Announced Observation Reflection

Name: Meghan Roberts Observation #: 1 Date: 02/08/2017

OBJECTIVE(S): Did my objective encourage students to achieve higher-level understanding of a

topic? Was the objective learner-centered, measurable, and clear to my students?

My objective for this lesson was SWBAT compare definitions of monologue, soliloquy, and
aside and their uses in works of drama. The objective was measurable, but not specific enough;
I would have been more accurate to say they would contrast the definitions and understand their
application in dramatic works.

HOOK: Did I pique students interest?

I piqued student interest by showing a video.

ACTIVITY: Was the activity aligned with my objective? Were students consistently on task?
Did students understand my expectations? Did I provide scaffolds or a model?
Did I differentiate instruction and include accommodations (when necessary)?

Some of my activity was aligned with the objective. We did discuss the uses of those literary
devices and their definitions, but my lesson also included a character trait activity. I modeled how
I wanted their note sheets to look by providing an example, and I differentiated by showing a
video and speaking to increase depth of understanding.

SUMMARY/ASSESSMENT: At the end, did students review main ideas or reflect on how they
learned?
Did students meet your objective(s)? Specifically, how do you know?

I used an exit ticket as an assessment, though it was broad and asked for general
misunderstandings about the text as well as the lesson rather than specifics about that days
lesson. Ive followed up with the material by asking students to be able to identify these literary
devices as weve continued to read.

*If you were to teach this lesson again, what would you keep and what would you
change? How can you incorporate the primary feedback given by your SP & PS?
Submit a detailed 1-2 page response (graded according to the same criteria as journal
entries).
 I feel very fortunate that my SP and PS were able to observe this lesson because

they gave very helpful feedback. The best feedback that I received from Sally and Laurie

was about the structure of the lesson. In the lesson, I intended to focus on the literary

devices and their uses. As Sally said after the lesson, this certainly could have stood on its

own. However, I also used a part of my lesson to talk about traits that one might use to

identify a character as a villain or a victim, a lesson that also would have worked as a

stand-alone workshop.

In my mind, I felt like it was important to cover those two topics before the class

started reading 1.3. However, it turned out that trying to squeeze both in quickly really

hurt the quality of the lessons. I had so much that I wanted to accomplish in such a short

amount of time that I skimped on portions of the lesson that would have made it more

meaningful.

If I were to re-teach this lesson, I would have spent more time relating the literary

devices directly to the text and showing examples of how Shakespeare used them in his

work. I find that Im doing that nowin class, when an aside comes up, we take a

moment to consider whybut it would have reinforced the content if I had done that

within the original lesson itself. As Sally noted to me in our debrief, the students would

certainly know the definitions of the three words, but I wasnt really asking them why,

or to probe for deeper meaning. In the future, I think doing that would create a more

meaningful lesson, even if it did take longer.