Reflection of Lesson Plan 12/6 When I started teaching this lesson first hour, I thought it went well, until

I read the responses on the Exit Slips. I was concerned, because the students had all answered the question incorrectly in the same way. Clearly, this was a misconception. They had gotten the idea that negative numbers, being numerically smaller than positive numbers, must mean weaker correlations, instead of ust the opposite direction of correlation. In response to this error, I proposed this edit to my lesson plan, which would come toward the end of the instruction, ust before the summary!closer" 5 instruction and modeling #$%ay, so we %now that a positive number means a positive correlation and a negative number means a negative correlation. &ow, let's compare two of them. (oo% at this correlation )using -1 correlation from notes* and this correlation )using 0.2 correlation from notes*. &ow, which one is a stronger correlation+, -waited. /(oo%ing for #-1, #0ood, so e1en though /2 as a number is 3technically' smaller than 4.5, we're not loo%ing at that to determine the correlation's strength. Instead, we're only worried about the size of the number, how big it is, how far away from zero it is. /Wait, CFU with student expressions #6emember, the sign of the number only means what+, -waited. /(oo%ing for #direction, I found that implementing this change decreased the misconception occurrences but did not eliminate them completely.