Ellesse Jirau-Spadoni

Reflection/ Supervisor Observation #2

In my lesson I had to implement the process of the lesson differently than

what I originally planed. Originally the students were supped to be conducting
the lab in 4 groups of students. The reason for the change because as I was
preparing the materials for the lab, I noticed that one there was not enough
materials available for all the groups in the class. Having 2 large groups would
have been chaotic! The second reason I chose to adjust the implementation of
the lesson was because the steel wool was more delicate than we expected and
gave one of the other teachers a splinter, and for safety we felt that it was best
that the students not touch the steal wool. So, the alternative was that I used the
ELMO to place the cups for the lab on, and it was projected on the board. This
was very effective because not only could the students see the cups originally
from their seats, nevertheless they could now see inside the cups by looking at
the board (projected from the ELMO).
If I were to teach this same lesson to this same group of students again I
would come up with more hands on, although several students had the
opportunity to come up and partake in the lab with me I would have liked
everyone to have a hand/job in the lab. I think it is important to involve the
students in the labs even if they are whole group, because ultimately that is the
essences of the lab, being exploratory and hands on. I think I would keep a lot of

this lesson the same because after desegregating my data the lab proved to be
very effective and the students enjoyed the lab a lot.
In my lesson I was very surprised at the engagement level, it was
wonderful! I did not fear that the students would be unengaged but I was happily
surprised at how engaged and enthusiastic they were about the lab. The
students were excited to find out what would happen to the steel wool and they
took very detailed notes/ observations (I included copies of work below). I
connected this lesson in my course work, in my connected lessons where I
referenced an article by Gorski called Building a pedagogy of engagement for
students in poverty. I always have high expectation for my class and I want to
always include their interests, cultures, and strengths in all my lessons. I use
TPR (total physical response) frequently in my lessons and this is else something
Gorski recommends. Just because some of my students may be considered
poverty level does not mean I will be holding them to a lower standard when I
know they are capable of much more. I connected this wonderful article in my
lesson by also making real world connections. I know that many of my students
have bikes, perhaps they leave them outside and they were able to relate this to
the rust in the lab! I think the key point is getting to know your students and
planning accordingly to their needs, and interests.
After reviewing my students work I was able to see that I have many
students who excelled in this content. I also had some who are in the area of
understanding but are still having trouble with the identification of different
variables. For an example, knowing on the lab that the cup with no steel wool

and only water would have a constant variable, because there is no wool to rust.
But on the other had we had the cup in which we are manipulating the variable
by placing the test tube upside down and trapping the air in by the water. For my
next lesson which is connected to this lesson we will discuss more about the
changes that occur to matter, we will review variables and changes in further
detail rather than just rust. I plan to use real world examples, which the students
seem to relate to best. As well as using TPR (total physical response) activates
to engage the students. In the second lesson I have already been able to
distinguish which particular students may need reinforcement, and which
students are excelling and this can help for some peer assistance.

DATA BELOW:

This is my desegregated data from lesson one/ day one

(this will help me to plan for day 2/ lesson 2)

This is example of student work for the lab:

References:
Gorski, P. (2013, September 1). Building a Pedagogy of Engagement for Students in Poverty. Phi Delta
Kappan.