EDSC 6359: LESSON #2 REFLECTION

This reflection is written in fulfillment of requirement for EDSC 6359 (Teaching Secondary Science) course at Seattle Pacific University and refers to the lesson #2 that had to be gradually developed over the period of several weeks using constructive and appropriate instructor and peer feedback, then later presented, and reflected upon. The format of this lesson #2 reflection for electrochemistry unit is different from the other two for lessons #1 and 3 where I reflected on alignment to the HOPE standards of Seattle Pacific University. Please, go to the following links if you want to read more about lesson #1 and 3 from the same unit:

https://andriyashcho.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/edsc-6359-lesson-1-reflection/https://andriyashcho.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/edsc-6359-lesson-3-reflection/

In this reflection I address three specific questions (each one is typed in bold font) and provide my thoughts on the lesson in specific details.

1. What worked best about your lesson?

In my lesson I emphasized the importance of collaborative student work and as a result the lesson is structured in such a way so that students have plenty of opportunities to work with their partners rather than on their own. For example, the first time when students collaborate during the lesson is when they think about how the learning targets and standards might be related to redox reactions while the teacher stamps the worksheets. Second instance of collaboration takes place when students balance the half-reaction involving the change in the oxidation number of permanganate ion (MnO4- (aq) Mn2+ (aq)). The third collaboration takes place when the students balance the half-reaction that deals with the conversion of formic acid into carbon dioxide (HCOOH (aq) CO2 (g)). After this students collaborate for the fourth time when they need to add the previous two reactions together in order to get the overall redox reaction consisting of two half-reactions. Lastly, students collaborate for the fifth time when they balance the reaction between iron (III) oxide and hypochlorite ion (Fe(OH)3 (aq) + OCl-

(aq) FeO42- (aq) + Cl- (aq)).

The lesson gives students enough opportunities for collaborative work in order to enhance peer-to-peer relationships. Goldenberg (2013) notes that in classrooms teachers should use the approaches that exploit the benefits of peer tutoring and extensive cooperative learning because this raises levels of student engagement and facilitate positive interactions among them. Substantial body of research supports these suggestions (Brigham, Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2011; Causton-Theoharis, 2009; Denton, 2012; Kalis, Parker & Vannest, 2007; Miller & Hall, (n.d.); Lewis & Doorlag, 2011; Rosenshine, 2012, Zambo, 2010). During this lesson students collaborate and display more interest in work as the previously cited research indicates. The collaborative approach to assignments, projects, and other activities is especially effective and beneficial for special education students who benefit the most from these class settings.

2. What did you change to make your lesson better? (Be specific: how did you change it / what

did you do differently, and why?).

In my lesson I added the instance where the teacher asks students if there is a need to slow down the pace of the lesson. The teacher then asks students to extend 4-5 fingers if they feel they go OK along the lesson, and fewer fingers if they are not OK with the lesson pace. Then the students are asked to share with the teacher why they extended fewer fingers. This informal assessment allows the teacher to adapt the lesson to meet the needs of students. What is also important here is that this cue allows the students to express their thoughts verbally and own the class time. This gives them a sense of control of the flow of class.

3. What well do you feel you met the RTOP criteria? Support your answer with examples from your lesson / teaching?

There are a total of 25 RTOP criteria in the protocol that could be used for lesson adjustment and adaptation (Piburn & Sawada, 2000). I feel that lesson #2 has met the number of the RTOP criteria very well. Specifically, this lesson is built on the preceding lesson, so here the reference and use of student prior knowledge is particularly critical in that learners will not be able to balance redox reactions without first learning how to balance redox half-reactions (reflected in criterion #1). The lesson start was engaging in that the students had to watch a spectacular and interesting redox process of oxidation of iron which sparkles their interest in the content of this lesson (CrazyRussianHacker, 2014). This is reflected well on the second RTOP criterion. In this lesson the use of symbolic representation such as chemical redox half-reactions is strongly encouraged and emphasized, so the criteria #9 was met well too. This lesson also ends with reflective and self-rating activity that is started at the end of the lesson in class and finished at home where students are given the opportunity to cognitively reflect and process what they have learned and to rate their confidence on their standing, so the 14th criterion was met well as well. The same level of lesson standing applies to the 15 th

criterion where the intellectual rigor is emphasized by the lesson content: it is a lesson for AP chemistry course and the concepts are comparatively intellectually challenging. The 16th criterion was met well too because of the plenty of opportunities for students to communicate their ideas to their partners when they do the lesson activities in a collaborative manner together. 18th criterion is very relevant and was met well too because when students work on their lesson activities together they can talk a lot among themselves in their groups, which in this lesson was encouraged to a particularly high extent.

