Running head: REFLECTIONS ON VIDEOTAPED LESSON ONE

Reflections on Videotaped Lesson One: Map Skills

Richelle E. Colucci-Nunn
Drexel University

Running head: REFLECTIONS ON VIDEOTAPED LESSON ONE

Reflections on Videotaped Lesson One: Map Skills

I found the experience of watching my lesson on video to be a very humbling yet affirming
experience. It was humbling because every little mistake seems magnified when viewed on
video, and it was affirming because I could clearly see that I am developing into the nurturing,
natural teacher I knew I would be when I quit my successful business career to pursue a teaching
career.
I consider lesson planning to be a forte of mine. I work very hard to develop a detailed
lesson plan that incorporates movement breaks, changes in instructional strategies, and logical
sequencing. In this lesson, I believe that I established clear, measureable instructional goals in
line with the districts Standards-Based Course Plan. Because the districts objectives are skillbased, however, I designed my lesson plan also using elements of backward design (Wiggins,
2005) so that my goals included knowledge as well as skills.
I used the three-dimensional model activity to introduce map skills in order to provide my
first grade students with a concrete foundation for their map skills before progressing to abstract
concepts and the language of map symbols. This activity was recommended by Maxim (2009) to
address concerns that children younger than seven or eight years old may not be cognitively
ready for map instruction due to their egocentricity. I also chose this activity because I knew it
would be more engaging for the students than exploring map concepts through a textbook or
even by looking at real maps.
Because this lesson plan is student-centered, calls for active exploration, and is relevant to
students lives, it meets many of the criteria for differentiation as described by Tomlinson

Running head: REFLECTIONS ON VIDEOTAPED LESSON ONE

(1999). I did, however, also build in student choice and scaffolding to provide additional
differentiation.
I was pleased that quality of instruction was evident throughout my video, beginning with
how natural and comfortable I looked and sounded (other than my sore-throat voice!) as I taught
the lesson and worked with students on the activity using a variety of voice, inflection, and body
language.
While I made a couple of pacing mistakes (for example, I did not give enough time for
children to share after I helped the last few children find partners during Think-Pair-Share), I felt
that my overall pacing, communication and explanations were appropriate and understood by the
children. Most of the mistakes I made were made at the beginning, when I was nervous about
being videotaped and about the sequence of my warm-up activities.
Next time, I would like to do a better job of specifically relating the lesson to the essential
question, and manage the activities and discussions better so that there is time for reflection at
the end. I had taken my field supervisors feedback to incorporate time frames into my lesson
planning, and this did help me manage my time better than in previous lessons, but the
collaborative activity still took longer than expected and we ran out of time.
Even though we were not finished with the planned day one activities, I should have cut the
lesson short sooner to allow for closure; I believe that it is important to provide children with
reflection time so that learning can be synthesized, and they are prepared to build on the skills
and concepts in the next lesson.
While I did ask a variety of questions and use different types of instructional strategies, many
of the questions I asked in the videotaped segment were observational due to the introductory
nature of this lesson. I asked some clarification and probing questions, and planned to spiral

Running head: REFLECTIONS ON VIDEOTAPED LESSON ONE

questions (ACSD, 2006) as we got into day two and day three of the lesson, but going forward, I
would like to incorporate more higher-order thinking questions into even introductory lessons.
The three-dimensional modeling activity worked very well to engage the students throughout
the lesson and to provide collaborative learning experiences (if students chose to work with a
partner or group) as well as opportunity for independent practice (when students create their
bedroom map using the skills learned in this lesson). I also loved watching the children assess
their own and each others understanding during the selection and placement of the models
during, not only the whole group, but also the collaborative activities.
This was a very ambitious lesson from a classroom management perspective due to the
amount of time spent with children moving around independently during both the whole group
exploration (when students got up to compare the real objects with the models) and the
collaborative learning activity, so I was pleased that I was able to keep children engaged as well
as I did through simple verbal reminders such as using their name or suggesting that they attend
to the learning in case children need to phone a friend for help. I also responded fairly quickly
when I was starting to lose children during the assignment of classroom features; my strategy
of asking them to sit down successfully helped them re-engage.
While I know to keep my eye on Bobby because he often has difficulty staying on task or
staying still, I probably should have asked him (and all children) to stay in front of me during the
lesson on the floor so that I could monitor their engagement better. One strategy that worked
well is when I asked Bobby to go over to my desk area to point it out (34:05) during the whole
group exploration. Since I know Bobby needs movement to stay engaged, I try to give him
opportunities to do so when we have a longer lesson or activity.

Running head: REFLECTIONS ON VIDEOTAPED LESSON ONE

One of my favorite instructional routines (and the childrens!) is my secret sign (the wiggle
dance) for moving to another location to start an activity. This strategy helps keep students in
place to hear all of the instructions and minimizes redundant questions.
My professionalism was demonstrated not only through my conservative dress and written
and spoken language in the videotaped lesson, but also when I accepted feedback from my
cooperating teacher about the second day of the lesson (not on videotape). I had been too closely
following Maxims (2009) lesson progression when it was evident that the children did not need
as much scaffolding during the flat map creation; the second days activities therefore took much
longer than they needed to.
Overall, I am very pleased with my development as a student teacher, and will continue to
strive to distinguish myself in my field.

Running head: REFLECTIONS ON VIDEOTAPED LESSON ONE

References
ASCD (Producer). (2006). The how to collection: instruction that promotes learning (DVD),
2006, Alexandria, VA.
Maxim, G. W. (2009). Dynamic social studies for constructivist classrooms: Inspiring
tomorrow's social scientists (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiggins, G. (2005). Understanding by design: Overview of OBD and the design template [PDF
document]. Retrieved from
http://www.grantwiggins.org/documents/UbDQuikvue1005.pdf