Running head: CONNECTED LESSON

Formal and CT Observation 2 Reflection

Jennifer Giambrone
University of South Florida
College of Education
EDE 4944

Running head: CONNECTED LESSON

Table of Contents
Planning3
Pre-assessment..4
Teaching
Day One5-7
Day Two.8-9
Final Reflection9-11

Running head: CONNECTED LESSON

Planning/Pre-assessment
Planning
Differentiated Instruction varied instructional methods to try and meet the multiple
intelligences in the classroom.
CollaborationStudents will scaffold and challenge each other to deepen their thoughts
and reflective practices. Teacher-student and student-student collaboration will be
encouraged and required throughout the lesson.
Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development Asking scaffolded questions to help
comprehend/grasp the information.
Culturally responsive classroom Valuing every persons opinion and thoughts equally.
Encouraging all students to share their comments, as long as they are pertinent to the
discussion and answering the essential classroom.
Classroom Management Cleary stating and maintaining behaviors in the classroom.
Utilizing the management plan in place my the classroom teacher, which is the assertive
discipline model. The students are offered rewards for desirable behaviors and have
consequences for undesirable behaviors.
ConsistencyMaking sure to remain consistent with all students.
Professional Development The teacher will utilize feedback given from the supervisor
and collaborating teacher on ways to classroom management in the classroom and any
other areas that could benefit improvement. The teacher will be open to receive the
constructive criticism as means of growing and molding her teaching
philosophy/pedagogy. The teacher will collect data to inform the instruction for day one
and two and will be open to flexibility based on the data and student needs.

Running head: CONNECTED LESSON

Pre-assessment
The pre-assessment utilized for this connected lesson was data collected from the
CTs inference lesson before this lesson was to be implemented. The teacher gave each
table group a scenario and asked them to form an inference from the information the text
provided them and what they knew from their own experiences. Although the students
were allowed to work independently, the students had to choose one inference card to
explain what inference they formed and how they came to that conclusion. The students
were expected support the inference they formed with evidence from the text. Their
writing response was also reviewed for S.W.A.G (students attention to conventions in
writing).
Table group A and C worked collaboratively when identifying the remaining
cards together. Members were supportive of one another and always willing to clarify
misunderstanding from a group member. Table group B worked more independently,
asking few questions of one another. They each took a small stack of inference cards and
wrote down their answers. There was one card that they collaborated on, because the
inference was not so cut and dry. Overall, the students demonstrated mastery of the
content with 13 out 14 students proving that they could find an inference in brief text
such as these inference scenario cards. The one student who did not get counted for
demonstrating mastery was Matias, because he decided to exclude himself from the
group and not do anything. Even with prompting from the classroom teacher and myself,
he was very resistant to work. I wanted to sit down with him and show him that I was
there to support him, but the classroom teacher told me to let him be until he was ready
to work.

Running head: CONNECTED LESSON

Teaching
Day One: During the first day of my lesson plan implementation, I quickly realized that
the students were not prepared with the necessary background knowledge on the
Seminole Tribe in Florida. This was learned during the preliminary, informal questions
before starting the book. I asked the questions to refresh the information in the students
heads. During which time, I learned that the students had no recollection of who the
Seminole Tribe was or where they settled in the United States. Instead of doing a quick
recap and going straight into the book, I spent the majorityof the already shortened
timeto try and give the students some background knowledge to help them be able to
keep up with the book. My goal in doing this was to make my lesson interdisciplinary
and connect it with reading, writing, and social studies.
Instead of doing this, I should have focused on the district-provided inference
lesson that the school district provided my classroom teacher with. In which case, I would
have taught days two and three of the weekly, scaffolded lessonwhich is also important
to mention. Not only were my students getting an inference lesson from me, the
classroom teacher taught them the inference lesson from the basal text at the beginning of
the class (so they wouldnt fall behind). She used the same memory tricks that I was
going to teach them and even let them work with the game that I planned to use during
my lesson for review. Therefore, my students basically received the same core lesson
twice. The main difference is the story the classroom teacher used had been explained
and backup with informational knowledge and mine had not.
The forms of data collection that I used during this lesson were: recording the
lesson, anecdotal notes, teacher feedback, supervisor feedback, and an exit ticket for the
students. All of these were utilized to help me instruct me lesson plan implementation. As

Running head: CONNECTED LESSON

stated above, the informal questions asked at the beginning of the lesson were

documented as anecdotal notes to indicate the students lack of background knowledge of

the Seminole Tribe. Therefore, I was not able to move forward in the lesson and maintain
the same content expectations without trying to provide more information to the students.
This change and minimalistic, crash course on the tribe was an indicator of teacher
flexibility and assumption. I had to be flexible and modify the lesson, because I
proceeded with a lesson based on assumption.
Another type of formative assessment that I relied heavily on were the exit tickets
the students were asked to complete before switching classes. The reason I noted the
switching classes in my description was due to the environment change and rush at the
end of the class period. The students had to quickly fill out the exit tickets, get their
agenda signed, and pack up their belongings. This could have been a factor in the
students demonstration of mastery. Out of the fourteen students I had in class at this
time, there was one student who formed an inference, three students who indicated
comprehension of text-based information, and ten students who merely stated a fact or
thought about Betty Mae Jumper. As evident below, the students did not mastery the
content of the lesson. Based on the exit tickets and the conversations, the students pulled
from what they heard or remembered from the story. If anything, the background
information I tried to add to the day ones lesson confused the students more than helped
them understand the story.
Exit Ticket

# of

Formed an

Almost formed an Inference (lacked

Did Not Form an

Inference

background knowledge)

Inference

10

Running head: CONNECTED LESSON

Students

By disaggregating the data, I found a trend that if I were to review the exit tickets
based on the ethnicities of my students. The one student who formed and inference and
the three students who were close to developing an inference were all African American
(referring back to the demographics provided to the classroom teacher). On their exit
tickets, they noted the challenges and obstacles Betty Mae Jumper had to overcome to
make something of herself and her people. My student (M) who formed an inference
made the connection of her standing up for her rights and beliefs much like Dr. Martin
Luther King. I found this interesting, because both ethnicities (as well as many more)
have been oppressed in the United States. She may not have been fully equipped with
background knowledge on the Seminole Tribe, but she pulled her inference from the text
and her schema on the oppression and civil rights movement.

