Assigned: Reflection on Summer Lessons
In my evaluations of my first-years' lessons, I would often (less so now, as they've really improved on it) focus on the wording and scope of their objectives. I didn't like harping on such an Ed. School-y thing; I hate the empty jargon and (excessive) obsession with standards that permeates education as much, if not more, than I did last year. But, the past year has taught me that in this position--being a teacher and being in Teacher Corps-- a certain amount of compromise is necessary. I felt like I needed to at least tell my first years how to play the game, whether or not they believed in all of it.
All of that said, when I consider the differences between my most and least successful lessons this summer, one of the clearest distinctions is in the scope (not the wording, which I think I've mostly figured out at this point) of my objectives. On the most-successful side, my lesson on multiple-meaning words was very focused--the students had to show, by the end of the period, that they could use different meanings of the same words. This was probably not a particularly hard objective for my students to master, but I did give them a list of 8th-grade-level vocabulary that they had to use and almost every student made a passing grade. Aside from the objectives, this lesson also offered the students more opportunities for participation. I began the lesson, after my set, by giving students cards with definitions for a multiple-meaning word. The students had to walk around the room and find the other student who had a different definition for the same word. Although this was a pretty hard exercise for most of them, I think they really enjoyed moving around and that it actually helped them conceptualize multiple-meanings.
I would consider my lesson on organizational patterns in texts to be my worst because its objectives were far too broad to cram into two 50 minute periods. I had hoped that students would be able to define each of the five major textual organization patterns (sequential order, order of important, cause & effect, compare & contrast, main idea & details), recognize them in texts and apply that knowledge to reading comprehension. Needless to say, I was far too ambitious. Because I wanted to force so much material into the students' heads, I rushed through my set and explanation of each pattern and set them loose on a group activity that they weren't really prepared for.
Our instructional procedures have worked fairly well. I like making my "Do Now" an engaging, un-intimidating assignment that I can steer towards the day's objective during my set. Sharing answers to the Do Now gets students participating early and sets a good precedent for the rest of the period. In evaluations, I've paid a fair amount of attention to questioning strategies, as much for myself as for my first-years. Frequent questioning, whether as quick informal assessment or to prompt deeper critical thinking, is something I still need to work on, but when I've put in the effort there, it's paid off in engaging the students more.
My shortcut to differentiate instruction--and, admittedly, still perhaps my primary method--is to speak to students individually during assignments and ask them questions or give them more pointed directions: "Look for (blank) in this paragraph and raise your hand when you've found it," or (after asking a student to explain his/her idea aloud) "Write what you just told me." This is a cop-out, of course. I do target the students who I know will have more trouble with an assignment, but it's not really planned out and it's completely unfeasible with larger classes. In terms of more formal differentiation, I've allowed students to choose different roles (leader, reporter, recorder, reader, etc.) during group activities, tried to include more tactile elements in my lessons, and pulled examples or analogies from a wide variety of sources (an illustration of point of view using video games, for example).
Differentiation and informal assessment are my chief concerns right now for improving student performance. My lessons are still auditory-visual-heavy, and I've seen how much of a difference a small tactile or kinetic component can make in an assignment. Informal assessment is still a weak point for me; I think I frequently mistake students' energy for understanding and I can think of several students from our summer school class for whom the two clearly do not correlate.
All of that said, when I consider the differences between my most and least successful lessons this summer, one of the clearest distinctions is in the scope (not the wording, which I think I've mostly figured out at this point) of my objectives. On the most-successful side, my lesson on multiple-meaning words was very focused--the students had to show, by the end of the period, that they could use different meanings of the same words. This was probably not a particularly hard objective for my students to master, but I did give them a list of 8th-grade-level vocabulary that they had to use and almost every student made a passing grade. Aside from the objectives, this lesson also offered the students more opportunities for participation. I began the lesson, after my set, by giving students cards with definitions for a multiple-meaning word. The students had to walk around the room and find the other student who had a different definition for the same word. Although this was a pretty hard exercise for most of them, I think they really enjoyed moving around and that it actually helped them conceptualize multiple-meanings.
I would consider my lesson on organizational patterns in texts to be my worst because its objectives were far too broad to cram into two 50 minute periods. I had hoped that students would be able to define each of the five major textual organization patterns (sequential order, order of important, cause & effect, compare & contrast, main idea & details), recognize them in texts and apply that knowledge to reading comprehension. Needless to say, I was far too ambitious. Because I wanted to force so much material into the students' heads, I rushed through my set and explanation of each pattern and set them loose on a group activity that they weren't really prepared for.
Our instructional procedures have worked fairly well. I like making my "Do Now" an engaging, un-intimidating assignment that I can steer towards the day's objective during my set. Sharing answers to the Do Now gets students participating early and sets a good precedent for the rest of the period. In evaluations, I've paid a fair amount of attention to questioning strategies, as much for myself as for my first-years. Frequent questioning, whether as quick informal assessment or to prompt deeper critical thinking, is something I still need to work on, but when I've put in the effort there, it's paid off in engaging the students more.
My shortcut to differentiate instruction--and, admittedly, still perhaps my primary method--is to speak to students individually during assignments and ask them questions or give them more pointed directions: "Look for (blank) in this paragraph and raise your hand when you've found it," or (after asking a student to explain his/her idea aloud) "Write what you just told me." This is a cop-out, of course. I do target the students who I know will have more trouble with an assignment, but it's not really planned out and it's completely unfeasible with larger classes. In terms of more formal differentiation, I've allowed students to choose different roles (leader, reporter, recorder, reader, etc.) during group activities, tried to include more tactile elements in my lessons, and pulled examples or analogies from a wide variety of sources (an illustration of point of view using video games, for example).
Differentiation and informal assessment are my chief concerns right now for improving student performance. My lessons are still auditory-visual-heavy, and I've seen how much of a difference a small tactile or kinetic component can make in an assignment. Informal assessment is still a weak point for me; I think I frequently mistake students' energy for understanding and I can think of several students from our summer school class for whom the two clearly do not correlate.
posted by LWS at 4:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home