Microteaching Report by: Sunshine Malaluan

SED 561

Genetics Microteaching Report

By: Sunshine Malaluan
Due 11/13/14
SED 561
Arizona State University

Due 11/13/14

Microteaching Report by: Sunshine Malaluan

SED 561

Due 11/13/14

Lesson Overview and Design

The Next Generation Science Standard supported by this lesson is to apply concepts of statistics
and probability to explain the variation and distribution of expressed traits in a population. The
Arizona Science Standard supported by this lesson is to explain how genotypic variation occurs
and results in phenotypic diversity. The big idea for this lesson is what genetic processes cause
everyone to look different from each other? This lessons objective is for students to be able to
explain genetic variation from bioglyphs using vocabulary words: dominant traits, recessive
traits, phenotype, and genotype. Its main SSTELLA practice in focus is the development of
language and literacy for English Language Learners. For the beginning of the lesson, the
BrainPop Genetics episode is shown for review and refresher of vocabulary words and
concepts talked about the last couple of lessons before this day. After the video, students look at
their self-bioglyphs from the day before and pick one trait. The students take this trait and predict
if it is dominant or recessive. Students share their prediction with a partner using a paragraph
with sentence frames provided by the teacher. A discussion about the student predictions is lead
by the teacher. Then, the teacher models how to make a possible parental bioglyphs. Students
work independently on creating their own possible parental bioglyphs using five traits from their
self-bioglyphs. After tracing five traits back to the possible parent bioglyphs, students share with
a group of three what they came up with. The teacher provides sentence frames that they need to
write down first before sharing with their group, but students are able to paraphrase the
sentences, if they want to. Students share at least two traits with their group. For the last part of
the lesson, students are writing about other families traits based on what they learned from the
lesson. This assignment is on a Google doc to share with the teacher. The student may use a
picture provided by the teacher or use another picture from the Internet as long as they cite it.
Directions for the assignment are on the Google doc with guiding questions that the students
need to address. If not done in class, students finish the writing assignment as homework.
Unit Connection
This lesson fits in the middle of our Genetics unit plan. The first three days are review of what
the students should have learned last year and an overview of punnett squares and probabilities.
The first day is the review of Meiosis and Mendels laws. Day two of the unit is a refresher of
basic punnett squares using a Minion Making Activity and looking at the probability of making
an offspring with specific traits. Day three of the unit is another look at punnett squares but in a
higher level of thinking by using dihybrid crosses of Labradors. After the first few days is the
section for my lesson. The fourth day deals with the students looking at their phenotype and
drawing them on their self-bioglyphs. Then, the lesson plan I used for my microteach is for the
fifth day of the unit, this is when the students take their self-bioglyphs and build possible
parental bioglyphs from the self-bioglyphs. On the sixth day, they compare the possible parental
bioglyphs they made to their actual parents photos which they were supposed to bring in as
homework. The next section of the unit deals with making pedigrees. Day seventh of the unit is
an introduction to making pedigrees with a connection to the Minion and Labrador activity at the
beginning. Then, on the 8th day, the students are making family pedigrees based on the bioglyphs
that they made in class on days four, five, and six. Day nine is used to talk about different genetic
diseases to increase higher level of thinking other than phenotypes being based on genetic
variation. The last day of the unit is dedicated giving the students an assessment of the whole
unit.

