All in all, I think that my mini-unit is an effective way to study vertebrates from a cross-discipline approach. I incorporate the theme of vertebrates into each lesson. I think it is also important to note that factual knowledge-gathering about vertebrates does not take place on every level. I do not believe that it needs to. People do not learn about subjects every time they consider it. School lessons, therefore, do not need to teach new facts on the theme as long as that theme is used to further some other new type of knowledge.
The first lesson I taught was that Lesson 1 on classes of vertebrates. I feel that the discussion went rather well, but due to my relative inexperience, I did not prepare for the amount of time that the lesson would take me. I only got through the main graph and two classes of animals before the bell rang. Since the timeline of the project was so rushed anyway, I was not able to finish the different concept maps.
My coop, my fall advisor and I all agreed that my original choice of materials was not ideal for the lesson. I had sheets of butcher paper hanging by tacks because those were the resources I had in the classroom. As I went through the lesson and later as I watched the videotape, I saw how awkward and distracting it was to keep my instructional materials under control.
I think the lesson flowed well, and I gave the students a chance to cover the material in a neat way. I did change my lesson plan to include a pad and easel under "materials," because that is what I would use to improve the lesson for when I do it in the future. In addition, I would teach the same lesson, but do it in a two-day span.
I also taught the lesson on personification. Of the lessons in Language Arts which I taught, I think this is one of them which went the best. The kids had been confused about what personification really was. The dictionaries they looked at to find the definition gave a very abstract definition which I do not think they understood very well (ex. Scrooge is the personification of greed). While this use of personification is an important one in literature, the students have a tough time thinking of personification as not just an example, but the epitome of a certain trait.
It was much easier to discuss the definition of personification dealing with assigning human attributes to non-human things, namely, animals. I asked at the beginning of my lesson who could explain what personification was (I was looking for any type of definition), and not one child could tell me correctly from what they learned in the dictionary. I began the lesson by telling them we were learning an easier way to define and use personification.
I did well in helping the children construct a definition by "pre-talking" the book we were going to read. We looked at some of the pictures and discussed if animals could do some of the things that the fox was, or if only people could do them. (I especially pointed out pictures where the fox walked like a person.)
The kids got quite into the lesson; they were all able to point out how the author personified the fox, and were also able to tell me whether or not the other animals in the story were personified, and how they can tell.
My coop also thought this lesson went well. She thought that the way in which I handled discussion was a good method of getting students involved and bringing the subject closer to them.
My cooperating teacher gave me the idea to introduce the subject through a picture book, and I am glad she did. The kids enjoy listening to the book, and the text is easy enough that they can look for literary devices without having to worry about comprehending the material itself.
Honestly, there is not much that I would change about this lesson. I think it is a great way to introduce a sophisticated literary device to children.
Incidentally, I came across an unexpected chance to see the students' understanding of personification. Later in the week, I told a story to the class. There are two animals in the story-a squirrel, and a bear. One of the students pointed out that I personified the bear by giving him a human voice, but not the squirrel. Why?
I had never thought about my story in that way. For some reason, I had insisted upon "chattering" when the squirrel talked, and I spent time giving the bear an appropriate voice. Why didn't I give the squirrel a voice either? We had a great discussion about it. Would personification of the squirrel help the story? Does it make a difference? What type of voice would you use to personify the squirrel? Would anyone give the squirrel other human traits as well?
This discussion gave me the opportunity to see that I had really taught the students about personification, that they had it in their minds and were able to take their knowledge and transfer it to another experience. I was proud of my teaching at that very point.
I did not get a chance to teach the other two lessons, but I have the feeling they will both go well. Not only do they involve students in their own learning, but the lessons will suit children of all ability levels. The game is set up so that lower-achieving students are able to participate and succeed, and that higher-achieving students are able to challenge themselves with more difficult options.
In addition, the group survey calls upon students of different abilities to work together in forming their question-response pattern, interviewing the students, and compiling the data. It is a great way to combine math and research skills. While this lesson only uses the subject of vertebrates as the subject of the interviews, I feel this lesson belongs in my mini-unit on vertebrates. I realize that if I am to incorporate a theme into my classroom, I cannot teach something new about vertebrates in every lesson. Rather, I can use the subject as a springboard for other activities, and that is what I did.