Description:
In the science class I am writing about, there are 17 students in 6th grade, with ages ranging from 11-13. Two students have been retained in elementary school. The class includes 2 MLL (Multilingual Learners) whose native language is Swahili, as well as 3 MLL learners whose native language is Spanish. There are 7 students in the Mild/Moderate needs center-based program, and 1 student in the CSD (Communication Skills Development) program. 68% of the students are considered economically disadvantaged. During the two observed class periods, there are two co-teachers and two paraprofessionals who monitor behavior and maintain personal boundaries.
| Lab |
| Key Vocabulary |
Unit/Topic 1:
The two teachers were teaching the interactions of force and motion, as well as introducing chemical changes that can occur over a specific period of time and why. Kopp (2014) states, “When students can summarize, they recognize the main ideas and can eliminate unimportant information. They are required to think deeply about the information they read and use skills of analysis. They refine their vocabularies, and when they put the main ideas into their own words, they also better remember the content.” While I believe summarizing is helpful, I also think many students retain information better when they engage in hands-on activities, such as the spinner observation lab observed in another class. In that lab, students connected the forces of motion by comparing and contrasting types of spinning tops, inferring which top they believed would spin faster. This type of hands-on activity encourages students to work in small groups and apply their background knowledge. Kopp (2014) also suggests, “Students should identify word clues that help make accurate inferences as well as discuss words that contribute to their inferences. In science, teachers can provide experiences where students must use their observational skills to draw inferences.”
Unit/Topic 2:
![]() |
| Natural Selection review |
the students learned about natural selection. In table groups (of four), they developed a hypothesis regarding how natural selection works. They used sentence stems and visuals of expected behaviors to guide their thinking while working in self-chosen groups. Their task was to “develop a hypothesis about adaptive traits and the role these traits play in impacting species survival rates.”
In their groups, each student selected a species to research. They then provided an example of an adaptive trait and hypothesized how they believed the trait helped the species survive in its current environment.
Expectations and Objectives
The teacher displayed expectations on the wall as visuals to help guide the students’ thinking and keep them focused on the topic. These visuals included the students' objectives, expected voice levels, and guiding questions to ensure that the students stayed on track. After introducing the topic and providing an example hypothesis (the teacher’s example was a moth), the students were given 10 minutes to discuss their ideas in small groups. For the next 15 minutes, they shared their hypotheses about how survival could be linked to adaptive traits.
![]() |
| Science expectations |
| Modified notes |
Though the students occasionally got off track with their questioning and peer discussions, most remained actively engaged, as they "enjoyed arguing" with one another. At the end of the lesson, the teacher added new vocabulary words to the science word wall.
What Was Learned
![]() |
| Important points |
The students enjoyed the lesson, remaining actively engaged throughout the hypothetical questioning and peer feedback. The teacher effectively kept them focused on the objective, even with the more whimsical ideas, like zombies. She skillfully questioned their reasoning about the adaptive traits that would help zombies survive. Allowing students to choose their own partners, as long as they adhered to the expectations, seemed to work well. It was interesting to see that many of the groups displayed different skill sets, each with distinct strengths and weaknesses.
It was valuable to see the two different teaching styles. Both teachers taught the same topic and lesson, but one teacher focused more on lecture, summarizing, teaching new academic language, and meeting the academic language/objectives. The other teacher briefly reviewed pre-learned objectives and then allowed students to work in groups to complete the lab. Afterward, the teacher led a large-group discussion to review what they had learned, explaining their hypotheses, observations, and definitions. Observing both teachers engaging with their students was very valuable for me. On a daily basis, the teachers who relied on lecturing often have behavior issues with their students. In contrast, the teacher who used the hands-on activity experienced little to no behavioral issues. Students were aware of the rules and expectations going into the lab and understood that any type of horseplay would result in being removed from the lab group. While observing the students in both classes, I realized that the more hands-on teacher recognized that many students in his class were considered disadvantaged and struggled with the science content. Kopp (2014) notes, “Science teachers should remember that, in general, the reading levels in most science textbooks are usually one or two grade levels above the actual grade identified for the book (Barton and Jordan 2001, iii). Teachers can support students as they read to comprehend the informational text placed before them. (2014). The teacher who focused more on the objectives and vocabulary had pre-planned modifications in place for students working on extended evidence outcomes. Both teachers used verbal positive reinforcement and taught their objectives, but I believe hands-on activities might be more beneficial for students' learning in science. While this observation did not include virtual or interactive elements, I reflected on our readings in Chapter 8, which state that “virtual field trips extend students’ experiences and provide a unique perspective on the world. Additionally, teachers can help build background knowledge for students who may not have advantages with science-related topics (Kopp, 2014).” To build a more engaging lesson plan, I would consider providing a more interactive approach, such as using the PHET interactive simulations, like the natural selection simulations from the University of Boulder. This interactive site allows students to engage with topics in mutation, genetics, and selection. Through this website, students can determine which mutations are favored due to predator attacks and mutual mutations, as well as compare and contrast dominant and recessive genes.
The hope for these types of interactive activities would be to incorporate Kopp’s belief that “our everyday experiences shape our future learning. They provide us with an anchor upon which to build our existing knowledge and understanding. The more science teachers can expose their students to the world outside the classroom, the more knowledge they can gain.” This approach would encourage students to use technology to reflect on real-life situations, motivating them not only to learn the content associated with their project but also to express themselves creatively while informing others.References: Kopp, K. N. (2014). Teaching Science Today 2nd Edition. Teacher Created Materials.
Natural Selection. (2022). PhET. https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/natural-selection
.jpg)






.png)







