Beverlee Whipple

Total Points Possible: 120 (Subtract 4 points for each NA given: 0) Total Points Earned: 82 Percentage Score: 2.7

Directions: Circle the number that best reflects what you observe in a sheltered lesson. You may give a score from 0-4 (or NA on selected items). Cite under comments specific examples of the behaviors observed.

Lesson Preparation___________________________
4
1. Content objectives clearly Defined, displayed and reviewed with students

2
Content objectives for students implied.

0
No clearly defined Content objectives for students

Comments: Score 4 points. The content objectives were clearly defined, displayed, and demonstrated.

4
2. Language objectives clearly defined, displayed and reviewed with students

2
Language objectives for students implied

0
No clearly defined Language objective

Comments: Score 2 points. The language objectives were not clearly displayed; but the language skills that needed to be targeted were stated as activities and not written out as objectives.

4
3. Content concepts appropriate for age and educational background level of students

2
Content concepts somewhat appropriate for age and educational background level of students

0
Content concepts inappropriate for age and educational background level of students

Comments: Score 2 points. The content concepts were appropriate for the age group and educational background level of the students. A few concepts failed to tie into the theme of volcanoes. For example, stacks of books demonstrating rocks pushing against each other, was never tied into the objective. It was also unclear as to why volcanos were taught. This objective did not align to the standards for sixth grade, it was aligned to fifth grade; why teach it again?

4
4. Supplementary materials used to a high degree, making

2
Some use of Supplementary materials

0
No use of Supplementary materials

Beverlee Whipple the lesson clear and meaningful (e.g., computer programs, graphs, models, visuals) Comments: Score 4 points. This lesson had good use of different methods. Overall, understanding the lesson was clear and meaningful. Example; worksheets (writing), creating a magma chamber in a bottle (model), volcano diagram on overhead transparencies (visual), a book, Pompeii... Buried Alive (reading).

4
5. Adaptation of content (e.g., text, assignment) to all levels of students proficiency.

2
Some adaptation of content to all levels of student proficiency

0
No significant adaptation of content to all levels of student proficiency

Comments: Score 3 points. The lesson adapted the material to almost everyones understanding, but was somewhat lacking to ESL students. By showing the water in the bottle, with food coloring, and associating it to a magma chamber using transparencies, was good. The worksheets and giving every student the same text to read was also good; however, the instruction failed to adequately explain and adapt all vocabulary words.

4
6. Meaningful activities that integrate lesson concepts (e.g., interviews, letter writing, simulations, models) with language practice opportunities for reading writing, listening, and/or speaking

2
Meaningful activities that integrate lesson concepts but provides few language practice opportunities for reading, writing, listening, and/or speaking

0
No meaningful activities that integrate lesson concepts with language practice

Comments: Score 4 points. The presentation had meaningful activities throughout the lesson. As an example, water with color in it and vinegar to create a magma eruption provided opportunities for students to make predictions. (Writing, listening, and/or speaking.)

Building Background_________________________
4 7. Concepts explicitly linked to students background experiences 3 2 Concepts loosely linked to students background experiences 1 0 Concepts not explicitly linked to students background experiences

Comments: Score 3 points. Concepts were generally linked to students background experiences, but not explicitly linked. Example, students were asked to complete a semantic mapping writing, what they knew about

Beverlee Whipple volcanoes. When asked, What students knew about plants, this was not linked to a volcano or the eruption.

4 8. Links explicitly made between past learning and new concepts

2 Few links made between past learning and new concepts

0 No links made between past learning and new concepts

Comments: Score 2 points. There were few links made between past learning experiences and new concepts. Students were asked when the last time vinegar was used. What did vinegar, or the teaspoon, have to do with the subject of volcanoes? How many students came from countries with volcanoes? These were the only questions really linked to past experience. When linking what they knew about plants, the teacher said plants breathe in carbon monoxide instead of saying carbon dioxide. This was not linked to either, and monoxide was the wrong terminology.

