Evidence 1. STEM Lesson PlanThrough a collaboration with the science education department at Virginia Tech, I worked with four biology education students to write and present an engineering design lesson that incorporated both biology and algebra I standards. In this lesson, students were tasked with developing a natural filter that would lower the turbidity (transparency level of water) of water in the Duck Pond, a local body of water. To do so, students investigated slopes of various filters (representing the grade of certain locations) and modeling practical situations with equations.
This evidence relates to Standard 3 because I worked with others to create an environment that supported individual and collaborative learning. This lesson was designed as a group activity in which students would be working with their peers to design the filters. It shows I engage students in collaborative learning. In addition, at the end of the lesson, students wrote individual reflections about their filter design and what improvements they would make based on the presentations from other groups. This engaged them in individual learning activities as well. Each part of the lesson plan indicates the time each task will take, what the teacher is doing, and what the students are doing. This detailed planning shows that I can create a smoothly functioning learning community for students to engage in individual and cooperative learning activities. This lesson also encouraged positive social interaction among students. We designed a rubric for how students would be graded on their group’s presentation. This rubric laid out clear expectations for appropriate interactions among students. In addition, the majority of this lesson required students to be collaborating with one another, but we also incorporated some individual assessments, such as the written reflection, to ensure equitable opportunities for student engagement in productive tasks. We held every student accountable for participating in their group and gave them the opportunity to show their own individual growth throughout the lesson. The real-world application in this lesson shows my ability to have students actively engaged in learning and provide self-motivation. The students received a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency at the beginning of class introducing them to the problem and providing motivation for the lesson. The teacher actions laid out in the lesson plan indicate that the teacher is actively involved in modeling enthusiasm for and engagement in learning by hooking students with a relatable problem and engaging them in interactive and exploratory tasks. Providing this problem for students to develop a solution for gave them motivation for the task as well. This evidence is important to me because it shows my ability to collaborate with others and explore innovative lesson planning strategies to design engaging activities for students. Our group’s main focus throughout the planning process was finding a balance between the science and mathematics standards to implement a successful lesson. We ran into many roadblocks, including Probeware that was not working, but persisted on and developed a lesson that all five of us were proud and excited to present to faculty. |
Evidence 2. Quadratics Polygraph ActivityIn this lesson I had students interacting with one another in an online polygraph in Desmos. They were asking one another questions to determine which quadratic graph from a set had been selected by their partner. In between rounds, students answered questions about the types of vocabulary they were using and which questions were the most effective.
This evidence relates to Standard 3 because it shows that I support individual and collaborative learning within the classroom. As students are working with their partner, they are engaged in a cooperative learning activity and in between rounds, while answering questions, they are engaged in an individual learning activity. This lesson also shows that I encourage positive social interaction. In this activity, students are auto-assigned a partner by the desmos program and are given specific instructions about the types of questions to ask and how to respond to their peers. This shows that I give clear expectations for appropriate interactions among students. In this lesson, I anonymize the student’s names in the Desmos program so that each student gets assigned the name of a famous mathematician. In this way, I am incorporating principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination into classroom management. By not allowing students to know who they are working with, I am providing a platform for quieter students, who may not be comfortable openly sharing their ideas to feel free to collaborate with their peers and have the same opportunity to engage in the mathematics without the fear of rejection by their peers. In addition, anonymizing the names puts the focus back on the mathematics students are discussing and ensures that there will be no discrimination among students in the activity. This evidence is important to me because in this lesson students were actively engaged and excited about the activity. They got very excited when they guessed the correct graph and were asking questions rich with mathematical vocabulary. I think that my own excitement in this activity was noticed by the students and they really took hold of the activity. I did this lesson on a day that the students took an English SOL in the morning and I think that having a high level of engagement showed that even on the days when my students are tired and do not want to work I can create lessons that encourage active engagement in learning. |
Evidence 3. "Attack" Review GameThis lesson plan was a review day before students took a test on polynomial operations, including classifying, adding, subtracting, and multiplying polynomials. In the second part of the lesson, students were divided into teams of four and I led them in a game called “Attack.” In this game, students each had a castle their team leader drew on the board. When it was their team’s turn, they answered questions correctly to “attack” another team’s castle but had their own castle “attacked” if they got the question wrong.
This lesson is a good example of my ability to encourage active engagement in learning. Every student in the room was working on the problems and helping out their teammates to make sure they got the questions right. My own excitement in trying out a new game modeled the enthusiasm my students showed by the end of class as well. At the beginning of the class, I asked students to send one representative up to the board. Once students were at the board, I then had them draw their castles. Students were shouting out suggestions to their teammate and everyone was excited about the game. One group even drew a dragon with their castle! Since this was the first time the students played the game, I left quite a few of the instructions out until after the students had drawn their castles. I left the game as a mystery until we were all ready to play to keep students hooked. This lesson is important to me because it shows my ability to engage my students in learning activities and encourage them to respect themselves and others. During the game, I created many rules that ensured students could not all target one group’s castle. The students did a great job showing respect for their peers while also getting excited about the game. Once the castles were on the board, I did not write any identifying characteristics with them to let them know whose castle each was. In this way, many of the students also forgot which teams they were choosing to “attack.” This kept the focus on reviewing the mathematics concepts and there were no hard feelings when groups chose to “attack” the castles. I have had students request this game almost every week since we first played. They absolutely loved the game and I will have to play it again with them on another review day! |