Supervisor Observation Reflection #2

Read alouds are a perfect way to creatively get students involved in their reading curriculum. When students have the opportunity to listen to a story orally, they get to visualize the story with the characters. Good teachers will read the story slowly with good voice inflection, and dramatize the different characters voices to help students notice when a new character is talking. When my CT has completed read alouds in the past, she slowly goes through the book, and makes sure all the students are following along. She picks certain stopping points for the students to discuss what just happened, what it could mean in the story, what could possibly happen later in the story, etc. She advised me when implementing a read aloud, to make sure to slow down when reading and ask the students lots of questions. This keeps students interacted and engaged with the story. The more students are involved, the more they will remember from the story.

My original plan was for my fourth-grade students to listen to my story during the read aloud and apply what they learned from the text to infer what could happen next. I chose the book “Kingdom Keepers” by Ridley Pearson. The first chapter ends in a cliff hanger, so I wanted to see what inferences and predictions my students could come up with after reading the first chapter to them, and working with them to fill out a graphic organizer. After I worked with them to fill out the graphic organizer, I would give students time to work on the back side of the worksheet to write their predictions for chapter two. As long as students were able to refer to the text for their predictions, it would show they have mastered the objective. The more details they used from the first chapter, the better.

Overall, I feel like the lesson went well. I based the lesson on state-adopted standards (FEAP 1a). The standard that I used to base my lesson plan on was 4.RL.1.1, “to refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text”. I designed my instruction for students to achieve mastery (FEAP 1c). As I worked along with the students to complete the graphic organizer as a class, I prepared them to use this information to meet the objective of making an inference about the next chapter. I gave clear oral directions to the students in the beginning of the lesson that my expectations were for everyone to refer to the text to make predictions (FEAP 2e, FEAP 2e). If a student gave an answer with more details and support, they would receive a higher scoring answer compared to someone who gave an answer with just one sentence referring to the text. I selected an appropriate formative assessment to monitor the student learning (FEAP 1d). The students’ prediction was looked at after the lesson to see where they are and what they need improvement on. I allocated and managed the time well throughout the lesson (FEAP 2a). I knew the lesson would be a little longer than 30 minutes, so I planned if we ran out of time to save the prediction for after lunch when the students come back to the classroom. I maintained a climate of openness and support when I worked along with the students to complete the graphic organizer (FEAP 2f). I also kept this climate of support when I assisted ESE students in writing their predictions. I did not get a chance to manage individual and class behaviors (FEAP 2b). The students know my CT expectations very well so they stayed attentive throughout the lesson.

Part of the success of the students’ behavior is laid out by my CT. She has very high expectations for her students even when she leaves the classroom. During my observation, my CT had a report card meeting that she could not miss. She left for her meeting and a substitute was present in the room with me as I led the read aloud. The students understand that even when my CT is absent, they still need to be on their best behavior for the adult who is present in the room. She always reminds them that their behavior reflects not only themselves, but her as well. The standard my CT sets up for her students is similar to the standard Mrs. Perez sets up for her students (Rothstein-Fisch & Trumbull, 2008). In Rothstein-Fisch & Trumbull’s book, Mrs. Perez works with her students as a team effort, and the students have a mutual respect for her and their peers (Rothstein-Fisch & Trumbull, 2008). This is how my CT has her classroom set up, and this is how I want my future classroom to run.

The task met the developmental needs of my students because I gave them clear directions and let the students use higher order thinking to use what they know in order to predict the next chapter. The most important thing I can take away from this lesson is to be more collaborative. In my observation video at 27:45, this is when I began the instructions to the students for the prediction assignment. According to Rothstein-Fisch & Trumbull, “We define collaborative learning as ‘students working together to help each other learn’” (p. 124). To make the lesson more collaborative, I could have let students brainstorm with their table groups about what they think will happen next, and then let them write their predictions. This individual work allowed students the chance to show what they know, but the collaborative aspect could have helped some students form their ideas.

At 1:16 in my observation video, I circled around the room to hand out the graphic organizers. The students have used the same graphic organizer with their teacher before with other texts, so I connected it with the students. I asked them “Does this look a little familiar?”. The students agreed and remembered the past times they have used the graphic organizer before. This helped the students feel at ease because they know how to fill it out. At 5:49, I had my first stopping point in the book. The stopping points were consistent throughout the book. After I asked the class a question, they would raise their hands, and when I called on a student, I pushed them further with another question. These follow-up questions help push the students’ thinking and make them see the bigger picture of the plot in the story. If I would have added more quick turn and talks, the students would have an extra opportunity to discuss the plot and major points in the story with a partner.

At 12:20 in my video, I noticed a student playing with his pencil at the desk right in front of me. During the read aloud, I did not notice he was not fully paying attention to the story. To fix this situation, I could have silently tapped on his desk and pointed to the projector. This would have not interrupted the class, but showed him I noticed his misbehavior and he needs to redirect his attention to the projector to read along with me in the story. To improve further, I could have moved around a lot more during the read aloud. I noticed from my observation video that I sat in the same place in front of the elmo while reading. I could have gotten up during a stopping point in the book to ask the questions from the students, or I could have gotten up to read from the projector. Both would have improved my read aloud because the students who were misbehaving would redirect their behavior because they would see me circulating around the room.

This was a great learning opportunity for me to take what I have learned in previous observations, and apply it to plan for an actual lesson plan. I had the opportunity to develop my skills in FEAP 2. I touched a little with FEAP 1, but not fully in depth. If I make the improvements discussed above for future read alouds, I can better the lesson even more.