Hopkins 1

Teach One: Analysis

The objectives for this first lesson were that the students would be able to
investigate the effects of changes in a on graphs, correctly predict the effects of changes
in a on graphs, effectively describe the effects of changes in a on graphs, investigate the
effects of changes in c on graphs, correctly predict the effects of changes in c on graphs,
and effectively describe the effects of changes in c on graphs. The students not only met
these six objectives but they exceeded them. The students not only asked my partner
and I for further explanation but they utilized their peers when help was needed.





















The students were really struggling with the concept of what the value of a
needed to be in order to make the graph wider and narrower. This issue was not
revealed until we hit the elaboration phase of the lesson and was working on a different
Completed and
100% correct.
Not completed due to
misunderstanding
instructions and wording.
Completed but not
100% correct.
Hopkins 2

set of problems and half of the students chose one answer and the other half chose the
other answer. In order to re-explain the information so that students were clear on the
correct answer and why, not only did they receive a kinesthetic explanation but a
technological explanation as well. The moment both were presented, the classroom
was filled with Oh, I get it now! and Okay, okay. I got it! along with a million other
variations from the students. Mrs. Ansari, the students regular teacher, stood up and
gave two thumbs up with a huge smile on her face towards my partner and me. She was
very pleased that her students had the Aha! moment with us and that we were able to
help get them there.
Prince and Felder were our guides for the way we would present our lesson the
students. Mrs. Ansari told my partner and I to make sure that the students had some
guidance but not too much and we already knew that we needed to be a bit more
challenging in the presentation of the material because the students are in a Pre-AP
Algebra I course which means they will get bored if it is too easy. So, we decided to go
with the inductive approach because as with all inductive methods, the information
needed to address the challenge would not have been previously covered explicitly in
lectures or reading, although it would normally build on previously known material
(Prince et. al., 2007, p.14). Mrs. Ansari also informed us that this would be the first time
the students would learn or even hear any of this information so it seemed that
inductive teaching and learning would fit best with our teach.
The lesson went very well and the students grasped the information quickly and
easily. The main thing that I feel needs revision is the evaluation portion. We felt that
Hopkins 3

the instructions were self-explanatory and simple enough to understand in order for us
to adequately determine what the students learned and retained but that was not the
case. My partner and I spent most of the allotted nine minutes at the end of class for
the students to complete the evaluation explaining the instructions on the quiz. There
was some wording that was a little bit different from what we used and that confused
some of the students and therefore about half of the students were not able to
complete the evaluation and the other half that did, about two or three students
provided the correct answers. If the instructions were clearer and used the same
vocabulary that my partner and I did throughout the lesson, I feel that the post-
assessment would have been much more successful and a better tool of knowing what
the students learned and retained.
Overall, the students really enjoyed the lesson we presented to them on
quadratic functions. They were very engaged and alert for the entire forty-six minutes of
the class period. At the end of the class, Mrs. Ansari congratulated my partner and I on
being so successful with her students and thanked us because she would not have to go
back and re-teach her students the next day.







Hopkins 4

References
Prince, M. & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 36(5), 14-20.