Reflection and Analysis
Planning and Modifying the Lesson Before It was Taught
I chose to do my lesson within the class’s larger civics curriculum because it would fit within a larger unit and because it would benefit the students’ larger learning goals for the year. Arcadia University and The Constitution Center have developed a civics curriculum called We the Civics Kids that the entire school has been using, and I used their materials (http://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/lesson-plans/we-the-civics-kids-lesson-4-principles-of-justice-and-the-role-of-the-judic) to plan my lesson. I taught this lesson to the whole class because it was content the whole class needed to cover, and I developed my own plan from the We The Civics Kids curriculum covering the basic principles of “Lesson 4: Principles of Justice and the Role of the Judiciary”: forms of conflict resolution and the way the judicial system interacts with conflict resolution in the United States.
Enacting the Lesson
I felt good about my lesson during instruction and in the moments afterwards, but I will admit that at the end I felt frazzled. I had planned too much for a 45 minute block that got cut short because the students were about 10 minutes late coming from their previous class. What I did not know for sure in the moments after finishing my first period of instruction was when the students were going to be able to finish their written responses on The Lorax worksheets. Luckily, this came the following week, and after finishing that portion of instruction, I felt even better about my lesson because we got to review (with a role play) the differences between negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and litigation and the students got to write. The students were engaged and offered ideas during our discussion, and they worked together diligently and excitedly during small group work, as can be seen in my observer notes. In the initial moments while I felt good about students’ engagement, I wished I had gotten more student-to-student dialogue rather than operating as a student discussion switchboard. My observer noted that my tone and classroom management were on point, but she wanted to see more questions asked of students and for the students to be expected to repeat each other’s responses. I took this feedback into consideration when teaching the final portion of my lesson the next week.
Reflections and Modifications
I was particularly glad that my written feedback mirrored my general feelings about the lesson. While my observer did not see the second portion of my lesson, I felt that I incorporated her feedback into the instruction of the second portion, particularly when it came to eliciting student responses to each other. I asked student to repeat, in their own words, what other students said and offer how their own ideas related to their classmates’. In planning another lesson, I think I might choose a different response question. I was trying to incorporate as much of the Civics Kids curriculum as possible, but I now think that trying to cover types of conflict resolution is one lesson in itself and the role of the judiciary another. As much as I enjoyed the read aloud and thinking about conflict resolution in The Lorax, I am not sure the connection between that conflict resolution and the judicial system is strong enough for one lesson.
I felt that my content knowledge was strong because of my thorough review of curriculum materials, but I wish, as I have already stated, that I could focus more on getting students to talk to each other rather than through and to me. I would do this by asking them to respond directly to each other, perhaps in a popcorn style discussion, with my role being more of a logistical facilitator than a sounding board. I would try to “teach for as well as with discussion” (2011, Levstik and Barton, chp. 11). This, I realize, would take weeks or months of practice for students conditioned to talk to the instructor rather than to each other. The one thing I noted that will become very obvious in my analysis of their work is that it was not clear to students what “charges” meant. I figured because we had gone over the people and general outline of a trial, students must have also know what charges are, but upon reading the 3 selected responses (and others) it is clear that most students thought of charges as a form of repayment or punishment, rather than the crime of which the defendant is accused.
Assessing Student Learning and My Teaching
The students unanimously decided that the Once-ler should be the defendant, and they all cited his cutting down of trees. In the future I might include on the worksheet a prompt to defend your reasoning (though my fear is seeing such a long prompt would dissuade some students from participating at all), and I would definitely go over the definition of “charges.” I might further ask students to reason about what they think their defendant might say to defend him/herself.
Student#1
Conclusions about learning:
This student was able to understand The Lorax story and identify that she believed the Once-ler had done something that made him the defendant in our trial, but she failed to answer why she believed that the Once-ler would be the defendant or what the charges against him would be. During our verbal discussion, this student contributed to ideas about the difference between arbitration and mediation, leading me to believe she at least made progress toward the goals of understanding the types of conflict resolution, but from this writing and in our discussion, I do not have evidence to believe she made progress on understanding what happens in a court of law. She did, however, pull details from The Lorax, which touches upon the common core literacy standards outlined in my plan.
Evidence from response:
Student 1 begins her response, “The defendant is the Once-ler,” but ends it “that’s what happen in the lorax story.” This indicates to me what while she began to think about the meaning of defendant and even outlined somewhat what the Once-ler might have done to be a defendant, her thought process got muddied by her recollection of the entire plot of The Lorax.
What I might do differently:
Unfortunately I did not get to see this students’ response while she was writing it, nor did she share it with the whole class during our concluding discussion. If I had had the opportunity to speak with this student about this response, I would have begun by noting that she chose the Once-ler as her defendant and asking her why she had chosen him. I would thank her for her detailed summary of the story but ask her what portions of that summary could be useful in asking the questions “Why did you choose the Once-ler as the defendant?” and “What would the charges (the crime of which he was accused) be?”
Student#2
Conclusions about learning:
Student 2 demonstrated that he knew that court proceedings (a trial) could lead to jail time and community service, something we discussed briefly as a class. He did not, however, demonstrate an understanding of what charges were, which could likely be explained by the fact that we did not go over a definition of “charges.” This misinterpretation of the term shows up in other work samples not chosen because of their similarity to this piece. The student also demonstrates an understanding of what happened in The Lorax by references planting the trees back, which touches upon common core literacy standards.
Evidence from response:
This student writes, “I think the diffen will be onceler and the charges will a week in jail and 3 months community servers… also he have to plant them trees back…” This response indicates that student 2 understood that the Once-ler was responsible for cutting down the trees and that such behavior should come with a consequence resulting from a trial in which he is the defendant. This indicates that the students’ definition of “charges” does not match usual definitions of the word, but I will take responsibility for that error because of my instruction.
What I might do differently:
Because this student demonstrates both an understanding of the text and possible outcomes of a trial, I would clarify with him the meaning of “charges” and discuss not just the consequences for the Once-ler’s actions but also the content of those actions. I would ask this student, “What about what the Once-ler did was wrong?” and “Who might have asked the Once-ler to court?” to solidify that trails are a form of conflict resolution between multiple parties because of specific disagreements.
Student#3
Conclusions about learning:
This student, in class discussions, demonstrated a solid working understanding of the differences between mediation and arbitration; specifically, she noted the difference in the power given to the third party. Her response specifically and concisely answers the questions on the sheet, but she does not cite evidence for her conclusions. This, in part, may be due to the fact that the question does not ask for supporting evidence or reasoning. Because of the brevity of the response, it is difficult to assess whether the student touched upon the common core literacy standards of referring to details in a text. She did, however, write coherently for the task asked of her.
Evidence from response:
The student writes, “The Onceler is the defndant. The charges is The Onceler is cutting down the trees.” This response indicates a more accurate working definition of charges being something of which the defendant is accused, which must be from the students’ prior knowledge. The student identifies both the defendant and the charges, but she does not provide any evidence or reasoning, additions not asked for on the worksheet.
What I might do differently:
With this student I would note the connection between her responses and the questions asked of her, and I would ask her why. Knowing this student, I know she would not want to write more because she feels self-conscious about her writing abilities, but I would focus on the great response ideas she had so far and ask her to support her ideas with small details from the text or her reasoning. I might also ask her why she thinks “cutting down the trees” is a charge and what she thinks the outcome of the trial should be.
Levstik, L., & Barton, K. (2005). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary and middle schools (3rd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
I chose to do my lesson within the class’s larger civics curriculum because it would fit within a larger unit and because it would benefit the students’ larger learning goals for the year. Arcadia University and The Constitution Center have developed a civics curriculum called We the Civics Kids that the entire school has been using, and I used their materials (http://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/lesson-plans/we-the-civics-kids-lesson-4-principles-of-justice-and-the-role-of-the-judic) to plan my lesson. I taught this lesson to the whole class because it was content the whole class needed to cover, and I developed my own plan from the We The Civics Kids curriculum covering the basic principles of “Lesson 4: Principles of Justice and the Role of the Judiciary”: forms of conflict resolution and the way the judicial system interacts with conflict resolution in the United States.
Enacting the Lesson
I felt good about my lesson during instruction and in the moments afterwards, but I will admit that at the end I felt frazzled. I had planned too much for a 45 minute block that got cut short because the students were about 10 minutes late coming from their previous class. What I did not know for sure in the moments after finishing my first period of instruction was when the students were going to be able to finish their written responses on The Lorax worksheets. Luckily, this came the following week, and after finishing that portion of instruction, I felt even better about my lesson because we got to review (with a role play) the differences between negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and litigation and the students got to write. The students were engaged and offered ideas during our discussion, and they worked together diligently and excitedly during small group work, as can be seen in my observer notes. In the initial moments while I felt good about students’ engagement, I wished I had gotten more student-to-student dialogue rather than operating as a student discussion switchboard. My observer noted that my tone and classroom management were on point, but she wanted to see more questions asked of students and for the students to be expected to repeat each other’s responses. I took this feedback into consideration when teaching the final portion of my lesson the next week.
Reflections and Modifications
I was particularly glad that my written feedback mirrored my general feelings about the lesson. While my observer did not see the second portion of my lesson, I felt that I incorporated her feedback into the instruction of the second portion, particularly when it came to eliciting student responses to each other. I asked student to repeat, in their own words, what other students said and offer how their own ideas related to their classmates’. In planning another lesson, I think I might choose a different response question. I was trying to incorporate as much of the Civics Kids curriculum as possible, but I now think that trying to cover types of conflict resolution is one lesson in itself and the role of the judiciary another. As much as I enjoyed the read aloud and thinking about conflict resolution in The Lorax, I am not sure the connection between that conflict resolution and the judicial system is strong enough for one lesson.
