Anna Achterhoff Todays date: 3-10-13 Date of lesson: 3-6-13 Lesson Topic: 2 dimensional and 2 dimensional shapes 1.

One of my objectives for the lesson is that students will be able to correctly identify 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional shapes (square, triangle, rectangle, hexagon, cone, cube, sphere, and cylinder). Students met this objective by moving real life objects in a smartboard activity into the correct corresponding shape. For an example a picture of a bubble went in the sphere category. The class was also asked to categorize the items found in the book into shape categories. 2. I sequenced the lesson in order to guide the students by first having them identify 2D shapes on a sheet of paper. I then explained the different between two dimensional and three dimensional shapes. I then introduced the three dimensional shapes and showed the similarity between the 2D and 3D shapes. I did this so students could use prior knowledge of shapes to learn new shapes. 3. When I grouped the students into small groups my focus was on using our time as effectively as possible. I organized small groups based on the students ability to identify shapes that I had gathered to informal observation as well as my formal pre-assessment. I did this so when I individually assessed the higher level group we were able to finish quickly because the students were on the same page. This kept groups from waiting a long time at the table because it would take longer to assess a lower level student. 4. One way I addressed individual needs of student is by gearing majority of the lesson to be taught through an interactive smartboard lesson. I have found a specific student tend to become distant during lessons when technology isnt involved, because of this I made sure to use the smartboard for a large chunk of my lesson. All of the students seemed a lot more engaged, especially the one student who loves anything that deals with technology. 5. The part of the lesson I could have better managed would be when the students were being asked to come to the board to participate in the interactive smartboard activity. The students were excited and wanted to come to the board every time an object needed to be placed into a shape category. The students were very much so aware if a student was called to the board more than once to participate. Instead of just sitting quietly the students were calling out,Pick me, Pick me!!. If I could do it again I would have used the method of drawing popsicle sticks with all of the students names from a cup, this is the method Ms. Kristen tends to use. This would keep students from feeling as though I was bias in my choosing as well as keeping the turns fair. 6. I assessed the class on 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional shapes three separate times pertaining to the lesson. The first assessment was completed a couple days before my lesson. The first assessment was done by having a sheet with 2 dimensional shapes on it, ( square, triangle, rectangle, and hexagon) I asked the students to place a plastic pointer on the corresponding 2D

shape when I asked. I had foam shaped objects that I used to assess students prior knowledge of 3D shapes (cube, cone, cylinder, sphere). My second assessment was done during the lesson by keeping track of students participation with the book and smartboard activity. My final assessment was done during small groups and was carried out basically the same way the pre assessment was held, by asking the students to identify the corresponding shapes using foam 3D shapes and a paper with 2D shapes depicted on it. I believe by doing this I was able to gather accurate data on students individual ability before, during, and after the lesson. 7. I consciously incorporated more than one of the developmental realms into my lesson. One of the methods was kinesthetic learning; this was done by having the students come up to the board to participate in a shapes activity. I also incorporated cognitive thinking by asking students to recall prior knowledge of 2D shapes to help them figure out the corresponding names to 3D shapes. 8. Knowledge construction is a demission of education that was most critical to me for the teaching of this lesson. I believe this was most important because the students had to use prior knowledge of 2 dimensional shapes in order to see the relation they have with 3D shapes; for example students used their knowledge of knowing what a square looks like to help them figure out what a cube looks like. This allowed the students to make the connection of things learned in the past and how they correspond with new content presented to them. 9. When I teach my next lesson I will be more of the degree of fairness during whole group participation. I will do this by using the method of drawing a students name for the cup. I feel by doing this it will keep the class more calm and collected as a whole group. 10. I would rate myself as satisfactory. 11. I would rate myself as satisfactory on implementing specific content into this lesson. I rate myself this way because I feel as though the students really enjoyed the smartboard activity as well as the book I read. It was a great feeling to see the progress the students made from the pre to post assessment. During the pre assessment hardly any of the students knew the names for 3D shapes, but the post assessment shows just how much students were engaged in the lesson. Every student knew their 3 dimensional shapes once the lesson was finished. It was a great feeling!!