EDU 213 ONLN 2 Observation On-line Response Sheet
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Montgomery County Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
213
Subject
Mathematics
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by SargentIceCaribou48
Montgomery County Community College EDU 213 Online
Online Teacher Observation
1. For each observation, give the type of class; approximate number of students and number of males and females; ethnic background; age range.
Video A- Kindergarten ELA/Science (21 minutes)
This is a general education Kindergarten ELA/Science class. There are approximately 16 students in the class with 4 being male and 12 being female. There is a mix of Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic students in the class. The students appear to be between the ages of 5-7. Video B- 4th Grade Math (36 minutes)
This is a general education 4th Grade math class. There are approximately 22 students in the class
with 8 being male and 14 being female. There is a mix of Caucasian and African American in the class. The students appear to be between the ages of 9-11. Video C- Kindergarten ELA/Social Studies (28 minutes)
This is an inclusion, co-taught Kindergarten ELA/Social Studies class. There are approximately 19 students in the class with 9 being male and 10 being female. There is a mix of Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic students in the class. The students appear to be between the ages of 5-7. Video D- Teaching In The Inclusive Classroom Collaboration and Team Teaching (25 minutes)
This is an inclusion, co-taught 5th-grade class ELA class. There are approximately 24 students in the class with 12 being male and 12 being female. There is a mix of mostly Caucasian, and some African American and Hispanic students in the class. The students appear to be between the ages of 10-12. The video states that there is a variety of students including learning support students. 2. For each video give a detailed description of the activities that were going on – how the teacher instructs, the interaction of the students, etc.
Video A
The teacher started with a lecture and had the students repeat important concepts. She read
a book that was projected onto a whiteboard. She asked questions while reading to keep students engaged. The students were mostly quiet and attentive. The class then split into small groups to go over the main idea and key details of the story. There was a chart and pictures. The students were supposed to add the main idea picture and the key details pictures. There were red herring pictures thrown in as well. The teacher went to each group for prompts, review, and assistance as needed. After that, the students filled out a sheet where they wrote and drew the main idea and two key details. The teacher again went around to the tables and prompted the students. She asked
reflective questions and challenged them to do their best. She was also able to assess their understanding by seeing the students’ work as she went to each desk group. Most of the students were engaged and well-behaved. One student was dismissed to another room after showing some inappropriate behavior. The students appeared to like their teacher. I would say that this teacher used visualization and cooperation teaching techniques in this video. She projected the book onto the board and she used small groups for the students to work together. She was very engaged with
her students and went around to each group and sometimes the individual students to make sure they were grasping the main and key idea concepts. It was hard to tell what exceptionalities if any, the students had. They also seemed to be working nicely and did not need any support other than RtI level 1. I was not able to acquire the teacher or school name. Video B
The teacher started by introducing the lesson. She called on the kids for participation. The class started with a review of different ways to mark arrays on a smartboard. The students who volunteered came up and marked their arrays the way they thought the multiplication problem made sense. The teacher and other students were encouraging and helpful. The teacher introduced
the new lesson of multiplicative comparisons. The students discussed in small groups what they thought the term meant using their background knowledge and breaking words down. A new problem was introduced and the students volunteered to use the smartboard to mark the counters (different colored circles) for the problem. The teacher introduced a second problem and again the
students would come up and mark the counters for that problem. After small group discussion, the
students would break down similar words in the problems. With guidance from the teacher, the students collaboratively defined the word and the process. The teacher was funny, entertaining, and engaging. She seemed to be a fun teacher that the students enjoyed having. The students were receptive and engaged in the lesson. She would assess their understanding of the material by
frequently checking in with them to make sure they understood the concept. The students enjoyed
having their names in the word problems. There were no behavioral problems or discipline observed. This teacher used visualization, tactical and auditory methods of teaching. She encouraged students to write in their math notebooks, had the problems displayed on the smartboard, and encouraged the students to get up and move the “apples” for the problem. There were no visible exceptionalities or support in the classroom during the video. All students worked
