VII.+Planning+Principle


 * //__7. PLANNING PRINCIPLE__//**


 * //7.1 Candidates are able to align instruction with learning goals consistent with professional and New York State standards.//**

My planning of lessons has followed the backwards design approach. This approach uses New York State or other professional standards as a starting point for developing lesson goals and lesson objectives. From these lesson goals and objectives both summative and formative assessments are made to measure student achievement of these objectives and then link back to the standards. Following this, lesson procedures are developed to align with these assessments and provide students with the best and most meaningful learning environments possible (Hendrickson, 2006; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). I have several examples that reflect this planning method using various New York State standards and National Science Teaching Association (NSTA) standards.

My innovative unit provides the alignment of instruction with learning goals consistent with professional and New York State standards by establishing unit goals and unit objectives, which influenced the creation of assessments and the procedures for implementing lessons that would utilize these assessments and reach towards achieving the unit objectives. Sections 3, 4, and 5 provide narratives explaining the unit goals and professional standards, unit objectives, and unit assessments, respectively. Each section links an understanding and evaluation back to the New York State standards being addressed by the content of this unit. The assessments, as well as each unit goal and objective, were developed and included into the unit’s lesson plans, which can be found in section 6 of the unit plan. Each unit goal was taught as a sub-unit across one or two lessons followed by a lesson reinforcing those concepts, which acted as an informal summative assessment for that unit goal (7.1a).

One specific example of a lesson that linked directly to the unit goals as well as the standards is my Play-Doh resistance lesson (7.1b). This lesson relates directly to unit goal three, which states that “students will understand that the voltage in a circuit or circuit element is directly proportional to the current and the resistance in a circuit or circuit element” (7.1a). The lesson required students to make Play-Doh cylinders of varying cross-sectional area and length and place them in a closed circuit. Through measuring voltage and current across a piece of Play-Doh, which is acting as a resistor, students were able to graph voltage versus current to determine the resistance in the Play-Doh, as well as calculate the resistivity of the Play-Doh and graph the resistance versus Play-Doh length and cross-sectional area (7.1c). These results met the New York State standard major understandings 4.1l and 4.1m, as well as process skills ix, x, and xi (7.1d).


 * //7.2 Candidates are able to implement lessons according to a well-defined and high quality plan.//**

During my placement at Wilson Commencement I implemented a lesson that focused on Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion. My paired placement partner, my cooperative teacher, and I all had difficult thinking of open-inquiry based investigations for this lesson. After consulting with JoAnn Morreale, she provided us with an activity that included some foundational science skills, as well as a perfect way to introduce Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion. The lesson I wrote up included an observation by Jim Davidson (7.2a, 7.2b). The lesson went extremely well for many reasons. First, transitions were well planned and time was clocked as to keep students on track. Second, students worked in pairs to build their graphs of radius distances, angular velocity, and radial areas. This resulted in some great collaboration across groups as students had difficulty with things such as figuring out the radial areas, and measuring the angular velocities with a protractor. Once students figured out the methods to do this they were able to create their graphs and analyze them to answer the questions that would help them develop understanding of Kepler’s Laws (7.2c).

 Another lesson that I implemented was one on series and parallel circuits. This took place at Edison during my innovative unit. The lesson was designed to last across two days. The first day students were given a sheet with pictures of circuit diagrams. Students were instructed to use these circuit diagrams, which consisted of series and parallel circuits, and make real examples of them using batteries, wires, and light bulbs (7.2d). As soon as students finished a circuit they had to call the teacher over for a signature in order to ensure understanding of how to build the circuit. Students found this lesson extremely exciting and enjoyed the challenges that each circuit presented (7.2e). The second part of the lesson included an online simulation at a website called OhmZone. This activity aims at highlighting differences between series and parallel circuits by asking students to build both on the circuit board and make voltage and current measurements, observe what happens when a light bulb is taken out of the circuit, and derive a mathematical equation for voltage and current across the entire circuit by using the measurements across each element (7.2f). This lesson was extremely visual and tactile for the students, which aided their understanding and observations of both series and parallel circuits. Students did find difficulty with the mathematical logic and representations of voltage and current in each circuit, which will need revision in future instructions.