4 9. Key Vocabulary emphasized (e.g., introduced, written, repeated, and highlighted for students to see)

2 Key vocabulary introduced, but not emphasized

0 Key Vocabulary not introduced or emphasized

Comments: Score 2 points. The key vocabulary was introduced in the beginning and used throughout the lesson; but never explained later in the lesson. This is needed for ESL level student comprehension. Students did not receive the meaning for each word, when the words were introduced.

Comprehensible Input________________________
4 10. Speech appropriate for students proficiency level (e.g., slower rate, enunciation, and simple sentence structure for beginners) 3 2 Speech sometimes inappropriate for students proficiency level 1 0 Speech inappropriate for students proficiency level

Comments: Score 3 points. The teacher explained important steps, modeled, and generally demonstrated before the students participated; and pauses were incorporated to let students think before answering. Simple understandable sentence structure was not adequately used for the beginning ESL level students. Example, when some phrases are spoken, such as a volcano is under water, or the lava comes out and makes an island, this information can be confusing to someone who may not understand anything about volcanos.

Beverlee Whipple

4 11. Clear explanation of academic tasks

2 Unclear explanation of academic tasks

0 No explanation of academic tasks

Comments: Score 2 points. What was going to be covered, before starting the lesson, was adequate. However, the worksheets were never really explained thoroughly or modeled sufficiently. In order for the ESL level students to comprehend this instruction, additional sentences needed modeling by writing them on the white board for the entire class to grasp all concepts, especially ESL level students.

4 12. A variety of techniques used to make content concepts clear (e.g., modeling, visuals, hands-on activities, demonstrations, gestures, body language)

2 Some techniques used to make content concepts clear

0 No techniques used to make content concepts clear

Comments: Score 3 points. Concepts where not clear enough for the ESL level students to comprehend. Demonstrating a model of a volcano erupting was effective; diagrams of a volcano and the labeling of the different parts of a volcano was also very good. Modeling could have been more extensive.

Strategies____________________________________
4 13. Ample opportunities provided for students to use learning strategies 3 2 Inadequate opportunities provided for students to use Learning strategies 1 0 No opportunity provided for students to use Learning strategies

Comments: Score 3 points. Strategies were good, just not executed to the appropriate level for all the students. More differentiation was needed for the ESL level students, for comprehension to take place. Students used the strategies given with the teacher and not with each other.

4 14. Scaffolding techniques consistently used, assisting and supporting student understanding (e.g., think-aloud)

2 Scaffolding techniques occasionally used

0 Scaffolding techniques not used

Beverlee Whipple Comments: Score 3 points. The teacher used a variety of scaffolding techniques throughout the lesson, which in turn promoted comprehension of content concepts through questions being asked; which created understanding and built upon each other, which enhanced the lesson. Think-alouds were also implemented, which contributed to the lesson. More modeling could have been incorporated for i + 1 level higher to have occurred for ESL students.

4 15. A variety of questions or tasks that promote higher-order thinking (e.g., literal, analytical, and interpretive questions)

2 Infrequent questions or tasks that promote higher-order thinking skills

0 No questions or tasks that promote higherorder thinking skills

Comments: Score 3 points. The lesson generated questions asked from the students, which was excellent. However, some of the questions had nothing to do with the topic being discussed, and did not promote higherorder thinking. Sometimes more elaborated responses where asked of students; for example, Can you think of other places in the world where eruptions have occurred? Or, tell me about volcanoes in your country?

Interaction___________________________________
4 16. Frequent opportunities for interaction and discussion between teacher/student and among students, which encourage elaborated responses about lesson concepts 3 2 Interaction mostly teacher-dominated with some opportunities for students to talk about or question lesson concepts 1 0 Interaction teacherdominated with no opportunities for students to discuss lesson concepts

Comments: Score 3 points. This teacher had frequent opportunities for interaction and discussion between teacher and students; the discussion about volcanos, the semantic mapping exercise, the demonstration of a volcano erupting and predictions made from the title of the book; but not amongst student paring or groups, which would encourage more shoulder partner sharing time.

