Reflections on Instructional Practice

At the start of the lesson featured in the video, I walked the students through collecting data

about my family. They were shown a picture and asked to make observations about similarities

shared between family members. I then pointed out specific traits—focusing on eye and hair

color. They were asked to record the number of family members who had brown eyes, blue eyes,

dark hair, or light hair. This is the data they were to use in completing the final assignment of

predicting the eye and hair color of my sister and brother in law’s future child (they also had to

record data on my brother in law’s eye and hair color). Once they made their general predictions,

I walked them through monohybrid and dihybrid crosses in order to give them the mathematical

prediction tools they needed in order to accurately construct their evidence-based explanations.

This video clip is the start of introducing the students to dihybrid crosses.

I engaged students in scientific inquiry by using a real-life example of my family. My

students ask a lot of questions about my background and where I am from. Because of this, I

used my family as the subjects of the genetic phenomenon we were looking at. My family also

serves as a good example because there are four siblings all coming from the same parents, and it

is a good demonstration of Punnett square probability. They were very excited when I showed

them the picture, asked questions about my siblings, and made observations on their own about

how similar we all looked.

Through observing pictures of my family, the students were able to determine patterns about

how the eye and hair color traits were distributed through the F1 generation, and they were able

to use this real-life data to make a prediction on what the future child will look like. As the

lesson progressed, they were able to learn the proper tools necessary to use the eye and hair color
data to make accurate predictions. In this way, they were able to defend their predictions with

scientific models and refute inaccurate predictions.

Students were able to connect this new content with previous knowledge they had about

genetics. Before going in to the picture of my family, I asked them to tell about similarities they

shared with their own family members. They liked sharing about who looks like who in their

families and questioning why their skin and eye colors varied between siblings. They were able

to utilize these questions and knowledge about heredity in building a broader understanding of

genetic transmission.

This series covers the introduction of dihybrid crosses. I began by teaching them how to use

a method that includes the use of monohybrid crosses, as they had learned and practiced those

the day before. The unit builds on itself. The students must understand monohybrid crosses in

order to perform dihybrid crosses, and they must understand dihybrid crosses in order to work

through their predictions of the baby’s traits. The intention of showing the students the scenario

before the lecture and having them make an initial prediction was to give them a frame of

reference throughout the lecture. In this way, they could learn new skills with the awareness of

the scenario in mind, and with an ability to make an easier connection between the notes and

application.

One way that I built on student understanding was by having students come up to the board

and work out the initial monohybrid crosses. The work that they did on the board for the

monohybrid crosses was used to determine the sides of the dihybrid cross. I chose this method to

keep the students engaged, but also to show them that they already have the tools they need to

complete the new task I am introducing them to.

 My instruction supported student use of scientific concepts by walking them through one of

the basic tools they will need in order to solve the real-world prediction they were given. By

learning how to perform Punnett square crosses and apply them to the family scenario, they learn

how to observe patterns, how to pull data from the patterns they observe, and how to use that

data to answer the questions. The example I am working on in the video is actually a dihybrid

cross looking at eye and hair color. The reason I selected this example was to give the students a

direct connection to their real-world scenario.

A major change I would make to the instruction would be to structure the guided notes

better so that students could follow along better. Once I planned the lesson and printed out the

notes, my mentor teacher showed me a method of determining the dihybrid crosses that I thought

would be easier for the students to grasp. I went ahead and changed the method on my power

point, but did not print out new copies for the students (as most of the lesson remained the same,

and the outcome of the example I changed would be identical). I thought it would be easy for

students to use the space on the back of their guided notes to follow along on the example that

was added last minute. Throughout the lesson, it became clear that this was a major distraction

for students and continued to draw their attention away.

Having a better organizational structure would benefit the students because it would keep

their minds focused on the material, instead of wandering into thinking about how to do the task

correctly or wondering how to structure their notes. Students do better when they have clear

instructions and an example of what is expected of them (Strong, Silver, Perini, & Tuculescu,

2003).

The formal assessment for this lesson was a summative assessment where students used

monohybrid and dihybrid crosses to predict the hair and eye colors my sister’s baby can have.
This assessment provided students with the opportunity to observe patterns (crosscutting

concept) of heredity, collect data to use in Punnett square crosses (scientific practices of using

models and mathematical thinking) to determine the probabilities of my sister’s future baby

(real-world phenomenon). The answers they came up with were supposed to be backed by the

evidence of the data they collected and the proper utilization of the Punnett squares (scientific

practice of constructing an explanation).

The informal assessment was a formative assessment in the form of a ticket out the door. It

measured student understanding of newly acquired genetic vocabulary. It only tested for student

understanding of scientific concepts in order to ensure that they would be able to move to a

deeper level of thinking within the subject of genetics.

The design of this lesson left some areas of the assignment open-ended to allow for

differentiation. This was done intentionally, so that students would have to work to piece the

prediction tools together as well as make their own observations. The inquiry focus of the lesson

was also chosen because it allows me to see how deep each student can think about the problem.

I can assist students with special needs when they get stuck, as well as scaffold the lesson so that

they can understand the steps easier. In this lesson, some students needed to be walked through

how to determine the genotypes of the baby’s parents based on the picture shown at the

beginning of the lesson. This was a form of scaffolding (Tomlinson, 1999). Other students

worked the genotype of the mother out on their own. The ticket out the door assignment was not

designed with differentiation in mind, as it was used a formative tool to dictate where future

emphasis should be in the following lessons. Instead of differentiating for the assignment, it was

used as a tool for future differentiation.

References:

Strong, R., Silver, H., Perini, M., & Tuculescu, G. (2003). Boredom and Its Opposite. Educational

Leadership, 24-29.

Tomlinson, C. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All

Learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.