ARTIFACTS: SCIENCE LESSON AND UBC ANECDOTAL REPORT

Seeing a unit through from the research stages (it had been a while since I’d consciously interacted with any simple machines), to the planning, to teaching the lessons, to assessing the students using various methods, and finally reporting on it at the end of the term was a stimulating experience, to say the least. During my three month practicum, I was given the Force, Motion, and Simple Machines unit to teach during the fourteen weeks. Having been given the time, developing the unit seemed like a piece of cake – reaching all of the students in the venture was a different story.  Below, please see the parenthetical call-outs as they relate to Standard 5.

Without diving too deeply into my lesson, I am happy to reflect on one moment in particular that made my lessons more effective on the whole. (PLANNING) This was my introductory lesson on simple machines (please click here to see the lesson) that I developed using the “Understanding by Design” method.  The unit plan I’d developed (in which this lesson was constructed) focused less on how I wanted to teach simple machines, and more about what I wanted my students to know in the end.*  (INSTRUCTION) My thoughts were to briefly explain the idea of simple machines, read about the machines (we had been working on looking for the main idea in information texts, so this lesson fit nicely into that intermediate grade incentive), show some images of machines, and then let the students explore. The students were given grab bags with several actual simple machines (see above photo of my construction of pulley systems) and some images, then they were given the task of categorizing the 6 machines.

For some students, this was very simple. It was these kiddos who built on the information they received (talk, read, and visualize) and made sense of each object without difficulty. Other students struggled with the physical objects and relied more heavily on the textbook and images to categorize. However, there were still those who could not make sense of the machines in any of these learning contexts. Having been advised to use as many models and experiments as possible (as you can see from my foray into construction in the photo above), I thought the handling of objects would be the easiest way to internalize them. I was wrong. Not only was I wrong that not all of the students connected with this way of learning, but I assumed one thing would work and did not plan accordingly if it did not. This activity also stressed the idea that not all students learn the same way. (ASSESSMENT).  I realized in hindsight that I had naturally discovered Anne Davies’ idea of “Assessment FOR learning.”  According to Davies, “Assessment for learning is used to help learners learn better by focusing on the learning goals and criteria, where each learner is in relation to the goals, where they need to go next, and ways to get there.”**  With this in mind, I knew that some needed the textbook reading, others needed the images I put on the board, and some needed the models. I thought I covered all of my bases, but there were still the few who did not connect. I was stumped – what else could I do?

While students were working, I made a point to wander around the class to connect with every student.  I mentioned that I would be circling and expected all students to be on task, but that they could save questions for me when I came around.  This was a group activity that I expected to be conducted in a certain way.  (CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT) While circling, I had a conversation with one of my students, Alyssa (name has been changed) about how she thought she could gain a better understanding about the simple machines. Already, by reaching out to her as an individual, she sensed my concern in making sure she grasped what I needed her to know. Kindly, she suggested that while this lesson was an interesting one that exposed her to all of the machines, she said she needed to spend time with the machines individually since having all of them in front of her was overwhelming. I appreciated her candour. When she self-assessed and suggested an alternative delivery method during our chat, it gave me a better idea of what I could do to help. It was a great lesson for me to learn early in the unit since science concepts (even if they are simple machines) are not accessible to all students. I learned the importance of continuing to look for as many ways of presenting a concept as possible.

Ultimately, Alyssa performed beautifully in Science class over the course of the term, (EVALUATION and REPORTING) as determined by her written observations about the function of each machine and final test on our science unit which asked students, in their own words, to explain the machines. My experience was made a bit easier thanks to her patience with my learning how to implement, plan, assess, and evaluate – all effective practices I was able to apply to all of the subjects I taught.

This lesson was one in which I was observed by my UBC Faculty Advisor, Frank Baumann. I was touched by his observation on “student understanding” (please click here to see the anecdotal report form). I had to laugh when I read his remarks, since I felt the lesson, though successful for some students, was not one of my best. I was effective in reaching some students, but that was not enough for me. I know it is illogical to think that I can reach all of my students, but I can certainly aim for that through the use of as many teaching techniques as are available to me. I know Alyssa would appreciate my attempt.

*Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J.  (2001).  Understanding by design.  Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Prentice Hall.

**Davies, A.  (2007).  “Assessment for learning: An online resource for educators.”  Retrieved on July 17, 2009 from http://annedavies.com/