Total Points Possible: 120 (Subtract 4 points for each NA given :__116__) Total Points Earned:_87___ Percentage Score:

_75%_
Directions: Circle the number that best reflects what you observe in a sheltered lesson. You may give a score from 0-4 (or NA on selected items). Cite under comments specific examples of the behaviors observed.

Lesson Preparation___________________________
4
1. Content objectives clearly Defined, displayed and reviewed with students

2
Content objectives for students implied.

0
No clearly defined Content objectives for students

Comments: A score of 3 was given because Ms. Clark made a good attempt to tell the students the content objective and it was displayed. However, I would have liked it to be displayed in the front of the room, have had the students read it out loud with her, and have her do more to explain what the objective means, rather than go into detail about the steps of her lesson.

4
2. Language objectives clearly defined, displayed and reviewed with students

2
Language objectives for students implied

0
No clearly defined Language objective

Comments: A score of 2 was given because the language objective wasnt displayed and written as a language objective at all. Ms. Clark did however, have plans to do a language objective, it was just written under the content objective and not specified as a language objective. Therefore I am saying it was implied.

4
3. Content concepts appropriate for age and educational background level of students

2
Content concepts somewhat appropriate for age and educational background level of students

0
Content concepts inappropriate for age and educational background level of students

Comments: A score of 2 was given because I feel that parts of this lesson were too elementary for a 6th grade class, and that some of this material could be addressed at an earlier grade. Some of the vocabulary was age appropriate, but the basic experiment with vinegar has been overused and really is suitable for very early

grades, or not at all. As sixth graders, they could do much more exploratory learning about volcanoes.

4. Supplementary Some use of No use of materials used to a Supplementary materials Supplementary high degree, making materials the lesson clear and meaningful (e.g., computer programs, graphs, models, visuals) Comments: I scored this as a 4 because Ms. Clark did try to use supplementary materials in almost every aspect of her lesson. She used the books, the volcano model, and also a diagram of a volcano.

4
5. Adaptation of content (e.g., text, assignment) to all levels of students proficiency.

2
Some adaptation of content to all levels of student proficiency

0
No significant adaptation of content to all levels of student proficiency

Comments: From what I could tell by reading the lesson, there really was no adaptation of content in the text that was read, but Ms. Clark did do her best to accommodate her ELL students by reading the text for them, and also by explaining what the worksheets said and not leaving it for them to decipher on their own. Therefore I scored this a 2.

6. Meaningful activities Meaningful activities that No meaningful that integrate lesson integrate lesson concepts activities that concepts (e.g., interviews, but provides few language integrate lesson letter writing, simulations, practice opportunities for concepts with models) with language reading, writing, listening, language practice practice opportunities for and/or speaking reading writing, listening, and/or speaking Comments: Ms. Clark tried to provide meaningful activities with her models of the volcano, (especially allowing students to do one) and the reading of a portion from the book, as well as the semantic web worksheet.

Building Background_________________________
4 7. Concepts 3 2 Concepts loosely 1 0 Concepts not

explicitly linked to students background experiences

linked to students background experiences

explicitly linked to students background experiences

Comments: Ms. Clark tried to link concepts to background experiences in some instances, mostly at the beginning of the lesson when she gave them the semantic web for them to write down all of their knowledge about volcanoes at the present.

4 8. Links explicitly made between past learning and new concepts

2 Few links made between past learning and new concepts

0 No links made between past learning and new concepts

Comments: The opportunity for the students to link past learning to new concepts was there because students had visited the museum and had also looked at rocks in class at an earlier date, but Ms. Clark did not take advantage of this and help students link what had been previously learned to the new concepts. She did ask them when the last time they used vinegar was, (yesterday) but what that had to do with anything, I am not sure. This was scored a 2 because of weak links.

4 9. Key Vocabulary emphasized (e.g., introduced, written, repeated, and highlighted for students to see)

2 Key vocabulary introduced, but not emphasized

0 Key Vocabulary not introduced or emphasized

Comments: I think Ms. Clark did very well with this part of SIOP. In the beginning she wrote the words and also told them to the students, and then throughout the lesson she referenced the key vocabulary at opportune times. This earned her a score of a 4.

