(Reflection: Part 2)
(Reflections and Modifications)
When I finished my lesson, I was surprised to hear my Penn mentor say, “I have one word for your lesson- fabulous!” In her written feedback, she noted that one of my strengths was that my lesson standards, objectives, and materials were well planned and I was very prepared. In terms of eliciting student responses, my Penn mentor wrote that I provided “lots of opportunities for children to ask questions and express their thoughts, ideas, opinions, and viewpoints”. She said that I “encouraged peer collaboration and students helping each other and listening to each other”. One specific example of this was when I told the students they should “tell others about your maps” toward the end of the lesson.
My Penn mentor had two suggestions for this lesson. First, she thought it would be helpful to have a brief discussion about library expectations beforehand and have a chart showing expectations and consequences. I told her that I agreed, which was why I had a discussion about expectations with my group of students two days prior to the lesson. On Monday, I also told them what we were going to be doing on Wednesday so that they were prepared. However, I realize that I could have spent more time reviewing our previous discussion about expectations on the day of the lesson. My mentor also suggested that I develop a system for recording the results of the forms of assessment. I also agreed with that point. I went into the lesson thinking that the two charts that we collectively created and the classroom maps that the students individually created would be enough evidence to assess their understanding. I think that I could have developed a chart to record which students said what, or at the very least, to jot down notes from my individual conferences.
As I mentioned, my general impressions about my lesson focused on management issues rather than content issues. I was surprised to hear that my Penn mentor actually thought that the way I handled the student who was being disruptive was successful. She noted that I:
My Penn mentor had two suggestions for this lesson. First, she thought it would be helpful to have a brief discussion about library expectations beforehand and have a chart showing expectations and consequences. I told her that I agreed, which was why I had a discussion about expectations with my group of students two days prior to the lesson. On Monday, I also told them what we were going to be doing on Wednesday so that they were prepared. However, I realize that I could have spent more time reviewing our previous discussion about expectations on the day of the lesson. My mentor also suggested that I develop a system for recording the results of the forms of assessment. I also agreed with that point. I went into the lesson thinking that the two charts that we collectively created and the classroom maps that the students individually created would be enough evidence to assess their understanding. I think that I could have developed a chart to record which students said what, or at the very least, to jot down notes from my individual conferences.
As I mentioned, my general impressions about my lesson focused on management issues rather than content issues. I was surprised to hear that my Penn mentor actually thought that the way I handled the student who was being disruptive was successful. She noted that I:
…privately conferences with disruptive student- asks child to go sit at another table for a short amount of time- student refuses. Anna tells him he will be invited back and student “stomps off” to the table. He sits on floor banging feet. Anna is extremely patient, calm, warm, supportive and nurturing. After a short amount of time, the disruptive student returns to the group. (written observation notes from Penn Mentor)
At the end of the lesson, my Penn Mentor wrote, “disruptive student definitely ‘turns things around’, very cooperative and helpful while working on classroom map”.
I think that I succeeded in making sure every student felt comfortable participating based on the fact that all of the students raised their hands and contributed multiple times. One way that I helped create an environment that encouraged everyone to participate was to record all of the comments in the students’ words without passing judgment. For instance, on our community poster, I wrote down that one student thought communities are a “whole group of something” and that another student knew there was a “library person” in the community. Instead of hinting that the student gave an incorrect or incomplete answer, I asked another student if she could help make his answer more specific (0:50). She said that she thought communities were groups of people (0:59). I also asked the group if anyone knew another name for a “library person”.
Although on the whole I think I did a fairly good job of eliciting students’ thinking and having them elaborate on their initial ideas, during the movie part of my lesson, I shut down opportunities discussion for the sake of time. I now think it was a missed opportunity. One student started calling out and I responded by saying, “We’re not asking questions right now and if you have something you want to say, we raise our hands.” I am slightly ashamed that I told a student not to ask questions. I think had I tried to do less in this particular lesson, I would have been more likely to encourage rather than discourage organic student generated discussion about what they knew about the places on the maps of different parts of Philadelphia.
Looking back on my lesson, I feel satisfied with how my first small group lesson went. I am confident that my students enjoyed creating their own classroom maps. However, I think my lesson was trying to accomplish two separate tasks as a result of my two objectives (creating a lesson about communities and creating a lesson that has a hands-on element). I think that my planning process was focused more on coming up with a hands-on activity about communities than selecting an objective, figuring out how to assess that objective, and designing a lesson to move toward the objective.
I think I would break this lesson into a series of lessons. First, I would focus on examining the different people and places in our classroom community. Then, the next lesson would focus on looking at different maps and having students come up with common attributes that distinguish maps from other images. I think this part is important because looking at the student work makes me think that more scaffolding is necessary. It seems like some students created a drawing rather than a map. There was no discussion of perspective (birds’ eye view) or how maps are different from drawings. Lastly, we would apply our knowledge of the people and places in our community and our understanding of maps to create a map of our classroom community.
