Back to Back Lessons

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to teach two short lessons that I planned and designed to a select group of my classmates.  After the completion of each of my lessons, I was given critical feedback by each of my classmates that would allow me to be better prepared for my next lesson.  I have linked my Lesson Plan, Time Chart, and the assessments I recieved as evidence here.  My lesson plan and time chart clearly outline the goals and focusing questions that I aimed my teaching towards.  The assessments I recieved provided me with which methods worked for my students and which I need to improve upon.

I was looking to complete and meet the requirments of the following PCs:

Performance Criterion 3.1: Candidates design learning environments that support individual learning marked by active engagement.

Performance Criterion 3.2: Candidates design learning environments that support collaborative learning marked by positive social interaction.

Performance Criterion 7.1: Candidates plan instruction by drawing upon knowledge of content areas to meet rigorous learning goals.

Performance Criterion 8.2: Candidates use a variety of instructional strategies to encourage learners to build skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.

I believe that my lesson plan incorporates many aspects that would meet the standard of PC 3.1, yet I do not feel that I fully encompassed the ideal of active engagement.  I need to adjust my activities to better facilate my students, which is reflected in one of my peer assessments.  PC 3.2 was met by both my lesson plan and in the positive feedback I recieved in weaving my lesson with interaction between myself and my students.  I did not fully complete all of PC 7.1 as I did not meet the learning goals I had set in my plan, according to peer assessment and from my own self assessment.  Finally, PC 8.2 was fulfilled as my plan involved placing knowledge and skills from the lesson into the present through quotes and contrast and comparison of ideas.

I feel that my lessons included information that pertained and keyed in on my focus questions, however I am not completely satisfied with my performance.  I felt that the latter part of my first lesson did not convey the information in an engaging way to my students.  My activity for that lesson was also not as interactive as I planned it to be.  However, I took this knowledge forward into my second lesson and refined my second lesson's activity to better captivate my students and engage their thinking and reflections.  The assessments I recieved for my first lesson demonstrated that I had to better focus my direction for my second lesson.  This proved effective as I rearranged some aspects of my second lesson to ensure that my focus question had the ability to be answered by my students.

From this experience, I learned how effective my teaching strategy was, but also that I need to work with better communicationing my intentions to my students from the start of my lesson.  As this was my first lesson that I planned, designed, and taught, I know that I have room for improvement in both my preparation and my lesson design.  My first lesson was too broad in some areas, yet I know I will be able to perfect this skill with my future lessons.  Literacy and Cirriculum prepared me for these teaching episodes by teaching me that lessons must be multifaceted in both their design and approach in order to appeal to all students.  They also taught me how to plan backwards so that all my goals and standards are met before I begin creating a lesson.