Post Observation 1

Darry Saunders Post Observation Dr. Erin Connor EDU 704 October 22, 2011

I conducted the post observation conference with Miss Amanda Velazquez (Miss V.), a

Post Observation 2

colleague who teaches Biology at Pine Forest High School on Friday, October 21st 2011; due to conflict schedule issues. I utilized the questions that Danielson (2007) suggests as a framework for the post observation (Reflection) conference. Name of Teacher: Amanda Velazquez School: Pine Forest High School

1. In general, how successful was the lesson? Did the students learn what you intended for them to learn? How do you know? Teacher’s Response: In general, the lesson was a great success. The students were actively engaged in a meaningful lesson on patterns of inheritance/genetics and they took ownership of their learning by completing punnett square activities, working in teams and critiquing one another. I was able to determine that my students grasped the information through the use of a summative assessment growth test; in which 80% of the class passed the assessment with 80% mastery. The 20% that did not meet the 80% mastery mark had scores between 65-77 range and were remediated by their peers whom met the mastery mark. 2. Did you depart from your plan? If so, how and why? Teacher’s Response: Not really, in general everything work fine. However, when I make my lesson plans I always add in an extension piece just in case the students finish up earlier than I originally anticipated, however, for this particular lesson on the day in which I was observed my timing was dead on and I did not have to use my extension piece. Yet, I allowed my students to use it the following week to remediate their peers that did not hit the mastery mark of 80% on their growth test.

Post Observation 3

3. Comment on different aspects of your instructional delivery (e.g., activities, grouping of students, material and resources). To what extent were they effective? Teacher’s Response: The smart board activities that I used were very straightforward and the students seemed to enjoy using the interactive software to solve and answer questions through a gaming format. However, being that smart board is still fairly new, many of its applications and gaming formats seem to be based around the elementary school level , therefore, I believe if there was a smart board gaming format based solely for the secondary level the game could have contained a bit more substance and academic rigor. The materials that I used were sufficient, for all you need is paper is to create a punnett square, and the resources that I used to supply information pertaing to dominate and recessive genes was also sufficient and is material that I have accumulated from different websites, workshops and PLC’s over the past four years. 4. (My question) If you were able to go back in the past and change any aspect of the lesson would you? If so, what and why? Teacher’s Response: Yes, I would go back and definitely change the amount of time that I spent monitoring the 20% of students who failed to meet the mastery level on their growth test. I would re-group the students and of course place the struggling students with students whom meet high mastery and have them spend additional time practicing problems with one another. I would also have possibly sat each of the 4 students down whom did not pass and spend one on one time with each of them working problems and reviewing content. Also, I would have allowed/encouraged struggling students to make

Post Observation 4

more frequent visits to the smart board to explain concepts to the class, for I am an avid believe that you learn best from teaching others; therefore, I definitely would have allotted additional time for peer teaching. The reason behind why I would do all of this is to improve student achievement in hopes to have 100% mastery vs. 80%.

References Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing Professional Practice; A Framework For Teaching. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).