Comprehensible Input________________________
4 10. Speech appropriate for students proficiency level (e.g., slower rate, enunciation, and simple sentence structure for beginners) 3 2 Speech sometimes inappropriate for students proficiency level 1 0 NA Speech inappropriate for students proficiency level

Comments: Without being present to see and hear the teacher talk, I dont feel confident in scoring Ms. Clark for this. However, she did seem to be clear in her explanations.

4 11. Clear explanation of academic tasks

2 Unclear explanation of academic tasks

0 No explanation of academic tasks

Comments: I also score this a 4 because of the very clear explanations that Ms. Clark gave when telling students anything they needed to do like with the volcano. Not only did she explain this, but she also modeled this which definitely helps make things more clear. She also earned this score by explaining the processes for completing their other work.

4 12. A variety of techniques used to make content concepts clear (e.g., modeling, visuals, hands-on activities, demonstrations, gestures, body language)

2 Some techniques used to make content concepts clear

0 No techniques used to make content concepts clear

Comments: This again is another area that is hard to give a score without being in the room with her to see her body language and gestures, but it was evident that a variety of techniques were used, so I gave her a 4. The semantic map, volcano model, reading from the book, and also the diagram of the volcano are all different techniques that could help make concepts more clear.

Strategies____________________________________
4 13. Ample opportunities provided for students to use learning strategies 3 2 Inadequate opportunities provided for students to use Learning strategies 1 0 No opportunity provided for students to use Learning strategies

Comments: There were some opportunites present for students to use learning strategies such as making predictions before they did their reading along with accessing prior knowledge. However, I do feel as if a few more opportunities could have been provided to use more learning strategies, so I gave a score of a 3.

4 14. Scaffolding techniques consistently used, assisting and supporting student

2 Scaffolding techniques occasionally used

0 Scaffolding techniques not used

understanding (e.g., think-aloud)

Comments: Ms. Clark did a great job at providing scaffolding to her students throughout the entire lesson. In the beginning she drew from the web to build on their knowledge and then provided the model as well as a diagram, which were great visual scaffolds in learning. It carried on throughout the entire lesson as she scaffold them in their sequencing exercise and also in how to complete their homework. This earned her a 4.

4 15. A variety of questions or tasks that promote higher-order thinking (e.g., literal, analytical, and interpretive questions)

2 Infrequent questions or tasks that promote higher-order thinking skills

0 No questions or tasks that promote higherorder thinking skills

Comments: I did notice that Ms. Clark did try and ask questions at times throughout the lesson to get some input from students, but I didnt feel as if the questions were of the nature to really promote higher order thinking so I scored this a 2.

Interaction___________________________________
4 16. Frequent opportunities for interaction and discussion between teacher/student and among students, which encourage elaborated responses about lesson concepts 3 2 Interaction mostly teacher-dominated with some opportunities for students to talk about or question lesson concepts 1 0 Interaction teacherdominated with no opportunities for students to discuss lesson concepts

Comments: There was interaction between the teacher and the students evident throughout the lesson, which did help to keep them engaged. I scored this a 3 though because I think that there could have been more opportunity for the students to interact with each other.

4 17. Grouping configurations support language and content objectives of the lesson

2 Grouping configurations unevenly support the language and content objectives

0 Grouping configurations do not support the language and content objectives

Comments: The students were grouped in three groups for the lesson, but nothing in the lesson really

facilitated learning in these groups. Because of this the score here is a 2.

4 18. Sufficient wait time for student responses consistently provided

2 Sufficient wait time for student responses occasionally provided

0 Sufficient wait time for student responses not provided

Comments: I scored this a 4 because from what I can see, Ms. Clark seemed to be willing to wait for the students responses when questioning was taking place. It is actually hard to give a truly accurate score here without being present for the lesson.

4 19. Ample opportunities for students to clarify key concepts in L1 as needed with aide, peer, or L1 text

2 Some opportunities for students to clarify key concepts in L1

0 No opportunity for students to clarify key concepts in L1

Comments: Judging from what I read about the lesson, the only opportunity for students to clarify key concepts in L1 would have been if they asked the teachers aide who spoke Spanish, if their language happened to be Spanish. It wasnt evident to me that there was really any other opportunity so I scored this a 2.

Practice Application ________________________

4 20. Hands-on materials and/or manipulatives provided for students to practice using new content knowledge 3 2 Few hands-on materials and/or manipulatives provided for students to practice using new content knowledge 1 0 No hands-on materials and/or manipulatives provided for students to practice using new content knowledge

Comments: There were definitely hands on materials provided with the incorporation of the volcano model. The only thing I would have like to see is for all of the students to be involved in the replication of a volcano after the modeling of the teacher. I still scored this a 4 though, because the use was present.