Running head: CONNECTED LESSON

Day Two: After reviewing the recording of the lesson, analyzing the data, and reflecting
on what happened during the lesson, I realized that pursuing my planned lesson plan
would be more detrimental to their understanding than beneficial. I had a conversation
with my supervisor and CT to figure out the best course of action. My CT made the
comment that if I did her lessons (from the basal text) the students would be prepared and
understand the story more. Another benefit of using the basal text story was the students
wouldnt have to go through two of the same lessons again. So this is how I modified my
lesson to respond to the data that I collected the day before.
On day two, we picked up the third day of the basal text lesson on inference
formation using the play Invasion from Mars. To model fluency and how to read play
lines to the students, I read the play aloud to the whole class. I showed the students the
parts of the texts that were just cues to the actor/actress and the parts that were supposed
to be said to the audience. After reading two-thirds of the text, the students had to then
take on the responsibility of reading the remainder. Adding the reading element in the
lesson was to help prepare students for reading aloud plays in the classroom in the future.
After they finished reading the play, they were to answer two questions in their
readers notebooks. The two questions (provided by the Hillsborough County Lesson
Plan) were: At what part did you use visualizing to help you understand a character in
Invasion from Mars? and How might someone who listened to the play from the
beginning react differently from some who turned in late? Out of the fourteen students in
the class, eleven students answered both questions correctly by supporting their answered
with text-based evidence and identifying key elements. Two students answered the first
questions correctly, but they did not finish the second. The last student was my student

Running head: CONNECTED LESSON

who is resistant to do work in general. I got him to write some information down, but it
was not the correct answer. To make sure that he understood the information, I conversed
with him and asked him scaffolded questions. During conversation, he was able to
identify the desired information.
Final Reflection
This lesson caused me a great deal of torment and doubt. Going into the lesson, I
was excited for everything I had planned. I knew there would be a lot of information for
the students to have to absorb, so I made sure to bring in a review game to break up the
monotony. I had an inference video prepared, just to make sure the students understood
how to find an inference. I found an animated one to make it more relatable and
enjoyable for them. By the time I had my pre-conference with my supervisor for the
lesson, I was excited and eager to see how my students responded to the information and
activities planned.
Little did I know how many obstacles would get in my way the next day. I
received a text message from my CT that my time would have to be moved; because, the
writing teacher decided to use that time to prepare the students for their Tropicana
Speeches. Naturally, this made everything a little more difficult. The only time allotment
left was the thirty minutes before the students were to switch classes. As soon as walked
into the classroom, my CT told me that she had yet to review my lesson plan. Right then
and there, she skimmed it and told me she was teaching the same lesson from the basal
text. I was taken a back, because she told me specifically to teach inference for my
lesson. I sent her the lesson ahead time and everything.

Running head: CONNECTED LESSON

10

Because she had already planned the lesson, so she was going to teach. As she
was teaching and I was using the grazing cooperative teaching strategy, I realized her
lesson plan and mine were starting to hit the same points. At the end, she even borrowed
the review game that I brought as a way to wrap up her lesson for the students. With the
students conceptualized being the focus, I was naturally completely fine with this change
in pace. I was, however, a little nervous how my students were going to respond to a
lesson that was so similar and now lacking the game review. When the students started
doing their independent work, she told me that I shouldnt show the video, read the whole
story, and have to go too detailed with the history element of the Seminole Tribe (because
they were prepared).
Basically, none of these things were accurate when it came time to
implementation. The students did not have the necessary background knowledge to be
successful, and they were still fuzzy on inference (which could have been a result of too
much teacher-directed instruction). The lessons I learned through this experience was to
always make sure that I remain accountable for the things that I am teaching my students.
Even though ideally it would have been nice for collaboration with the CT, the fault falls
solely on me. I should not have taken everything at face value. I feel like I let my students
down and confused them more than helped them (as evidenced by the data collected).
The other valuable lesson I learned was the importance of data collection and flexibility.
If it werent for the quantifiable evidence of the exit notes and summative assessments, I
would not have known for sure the depth of my students confusion. Each of them were
highly engaged in the discussion, so that is what my anecdotal notes reads. However,

Running head: CONNECTED LESSON

11

those notes cannot possibly identify students levels of mastery merely from a whole
class discussion.
It was because of this data that I was able to prepare the next days lesson. Instead
of sticking to my original plan, I decided to pick up on day three of the CTs lesson plan
because the students were prepared and familiarized with the text. Day two was much
better than day one, because I did not look out into the faces of my students and see
confusion. My students were able to answer inference and comprehension questions on
the text. They had background knowledge from movies and the media. They were
interested in the topic. All of these things are key to successful lessons. As the teacher, I
need to make sure that my students interests and background knowledge is being
incorporated. Trying to complete multiple assignments at a time left me open for
disappointment within the lesson. The students relied on me to make the history lesson
fun, and instead, I floundered from the stress of the obstacles. The stress was evident in
my demeanor. I am just wholeheartedly grateful that I have such a good rapport with my
students that they struggled with me and gave me the best they could under the
circumstances. Key lesson: be comfortable with everything you teach. If you doubt it,
how are you supposed to get your students to believe it?