Science Lesson Plans: Introduction and Reflections

Introduction to Selected Lessons:

I have selected three science lesson plans to represent my experience with science instruction.

Lesson Plan I: Chemical Risks Field Trip

This lesson, a 5E plan for a chemical risks field trip, was given to an eighth grade science class in the fall of 2008. Working in cooperative learning groups, students applied their recently learned knowledge of chemical exposure and risk to a scenario involving a sick student on a class field trip.

Lesson Plan II: Water Quality Remediation

I created this plan after reviewing student lab summaries from a water quality lab. It was clear from student responses that more time needed to be spent on water quality. This lesson utilized direct instruction, class discussion, and cooperative learning groups to remediate water quality information. This lesson then allowed students to further apply this knowledge to new data collected during a field trip.

Lesson Plan III: Twizzler Mitosis

The majority of my student teaching experiences were with the 5E lesson plan model. However, in the summer of 2008, I took Education 314: Reading and Writing in the Content Area where I spent time working with ELL students in the summer school program. I found this class to be extremely helpful in working with both ELLs and traditional students as science vocabulary can be challenging and can act as a barrier to student success. During my student teaching, my team had the inclusion students and another team had the ELLs. Still, I felt this SIOP model lesson plan was important to include. The lesson plan itself was condensed and taught as a mini lesson to college students. I would love to do this lesson with eighth grade students but realize that a healthier less sugary alternative to twizzlers should be utilized.

Reflection:

The following reflection was written after the students completed a water quality lab. It was this reflection that led me to write the water quality remediation lesson plan. The reflection follows a format provided by my university supervisor.

Student Teacher’s Reflection Record, September 27, 2009:

1. Describe: First, students took a CPS (remote clicker) quiz on watershed terminology. Then, as a class, we briefly reviewed water quality characteristics, how each is tested for, and acceptable levels of each characteristic for healthy water. After this review, water quality lab sheets were handed out, and I gave a short demonstration to determine dissolved oxygen levels and temperature of the three different waters students would be testing in the lab. Students recorded the information on their lab sheets. After I assigned new lab group roles, student groups began the water quality assessment lab. Following completion of the lab, groups worked to write conclusions (whereupon they had to determine which sample had the best quality of water and explain why).

2. Analyze: The CPS quiz was a good assessment of their understanding of watershed terminology. After each question, I addressed any misconceptions that students had that led them to choose the incorrect answer. There were aspects of the lab that worked quite well. Students were very engaged on on-task. They worked well in their groups, were able to follow the modeling I had done on testing the water quality characteristics, and were successfully able to complete the lab.

3. Appraise: Two major problems occurred during the lab. First, during the D.O. demonstration, I was supposed to manipulate the data to have high levels in one sample, intermediate levels in another sample, and low levels in another sample. I was more concerned with working the equipment and showing what I was doing on the overhead projector to the students than I was with falsifying the data. SO, the data that was measured by the D.O. probe, that I gave the students is the exact opposite of what it should be. This caused much confusion when students were trying to determine the best water sample. Secondly, even though there were written instructions provided to the students on what was expected in their conclusion paragraphs, I did not verbally explain in explicit detail what was needed from them. Furthermore, students had to finish their conclusions for homework and turn them into homeroom (because of the fieldtrip) if they did not finish, so many were rushing to complete them. I took the lab data/conclusions home on Thursday night and they were a mess! Some students had written a sentence and only looked at a few characteristics, not all of them. I determined from the write-ups that the flipped data had led to much confusion. I did not feel comfortable grading them as I felt responsible for the low grades that students would receive. Needless to say, I will be remediating Monday - students will be given their lab sheets back and will be told to correct the D.O. and what I expect in their conclusion paragraphs.

4. Transform: I learned that labs are great tools to keep students engaged and on-task, but students this age still require a lot of structure (modeling and explicit verbal instruction). Furthermore, I would prefer not to manipulate data in the future. I would rather give the students the values they need to use and model the equipment on another sample.