independently and called on another student for help during the lesson if they didn’t know the answer. I was not able to acquire the teacher or school name. These students seemed to be more engaged in the lesson than the students in video D which was a similar grade level. Video C This school was Big Spring Lake Kindergarten School in Albertville, AL. This was a co-
teaching classroom. The first teacher started introducing the lesson with a quick background on the first Thanksgiving. They called mixed-up sentences “twisted turkeys.” She reminded students of grammar rules, like capitals, punctuation, and sentence structure. She practiced the “I do, We do, You do” method a couple of times in her lesson. In the beginning, the students were in a large group. They were interactive and engaged with the lesson. Then, the teacher broke them into small groups by their tables. The students seemed to still be engaged with the activity (organizing
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
words on flashcards and sequencing them in the proper order). Both teachers went around and helped the students. They were able to assess their understanding of the material as they visited each group. If a student was stuck they would encourage participation from peers or context clues to help them. They would remind them of grammar rules and context clues for reading. The students glued the cards to a sheet of paper. The groups brought their sentence back to the front in
a semicircle. Each group would present and read their sentence. During the presentations, the girls
were more engaged than the boys except for the last group. The teacher read and organized all the
sentences on the board. Finally, the teacher gave them a worksheet to write the sentences on individually. The first teacher used visual and cooperation teaching techniques. There was not enough focus on the co-teacher to determine her teaching style. I was not able to acquire the teachers’ names. I could not tell what exceptionalities the students had. The teachers seemed to be
going around and paying the same amount of attention to the students and since they were in kindergarten they needed more support than older grades.
Video D
The video was introduced with a focus on inclusion classrooms. We were introduced to a 5th-grade inclusion class at Procter Elementary School in Independence, MO. They were doing a lesson on riddles. There was a story and an activity where the students used their writing skills to make their riddle. The students also folded the paper for kinesthetic engagement. The two teachers (Ms. Harms and Ms. Largent) co-taught the lesson and modeled the activity for the students. The students were very quiet and well-behaved. I think this was more appropriate classroom behavior than a lack of engagement. When the students worked with partners, they were more lively and engaged with their friends during buddy partner work. The teachers shared equal responsibility of teaching and helping students. Ms. Harms and Ms. Largent stated that this technique worked well for their class and built rapport for students. There was a student that Ms. Largent scribed for in the video. Ms. Harms stated that he was one of the few students in learning support in the classroom. He ended up writing a poem which she shared with the class as an example. Ms. Largent was able to assess his understanding of the writing as she worked with him individually while Ms. Harms helped to support the others. The other students were excited to guess him and he was visibly proud of his work. The students enjoyed the poem activity as you could see their excitement when the teachers were collecting their papers. The teachers had a
playful rapport with each other which was reflected in the student’s responses to jokes. The teachers used a variety of techniques when teaching. They included representation for visual, audio, and kinesthetic techniques, such as modeling the poem on the board, reading another teacher’s riddle, and folding the paper for the students’ activity. They also used a graphic organizer to help the students organize their riddle. 3. Personal Reflection (refer to the directions in the folder for clarification)
My favorite video was the 5th-grade inclusion class at Procter Elementary School. It gave an in-depth look and interview about co-teaching. While Ms. Harms was the Special Education teacher and Ms. Largent was the General Education teacher, they worked so seamlessly together that you could not tell which teacher did what. I also feel like the students in the class were included without being singled out. I enjoyed that the teacher mentioned the strategies they used as they taught and kept students with their peers. I found it beneficial to see how they worked so well together and I would like to be a teacher like that. I also liked the smart board in the 4th-
grade math class. It seemed like such a great interactive tool to keep students engaged and learning. I saw a teacher use one today and I knew exactly what she was doing thanks to that video. Without prior background knowledge, it's hard to understand why the teacher in the kindergarten (main idea/key details) video would dismiss her student from the classroom. I did not find that he was distracting and seemed age-appropriate due to developmental milestones including the lack of self-regulation. I would have rather seen how she disciplined him in a more age-appropriate way than excusing him from the class and the activity. If he was a student in special education, that was not the least restrictive environment. I also wish I could have seen more co-teaching strategies in the Big Spring Lake Kindergarten School. The idea of co-teaching intrigues me and it just seems like it would be a great opportunity to observe the teachers in action. Instead, it seemed to be a teacher and her classroom assistant.