4 17. Grouping configurations support language and content objectives of the lesson

2 Grouping configurations unevenly support the language and content objectives

0 Grouping configurations do not support the language and content objectives

Beverlee Whipple Comments: Score 3 points. Only once was groupings utilized, and only with one large and one small group. This lesson supported content objectives. More grouping configurations would have been appropriate so students might practice their language skills interactively.

4 18. Sufficient wait time for student responses consistently provided

2 Sufficient wait time for student responses occasionally provided

0 Sufficient wait time for student responses not provided

Comments: Score 3 points. The teacher gave sufficient wait time for answers to questions; but only heard form a couple of students at a time. Students were given plenty of time to articulate their thoughts. Sufficient time should be given to students who desire to respond, which did not occur.

4 19. Ample opportunities for students to clarify key concepts in L1 as needed with aide, peer, or L1 text

2 Some opportunities for students to clarify key concepts in L1

0 No opportunity for students to clarify key concepts in L1

Comments: Score 2 points. The teacher identified ESL lower level students in the introduction, so I am assuming they are L1; but needed more differentiation and modeling for comprehension to occur.

Practice Application ________________________

4 20. Hands-on materials and/or manipulatives provided for students to practice using new content knowledge 3 2 Few hands-on materials and/or manipulatives provided for students to practice using new content knowledge 1 0 No hands-on materials and/or manipulatives provided for students to practice using new content knowledge

Comments: Score 3 points. The lesson had manipulatives: three worksheets, the modeling of volcano experiment while using liquid detergent, warm water, measuring spoon, baking soda, vinegar, and transparencies to view. However, only a few students were able to interact personally with these materials.

Beverlee Whipple

4 21. Activities provide for students to apply content and language knowledge in the classroom

2 Activities provided for students to apply either content or language knowledge in the classroom

0 No activities provided for students to apply content or language knowledge in the classroom

Comments: Score 3 points. The worksheet applied content and language knowledge, modeling of a volcano, transparencies, and reading the book. It would have been nice if there had been more student interaction between each other; this would have provided more opportunities for teacher assessment.

4 22. Activities integrate all language skills (i.e., reading ,writing, listening, and speaking)

2 Activities integrate some language skills

0 Activities do not integrate language skills

Comments: Score 3 points. The lesson did allow opportunities for students to use core language skills. For instance, speaking, listening, reading, and writing, which was evident in the semantic mapping activity, and in putting the sentences about the volcano in sequential order, were good. However, the lesson needed more modeling and time for student comments.

Lesson Delivery
4 23. Content objectives clearly supported by lesson delivery 3

________________________
2 Content objectives supported somewhat by lesson delivery 1 0 Content objectives not supported by lesson delivery

Comments: Score 3 points. Most of the time the objectives were clearly supported by the lesson delivery. A few times students were lost, and did not fully understand parts of the lesson. For example, what causes volcanoes to erupt? What did the plant have to do with the volcano? Im sure there is a connection; I would have liked to have known what it was, along with the students.

4 24. Language objectives clearly supported by lesson delivery

2 Language objective somewhat supported by lesson delivery

0 Language objectives not supported by lesson delivery

Beverlee Whipple

Comments: Score 2 points. The language objectives were clearly supported throughout the lesson, just never really stated. Students did not have a chance to complete the sequencing when they were reading, in order to assess their comprehension.

4 25. Student engagement approximately 90% to 100% of the period

2 Students engaged approximately 70% of t period

0 Students engaged less than 50% of the period

Comments: Score 3 points. Students seemed to be on task throughout the lesson; but frequently confused about vocabulary.

4 26. Pacing of the lesson appropriate to students ability levels

2 Pacing generally appropriate, but at times too fast or too slow

0 Pacing inappropriate to the students ability levels

Comments: Score 2 points. The teacher lost a few students, at times, by not letting more students respond, and rushing the other students. This prevents some students from finishing the activity, such as individual reading time and the sequencing activity. The pacing was inappropriately rushed, especially for ELS students.

