Morgan Bloyer

SES 440

3 April 2018

Lesson Reflection #1

1. On April 2, 2018 I taught 22 third graders at Jackson Elementary school. The class

started at 8:40 am and they had been in school since 7:50. We have been with the

students for one week prior to this lesson. Kay Kay Martinez taught a lesson to the

students introducing the striking unit. There were some difficulties due to the fact we

were not certain about their skill level. We realized that we needed to decrease the

amount of activities in the lesson plan and have everything be at their skill level.

2. The affective learning objective was that each student will be able to work cooperatively

with others during the partner activities. Through teacher observation while the lesson

was going on I noticed that most of the class obtained this. After watching the video of

that lesson, I viewed that there were mostly instances of partners working cooperatively,

but also some instances of improvement. I viewed that there were students who were

working well together, trying to do their best, and encouraging their partner. The small

instances that could have been improved were some people did not want to work with

their partner, they were not rude or off task, but they were not responding to what their

partner was saying to them. The cognitive learning objective was that each student will

be able to know the cues of how to strike an object with a short handled implement when

prompted. This was assessed by Plicker questions at the end of the lesson. One of the

questions was not asked due to time. The first question was, how do you swing when
 striking the ball? The answer was low to high and 60% of the class answered this

question correctly (Figure 1). The second question was, what foot do you step with when

striking the ball? The answer was non-dominant and 48% of the class answered the

question correctly (Figure 2). The third question was, where are you facing when

striking? The answer was side to target and 70% of the class answered this correctly

(Figure 3). I do not think that the students met this objective, the percentage that got the

answers correctly is too low. I do think that most of it was due to me not focusing on the

cues enough. Also because I did not pace the activites well, we did not get to striking the

ball, which affected the amount of correct answers. I did emphasize the second question

multiple times, so I think that is something for them to improve on. The psychomotor

learning objective was that each student will be able to demonstrate striking with a short

handled implement using 3 of the 5 critical elements of a mature pattern when hitting

against a wall. At first we were going to try to do the pre-psychomotor assessment again,

but it was going to be too much. I used the video of the lesson to observe this and

observing while I was teaching. I do think that they did meet this objective. I do not think

that they did everytime they were practicing, but they were able to achieve it at least

once. They were all able to step with their non-dominant foot, swing from low to high

and to follow through.

3. My first objective was to have my students reach 50% MVPA for the class period. WE

did not hit this objective. In the class 0% of the students hit 50% MVPA. The average in

the class was 13.25% which was very low (Figure 4). The average activity time was

24.70% (Figure 4). Some of the students names did not appear when the data was
 uploaded. My second teaching objective was to try a keep my instruction time short. I

think that half of the time I did this. After watching the video I timed roughly how much

time I spent giving instruction and excluding the assessment at the end where I needed to

spend more time giving instruction and talking, it was about 18 minutes. In a lesson plan

of 48 minutes. To me I think that number is not terrible but it could definitely be better.

That means that they are only getting 30 minutes of activity which is not enough. This

objective still needs to be improved. My third objective was to use proximity to avoid off

task behavior. After watching the video I tallied that I did this about 5 times. Overall

there was not a lot of off task behavior, just a couple of outliers. I am not sure if I

completely met this objective, since there were times that off task behavior was occuring

on one side of the gym and I was only staying in one spot. The times I did use proximity

though, it worked to decrease the off task behavior.

4. How the students performed was because of what I did in the lesson. I did not do well

explaining and going over the cues therefore the students did not do as well in the

cognitive assessment. I would pace the activities better so that there would have been

more time to really explain the cues for striking. They did well on the psychomotor

aspect because I gave demonstrations. They had improved a lot since last lesson with

control. They were able to perform, but they were not able to identify the cues. Since this

was my first time teaching for that length of time, I would decrease my instruction time.

This would help to achieve 50% MVPA. I would also incorporate more activity since

striking can mostly be standing. I would do this by adding activity in between the striking
 activities. Overall it went well from the managerial and psychomotor standpoint but the

other aspects need to be improved.

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4: