2.3 Lesson Assessments

2.3 Lesson Assessments: The structure of the lesson included opportunities for the instructor to gauge student understanding.

This indicator captures how well the teacher structured the lesson to include opportunities to monitor student understanding of the content, both formally and informally. This can be as simple as the teacher allowing times when he/she can walk around and assess the work of individual students or groups, or the teacher carefully preparing formative assessment questions, both written and oral, to gauge student understanding. This can also be evidenced by a lesson that is structured to allow time for a lot of “student talk” around important concepts, such that the teacher can get a clear picture of what students understand. A lesson that would not score well on this indicator would be structured as predominantly teacher-driven with no or few opportunities planned for the teacher to get an idea of what students understand.

General Rubric

1. This item should be rated a 1 if there was little or no time structured into the lesson to assess student understanding—the teacher led the entire lesson with no or little student input regarding their thinking about key mathematics or science concepts.
   
    
2. This item should be rated a 2 if there were only occasional or sporadic places in the lesson where there was an opportunity for the teacher to assess or observe what students were thinking, talking about, or doing—perhaps the teacher planned time to elicit a couple of quality student contributions or did some assessment of a few students thinking based on their written work occasionally during the class period.
   
    
3. This item should be rated a 3 if there were some opportunities clearly designed for in the lesson structure to allow the teacher to gauge student understanding, and there was evidence that the teacher purposefully created appropriate structures or methods for students to express their thinking. However, there may have been a few minor missed opportunities to check in with some students and/or groups.
   
    
4. This item should be rated a 4 if there were regular or frequent opportunities for the teacher to gauge student understanding, based on the way the teacher had structured the lesson. The teacher had planned for a number and variety of methods and opportunities for students to explore, propose, share, and refine their thinking.
   
    
5. This item should be rated a 5 if the lesson was structured as clearly student-centered—students were consistently and constantly trying out ideas and expressing their understanding of key mathematics and science concepts throughout the majority of the lesson. The teacher planned the lesson so that students spent the entire class period exploring, proposing ideas, sharing, and refining their thinking.

Specific Examples of Supporting Evidence

Science

1. The teacher’s lesson plan was for him to read through the information listed in a table printed in the Chemistry textbook entitled “The activity series of the metals” while students took notes at their desks. The teacher did not plan to elaborate on the text by offering examples, explanations, or context. The teacher did not anticipate student questions and did not prepare or plan to ask question of students to check for understanding.
   
    
2. The teacher’s plan was to present a table entitled “The activity series of the metals” on the overhead, and then write several balanced chemical equations illustrating how certain reactants would form specific products. This introductory segment was to be followed up by a few minutes for students to ask any questions they might have but the teacher did not prepare any questions to probe their thinking about the material presented. The students were then given a worksheet that had them predict the products of a reaction between two elements by looking at the table and seeing which metal was more “active” than another.
   
    
3. The lesson structure was based on teacher demonstrations of single replacement reactions. The lesson was structured to start with the teacher telling the students what reactants she was going to use, then asking them to make a prediction in their lab notebook about what products could be produced, using the “Activity series of the metals” table. After students had made their predictions, the teacher would mix the chemicals together in a watch glass on the overhead and students could observe what took place. The lesson structure allowed some time for her to walk around the room with the flask containing the reactants so the students could observe what was happening in each case. This structure also allowed her to observe what some of the students were writing/drawing in their lab notebooks. The teacher had prepared several questions to ask students to prompt thinking about what they were seeing and how they might determine what products were being formed, such as “What do bubbles on the metal indicate?” However, the number of activities planned did not allow enough time for her to check on every group or every student once they began mixing their chemicals.
   
    
4. The teacher designed a lab activity where the students would conduct an investigation to illustrate how chemists determined the relative reactivity of metals as arranged in the “Activity series of the metals” table. She prepared a data table with a matrix listing several metals and aqueous metal salt solutions for the students and then asked them to choose a metal and a salt solution from the list and predict what might happen based on the relative position of the reactants in the table. Before allowing the students to begin mixing the reactants, the teacher allowed time to check in on each group in order to review their predictions and ask them to explain why they thought the products would be as they predicted. Then the students were allotted time to carry out the experiment by combining the appropriate materials in the test tube and observing the results, discussing with each other the evidence they used to determine if their predictions were correct, and, finally, writing up their results and conclusions in their lab notebooks.
   
    
5. The teacher had the students conduct the investigation described in the previous paragraph, but the final planned lesson activity was given for homework—the students were challenged to read a newspaper article describing the restoration of the Statue of Liberty and suggest what possible chemical reactions might have occurred in the first place between the copper plating and iron support bars that caused the structure to deteriorate. Student groups would present their ideas for discussion to the class on the following day.

Mathematics

1. The math worksheet given during this class was not structured to uncover any important concepts. The questions on the worksheet were random and disconnected; the answers were all multiple choice format, facilitating guessing; and the teacher did not plan time to ask questions that could promote the students’ conceptual understanding.
   
    
2. During the post-observational interview/survey, the teacher stated, “The materials for this lesson came straight from the Instructional Program Guides (IPGs)” provided by the department chair, which included the student worksheet and the “correct” answers. The teacher said he prepared for the lesson by going over the expected answers and thinking of an introduction because the material was “dry.” The design of the lesson with the introduction did not contain any questions to elicit student thinking or prior knowledge, and the majority of class time was structured with the teacher at the board solving the problems from the student worksheet. The teacher said he “expected the students to copy these problems down into their notes” for future reference. Little time was allotted for the teacher to move around the room and check on what the students wrote in their notebooks.
   
    
3. The structure of this lesson definitely created some opportunities that allowed students to express their thinking and uncover important concepts relating to linear equations and linear inequalities while exploring an engaging and challenging activity. The warm up introduced and probed for student prior knowledge, and then a wrap up reviewed and strengthened the foundational ideas students worked through on linear equations. There were a few times when some students were unable to continue with the activity because they did not seem to understand what they needed to do and the teacher did not have enough time to address their specific questions.
   
    
4. The structure of this lesson was successful in providing opportunities for students to think, share, and reflect on their ideas as they uncovered math concepts while carrying out the activity. In addition, the student groups took presenting in front of the class seriously and asked each group member to explain some aspect of the math behind the poster they had made so that they could clearly communicate it to others. The teacher also questioned and challenged the students during their presentations in order to facilitate content being uncovered. The only way the structure of the lesson could have been improved is if the students had been required to question other presenting groups or be involved in the presentations in some way.
   
    
5. The teacher said that her objective for this lesson was to use properties of similar triangles and proportions to solve for unknown measurements. She constantly encouraged students to show their work and justify their answers, and she structured the lesson so that the parts with whole-class discussion were broken up by individual or group problem solving. This structure seemed very effective at eliciting each student’s ideas and conjectures and receiving thought-provoking feedback from the teacher and/or other students.