I also think that I could try to incorporate some way to disrupt my students’ assumptions or introduce multiple perspectives to make this lesson more meaningful. Although I was happy with this lesson and it met my objectives, I now feel like it was more about creating a product and less about getting my students to think historically or in a different way. I tried to brainstorm ways to use this lesson to introduce different perspectives. I thought about having the students complete the same activity in the classroom where they could see what they were drawing (as opposed to relying on their memory of the classroom like they did in this lesson). Then, the students could look at their own maps and see the difference between creating an artifact from memory and creating an artifact directly from a source. Levstik and Barton (2005) talk about using art artifacts as primary and secondary sources (p. 192). Even though both classroom maps would be artifacts of the same time period, the first classroom map was more of an interpretation about what the students recalled about their classroom.
In terms of aspects of my teaching that I could work on, I think I could create more opportunities to give students the ability to guide discussion instead of asking all the questions. If I had split up the lesson into multiple lessons, I think we would have more time to explore students’ prior knowledge and interests regarding communities. Having less material to cover might have made me feel like I could encourage rather than discourage the organic conversation that the two students began having about different places in the community. I also think that I could work on having clear expectations for student work and being transparent with the students about what I was looking for in the classroom map. For instance, I could have reminded students that I wanted to see at least two people and three places illustrated in their classroom map.
I think that I succeeded in making sure every student felt comfortable participating based on the fact that all of the students raised their hands and contributed multiple times. One way that I helped create an environment that encouraged everyone to participate was to record all of the comments in the students’ words without passing judgment. For instance, on our community poster, I wrote down that one student thought communities are a “whole group of something” and that another student knew there was a “library person” in the community. Instead of hinting that the student gave an incorrect or incomplete answer, I asked another student if she could help make his answer more specific (0:50). She said that she thought communities were groups of people (0:59). I also asked the group if anyone knew another name for a “library person”.
Although on the whole I think I did a fairly good job of eliciting students’ thinking and having them elaborate on their initial ideas, during the movie part of my lesson, I shut down opportunities discussion for the sake of time. I now think it was a missed opportunity. One student started calling out and I responded by saying, “We’re not asking questions right now and if you have something you want to say, we raise our hands.” I am slightly ashamed that I told a student not to ask questions. I think had I tried to do less in this particular lesson, I would have been more likely to encourage rather than discourage organic student generated discussion about what they knew about the places on the maps of different parts of Philadelphia.
Looking back on my lesson, I feel satisfied with how my first small group lesson went. I am confident that my students enjoyed creating their own classroom maps. However, I think my lesson was trying to accomplish two separate tasks as a result of my two objectives (creating a lesson about communities and creating a lesson that has a hands-on element). I think that my planning process was focused more on coming up with a hands-on activity about communities than selecting an objective, figuring out how to assess that objective, and designing a lesson to move toward the objective.
I think I would break this lesson into a series of lessons. First, I would focus on examining the different people and places in our classroom community. Then, the next lesson would focus on looking at different maps and having students come up with common attributes that distinguish maps from other images. I think this part is important because looking at the student work makes me think that more scaffolding is necessary. It seems like some students created a drawing rather than a map. There was no discussion of perspective (birds’ eye view) or how maps are different from drawings. Lastly, we would apply our knowledge of the people and places in our community and our understanding of maps to create a map of our classroom community.
I also think that I could try to incorporate some way to disrupt my students’ assumptions or introduce multiple perspectives to make this lesson more meaningful. Although I was happy with this lesson and it met my objectives, I now feel like it was more about creating a product and less about getting my students to think historically or in a different way. I tried to brainstorm ways to use this lesson to introduce different perspectives. I thought about having the students complete the same activity in the classroom where they could see what they were drawing (as opposed to relying on their memory of the classroom like they did in this lesson). Then, the students could look at their own maps and see the difference between creating an artifact from memory and creating an artifact directly from a source. Levstik and Barton (2005) talk about using art artifacts as primary and secondary sources (p. 192). Even though both classroom maps would be artifacts of the same time period, the first classroom map was more of an interpretation about what the students recalled about their classroom.
In terms of aspects of my teaching that I could work on, I think I could create more opportunities to give students the ability to guide discussion instead of asking all the questions. If I had split up the lesson into multiple lessons, I think we would have more time to explore students’ prior knowledge and interests regarding communities. Having less material to cover might have made me feel like I could encourage rather than discourage the organic conversation that the two students began having about different places in the community. I also think that I could work on having clear expectations for student work and being transparent with the students about what I was looking for in the classroom map. For instance, I could have reminded students that I wanted to see at least two people and three places illustrated in their classroom map.