Making Minions Microteaching Report

Kara Loofborough
SED561: Teaching Science with Technology
Due: 11/11/14

Lesson Overview & Design

This was a high school genetics lesson that was designed to follow the Next Generation
Science Standard: HS-LS3-3 Apply concepts of statistics and probability to explain the variation
and distribution of expressed traits in a population. The Arizona Science Standard was from
S4C2: Understand the molecular basis of heredity and resulting genetic diversity. There were
two performance objectives within this standard that were addressed throughout the unit.
Specifically, PO3: Explain how genotypic variation occurs and results in phenotypic diversity;
and PO4: Describe how meiosis and fertilization maintain genetic variation. With these standards
in mind, the big idea or puzzling scientific phenomenon framing the unit was What genetic
processes cause everyone to look different from each other? This question addresses the state
standards, and the actual activities and assessments within each lesson address the NGSS
objective.
This lesson was selected to address both the NGSS and AZ science standards. Students
will build background knowledge by practicing concepts they would have previously learned.
The material and activities presented would prompt students to apply their conceptual
understanding of heredity and probability. In this lesson, the learning objective was to calculate
the outcome of a mated pair. Students were to demonstrate they met the objective by drawing an
accurate offspring minion from the paired parents and explaining their genotypic and phenotypic
traits with corresponding probabilities. This activity portion was adapted from another lesson, in
which the original did not add practice with probability. Probability practice was added to
address the NGSS objective. Additionally, students would be able to determine what genotype
was needed to create a designated offspring phenotype. Finally, students engaged in a science
talk that discussed social implications regarding selective breeding and its effects on diversity
within a population. This lessons objectives and assessments also align with the Core Ideas
regarding heredity, inheritance, and variation of traits outlined in A Framework for K-12 Science
Education (p. 157-160).

Unit Connection
This lesson was the second day of the 10-day unit plan. Students should have a
background in meiosis and the principles of heredity, including Mendels laws of segregation
and independent assortment, and corresponding vocabulary terms, such as genotype, phenotype,
dominant, recessive, homozygous, and heterozygous. They would have also had practice with
Punnett squares and calculating genotypic and phenotypic probabilities. The first day of the unit
would have reviewed these concepts in preparation for the second days lesson. Students should
then apply conceptual understanding to accomplish this lessons objectives and activities. This
includes the ability to functionally use relevant terms.
After this lesson, students could then extend this conceptual understanding to calculate
genotypic and phenotypic probabilities of a cross of multiple traits and be able to produce an
accurate dihybrid cross on the following day. They would then have sufficient practice to
analyze phenotypic characteristics and the relationship to genotypes within their nuclear family
and eventually be able to create a pedigree from this information. With this mastered, students
would then learn about genetic characteristics that may be expressed but not readily visible
within a population. This includes genetic disorders and certain diseases. Using their knowledge
of heredity and pedigree tools, students would calculate probabilities of an offspring inheriting a
disease. The problem-solving aspect of the following lessons in the unit build in complexity
through each days objectives, activities, and assessments.
Lesson Analysis
The focal SSTELLA practice for this lesson was scientific discourse, with particular
attention to productive student talk about science. The goal of this practice was to engage
students in discussion around science ideas as whole class or in small groups. According to the
SSTELLA rubric, this should be accomplished by having a sustain conversation engaged in
science about student conceptions, hypotheses, and/or questions about science ideas. This
discussion should take place both between students and with the teacher using dialogic strategies
and feedback. According to Michaels & OConnor in Talk Science Primer, the goals for
productive discussion are for students to clarify their own understanding, listen to others, deepen
their reasoning, and discuss their thoughts with others (pg. 213). Some dialogue strategies
teachers should use to achieve these goals are to provide wait time, prompt clarifying questions
both from individuals and what classmates understand, challenge elaborating questions, and
asking confirmation questions both from individuals and classmates. Based on feedback received
after this lesson, it is agreed that this practice was apparently obvious in the presentation and it
was engaging. Specifically, one response stated that the question prompted at the end of the
lesson was useful in communicating the importance of the big idea, which was one of the main
goals. Another piece of positive feedback was that students were able to discuss their
understanding with each other during partner work. Some evidence of dialogic strategies was
presented in the feedback, in which it states that students were asked to elaborate on their
responses, which was another goal to achieve. One weakness of this practice was the lack of
structure guiding the science talk. It didnt have a specific direction and more support could
have been in place to accommodate the diverse needs and knowledge backgrounds of students.
2