21. Activities provide for students to apply content and language knowledge in the classroom

Activities provided for students to apply either content or language knowledge in the classroom

No activities provided for students to apply content or language knowledge in the classroom

Comments: There were activities present in the lesson that provided students the opportunity to apply content and language knowledge so I almost scored this a 4, but I decided that there could have been more interaction opportunity between the students to enhance this. For that reason I scored this a 3.

4 22. Activities integrate all language skills (i.e., reading ,writing, listening, and speaking)

2 Activities integrate some language skills

0 Activities do not integrate language skills

Comments: There were activities in the lesson that provided students the opportunity to read (the book), write (the semantic map), listen (to the teacher as lesson was presented), and speak (as they asked and answered questions).

Lesson Delivery
4 23. Content objectives clearly supported by lesson delivery 3

________________________
2 Content objectives supported somewhat by lesson delivery 1 0 Content objectives not supported by lesson delivery

Comments: Ms. Clark did a nice job of trying to support her content objectives as she delivered her lesson. I am not certain as to whether or not all of the objectives were fully met and understood by all of the students though, so I am scoring this a 3. For example, when talking about heat in the chamber, some students seemed to think that volcanoes can only happen in hot climates. Therefore I am not sure if all students fully understood the cause of a volcano.

4 24. Language objectives clearly supported by lesson delivery

2 Language objective somewhat supported by lesson delivery

0 Language objectives not supported by lesson delivery

Comments: This is tough to judge since there really wasnt a language objective stated at the beginning of the lesson. I will score this a 2 though because there were language objectives being met throughout the course of the lesson as they wrote and talked about volcanoes.

4 25. Student engagement approximately 90% to 100% of the period

2 Students engaged approximately 70% of t period

0 Students engaged less than 50% of the period

Comments: Without being present at the lesson, this is another area that is hard to assess completely. I am scoring it a 4 though, because there really were no indicators in the lesson that led me to believe that the students were disengaged. The experiment with the model most likely kept students engaged, as well as the other various activity changes throughout the lesson.

26. Pacing of the lesson appropriate to students ability levels

Pacing generally appropriate, but at times too fast or too slow

Pacing inappropriate to the students ability levels

Comments: I am going to score this as a 2 only because there was a time in the lesson that indicated that the teacher began her reading of the book even before many students had completed it. It seems as if those students may have desired more time to finish what they were reading. Ms. Clark seemed to have her time period of how she wanted the lesson to go, and didnt account for some of the students abilities.

Review/Assessment ________________________
4 27. Comprehensive review of key vocabulary 3 2 Uneven review of key vocabulary 1 0 No review of key vocabulary

Comments: Again, I feel as if the vocabulary portion of the lesson showed a strength for Ms. Clark. She revisited the vocabulary often and did well to review it and tried to make sure the students had a good understanding of it by providing them opportunities to use it during the lesson in their assignments.

4 28. Comprehensive review of key content concepts

2 Uneven review of key content concepts

0 No review of key vocabulary

Comments: I scored this a 2 because there was no comprehensive review at the end of the lesson the

summarize what had been taught throughout the lesson. Ms. Clark did try to review throughout the lesson, but still, I feel like there needs to be an overall review at the end and this did not occur.

4 29. Regular feedback provided to students on their output (e.g., language, content, work)

2 Inconsistent feedback provided to students on their output

0 No feedback provided to students on their output

Comments: There really wasnt a lot of feedback given to the students throughout the lesson. It was present in some cases, as she responded to students answering or asking questions. When feedback did occur, it was positive, which is good.

30. Assessment of student comprehension and learning of all lesson objectives (e.g., spot checking, group response) throughout the lesson

Assessment of students comprehension and learning of some lesson objectives

No assessment of students comprehension and learning of lesson objectives

Comments: In the scenario it mentioned that Ms. Clark did roam around the room and monitor students, which would provide her with the opportunity to assess their learning. She could also have done this as they discussed the diagram and the model. However, there wasnt an assessment present at the end of the lesson letting her know how the students grasped the concept that was taught. Her plans were most likely to have this take place in the sequencing activity where students could depict their understanding of what causes a volcano, but because of lack of time, students could not complete this. The score I gave for this is 3.