Mid-Chapter Checkpoint Lesson Reflection

I taught this lesson in accordance with the designed lesson plan on Friday,

February 24th, 2017. The lesson was delivered to the fourth graders in the 4C Math

class at Ingomar Elementary school during an instructional period of one hour. There

are 24 students of varying ability in the class. The lesson itself was built around a

Mid-Chapter Checkpoint provided by the curriculum, which serves as a half-way

mark to Chapter 7. Chapter 7 focused on adding and subtracting fractions with

common denominators. The checkpoint is designed to assess student progress

towards chapter goals and objectives upon completing half the lessons, and to

provide further support for those students who are struggling before they fall too far

behind. I chose to analyze this lesson for Domain 3 because I have made it a

personal focus to find new ways to use assessment in a formative way during

instruction. This has been an area where I have previously received feedback and

suggestion from my cooperating teacher and university supervisor, both of whom

suggested I try to vary the ways in which I assess student learning. My cooperating

teacher also suggested I try implementing different technology apps and tools

throughout my instruction. The overall idea for this lesson was the culmination of

my personal goals and the feedback I received.

Overall, I felt that the lesson was a success in meeting the components of

Domain 3, and because the majority of students achieved instructional objectives in

a measurable way. I decided to utilize the Socrative version of the chapter

checkpoint because it provides me with instant feedback and compiles data for me

once the assessment is complete. This allows me to spend less time grading each

students work, and to spend more time determining if students need more support

or intervention in any particular area. Making these decisions at a more rapid pace
allows me to adjust my instruction more rapidly as well, and to target those

individuals who need more support in chapter concepts. I also find it very useful and

convenient that I am able to save all the data to my computer, rather than having

to keep a stack of papers with me to grade and return. Below are the charts given

by the curriculum, and the evaluation of student performance based on Socrative

data:
 Making a Socrative takes time and care in order to ensure the items appear

on the iPad exactly the way they do in the text. However, this effort is certainly

worth it. I have also found that students seem more engaged and excited about

completing the checkpoint through technology than they are manually. That being

said, I felt it was important to give them the option to complete the checkpoint in

their books and turn it in to be graded in place of the digital copy. Some of the

students are not as comfortable with the technology as others, and I wanted to

make sure that they had the opportunity to complete the assessment in a format

most comfortable to them. I did have two students indicate that they would be

turning in the paper test the next lesson for grading, so some students did take

advantage of my offer. However, looking at a preliminary assessment of student

achievement after the lesson was over, there were only 3 students that required

additional support in any of the chapter concepts. Out of 24 students, 10 students

scored 16 out of 17 or higher (an A), and 22 scored 14 out of 17 or higher (a B or

above).

Aside from utilizing assessment in instruction in the most efficient and

meaningful way, I also felt that this lesson was successful in terms of engaging

students in learning. I made the decision to utilize technology in two different ways

because students look forward to these learning experiences, and are naturally

more engaged in the lesson because they are excited about using technology to

practice their skills. That being said, I would not be able to incorporate this much

technology in every lesson, because the novelty would wear off and the level of

engagement might decrease. I think part of successful instruction is identifying this

possibility, and finding the most useful ways to incorporate technology without

allowing it to become routine and dull. This lesson also engaged students in group-

learning, rather than just teacher-led learning, by splitting them into Quizlet groups.

To move forward on each question, all students in the group must answer each item

correctly. This requires all students to be participating in the activity. Likewise, in the

Socrative checkpoint, students could not move to a new question until all students

had submitted their answers. This gave students the opportunity to take ownership

of their learning as a group, and to make sure that all students were on track in

order for the group to proceed.

Another area where I felt that I was successful was Communicating with

Students. However, looking back, there were some aspects I could have

streamlined. For instance, during the first section of the lesson when I explained my

expectations for how students would get their iPads and go back to their seats, the

transition was smooth. However, the beginning of the Quizlet section of the lesson

was not as smooth, because several students went to move into their groups before
I had assigned each group a place to go. I could have communicated my

expectations more clearly to avoid the noise and confusion that followed. However, I

was able to quickly catch my error and regain control of the class before it became

an issue. In the future, I will make sure to communicate al my expectations clearly

before beginning an activity.

One area of Domain 3 that I still was to improve upon is Using Questioning

and Discussion Techniques. While I was successful in incorporating technology and

assessment throughout the lesson, I felt that I did not include enough high-level

questions and different questioning techniques. The only high-level question I posed

to the students was part of the homework assignment (create a word problem

based on chapter concepts). I did not pose any questions that prompted student

discussion during the lesson, although I often uses questioning and discussion in my

daily lessons. My new goal is to find a balance between my focus on technology and

assessment and my focus on integrating those high-level questions that promote

student thinking and group discussion. Perhaps next time I can pair a technology

experience with a small-group activity that focuses more on questioning. I would

then find a way to incorporate assessment into both areas of learning.

Overall, I was pleased with the outcome of my lesson plan. I was able to

actively engage my students with technology and maintain their level of

participation, while also utilizing assessment to make instructional decisions and

identify students who need additional support. Moving forward, my goal is to find a

balance between all components of Domain 3 so that each can directly affect

student learning in a positive way in each lesson I plan and instruct. I would also like

to focus on utilizing more high-level questions to generate authentic and meaningful

student-led discussions about math concepts.