and resource for their learning. After having 3 weeks to participate in this type of model/repeat scenario, I asked my CT if I could take on the responsibility of being a lead planner and lead teacher on the next lesson. She agreed, and I began the challenging process of planning.
The first thing I did was go through the GCG (Global Concept Guide) and refresh myself with the content. Anytime I got confused, or noticed that I continually repeated a mistake, I would document that. I also worked out all of the problems that I was going to assign to the students, to make sure that I fully understood them. The benefit of doing this was that when they had questions during the lesson, I was fully prepared to walk them through it and also I was able to predict some common misconceptions that the students might have, based on the misconceptions I might have had while working these out. I did not write out a formal USF lesson plan for this lesson, due to time constraints, but I feel like I did produce a thorough plan. I started the lesson by making connections to their previous lesson, ad then go back in their notebook, and turn and talk. I also decided, that since they had never been introduced to exponents before, that I would makes the connection between base ten blocks and place values before I introduced the essential question. The essential question had the word exponents in it, and I felt as thought it would confuse them if I had them write it in their notebook first, because they would be too busy thinking about what that word might mean, instead of concentrating on the instruction. This choice proved to be a good one. I feel like I had the attention of the class, and felt like they made the connection to the concept behind exponents, before getting tripped u with the vocabulary. One thing I noticed during my lesson is that I kept getting active participation from the same 5 students. I had to continually call on the same few students in order to keep the conversation going. Part way through my lesson, I realized that I was not able to assess what the students were really getting, because I wasn't hearing from more than a few of them. I simply said to them "I need to see some new hands", and made it clear that I wasn't going to move on until there was more participation from some new students. After this, I started seeing some new hands. I also feel that I created an environment where they felt safe to share because they were very quick to share with me, as well as their classmates, when they were confused about anything. They really grasped the concept and we moved quickly through the lesson. i was very excited at how well they understood and I felt ready to move them on to the next EQ the following day. Some things I would have like to have done differently was have a sticky note in front of me so that I could tally how many times I called on each student. If I had kept track of which students were actively participating, I would have known earlier in the lesson that I was not focusing on all parts of the room, and could've corrected the issue much sooner. I would also have like to have been a little louder at the start of the lesson. I felt like it took them a few minutes get settled and ready for me to start. Maybe an increase in my volume when beginning would let them know that they need to be ready to learn. Something amazing that I got from this was the opportunity to kind of reflect on the lesson and consider adaptations that I could make before teaching it to the second block of the day. So for the second block, I kept tallies of who was called on, I created a graphic organizer for the students so that they wouldn't have to spend so much time drawing a place value chart, and I increased my volume and told them that "I'll know you're ready to start when you're sitting in LLP (Listening, Learning Position) with your math notebook in front of you. Another benefit was having a PRT (Partnership Resource Teacher) observe my lesson. She gave me some amazing feedback, some of which I noticed when I was reflecting, and some things that I didn't even realize I did until she brought it to my attention. This was great. Having an additional perspective allowed me to be aware of things that I didn't initially notice, and I have the opportunity to make these adjustments when I plan for my next lesson. If you click on the link at the bottom, you can read the feedback that was sent to me from the PRT that observed me, and see how her observations compare to my personal reflections. After this, I'm ready to start planning for my next lead lesson so that I can made some adjustments and see if I can better my instruction for the benefit of my students. Graphic Organizer PRT Feedback This week in our science course we had several readings that directly connected to things I was either seeing in the classroom, or was getting ready to see, however I noticed a slight disconnect between our coursework and the influence of the school district on classroom practices. I found that this week, I spent a lot of time considering how I could possibly bridge this gap, or create an adaptation of both theories in order to provide the best learning experience for the students.
My question for the week is specifically related to Science notebooking. How can I implement the research based strategies on notebooking into my classroom, and still satisfy the the districts recomendations and influence in an effective way? The first way to address this is to compare the information in the article on notebooking and the strategies for noteooking that we're learning from our district mentor, to what I am actually doing in the classroom, in order to identify which adaptations I can make to provide the best resource for the students. In Campbell and Fulton's article, Science Notebooks: Writing About Inquiry, it is stated that " In order to consider authentic implementation of science notebooks in the classroom, it is important to understand how scientists use notebooks in their line of work." I have noticed, after reflecting on the lessons I have participated in, that I usually do make a connection between the information the students are putting in their notebooks and the information that scientists put in theirs. In fact, I usually chime in with an example of what type of scientist might record the information they are recording in their notebooks I do believe that making these connections for students is important for their learning and for their motivation and engagement. What I would like to improve on though, to make note-booking and science in general more authentic for my students, is being very aware of the language I use with them in the classroom, and be more careful to make sure that my language is not only appropriate for the scenario, but consistent throughout. For example, I love how my CT refers to the students as scientists consistently throughout our science lessons. She makes it very clear that they ARE scientists and that they are researching the same way that real scientists do. I am not as good at this, probably from lack of practice or experience, but would like to more often refer to the students as such and make sure that I do this consistently. Ensuring the students that they are in fact scientists seems to give them a sense of confidence, but also seems to make an authentic connection between what they're doing and what scientists do in the field. By doing this, they are more motivated to make meaningful entries into their science notebooks, therefore making it an effective resource. To help myself be more aware of my language, I'm going to try to write in my plans, opportunities for me to use the language in a consistent manner. Because I have not had as much experience as my CT, I often find that I refer back to my plans several times during a lesson, and by writing in these reminders to call my students scientists and use appropriate language on my plan, I'm sure to see it and more likely to use it consistently. Another thing that I've been mulling over in my head about science note-booking is the organization of the notebook, and how it can be made into an effective