Today I taught another math lesson. There are a number of
comments I'd like to make, and I think it will be easiest to go through the
lesson chronologically. My one main concern throughout the lesson was
timing, which I continue to work on. This was only the second time I've
used grouping in one of my lessons, and I found that my getting the feel for
timing with groups is much different than with the whole group.
I grouped the students carefully before the lesson, and this helped
that transition run smoothly. They were grouped primarily for behavior
management purposes, as that has been my main focus throughout this placement.
I made sure to split up the students by academic level as well, and
purposely had an even variety within each group. In a few of the groups,
I was going to place certain students by one another. This didn't end up
mattering much when students were with me, but did at the middle table.
In one specific case, I had a low student sitting next to a high one.
It only took a simple suggestion for them to work together for both to
have something meaningful to work on throughout the group rotation. I would love trying a lot of different
grouping. This was an early experience
with is, and I am know there are a lot of great instructional opportunities
based on thoughtful grouping in my future.
I spent a little too long on the math message I think, but I thought
it was great for the students to come up and write the answers themselves.
To shorten the activity, I think I should have chosen fewer numbers to
have them write.
In the beginning of the lesson, I felt I did well with explaining
congruency. When the one student at the middle table didn't understand
and wasn't able to articulate, I think I made the right decision to let the class
move on, then work with him individually. I also thought my decision to
have students who finished earlier than others draw another congruent square in
a different direction was a good one. As students finished, I also told
some of them to use another shape. I didn't want them to use their
templates because it takes less thought to create a congruent shape (it is
already the same size and shape). On both of these points, I found out in
the moment that Mrs. Lance disagreed. This was a little misstep and I'm
not really sure how to have fixed it--I think it was just something that is
bound to happen when working with a host or cooperating teacher. All in
all, it was a small glitch and didn't affect students beyond a small confusion.
One other reason timing was pressed was that I'd thought the
students were able to write decimals already. This was supposed to be a
review activity for them, but it seemed like I was teaching something new.
Another strength I thought I had was when I was explaining this concept,
especially with checking for understanding. I almost felt that I took too
long with it, but I wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page because
they weren't able to work directly with a teacher in that group.
Another strength I felt I had was giving students directions for
transitions. The first transition from the carpet to their tables went
well--getting called by table is a routine they are used to. I was pretty
nervous for the second major one, from their table spots to their group spots.
They did quite well though, and I think part of that was because I had
them stand in certain places before sitting down. I am sure there are
more efficient ways to do a transition like this that I will continue to learn,
however I felt it went smoothly in this instance. The second transition when we switched groups
was a little less smooth. I should have
given a clearer step-by-step instructions and slowed these down. Even so, they were able to get to where they
needed to go, didn’t get unruly, and did it in a timely manner.
During
the first group rotation, I thought I did well having the students go through
the activity, especially at the end when we should have switched groups. I
was expecting to switch earlier and ran out of things ‘planned’ by Everyday
Math. I had ideas for extensions though,
and gave these to the students, which kept them working right up to the
end. One thing I should have done
differently was stopping the whole small group and giving them directions
together. I only ended up saying the
directions twice, but in the future I’d like to keep everyone on the same
page. This might have worked better in
this instance as I had students finishing at different times. I think grouping by level of proficiency
would help this in the future. I had
discussed moving on with Mrs. Lance a little earlier than we did, although she
needed a few more minutes. Because I wasn't sure of when she wanted to
switch, I didn't get in the wrap-up I'd wanted, but I was able to do that better
in the following rotations. Because of timing, our last group was
shortened. The students had a chance to do the activity, but I chose to
cut out a few parts of it. It was much shorter than the rest.
I
also felt that I did well monitoring the middle group during my group work.
This was not at the front of my brain as I started my activity, but once
I remembered, I was able to keep track of them while my group worked. I
made sure to check on them consistently throughout the rest of the lesson, knowing
no teacher was handy to ask questions to when they arose. The students did well at this group, and only
a few were struggling with the decimals.
As
I mentioned earlier, this is only the second time I've used groups. It
was overall a good experience, especially because I had Mrs. Lance to run
another group. It made it easy to plan knowing I had another teacher to
run one of the groups.
Question of the day: How do you set up routines at the
beginning of the year that last throughout the school year?
Mrs. L. and the school follow the responsive classroom
model. The first few weeks of school
have time and activities for building these things written into the
curriculum. She also has a classroom
handbook that she goes over with students.
She mentioned a few things that she finds really helpful within the
responsive classroom activities. The one
she focused most on was creating Y charts.
In these, the students come up with what a certain lesson or type of
activity should look, sound, and feel like.
These are posted in the classroom all year long, and Mrs. L. visits them
when she feels students are forgetting.
I was gratified to see you mixing whole group instruction with small group practice in your math lesson. Truly, and you've heard me say this before, I don't think more than 10% of a day should involve whole group instruction (that includes the daily read aloud, which is probably 5% of the time!). If teachers are using pre-assessments well, they can avoid the trap of teaching to kids who already know the content, right? It's much more challenging to manage a classroom based on assessment-informed organization, but in the end, it's the most satisfying way to teach and to learn.
ReplyDeleteMoving a class into a format that privileges small group instruction takes more than the philosophy, will, and ability to do it. Systemic support is necessary, too. I'd argue, though, that if a teacher uses assessment to differentiate instruction, and she does it purposefully with consistent student engagement, there's no principal in the world who would stop her.
What do you think?