Expanded Ticket in The Door: (Analysis of Implemented Lesson)

Candidate’s Name Rena Ingram
Date 2/11/2020
Expanded Ticket in the Door

(Analysis of Implemented lesson)
Reflect on your classroom experience: Analyze what you implemented in your

classroom.
 Limit your analysis to no more than 2 pages. Be concise.
 Consult the “Rubric for Assessment of Implemented Lessons” to make sure your
analysis is thorough.
 With your analysis, submit a copy of the lesson you implemented showing the
changes you made from the lesson draft you created originally.
1. Review: Explain in detail what you did including the setting, the students and the
topic. Include any details that aren’t readily apparent from your lesson plan.
I implemented my Graduated Difficulty lesson plan over 2 90-min class periods on Tuesday,
January 7th and Thursday, January 9th during my 4B (AP Chemistry) class. In the two class
periods prior to the 7th, the students (23 total) learned about the various types of gas laws
(Boyle’s Law, Charles’s Law, Gay-Lussac’s Law, Avogadro’s Law, Combined Gas Law, and
Ideal Gas Law) and their underlying relationships (direct and indirect). For example, in
Boyle’s Law (P1V1=P2V2) the related properties are pressure (P) and volume (V) and they
have an indirect relationship, whereas pressure increases and volume decreases when the
remaining properties (temperature and amount of a gas) are held constant. Additionally,
mathematical relationships were explored. Thus, they were adequately prepared to engage in
the Graduated Difficulty lesson where they were to determine which level of difficulty best
challenged them where they were academically (students did not have to complete all three
and they could easily migrate between them until they found the right “fit”, but were
encourage to move on after completing their selected level). At level one, students were to
complete math problems where they solved for an unknown variable using known quantities.
At level two, they were set to explain their understanding by determining which gas law was
responsible for a tank car imploding in an CER activity. At level three, they were set to apply
their understanding to a real-world phenomenon. Students could ask their peers, and/or
teacher, questions, as well as check the answer key for their specific level(s) whenever
needed. Lastly, all students completed the same activity by explaining all the gas law
relationships using the refined understanding they received from engaging in the activity.
2. Reflect: Describe what worked and why; what did not work and why not; and how
the students reacted. Did you ask students in a formal or informal way about their
reactions to the new strategy or idea?
With everything that you do for the first time, you’re not going to be 100% comfortable, yet,
overall, I can honestly say that it was a great first experience for both the students and me. In
my honest opinion, I believe creating the activity at different levels to meet students at their
Candidate’s Name Rena Ingram
Date 2/11/2020
level of mastery was the best part about this strategy because, in most cases, it helped them
better understand the gas law relationships in their own – yet correct – way, which became
ultimately apparent in the synthesis activity where they had to explain their relationships in
their own words. The areas that didn’t work as well consisted of the implementation of the
DECIDE template and the self-reflection questions at the end. With the DECIDE template,
the students were really confused on what to do and in what order. For example, students
initially struggled to understand that they were only supposed to completed “D” and “E”
prior to choosing their level and the rest of the letters afterwards. Additionally, I absent-
mindedly created self-reflection questions for the students that they already answered within
the DECIDE template which produced an unnecessary repeat of questioning. However, even
with these problem areas the students really enjoyed the activity. I formally graded their
synthesis activity which allowed me to gauge how the strategy increased their mastery of the
gas law content; however, informally, after the lesson was completed (at the end of Day 2), I
asked how they felt about the activity and they joyfully asked that I continue to implement it
in future lessons. Quite frankly, I had a student that desired to complete all three and she
expressed how rewarding that process was for her and her mastery. They all seemed to agree
that it allowed them to be more reflective of their individual levels of mastery as they had to
choose which initial activity they wanted to complete based on that analysis, independent
with their continuous development of mastery as they weren’t held to a whole-class standard
(some excelling faster than others which would, in return, induce a lack of interest if held to
one rate), and it allowed them to spend more time with the material in a very interactive way.
3. Refine: How will you use this strategy in the future in your classroom? What
modifications or adaptations or improvements will you implement so that it is more
effective with your students? What else do you need to know or do to make the
particular lesson more successful?
In the future, I want to use this strategy frequently, especially when we discuss complex
content, such as stoichiometry and constructing net ionic equations. With content that is more
complex, it’s easy for students to be on separate levels of mastery, so creating a graduated
difficulty lesson that meets them where they are and lifts them to a better level of
understanding will be a very rewarding and beneficial process for every student – even the
more advanced that can continued to be challenged beyond what we discuss. Going forward,
in order to make this strategy more effective for my students, I will: (1) give students more
efficient directions regarding their completion of the DECIDE template, (2) utilize a brand-
new phenomenon for the CER at Level 2 that the students haven’t already been exposed to
(the imploding train phenomena was shown, yet never explained; however, I believe it would
be more beneficial and challenging for it to be something completely different), and (3)
utilize the self-reflection opportunity as a reflection of the strategy instead of a re-analysis of
what the DECIDE template requires them to address. (All of these modifications and
improvements are highlighted within the revised lesson plan.) Lastly, in order to make this
particular lesson more successful, I need feedback from the students regarding anything I
could have done or done without in order to make the lesson more beneficial to them. Simply
put, the students are on the receiving end of the lesson and with it being created specifically
for them, it’s best that I get authentic feedback from the target audience on ways I can
improve my delivery.

Expanded Ticket in The Door: (Analysis of Implemented Lesson)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Expanded Ticket in The Door: (Analysis of Implemented Lesson)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Expanded Ticket in The Door: (Analysis of Implemented Lesson)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Candidate’s Name Rena Ingram

Expanded Ticket in the Door

Reflect on your classroom experience: Analyze what you implemented in your

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.