Review/Assessment ________________________
4 27. Comprehensive review of key vocabulary 3 2 Uneven review of key vocabulary 1 0 No review of key vocabulary

Comments: Score 3 points. The teacher reviewed the key vocabulary words in the beginning of the lesson and reinforced them throughout; but not all the words were reviewed at the conclusion of the lesson.

4 28. Comprehensive review of key content concepts

2 Uneven review of key content concepts

0 No review of key vocabulary

Comments: Score 2 points. The key concepts were revisited throughout the lesson; but no final review took place at the end of the lesson. Thus, there was an inability to ascertain the comprehension of the

Beverlee Whipple students grasp of content concepts.

4 29. Regular feedback provided to students on their output (e.g., language, content, work)

2 Inconsistent feedback provided to students on their output

0 No feedback provided to students on their output

Comments: Score 2 points. I never read any feedback, other than in the beginning when the teacher was complimenting the students for their performance on a test they had taken. I am assuming that the teacher must have given some feedback, just not a lot. For higher learning to be accomplished, a review of the message with feedback should take place, to assure the language content is being assimilated.

4 30. Assessment of student comprehension and learning of all lesson objectives (e.g., spot checking, group response) throughout the lesson

2 Assessment of students comprehension and learning of some lesson objectives

0 No assessment of students comprehension and learning of lesson objectives

Comments: Score 2 points. The teacher periodically checked for student understanding by walking around, while students worked on worksheets. Students respond to questions throughout the lesson; however, students were not give sufficient time to read individually, or sufficient time to work on worksheets to assure proper individual assessment of students comprehension. It is also unclear as to how the teacher was able to assess the students comprehension, before the students read the text.

Beverlee Whipple

Dear Mrs. Clark Thank you for the opportunity to attend your class as a SIOP observer, and allowing monitoring of your lesson about volcanoes, and why they erupt. I can tell you love teaching and enjoy interaction with students. Your contextual factors referenced beginning ESL students, with varying language backgrounds. I found your content objectives and concepts clearly defined, displayed, and were appropriate for the age group. Volcanic content is normally taught in fifth grade; therefore, it is not aligned with sixth grade common core standard appropriateness. I also missed seeing language objectives displayed or mentioned. My understanding is language objectives should be reviewed, especially for ESL students. You incorporated supplementary materials, adaptation, and meaningful activities appropriately into your lesson. You had think-alouds and good questions; but lacked ability to promote a higher level of thinking, which intern promotes i + 1 and scaffolding. It would be appropriate to Involve more students when questioning, not just a select few. Also, incorporate shoulder partners, or divide students into groups within your lesson structure. Physical desk layout could also be improved to allow all students better visualization of the board. There was no explanatory correlation when knocking books off the table, associated to rocks moving against each other, or direct connection to a volcano. Your discussion about plants referenced carbon monoxide, when the term should be carbon dioxide. Although, no correlation to volcanos was made, this also created a misconception about the science of plant air exchange function. Correctness of scientific theory is especially important for ESL students. I did not observe adequate linking of past learning experiences, to new concepts about volcanoes. It is important for students to explore what they know, to associate new content and concepts. It is also good to model first, and then let the students attempt it on their own. The questions asked before reading Pompeii Burred Alive, were very good. They allowed students to form predictions based on the book title; however, more reading time would have been advantageous, especially to ESL students. More definitions to vocabulary words would have helped all students who were often confused, particularly ESL students. Feedback is also important, and was sufficient during the introduction; but lacking throughout the lesson. However, most deficient was an adequate comprehensive review; other than a general statement about, what is a volcano. I trust you will find these brief suggestions constructive. You have great skills as an instructor, and it is apparent students greatly benefit from your expertise and passion. Sincerely, Beverlee Whipple