Other practices regarding scientific discourse were not as strongly apparent. This includes
pressing for scientific explanation and argumentation. Students had the opportunity to do so
during partner work, but were not specifically instructed to do so. Based on feedback regarding
the other SSTELLA practices, it seems that scientific sense-making seemed the strongest, even
more so than the scientific discourse practices. The big idea and lesson objectives were clearly
stated at the beginning of the lesson. The science talk at the end of the lesson allowed students
the opportunity to reflect on conceptions of the big picture. A model-based scientific practice
was also set in place, as students led themselves through an activity to complete a task. This
student-led guided inquiry was a successful component of the SSTELLA practices. The next
practice regarding contextualization was not as strong, and only somewhat apparent in the
lesson. This would have required students funds of knowledge to contribute to the framing of
the lesson. There was a central question presented in attempts to make the content relevant to
students, but was not specifically driven by the students. Lastly, English language and
disciplinary literacy development practices were somewhat apparent, but not as strong as they
should be. There was opportunity for development through interaction, but not as much through
vocabulary support. The activity itself allowed students to functionally use vocabulary and
develop their science literacy through the task, but it would be insufficient for those unfamiliar
with the background knowledge.
Lastly, technology presented in the lesson had both positive and negative feedback. There
was a heavy use of innovative technology that activated prior knowledge, facilitated in studentled inquiry, and engaged students in anonymous discussion, providing adequate wait time for
each section. However, the disadvantage to a technology-based lesson was that some students
encountered technical difficulties such as connection problems and simply knowing what access
codes to use and procedures to log in to the sites. The functionality of the website was also at
times confusing to navigate, as each part was specific. In relation to the Technology Integration
Matrix, the level of technology used in this lesson might be categorized into the Active Infusion
level, where the technology used provides a means to understand, apply, and analyze the learning
task, and that students actively lead themselves through it to accomplish the task. In relation the
the SAMR model, the technology level in this lesson is essentially only on the Augmentation
level, as it provides an easier interface to accomplish otherwise more time-consuming tasks.
Revised Lesson
This lesson could use several revisions to address difficulties with the content and
weaknesses in the SSTELLA practices. Specifically, the focal SSTELLA practice of scientific
discourse through productive student talk could be improved by providing more structure for the
direction of the discussion, as well as vocabulary support to accommodate diverse needs of
students. With regards to the science talk, specific dialogue strategies and prompting questions
could have been more thoroughly planned in order to facilitate a purpose to the discussion. There
are several strategies to help accomplish the goals of productive discussion that were not
presented explicitly in the lesson. One way to do this is to actually provide appropriate questions
that prompt specific responses, whether it is to clarify understanding, comprehend others,
elaborate for deeper reasoning, and confirming meaning (Michaels & OConnor, p. 213). Also, I
3

would rephrase the discussion question to make it comprehensible for all students, as well as
connecting it explicitly to the big idea that framed the lesson. For example, the discussion
question asked about social implications for selective breeding. One point of confusion posed
here is what is meant by social implications. I would clarify this by restating the question in
different words that would help provide support for meaning.
Scientific explanation and argumentation was another scientific discourse practice that
was weaker. This was practiced somewhat in the discussion, but not emphasized throughout, and
that may because there was a lack of modeling to show students how to engage in this type of
scientific discourse practice. Scientific sense-making as a strong SSTELLA practice in this
lesson and may not need as much revision as some other practices. For example,
contextualization was not as strong. What could be done to revise this lesson is to provide more
opportunity for students to drive the contextual references that frame the content and its
relevance. Specifically, the lesson could be opened with engaging questions that inquire what
they know about the subject in terms of real-life context. This could trigger their background
knowledge and then be related to the big idea. With more opportunity for students to contribute
their funds of knowledge, the lessons content may allow them to assign meaning to the big idea.
The SSTELLA practice that leaves the most to be desired is the English language and
disciplinary literacy development. Student interaction was sufficient, but much more support
should be set in place to accommodate the diversity of students academic and language needs.
There should be some type of vocabulary review to help clarify meanings of relevant key terms
before proceeding with the lesson. This could be done by providing some type of graphic
representation that would facilitate their ability to comprehend and functionally use the term. In
doing this, students would be more prepared in using the language and continuing with the
lessons activity.

References
Classroom Reader. (Fall 2014). SED561: Teaching High School Science with Technology.
National Research Council. (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,
Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New
K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.