Anna Phelan SIOP lesson reflection For our science lesson with Taralyn, we introduced her to the Scientific

Method and the three key vocabulary words that make up the process which were hypothesis, observations, and analysis. We taught this through the water cycle, which is a process she is already familiar with. Our objectives for Taralyn were to understand the main components of the water cycle, be able to identify the key vocabulary words and apply them to the water cycle, and become familiar with the scientific method. After conducting the lesson, I would say that we did meet our objectives. As far as the water cycle, Taralyn had a very solid prior knowledge regarding that topic so there was not much need for us to go into depth about the water cycle because she already knew it very well. We did, however refresh her memory and solidify the ideas so that she could apply them to learning about the scientific method. Concerning the scientific method, Taralyn did an amazing job at applying her knowledge about the water cycle to the steps of the scientific method. As she moved from station to station and filled out her graphic organizer, Taralyn demonstrated a clear understanding of the steps and the definitions of vocabulary. Her hypothesis was very clear and relevant to the topic and she supported her prediction with solid reason. Taralyn made very accurate and detailed observations concerning multiple senses which we talked about earlier in class. For the analysis section, Taralyn described what happened in the experiment, whether her hypothesis was correct or incorrect, and she always tied her analysis back to the water cycle in order to explain why the experiment led to those results. It was especially evident that we met our objectives when we asked summarizing questions at the end of the lesson, Taralyn was able

to confidently answer all of our concluding questions in a way that demonstrated deep understanding. The first thing we did in our lesson was ask Taralyn questions that gave us an idea of where she stood with what we were going to teach her. When we asked about vocabulary words, Taralyn was well aware of the words condensation, evaporation, and precipitation as well as observation. She had never heard of the Scientific Method before, and was not able to explain the word analysis, but was familiar with the word hypothesis. Therefore, the vocabulary that we challenged Taralyn on throughout the lesson was analysis and scientific method and we deepened her understanding of the word hypothesis. After the hands on activities and application of knowledge, Taralyn showed strong evidence of understanding what the Scientific Method was and how to explain an analysis. She also gained a deeper understanding of the word hypothesis and was able to create her own. Taralyn also seemed to leran more about how to make observations, as we talked about using all five senses and describing what you see. Overall, I think the vocabulary that Taralyn already knew, she grew a deeper understanding of, and the new vocabulary she has gained a knowledge of. Although we wound up introducing less words that we anticipated because Taralyns language ability was even higher than we thought, I still think that we did challenge her language abilities overall. The areas that I would say were too easy would be the three steps of the water cycle. We wound up spending much less time on that section than we planned because Taralyn already knew it very well. I thought that was okay though because we were more using the water cycle as a guiding force in teaching the Scientific Method. If we were only teaching the water cycle, the content would definitely be too easy. Other than that, I think the lesson was at a good level

of difficulty because we introduced many new concepts, but Taralyn was able to quickly grasp them and truly understand them. An adjustment I would make would probably be dividing the word conclusion and analysis as two separate ideas for discussion and for the graphic organizer. Although they are very similar, when using them to explain an experiment they are still two different ideas. While the conclusion states what happened after the experiment was complete, the analysis explains why that was the case. Taralyn was very good at explaining both things, but I think she did get confused which was which. Therefore, if we explained them separately instead of grouping them together as one, I think the lesson would probably be a lot less confusing. Especially for an ELL student, if we were going to re-do this lesson, that would be especially important. If we changed that, the ELL students would have one vocabulary word to focus on at a time which would make the process much less overwhelming. If I were to repeat this lesson with an ELL student, one adjustment that would need to be made is adding sub-definitions for the definition of new vocabulary words. For example, when we explained to Taralyn that a hypothesis is an educated guess, that made sense to her and she was able to register in her mind what a hypothesis was. If we told that to an ELL student, they may not know what the word educated means or the phrase educated guess. As an adjustment, we would have to explain the words that are used in defining the vocabulary so that the student does not become confused or overwhelmed. Also I think a longer time with explaining directions would be helpful, as well as more constant checking for understanding and additional visuals or graphic aids.