Katie ONeill

Professor Reilly

EDUC 359

27 November 2017

SIOP Lesson Reflection

Overall, I believe our lesson went well. We achieved both our language and content

objectives and challenged their vocabulary development. We were able to teach a math concept

while simultaneously teaching crucial vocabulary.

In regards to objectives, we had both content and language objectives. The content

objective was that the student will be able to distinguish the different in the types of

quadrilaterals and polygon. The student will also be able to identify if two figures are similar,

congruent, or neither. Lastly, the student will be able to complete a computer activity that

focuses on similarity and vocabulary. We were able to tell that the student achieved this

objective because she accurately completed the worksheet and computer activity. This would not

have been possible if she was not able to identify if two figures were similar, congruent, or

neither. The language objective was that students could name quadrilaterals, polygons, and the

figures that fall beneath the categories. The student will use academic language regarding

congruence and similarity in the group activity. I believe that only part of this objective was

achieved. We did not ask students to identify the types of polygons so the students did not

discuss the types of polygons with each other. The students did use vocabulary regarding

similarity such as scale factor while completing the lesson. We could observe that the students

were using these words correctly, which showed us they had a proper understanding of the

vocabulary. Overall, most aspects of the objectives were achieved.

 I felt that we challenged the students language development because we asked students

to use vocabulary they learned during the lesson. By requiring students to use the vocabulary,

they are developing a deep and meaningful understanding of the word. We knew that we

challenged the students language development because we required the students to use words

that they were not previously familiar with. We could have strengthened the students vocabulary

more by asking them to identify the types of polygons and determine whether they were regular

or irregular. Although we did not challenge the language development as much as we could

have, there was definitely evidence of some language development.

I did not feel that any of the lesson was too hard or too easy. I felt that we touched upon

prior knowledge which helped the students build upon a previously understood concept. I think

we checked for understanding throughout the lesson to ensure that the students were following

along. By checking for understanding, we could re-teach if students were not grasping the

concept. If we were to do this lesson again, I would expose the student to more vocabulary

because I did not feel we expanded the students vocabulary knowledge much.

If this lesson was taught to an ELL student, we would have had to teach much slower. I

think we would have had to repeat instruction in multiple ways and offer various instruction to

ensure the student has an understanding. We also did not utilize many visuals or manipulatives. I

believe that visuals and manipulatives would help ELL students develop a better understanding

of the math concept.

Although there were some changes I would make to improve our lesson, I thought we did

a good job teaching both content and language.