My lesson plans for both these lessons show my improvement and mastery in planning (7.2a, 7.2e). My lesson plan format evolved from a narrative style plan (7.2a) to a more concise lesson plan (7.2e) that incorporated the necessary Warner lesson plan requirements. My series and parallel circuit lesson plan includes parts that were not found in my Kepler lesson plan, such as content and connections to other lessons and units, big ideas and possible student misconceptions, ties between objectives and standards as well as the assessments used to measure those objectives, what counts as evidence in those assessments and how I will use those results, and then reflecting on what I learned about my students, the lesson, and myself as a teacher. From these sections you see that my planning developed into deeper more critical thinking and understandings of my students, content area, and teaching practices as I began to link each piece of the lesson plan together into one solid framework (7.2e).

 However, my Kepler lesson plan does show mastery skills in planning. For instance, under procedures/format I incorporate ideas such as how to introduce scales using the white board as a model in front of the whole class and then extending to ideas of how students can develop these skills in group work. I also worked at developing transitions and time management in this lesson as can be seen by my use of time reminders and transition plans in the procedures. Another skill I included in this planning was scripting out the language I would use for introducing activities and posing questions to the class. I also included back-up ideas, for instance if a group finished the assigned activity before the time I allotted was up then I would have another activity they could begin ready to give them (7.2a). I also included edits and advice from my cooperating teacher, who was pleased with my level of detail in the lesson plan (7.2g).


 * //NSTA – Planning Principle//**
 * //6.a Candidates understand the curricular recommendations of the National Science Education Standards, and can identify, access, and/or create resources and activities for science education that are consistent with the standards.//**

The National Science Education Standards (NSES) recommend that science is “an active process” for “all students” (NRC, 1996, 2). Inquiry is important to this process of science learning because it engages student participation in, construction of, and understanding of science investigations and knowledge. This approach allows for multiple methods to teaching science. In my practice I have developed and found several resources and activities that reflect consistency with the NSES standards.

I developed along with my cooperative teacher at Wilson Commencement a laboratory investigation that included four stations exploring the phenomena of light. These stations aimed to develop several properties of light, and included historical investigations made by Isaac Newton and William Herschel. The stations focused on reflection and refraction, dispersion, diffraction and spectral tubes, and light we cannot see, such as infrared wavelengths (6.a_a). Students were also given opportunity to provide feedback at each station for the development of these stations in the future and to gain information about their learning styles (6.a_b).

Another activity I developed was the Play-Doh resistance lab (6.a_c). This idea came across the OPHUN-L listserv through SUNY Oneonta and was an innovative design that I developed from a paper off of the web (6.a_d). The lab included science inquiry, technology, and mathematical analysis and skills that reflect NSES standards. Students had to graph measurements, calculate cross-sectional areas and resistivities, measure length using a ruler and voltage and current with a multimeter, and evaluate their results using their knowledge of voltage and current.

I also developed an innnovative project for my Wilson Commencement classes to complete as a summative assessment for our unit on Astronomy. Students had to design their own habitable planet and place it in a habitable zone next to a star of their choice. This required students to create a scale model of both distances and sizes, as well as write a paper that explained why their planet would be habitable in terms of the composition and the orbital zone and proximity to other planets and stars in its neighborhood (6.a_e). Students were assessed on their accuracy and development of each of these factors and the completion of a scaled model.


 * //7.a Candidates identify ways to relate science to the community, involve stakeholders, and use community resource to promote the learning of science.//**

I planned a field trip to the University of Rochester Department of Astrophysics during my placement at Wilson Commencement. This field trip consisted of a lecture from professor of Astronomy Judith Pipher on extrasolar planets and their detection, a tour of the near-infrared detector laboratory, and a simulation-based project that asked students to discover a habitable planet and the characteristics that make it habitable. This was extended back to the classroom by having students design their own habitable planet scaled to scientifically acceptable sizes and distances from stars and other planets in its neighborhood (7.a_a).