Microteaching Report by: Sunshine Malaluan

SED 561

Due 11/13/14

Lesson Analysis
I think that one of the strengths of this lesson is its SSTELLA focus on language and literacy
development. Looking at its sub-practices of student interaction, development through
vocabulary, and authentic literacy task, I think that this lesson has included most of it in at least
an implementing level. In the reader, it talks about how an implementing lesson of student
interaction must include a variety of student groupings with no support for ELs. The elaborating
level of student interaction states that it includes a variety of groupings and support for ELs
(Lyon, 2014, p. 26). I think that my lesson has these elements. In the first activity, I provided
pairings for sharing, and a small group for the second activity. Also, I included opportunities for
student work and a little bit of whole class discussion about the student predictions if their traits
are dominant or recessive. I provided EL supports during these interactions by providing
sentence frames for the first two activities and guiding questions for the writing assignment.
Regarding vocabulary development, the reader states that to for a lesson to be implementing this
practice it must provide support like visuals and definitions and the use of new vocabulary. An
elaborating lesson must include visuals, opportunities for new vocabulary use, and getting
feedback from the teacher for the use of the new vocabulary words (Lyon, 2014, p. 26). I think
that my lesson is more implementing than elaborating. I provided support for the vocabulary
using the video with closed captioning, writing the words on the blackboard, having sentence
frames and guiding questions, making the students write down their predictions and explanations
before sharing with each other, and working in pairs or small groups to practice speaking using
vocabulary words. I provided sentence frames to ensure that ELs would be able to produce
predictions and explanations that would utilize the specific vocab words that they need to learn. I
set up the lesson so that in the explanation and writing assignment portions of the day, students
that do not need the support can paraphrase or use the sentence frames and questions as guides
only. One thing I was lacking in this was providing more feedback if students were using the
words correctly or not and making sure that the students are not just blindly using the words but
are actually comprehending the meaning of the new vocabulary words.
The sub practice of authentic literacy task for vocabulary development in ELs states that an
implementing lesson must include scientific/engineering practices and includes writing. The
reader states that an elaborating lesson must focus on scientific/engineering practices and the
ways they are communicated to a variety of audiences with different purposes and it must
include feedback (Lyon, 2014, p. 27).
In one of the articles we read in the reader called The Next Generation Science Standards,
Common Core State Standards, and English Leraners, the authors talked about how ELs do not
get a lot of language and literacy development support. The authors of this article mentioned that
ELs in secondary schools are faced with more complex language and a decrease in authentic
content learning opportunities (Lyon, 2014, p. 87). This idea helped me think about my addition
of the sentence frames, writing words on the board, and guiding questions for my lesson. I hoped
that doing this would not just throw possible ELs into the lesson but guide them into building
their vocabulary development during the lesson.
Another strength of the lesson is the practice of scientific sense-making. According to the reader,
for the sub-practice of communicating the big idea, a lesson that is implementing includes
activities or attention grabbers that focuses student attention to the big idea and a learning
3

Microteaching Report by: Sunshine Malaluan

SED 561

Due 11/13/14

objective that aligns with the big idea and provides opportunity for student reflection (Lyon,
2014, p. 24). This lesson is implementing that practice because I used a couple of strategies to
draw connections to the big idea. At first, I showed the BrainPop episode, which gave an
overview of the concepts that, were addressed in previous classes and reiterated the vocabulary
words that are the focus of the days activities. It also pulled attention to the fact that everybody
looks different because of the different genes inherited from our parents that connects it to the
big idea. The predictions, bioglyph making activity, and explanations all contributed to the
connection to the big idea, as well. Students were able to reflect from their work when they
wrote the predictions and bioglyphs on how the lesson connected to the idea of phenotypic
diversity in families.
We read about big ideas in the reader from the article called Identifying Big Ideas in Science, in
this reading the author talked about how big ideas should help the students comprehend why a
phenomena unfolds the way it does (Lyon, 2014, p. 187). Having the students be able to connect
an explanation to a phenomena that captures their attention or the teacher presents is the main
goal of having a big idea for a lesson. The big idea for this genetics unit is what genetic
processes cause everyone to look different from each other? I think that this lesson supported
this big idea because the activity showed that even in families, each person look different from
each other. The bioglyph activity emphasized the idea that children may look different from their
parents depending on the genes they received from their parents and if these genotypes result in a
dominant or recessive phenotype. This activity helped communicate the big idea of the unit to
the students.
For the SSTELLA Practice of contextualizing, the reader states that a lesson plan should include
a scenario or problem in a context that is relevant to students used as the frame of the lesson and
that the relationship of this scenario to science is clearly acknowledged by the teacher to be at the
implementing level (Lyon, 2014, p. 28). I think that this lesson had some strength in
contextualizing because I provided connection of the lesson to the students lives by using their
own phenotypes and their parents phenotypes and connecting it to the lesson about dominant and
recessive traits. The connection was clearly made when the students analyzed and explained their
bioglyphs. From the reader, we read a chapter called What is Contextualized Science Activity and
Why is it Important? This chapter talked about how the concepts we teach in our classes should
be meaningful to our students by connecting it to our students everyday lives in and out of the
schools (Lyon, 2014, p. 92). This lesson was an attempt to contextualize the concept of genetic
variation and inheritance by using bioglyphs from the phenotypes of each student and their
parents. This activity allows for the students to see that their simple physical appearance that is
part of their everyday lives is connected to the science of genetics.
The biggest weakness of this lesson is the practice of scientific discourse. The reader states that
an implanting lesson for the student talk sub practice should include a discussion that results in
the development of student thinking, hypothesis forming, and questioning of scientific ideas by
the use of dialogic strategies and giving feedback as a class or in groups (Lyon, 2014, p. 25).
This lesson did not have a lot of opportunities for developing higher level of thinking. It was
very guided with specific sentence frames and questions. There were some opportunities for
discussion during partner and group work. For the sub practice of developing explanation and
argumentation, the reader states that a lesson that is at the implementing level should have fully
supported explanations that are related to the big idea and the students should have help with the

