!

SLO Reflection

After I assessed the students individually on their 3D shape identification, I noticed two
commonalities - students were most familiar with the cone shape and students were identifying
other shapes as real-life objects (e.g. naming a cube a box, naming a sphere a ball).By using this
assessment, I was able to gather baseline data as evidence for the students prerequisite
knowledge of 3-dimensional shapes. The baseline information indicated that most of the
students had limited knowledge in 3D shapes, as they struggled to identify the shapes and
describe them using the appropriate vocabulary. Even though a few students could correctly
identify the cones, they could not describe the shape in terms of its attributes. Again, I attributed
this to their lack of familiarity with 3D shapes and the vocabulary needed to discuss about the
shapes. Based on the baseline data,
In the first few days, we reviewed examples of 2D shapes and compared these flat
shapes to shapes that were not flat. Initially, to help students differentiate between 2D and 3D
shapes, I used the method of taping a 2D shape onto the wall and then attempting to do the same
with a 3D shape. Through this demonstration, some students were able to grasp that one shape
could be taped flat on the wall, while the other could not. However, there was still a learning gap
so I needed to think of a different approach in teaching the difference between 2D and 3D. I
reintroduced this problem by using the method of filling the 3D shapes with small objects, and
doing the same with a 2D shape.This new approach helped 100% of the students to understand
the major difference between the two types of shapes. With the foundational knowledge the
students have acquired about 3D shapes, we were able to move on to identifying and describing
the 3D shapes.
The learning objectives identify and describe were integrated throughout all of the
lessons. I introduced the names of the four 3D shapes by reading a book on 3D shapes and
exposing the students to concrete examples labeled as cone, sphere, cylinder, and cube.
The students did have trouble pronouncing the names of the shapes, which, at times, lead them to
use familiar names, although incorrect. So to teach the names of the shapes, I introduced a poem
on 3D shapes; we annotated the poem together by highlighting all the names of the shapes. Then,
I wrote the poem on a chart and kept it visible in the classroom so students had immediate access
 !
to the names of the shapes. Knowing the names of the shapes was just one part to meeting the
learning objectives of the unit plan, and the shape names, in general, were just a few of the
vocabulary words to know.
Learning the vocabulary was, indeed, a challenge, but still an integral part in meeting the
learning objectives. According to the baseline data, 0 out of 17 students could describe the
shapes using geometric vocabulary such as face, edges, vertex, just to name a few. Students gave
generic descriptions of the shapes (e.g. I know this is a cone because it looks like an ice-cream
cone). I used the baseline data to plan for anchor activities that would help students acquire the
vocabulary. One of the anchor activities was the 3D shape game, in which the objective was for
students to identify the shape of the item, and answer the question, How do you know this is a
_____? The anchor activities helped to provide feedback on students learning. Throughout the
different activities, students with limited English proficiency did struggle with the vocabulary
acquisition, which affected their involvement in our class discourse. As the teacher, I needed to
brainstorm how I was going to scaffold the lesson so that all students could describe the shapes.
By modeling with the class how to describe each shape, I was able to scaffold student learning,
as modeling provided the students with an example that they could mimic in their own
discussions about 3D shapes. Providing sentence stems was also a way that I differentiated
lessons, as well as labeling the parts for each teacher-created 3D shape with limited English
proficiency. Also, when I assessed for shape identification in the post-assessment, our ELL
students were given concrete 3D shapes with labels in which they could point to.
The data also informed the way I used language in the classroom. I embedded the
geometric vocabulary in our our everyday language. For example, when referring to familiar
items in our classroom, we would say, Lets play with our spheres that have no flat surfaces. I
relied on teaching the vocabulary in context than rely on isolated memorization. The students
constant exposure to spoken and written vocabulary through our various planned activities help
tremendously. In the post assessment, interview, students described the 3D shapes according to
their attributes using the following vocabulary - flat surface, curved surface, face. At the same
time, learning the vocabulary increased the students involvement in discourse about 3D shapes.
But perhaps, one of the key factors, was embedding the vocabulary in our our everyday
 !
language. So when referring to familiar items in our classroom, we would say, Lets play with
our spheres that have no flat surfaces. The students constant exposure to spoken and written
vocabulary through our various planned activities help tremendously. Students described the 3D
shapes according to their attributes using the following vocabulary - flat surface, curved surface,
face. At the same time, learning the vocabulary improved the students involvement in our
classroom discourse.
I did make changes to the formative assessments I had originally planned to use. I
replaced the Stepping Stones Student Journals from modules 7.6, 8.5, and 8.6 with interviews. I
decided to conduct interviews in replace of the students journals to provide a more effective
approach in gathering information of students current knowledge and skills specific to the
learning objectives Through interviews, students were able to describe the three-dimensional
shapes verbally and apply the appropriate vocabulary in context, which they would not have
been able to do with the Student Journals. Interviews also helped students to demonstrate their
learning. In meeting with individual students, some of them asked to demonstrate how they knew
cubes have flat surfaces, or faces, by stacking them up and explaining. Again, Student
Journals have limited students choice in demonstrating their knowledge.
In the post-assessment data, the students scored proficient on the rubric. The post-
assessment data shows that all students made significant improvements since the baseline
assessment. Each student met their learning targets. All 17 students progressed one proficiency
level for identifying and describing the four 3D shapes.