There are, however, ways to improve this lesson. This includes criterion #4 where alternative modes of investigation could possibly be considered for problem solutions. However, it should be noted that this particular concept of balancing redox reactions by the half-reaction method involves following the strict protocol of specific steps in order to accomplish the balancing process correctly (Silberberg, 2000). It is interesting that other sequence of the outlined steps mostly likely will lead to incorrect answers. Similar process applies to the 22nd criterion where students could have been generating alternative solution strategies, but as it was noted it is impossible to apply alternative sequence of steps for balancing because it will lead to incorrect answer. The 5th criterion was not met at all because of the nature of the lesson: the structure was already largely predetermined and had the student ideas were sought in the lesson its course might have been changed. However, it should be noted that much less of the actual skill of balancing might be mastered and fewer activities could otherwise be completed. There is also a significant room for improvement on the 10 th RTOP criterion since there were no connections to other disciplines. This time the lesson presented the application of redox reactions in general but it was not specific and it was unclear how these could relate or be connected to other disciplines. During this lesson the students did not make any predictions, estimations, or hypotheses but it could be explained by the lesson structure and focus. Specifically, only the mastery of specific skill was targeted because it is important for future topics within the electrochemistry unit.

The other RTOP criteria that were not mentioned above were met more or less well by this lesson. Overall, I would say that this is a comparatively successful lesson but it could be tweaked, tailored, and improved for even better performance. The main concern with this, however, is time because my impression is that the lesson is very densely packed but only lasts for 55 minutes. Had it been a block period more could be refined, achieved, and changed without sacrificing the main goal of the lesson: achieving the mastery of balancing the redox reactions by a half-reaction method.

In this reflection I am also including the old version of the lesson, which could be accessed by downloading the Word document with the reflection text and scans of the printed lesson with my writing on it. The document could be found at the end of this reflection after the references section.

References

Silberberg, M. S. (2000). Chemistry: The molecular nature of matter and change. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). Retrieved March 4, 2016, from http://www.lmu.edu/Assets/Centers $!2b Institutes/Center for Teaching Excellence/ROTP.pdf

CrazyRussianHacker (4 January, 2016). Steel Wool Sparkles – Science Experiment. Retrieved January 29 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuwlEz49LTI

Brigham, F. J., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2011). Science education and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), pp. 223-232. Retrieved from https://bbweb-prod.spu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_81970_1&content_id=_986960_1

Denton, C. A. (2012). Response to Intervention for Reading Difficulties in the Primary Grades: Some Answers and Lingering Questions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 233-236. doi: 10.1177/0022219412442155

Goldenberg, C. (2013).  Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know – and don’t yet know – about effective instruction.  American Educator, 37(2). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1014021

Kalis T. M., Parker R., & Vannest K. J. (2007). Praise counts: using self-monitoring to increase effective teaching practices. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 20-27. Retrieved from https://bbweb-prod.spu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_81970_1&content_id=_986961_1

Miller, G. & Hall T. (n.d.). Classroom Management. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum, 10-12. Retrieved from https://bbweb-prod.spu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_81970_1&content_id=_986956_1

Lewis, R. B. & Doorlag, D. H. (2011). Collaboration and team approach. Teaching students with special needs in general education classrooms (p. 31). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 12-19, 39. Retrieved from https://bbweb-prod.spu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_81970_1&content_id=_986956_1

Causton-Theoharis, J. N. (2009). The Golden Rule of Providing Support in Inclusive Classrooms: Support Others as You Would Wish to Be Supported. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(2), 36-43. Retrieved from https://bbweb-prod.spu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_81970_1&content_id=_986959_1

Zambo, D. (2010). Strategies to Enhance the Social Identities and Social Networks of Adolescents Students With Disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(2), 28-35. Retrieved from https://bbweb-prod.spu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-987093-dt-content-rid-1907523_1/courses/EDSP6644_7917201451/Self-determination%20and%20Adolescents.pdf