For me, the best thing about this third lesson was the interesting content. There was so much to talk about and do. The experiments were fun to watch and brought an amazing amount of student thinking into the lesson. My group was a pleasure to work with. We had great communication before SCMT day and we worked as a team to make sure we each had what we needed as we did our lesson. Too bad we don’t get to have three willing science assistants at our disposal when we are teaching science for real! I felt that my group members were able to predict the moves the kids might make based off our lesson plan.
This a change from our first SCMT lesson. I can see how our SCMT lesson experiences have connected us with how students and teachers interact with in the five E lesson format. Our experience and knowledge from class helped us to have deeper discussions in the moment and in the planning process. My SCMT experiences also help me to write my lesson #2. It seems easier for me to visualize how things will play out in the classroom. I have a better sense of how I can transition from introducing concepts by engaging students in the beginning and assessing their learning at the end.
The material we chose for our lesson engaged the students from the moment they set eyes on our table. Test tubes and unknown substances are classic science right? Our materials were sort of a lot to manage but once the lesson was rolling the materials and experiments themselves seem to guide our group through the experiences and observations of matter we intended. When I look at the videos, I can see that the kids were focused on listening because they wanted to know what we were going to do. Most students did not need any redirecting.
They were content to watch the experiment and even seems to write down the results and their opinions in our recording books. With that said, there were some major distractions and issues for me. I like to go first, which is a great idea until you realize that the first person typically loses 2-5 minutes due to the transition. Also, as the guinea pig it was my first lesson where we realized that having students independently rotate through four experiments was not possible in fifteen minutes.
After that we switched to each students being in charge of one experiment and the group watching, discussing and writing when each student had their turn. So, the problem was solved, but after my first lesson. Oh, did I mention that this was the one that the principal got to observe? In My video I don’t look nearly as stressed as I felt on the inside. Ultimately all of the students we able to do two experiments, Which wasn’t too bad considering that I was short on time and that after this listen to figure out the kids really only have time to do one.
A key science moment from my lesson was when the student who had dissolved the styrofoam ball looked down and saw sludge in the bottom of his beaker. He said, “Hey, it’s still in there! ” He held up the goo on the fork and everyone said, wow! Then all of them started talking about how maybe the ball had just changed forms and had not really dissolved. I loved seeing how the kids were adjusting their understanding of what had happened based off of the evidence they could see and their understanding of the process that had happened.
I felt that at that point all I needed to do, as the teacher, was be present as they worked through this event. I hope to be able to create many events like this for my future students. For Danielson framework 3a, communicating with students, during my second lesson, I rate myself level three. I was able to connect the students with our content during the engage step. I could see this happen as the students began thinking aloud and justifying their thoughts. By the end if the lesson, when I asked the kids if the apple had produced a new substances they had new answers and explanations, that were mostly scientifically correct.
Also, I can see on the video that the students had tuned into my scientific vocabulary because when I listened to their explanations for their observations they would echo back the words that I used, describing their reasoning. I only provided light instructions, but the students understood what to do. I think this is an example of how my communication was adequate /proficient. Watching the video I also noticed that I didn’t establish the same ground rules as I had with the younger kids. I didn’t think that the fifth graders would need the same kind of reminders.
This worked out because for the most part they seemed trained to not touch each other things and take turns speaking. I see my withholding extra instructions as a strength because achieving the goal of engaging students with the activity sometimes means not wasting time with extra teacher talk. I think my approach matched the age level and level of development of the students. I also rate myself a three in this area, this time, because I can see that I improved in this area over the three lessons we did at SCMT.
I felt that in this lesson my interactions with the kids were the most clear and accurate. In the Danielson framework 3b discussion techniques, I rate myself a three. I can see in the video that at most times each student got to share their opinion and attempt to explain the action of the substances at hand. I think this demonstrates quality discussion because all of the students were engaged. I also could see times in the video when the students and I were able to continue down a road of a question based off of a question from another students or myself.
This tells me that I was following the student thinking and that students were adjusting their understanding as we added new perspectives to the conversation. I could also see a few times in the video when I had to stop students discussion so we could go on to the next experiment. I think it is a great sign that the student discussion that I was stopping was about science, not about random things. I think this lesson was better than the first two because I gave the students more wait time after asking them a question. In the first video, I seemed a bit uncomfortable and would move on if I didn’t get a fairly quick answer.
In regards to Danielson framework 3c, engaging students in learning, I rate myself a three. In my video I can see that students are paying attention to what is happening at our table, asking questions and actively engaged in group or partner conversation for as much time as possible. Each student had their hands on the material either mixing, pouring or dissolving and eagerly watched other students when it was their turn. The students seem excited to see what each new experiment would do and seem just as interested in figuring out why the substances acted the way they did.
I think this is evidence that our learning tasks aligned well with our instructional outcomes. I would really love to do this lesson for thirty minutes. I think this lesson has the potential to more deeply connect the students thoughts and experiences with the experiments they were doing but still, our lesson pacing felt comfortable and the students responded well to the lesson’s structure. I think this lesson format was engaging and the students learned a lot from it. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the students went home and tried to do the experiments again.