resource for the students. This is where I'm finding a gap between our course practice and the district recommended way of organization. I find that I agree with certain aspects of both, which is why it's hard for me to make a definite decision about how I would like to use science notebooks in my own classroom next year. From our course, we are learning how important it is for notebooks to be a portfolio of student work, a resource for students to study from and look back on often, and for each students notebook to be very different and individualized. It is true that every scientists notebook looks different, and the student's notebooks should reflect this. I have had the absolute privilege to work with a district mentor this year, and she has provided some amazing ideas and suggestions about note-booking, based on the trainings that are offered by the district. They do agree with everything that I stated above, but are advocates for having a table of contents in the science notebook so that students can easily refer back to information from previous entries. They believe that if students are shown how to organize their notebooks with a table of contents, page number, and essential question for each entry, that the students can get better use of their notebooks as a resource, and can easily find the information that they're looking for. It was mentioned to me during our last science class meeting that the structure of the notebook that the district is recommending is too strict, and that restricting the way that students make entries in their notebook should be completely their own. They should not be told to date, or keep a table of contents, or label pages and essential questions. The notebook should be filled with the things that the students consider important enough to document. I agree that students responses and entries should be their own and should be reflective of what they think is important, but I also agree that keeping notebooks organized in some fashion, allows students to easily and quickly access information. This is where I'm torn. What is too organized? What is not organized enough? How do we know that the information the students are document is relevant to what we're doing in the classroom? These are the questions I find that I'm asking myself. After considering all of this, the only conclusion I can come to is how important it is to know my students. At the end of the day, it is a resource for the students. Also I must keep in mind that I am limited to what I can do for the simple fact that I am a guest in someone else's classroom. When I have my own classroom, I will base my decisions about note-booking specifically on the needs of my students. I could probably survey them to see how they feel about a table of contents, or any specific form of organization. Or, maybe I will let them set it up any way they want for a few weeks and observe how well they are able to use it, and find what they need in it. If they can maintain it on their own, they can have free reign of the note-book; if they cannot, then I can introduce one organizational strategy at a time. As a professional, my goal is always to modify classroom practices based on the diverse learning needs of my students. So whatever they need, I will do! This blog post contributes to the achievement of FEAP(s) goal (b)Continuous Improvement, Responsibility, and Ethics. 5.a. : Continuous Professional Improvement. The effective educator consistently: Designs purposeful professional goals to strengthen the effectiveness of instruction based on students' needs. This week was the official beginning of my final year in the UTRPP! Although we didn't start classes until this week, I have been in my CT's classroom since pre-planning and have learned a great deal about the process of setting up a learning environment for our students to feel comfortable in, and that supports collaboration. It was exciting to see how everything is purposefully placed and set up to facilitate learning, and I am reminded of some assignments from our first semester last year that really will influence the way I set up my own classroom next year. I was even very excited to see one of last year's UTRPP graduates pull out her classroom management and layout plan when setting up her new classroom this year. I was finally able to see how this program is constantly preparing me to be an inquiring, purposeful, and reflective educator.
This years focus is on STEM, which stands for Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics, but means so much more. STEM is a way of teaching that overlaps content in such a way that dividing lines are blurred and students are able work in an environment where they can make meaningful connections between subject areas. I can already tell that STEM teaching will be difficult, but my love for Science and Math should make it a little easier. Allowing students to make connections between subject areas will better prepare them for real world skills application and will provide them with problem solving skills that will benefit them as contributing members of today's and tomorrow's society. I'm so excited to continue my learning and deepen my understanding of STEM teaching and it's benefits. Although the semester has just begun, I can already notice how quickly time flies. I'm amazed at how quickly time has passed and am grateful that I have had such an amazing experience so far. Let the final year begin!!!!!!!! You'll have to excuse my absence in posting about this reading. As fascinating as it is, I still had to maintain a full time job and several other readings over the summer. I chose to push this one back, due to the fact that I wanted it to be fresh in my head as I take on the new year and mine and my CT's new students. So, let me pick up where I left off.
I'm excited to say that I feel as though I've reached some of the meat and potatoes of this book. I appreciate the use of examples of the preferred, student centered language, in the context of a real classroom scenario. For my own documentation, so that I can easily refer back to my learning, I would like to place below a sort of list of common, appropriate, student/teacher discussions and correct teacher responses. Chapter 2: Noticing and Naming Teacher Questions/Prompts/Responses- Did anyone notice...? (Inviting children to notice) I see you now how to spell the beginning of that word. (Noticing the correct vs. the incorrect) Remember when you.......but now you do.......... (Noticing growth) What kind of text is this? (Students name/classify) You know what I heard you doing just now? I heard you..........(Noticing appropriate behavior or strategy use) Chapter 3: Identity What a talented young poet you are. That's not like you. I wonder if, as a _______, you're ready for this. I bet you're proud of yourself. What have you learned most recently as a reader? Chapter 4: Agency and Becoming Strategic How did you figure that out? What problems did you come across today? How are you planning to go about this? A teaching professional, Sheriddon Sweeney, did an awesome presentation on this book, regarding her inquiry in her classroom last year. she suggested that teachers, or pre-service teachers, who are new to this language, write some common questions and responses down on sticky notes, and refer to them throughout the day. I intend to do just that so I can try to eliminate any old habits that may lead me back to teacher centered language instead of student centered language. The reasons for this type of language have become apparent just in the first few chapters of this book. If you look at the examples provided below, you'll notice that there is no apparent judgement in any of these phrases. We want our students to value our feedback, but not seek our approval so whole heartedly that that's their sole motivation for achieving. Using this language helps shape students with intrinsic motivation, that value the work and effort much more than the end result, and see mistakes as an opportunity to learn and try again. I am really excited to finish up this reading and try to use it as effectively as possible in my final internship! |