Microteaching Report by: Sunshine Malaluan

SED 561

Due 11/13/14

comprehension of the quality and reason for the development of the explanation (Lyon, 2014, p.
25).
As for the use of technology, I think I used a good amount of technology but there could have
been more ways to incorporate more technology. I used the BrainPop video to review and
introduce the days lesson. I also used a PowerPoint presentation to present the information to
the class. The last piece of technology I used for this lesson is the Google Doc for the writing
assignment. I used to be able to share on document to all the students and watch them edit and
complete their assignments if I needed to. It is a great way for the classmates to connect with
each other. The directions, examples of pictures, and guided questions were included in this
document as well so that the students can refer to it any time they need to.
Revised Lesson
For my engage section, I think that I would provide a more structured graphic organizer so that
the students can take down notes of the actual definition of the vocabulary words. During the
lesson, I went over the definition of dominant and recessive traits during the discussion of the
students predictions, but I wasnt clear enough. According to some of the comments on my peer
feedback said that the word definitions werent clarified and I think that having a graphic
organizer could help the students grasp are more defined meaning for the word especially ELs in
the class. This would help improve the vocabulary support given to the ELs for the SSTELLA
practice of language and literacy development.
I would also add more time for whole class discussion to promote the SSTELLA practice of
scientific discourse. Add the end of the explore section when students are finished working on
creating their possible parental bioglyphs, I could add a whole class discussion about what they
learned. According to an article in the reader called Talk Science Primer by Sarah Michaels and
Cathy OConnor, a good academic discussion needs a framing question and a few follow up
questions and using talk moves would help facilitate a productive discussion (Lyon, 2014,
p.205). During this discussion I would pose the big idea question again and ask students to
explain the answer to the question based on what we learned in class as well as using vocabulary
words. Also, to help facilitate I would use talk moves like wait time, ask for evidence by asking
questions like, How did you arrive at that conclusion? and even asking what other students
think about their classmates explanation by asking, Do you agree/disagree? And why (Lyon,
2014, p.213)? This would ensure that the students have a good grasp of the concept and how it
connects to the big idea and give the students a chance to practice using vocabulary words more
verbally with teacher feedback.
If technology was accessible, another way I would improve my lesson is to send out a copy of
the PowerPoint to the students so they can control the information when they are working
individually. There were some points in the lesson that students wanted a key of what the traits
meant and they couldnt access it because I had another slide up on the screen. I was able to
provide them with a paper copy, but a way to solve this problem proactively is to send out the
presentation so that each student have access to it. I would just have to make sure that they do
not go ahead and focus on looking at what is to come instead of what they should be doing at that
moment.

Microteaching Report by: Sunshine Malaluan

SED 561

Due 11/13/14

For the SSTELLA practice language and literacy development I could do is to provide more
support for the other vocabulary words that were mentioned. I broke down the words
heterozygous and homozygous during the lesson, but I need to make sure that all students are
able to get the clear definitions of these words. Also, during my debriefing, some colleagues
mentioned that maybe I was giving too much support with my sentence frames. I would need to
make sure to clarify in class that students for the last two parts are able to rephrase or just use the
sentences and questions as guides, if they feel comfortable enough.
References:
Lyon, E. (2014). SED 561: Teaching High School Science with Technology (Fall ed., Vol.
2014). Arizona State University.