During STARS, my students designed their own investigation to study how household chemicals affect the environment around them, specifically plant life. Students first investigated the drainage system to understand dilutions and that what goes into a drain system from the sink may not be as strong when it reaches the plants. Students then made two different diluted solutions that were controlled across sites at Wilson Foundation and East. These diluted solutions were tested for pH and used to water planted radish seeds. Students found over their investigation that their chemical solutions did harm the plant growth, even across dilutions. They suggested using eco-friendly cleaners or other alternatives that do not harm the environment as other chemicals do (7.b_a).
 * //7.b Candidates involve students successfully in activities that relate science to resources and stakeholders in the community or to the resolution of issues important to the community.//**


 * EVIDENCE**

[|2010.03_-_Play-Doh_Resistivity_DJ2_-_Turkett.JPG] [|2010.03_-_Play-Doh_Resistivity_DJ3_-_Turkett.JPG] [|2010.03_-_Play-Doh_Resistivity_DJ4_-_Turkett.JPG] || Play-Doh Lab Student Work || || Kepler's Laws Activity || || Jim Davidson Observation - Circuit Build It! Series and Parallel Lesson Plan - Reflection || || Light Stations ||
 * **EVIDENCE #** || **EMBEDDED OR LINKED OBJECT** || **DESCRIPTION** ||
 * 7.1a || [[file:2010.04.07 - Innovative Unit Final - Turkett.doc]] || Edison Innovative Unit ||
 * 7.1b || [[file:2010.03.18,19,22 - Play-Doh Resistance LP - Turkett.doc]] || Play-Doh/Resistance Lesson Plan ||
 * 7.1c || [|2010.03_-_Play-Doh_Resistivity_DJ1_-_Turkett.JPG]
 * 7.1d || [[file:phycoresci.pdf]] || NYS Standards Physics Core Curriculum ||
 * 7.2a || [[file:2010.01.07 - Kepler Lesson Plan for Observation2 - Turkett.doc]] || Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion Lesson Plan ||
 * 7.2b || [[file:Brian #3]] || Jim Davidson Observation - Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion ||
 * 7.2c || [[file:2010.01.06 - Kepler.Laws of Planetary Motion.doc]]
 * 7.2d || [[file:2010.03.24 - Circuit Diagram Builder - Turkett.doc]] || Circuit Build It! ||
 * 7.2e || [[file:2010.03.24 - Jim Davidson Observation for Brian Turkett Edison #2.doc]]
 * 7.2f || [[file:2010.03.25 - OhmZone - Turkett.doc]] || Ohm Zone Simulation ||
 * 7.2g || [[file:20100107 - Kepler WLP Obs2 - TurkettOcchinoEDITS.doc]] || Kepler Lesson Plan - Michael Occhino Edits and Comments ||
 * 6.a_a || [[file:Light Lab Teacher Document.pdf]]
 * 6.a_b || [[file:Station Feedback.pdf]] || Student Feedback Sheets - Light Stations ||
 * 6.a_c || [[file:2010.03.13 - PlayDoh Lab - TUrkett.doc]] || Play-Doh Resistance lab ||
 * 6.a_d || [[file:PlayDoh Resistivity.pdf]] || Play-Doh lab paper reference ||
 * 6.a_e || [[file:2010.01.05 - Extrasolar System Project.doc]] || Habitable Planet Project ||
 * 7.a_a || Reference evidence 6.a_e || Habitable Planet Project ||
 * 7.b_a || [|STARS Blue Team Video] || STARS Video ||


 * //References//**

Hendrickson, S. (2006). Backward approach to inquiry. Science Scope, 29(4), 30-33.

National Research Council. Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. New York: Prentice Hall.


 * // home //**