This is an image of the lesson plan from my application for admittance to MCEP. The lesson was for my General Physical Science class, and did not involve any chemistry content.
The stated objectives of the
lesson (see
whole document link above) were as follows:
By the end of the unit students should be able to do the following:
By the end of the unit students should be able to do the following:
- Identify Earth’s different geologic layers.
- Explain how the presence of magnetic bands on the ocean floor supports the theory of plate tectonics.
- Describe the movement of Earth’s lithosphere using the theory of plate tectonics.
- Identify the three types of plate boundaries and the principal structures that form at each of these boundaries.
- Identify the causes of earthquakes.
- Distinguish between primary, secondary, and surface waves in earthquakes.
- Describe how earthquakes are measured and rated.
- Explain how and where volcanoes occur.
- Describe the different types of common volcanoes.
This lesson is indicative of my tentative approach to teaching science content when I first started, and before I began MCEP. It indicates a certain amount of fear of content, in its very hands-off attitude. The way I approached the chemistry portion of the GPS class was very similar. It was very book-centered and fact-centered, due to the fact that I didn't feel I had enough facility with the content to be able to incorporate inquiry-based activities, such as labs. What would I do if a student asked a question for which I had no answer? What if the answer to the question was integral to completing the inquiry process? In fact, I conducted no labs that entire year, due to my discomfort with the science content. In addition, I did not attempt any advanced topics. I stuck with the basic (very basic) facts that were in the GPS book, and that was it.
Artifact #1: Group Lesson Plan, Chem 506: Inorganic Chemistry (complete unit with materials, available in PDF here)
In Inorganic Chemistry, we had a group assignment to create a lab lesson. This is an image of the first page of the instructors' manual that gives a brief overview of the overall chemistry content involved in the lesson.
The lab that my group members and I developed was inspired by a PIM we had to complete in Environmental Chemistry that examined the ORP-related issues with corrosion in the Washington D.C. municipal water system. What happened in D.C. was that they changed form using chlorine as a disinfectant to chloramine, which changed the pH, and thus the ORP of the water, which caused lead that had previously been present as harmless scale to dissolve, and thus enter homes for human consumption. This lab asks students to look at the effect of different solvents on three metals (copper, lead, iron) and decide which would be the best metal for pipes in a house renovation. In addition to looking at reactivity and solubility (which was covered in Organic, Inorganic and Environmental Chemistry), the lesson also looks at Zeff, Electromotive Force, and Ionization Energy (which was covered largely in Inorganic Chemistry).
As I discussed in my Baseline Evidence reflection, before this program my chemistry knowledge was very limited. My original certification and major was English, so the bulk of my experience was teaching English. While I was given a General Physical Science course in the year previous to starting MCEP, I did not go deeply into the content, as my knowledge was superficial. In addition, I conducted no lab experiments, also due to my fear of the content. Now, after MCEP, my science content knowledge and my confidence in the knowledge is strong enough that I can develop completely new lessons, from the ground up, given a particular chemistry content topic.
In fact, after beginning MCEP, I switched from teaching GPS to teaching chemistry, and later in the program, to environmental science classes. I was able to do this, because I had such an increased comfort with the science content. Even more importantly, my increased confidence in my science content knowledge led me to conduct regular laboratory experiments, as well as other inquiry-based activities, like the one above--something I would never have done (and in fact, did not do) in my year of teaching GPS before MCEP. I was no longer limited to the basic "just the facts" approach shown in my Baseline Evidence.
In addition, in the reflection for my Baseline Evidence, above, I mentioned that my lack of comfort with my level of content knowledge in my year of teaching GPS, previous to MCEP, kept me from venturing beyond what was specifically in the textbook. I ran away from any advanced topics. Shamefully, even when students expressed interest in learning advanced topics, I shied away from the task, because of my deep discomfort with the science content. For instance, when some students asked if they could learn more about the "so what?" behind periodic trends I responded by telling them that we didn't have time to get deep into any subject, because we had too much ground to cover before the end of the year. If I were to teach GPS again, and were asked the same question, I could respond, "Sure! In fact, let's do this project, here."
Artifact #2: Content Integration Project - Molecular Modelling, Chem 501: Organic Chemistry I (available in PDF here)
In Organic Chemistry, Dr. Roberts assigned a project for which we were to create a lesson which incorporated some of the advanced material that we had learned so far. I chose molecular modelling. This is an image of the overview of the activities planned for this unit.
This unit is a molecular modelling unit that was designed to help students get a better understanding of intermolecular forces, which I planned as the next topic. In it, they go beyond basic Lewis Dot Structure models, and learn about VSEPR models, and then molecular modelling, which introduces other ways of viewing the molecule, including energy patterns and charges. They learn about different movements in the molecule that change its energy levels, and see graphs of these energy level changes.
Before MCEP, my understanding of chemistry was limited to what I had learned in college general chemistry. I had not done any work with molecular modelling, so I wouldn't have even known where to begin to create a lesson that incorporated concepts such as steric hindrance (a concept that appeared in all of the chemistry courses), and stretching, bending, torsion, and VanderWaals interactions (a concept important in all of the chemistry courses, particularly in Spectroscopy). While I was skeptical, at first, that I could incorporate higher level content such as this in a class where the students struggle with basic math, I was able to do so successfully. When I did this lesson with my chemistry class, they seemed to really get the content presented, largely due to the help of the CHIME molecular modelling program.
In addition, in my discussion of Artifact #1, and the reflection on my Baseline Evidence, I discuss how my discomfort with the science content led me to avoid approaching advanced topics that were not specifically in the textbook and part of the curriculum. The only portion of this activity that is specifically in the textbook is the portion that discusses VSEPR. Molecular modeling and the other concepts discussed are either only touched-upon briefly in the textbook, or not at all. None of these topics, including VSEPR, are part of the approved district curriculum. However, I chose to conduct this activity, anyways, because I felt that it would help the students get a better basis of understanding for the next unit, which was intermolecular forces. My newly acquired confidence in my newly acquired science content knowledge helped me to work with an advanced topic that, in turn, helped my students understand some more basic ideas.