!

EDTP 645 Live Lesson Self-Evaluation Form

Name: Vincent Mick

Date of Lesson: September 23, 2020
Grade Level: English 10
Lesson Topic: Chapter 5 of Enrique’s Journey
Lesson Objective: Using notes produced in advance from our graphic organizer, analyze Chap-
ter 5 of Enrique’s Journey through at least 20 minutes of one-on-one discussion.
Link to Recording: https://vimeo.com/461514257/410416c0fb

Lesson Context

Chapter 5 of Enrique’s Journey ends with its child protagonist at the border between
Mexico and the U.S. He has traveled on the Mexican freight train system 990 miles to get to this
point. It has taken him 47 days and 8 attempts. His story continues into the U.S., but Jessica’s
(pseudonym) class is not finishing the novel. At most they will read two more chapters, which
deal with Enrique’s border crossing. They will not read the final chapters. This curricular deci-
sion freezes Enrique at the border. The politics of this curricular decision are beyond the scope of
this self-evaluation. However, the decision provides context for the trajectory of my lesson with
Jessica. Specifically, I wanted our analysis of Chapter 5 to position Jessica to predict the finish of
the novel. To help her make this prediction, I invited a surprise guest speaker (my brother) to
speak to the experience of those who cross into the United States from Mexico. My brother lives
in Tucson and has substantial knowledge of the immigrant experience through personal and pro-
fessional contacts. I hoped his insight would help Jessica appreciate that the story continues for
those crossing into the U.S. and that this continuance brings with it new and unique challenges.

Instructional Strengths

• Inviting a guest speaker. My brother’s appearance provided not only the context I was hoping
for but also the smile and stimulation. A one-on-one discussion puts a lot of pressure on a stu-
dent to perform, and my brother’s appearance redistributed the conversational weight. Howev-
er, I also will address below how it could have been executed more productively for Jessica.
• Using a graphic organizer. Jessica’s completion of a graphic organizer in advance of the les-
son provided us with material to generate and maintain discussion. The organizer asked her to
identify parts of the chapter she found interesting, strange, or surprising. It also asked her to
develop her own questions about the chapter and to venture possible answers to her own ques-
tions.
• The inquiry-based intention of the lesson. I wanted our conversation to be structured around
Jessica’s interests and questions. I do think the lesson remained focused on her interests and
questions. However, below I will address how simply focusing on student interests and ques-
 !2

tions does not guarantee centering student voices. That is: a teacher can still hog the conversa-
tion even if that conversation is structured around student questions.
• Using this Youtube video on Hispanic child migrants as a “bellringer.” Immediately prior
to beginning our Zoom call, I asked Jessica to watch the video. It primed her for the discussion
by giving her a new angle of approach to the topic (she previously had not seen any online me-
dia related to Hispanic child migrants like Enrique). However, below I also will discuss how
Jessica’s response to this bellringer partly disoriented me by revealing a misconception she
had. The existence of the misconception made me acutely aware of the need for differentiating
instruction in that moment.

Instructional Areas Needing Improvement

• Ability to differentiate. Jessica’s misconception about the way migrants travel on the freight
trains disoriented me (she pictured them inside boxcars hiding behind hay rather than on top of
boxcars). While I was happy the video bellringer uncovered this misconception, the existence
of the misconception this far into her reading of the novel made me wonder how closely she
was reading. While the graphic organizer I created for this lesson targeted questioning as a lit-
eracy strategy, Jessica’s response to the bellringer made me feel as though perhaps another lit-
eracy strategy needed to be our focus: close reading. I do not think I was prepared to switch
tacks. I did spend some time asking her to visualize migrants on top of the trains and what it
would be like to experience travel this way (our discussion of cardboard). However, the re-
mainder of the lesson felt more like I was resuming our regularly intended programming—
even though my doubt persisted about the extent to which she was closely reading.

• Ability to let the student talk. In theory I gravitate toward indirect rather than direct instruc-
tion. But in this lesson I felt I ended up talking more than I wanted to. I was disappointed in
my wait time. And I was disappointed in the occasional pre-emptiveness with which I made
connections for us. Of course, one could spin my willingness to make connections as model-
ing. But I wish that I had been better able to position Jessica to make connections. I worried
that I was crowding her out of a conversation designed around her own interests and questions!
I particularly felt this way when our guest speaker arrived. I was disappointed that what I in-
tended as a three-way conversation turned out to be a two-way conversation between me and
my brother. Jessica did ask my brother a question, which indicated we had not crowded her out
completely. But in this part of the lesson, I felt I was trying to be the “sage on the stage”—syn-
thesizing 1) Jessica’s questions from her graphic organizer, 2) my conversation with Jessica
prior to the guest speaker’s appearance, and 3) the guest speaker’s contributions. It’s not that
synthesis is a weakness. It’s the pre-emptiveness of the synthesis. I need to develop skill in po-
sitioning students to perform this synthesis.
 !3

Miscellaneous Observations

I was cautiously happy with how the lesson went. Much of the happiness had to do with
perceiving the importance and payoff of structure and preparation. Even if I wasn’t thrilled with
parts of the lesson’s execution (my talking more than I had anticipated), I felt the lesson had a
reliable architecture to it. However, I found myself getting nervous during the lesson because I
perceived we were only going to get to a fraction of what Jessica had come up with on her graph-
ic organizer. I felt the urge to move the lesson along due to time constraints even though this
momentum did not feel organic. Of course, the irony is that I contributed to the time crunch by
talking more than I had anticipated. A self-defeating feedback loop developed in which my talk-
ing too much led to a time crunch led to nervousness about moving the lesson along because of
the time crunch led to talking too much out of nervousness.
I had difficulty realizing the full potential of this lesson plan, and I was just working with
one student! I am a bit overwhelmed thinking about realizing the full potential of a lesson plan
with all of the variables of a classroom with 25 students. I picture teachers like surfers trying to
stay ahead of the wave before wiping out! I can appreciate how maintaing balance on the surf-
board is not just a skill but an art.
One final observation: the “dead-eyed” Zoom face. I was surprised by how flat my ex-
pression looked for much of the lesson—even though my mind was racing! And I was having
difficulty formatively assessing Jessica’s engagement from her own often blank face. I would
ordinarily associate blank faces with disengagement, but blank expressions appear to be com-
monplace on Zoom. Directly after my live lesson with Jessica, I had another Zoom call with Dr.
Simonsen’s newly established professional learning community. Almost everyone on the UMGC
Zoom call also had a blank expression. It made me wonder if the blank face is less about disen-
gagement than about mirror neurons and the way virtual interaction triggers them differently than
in-person interaction.