I felt that my content knowledge was strong because of my thorough review of curriculum materials, but I wish, as I have already stated, that I could focus more on getting students to talk to each other rather than through and to me. I would do this by asking them to respond directly to each other, perhaps in a popcorn style discussion, with my role being more of a logistical facilitator than a sounding board. I would try to “teach for as well as with discussion” (2011, Levstik and Barton, chp. 11). This, I realize, would take weeks or months of practice for students conditioned to talk to the instructor rather than to each other. The one thing I noted that will become very obvious in my analysis of their work is that it was not clear to students what “charges” meant. I figured because we had gone over the people and general outline of a trial, students must have also know what charges are, but upon reading the 3 selected responses (and others) it is clear that most students thought of charges as a form of repayment or punishment, rather than the crime of which the defendant is accused.
Assessing Student Learning and My Teaching
The students unanimously decided that the Once-ler should be the defendant, and they all cited his cutting down of trees. In the future I might include on the worksheet a prompt to defend your reasoning (though my fear is seeing such a long prompt would dissuade some students from participating at all), and I would definitely go over the definition of “charges.” I might further ask students to reason about what they think their defendant might say to defend him/herself.
Student#1
Conclusions about learning:
This student was able to understand The Lorax story and identify that she believed the Once-ler had done something that made him the defendant in our trial, but she failed to answer why she believed that the Once-ler would be the defendant or what the charges against him would be. During our verbal discussion, this student contributed to ideas about the difference between arbitration and mediation, leading me to believe she at least made progress toward the goals of understanding the types of conflict resolution, but from this writing and in our discussion, I do not have evidence to believe she made progress on understanding what happens in a court of law. She did, however, pull details from The Lorax, which touches upon the common core literacy standards outlined in my plan.
Evidence from response:
Student 1 begins her response, “The defendant is the Once-ler,” but ends it “that’s what happen in the lorax story.” This indicates to me what while she began to think about the meaning of defendant and even outlined somewhat what the Once-ler might have done to be a defendant, her thought process got muddied by her recollection of the entire plot of The Lorax.
What I might do differently:
Unfortunately I did not get to see this students’ response while she was writing it, nor did she share it with the whole class during our concluding discussion. If I had had the opportunity to speak with this student about this response, I would have begun by noting that she chose the Once-ler as her defendant and asking her why she had chosen him. I would thank her for her detailed summary of the story but ask her what portions of that summary could be useful in asking the questions “Why did you choose the Once-ler as the defendant?” and “What would the charges (the crime of which he was accused) be?”
Student#2
Conclusions about learning:
Student 2 demonstrated that he knew that court proceedings (a trial) could lead to jail time and community service, something we discussed briefly as a class. He did not, however, demonstrate an understanding of what charges were, which could likely be explained by the fact that we did not go over a definition of “charges.” This misinterpretation of the term shows up in other work samples not chosen because of their similarity to this piece. The student also demonstrates an understanding of what happened in The Lorax by references planting the trees back, which touches upon common core literacy standards.
Evidence from response:
This student writes, “I think the diffen will be onceler and the charges will a week in jail and 3 months community servers… also he have to plant them trees back…” This response indicates that student 2 understood that the Once-ler was responsible for cutting down the trees and that such behavior should come with a consequence resulting from a trial in which he is the defendant. This indicates that the students’ definition of “charges” does not match usual definitions of the word, but I will take responsibility for that error because of my instruction.
What I might do differently:
Because this student demonstrates both an understanding of the text and possible outcomes of a trial, I would clarify with him the meaning of “charges” and discuss not just the consequences for the Once-ler’s actions but also the content of those actions. I would ask this student, “What about what the Once-ler did was wrong?” and “Who might have asked the Once-ler to court?” to solidify that trails are a form of conflict resolution between multiple parties because of specific disagreements.
Student#3
Conclusions about learning:
This student, in class discussions, demonstrated a solid working understanding of the differences between mediation and arbitration; specifically, she noted the difference in the power given to the third party. Her response specifically and concisely answers the questions on the sheet, but she does not cite evidence for her conclusions. This, in part, may be due to the fact that the question does not ask for supporting evidence or reasoning. Because of the brevity of the response, it is difficult to assess whether the student touched upon the common core literacy standards of referring to details in a text. She did, however, write coherently for the task asked of her.
Evidence from response:
The student writes, “The Onceler is the defndant. The charges is The Onceler is cutting down the trees.” This response indicates a more accurate working definition of charges being something of which the defendant is accused, which must be from the students’ prior knowledge. The student identifies both the defendant and the charges, but she does not provide any evidence or reasoning, additions not asked for on the worksheet.
What I might do differently:
With this student I would note the connection between her responses and the questions asked of her, and I would ask her why. Knowing this student, I know she would not want to write more because she feels self-conscious about her writing abilities, but I would focus on the great response ideas she had so far and ask her to support her ideas with small details from the text or her reasoning. I might also ask her why she thinks “cutting down the trees” is a charge and what she thinks the outcome of the trial should be.
Levstik, L., & Barton, K. (2005). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary and middle schools (3rd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.