ORIGINAL LESSON

Lesson Plan: Plan, Build, Tell (3 day lesson)

Grade: Two

Content Areas: science: movement

Overall and Specific Expectations:

design and make simple mechanisms, and investigate their characteristics
recognize that different mechanisms and systems move in different ways, and that the different types of movement determine the design and the method of production of these mechanisms and systems
make simple machines and use them in building a device they have designed
use appropriate techniques to make and fasten the components of a model that they have made
identify different ways in which wheels and axles can be attached to a chassis

This was a 3 day lesson in which children had to design a car with a wheel and axle, a chassis, and a hinge; build the car; write about how the car was made, noting any changes to their plan.

Materials: science journals, small boxes (chassis), skewers and chopsticks (axles), film-container lids (wheels), paper scraps (hinges), scissors, glue, and tape.

Procedure:

-- Hand out mini-cars for students to inspect. Ask them to look the components on the car. After identifying these parts (wheel and axle, chassis, hinge), have them trade cars with each other to see how the components can be made of different materials, and fastened in different ways.

-- Have students come to the front and to look at the materials laid out on the large table. Ask students to first describe the shapes of the various car parts; record these under the appropriate heading on the board. Then have students choose which materials could be used to make the various car parts.

-- Write 1, 2, 3, on the board as a visual cue for the following segments. Students must come to the teacher after each stage is completed:

Pair the students up, and have them make a plan for a car. Have them draw a picture of the car, label it, and then to write their procedure. Both students must write the plan in their own journals.
When the pairs’ plan is ready, have them come to the front to choose the appropriate materials from the large table at the front, and build their car.
When car is finished, have them to note any changes they made to their plan, and to describe in writing what they used and how they made each part. Both students must describe the procedure in their own journals.

Positive Aspects to the lesson:

This lesson was modeled using a variety of intelligences, which are aspects of the learner that must be taken advantage of by all educators, particularly when ESL students are involved:

Kinesthetic learners were able to touch and hold a variety of different mini-cars, not to mention make their own car, motivating them to work. This experience was exciting for all students, and for ESL students, grounded the lesson in context, which facilitates language learning.
Since the mini-cars were ones the students had brought in, there was an emotional component to this lesson; students were very happy to show their cars to others. This was important for the ESL student, as it connected their home life with school, which made the class meaningful.
Visual learners were helped in the lesson in that I made a chart on the board, which first highlighted the shape of the car parts (i.e., large cube/box, circle, long stick, small square), and then matched these shapes with the materials that should be used to create the various car parts (i.e., chassis, wheels, axle, and hinge respectively). Breaking up the analysis of car parts in this way helped the ESL learner to practice basic shape words, and then to associate them with the car parts, creating a visual-mental scaffolding to understanding.
In the pre-lesson discussion, verbal students were able to express their views to the class. This provided ESL students with an opportunity to practice speaking and listening.
For those reticent to speak in large groups, students were later allowed to work in pairs to discuss the planning, building, and telling about their car. This provided ESL students with an opportunity to practice speaking and listening.
Social learners were satisfied by the pair work. More concretely, as opposed to building a car on their own, pair work involved ESL students in the real-life, meaningful process of negotiating the plan-build-tell of the car. Forcing students to express wishes, clarify thoughts, and even argue is a situation pregnant with language possibilities.

This lesson not only required students to write out their plan for their car, but as well required them to draw a picture and label their cars. This segment of the lesson allowed ESL students an opportunity to express themselves in ways other than writing, and to practice key vocabulary.

I paired weak students with strong ones, which gave the ESL student a strong model of writing, speaking, and listening to work from. Such modeling helps language learners.

Similarly, in the pairs, I had the students write their plans and reflections in their journals. While students were allowed to do all aspects of the assignment together, both of them had to write the “answers” in their journals. This situation allowed the ESL student a chance to copy or paraphrase a well-written piece of work, giving them a chance to work from a good model.

By numbering the stages on the board, I created a visual cue for the students. The students not only had my verbal instructions, and the help of their partners, but also had this extra visual layer of support to assist them in following the assignment. As well, the use of numbers is quite universal, and I hoped that this facilitated the ESL learner in following the steps required.

Having students come to me after every stage allowed me to make sure that they were on the right track, broke the whole process into chunks, and allowed me to check for understanding. This helped the ESL student by providing immediate feedback.

I went around the room to observe all of the students at each stage of the process. By asking questions, observing, and listening, I was able to help the ESL student by providing immediate feedback, correcting misunderstanding, and giving guidance.

Negative Aspects to the lesson:

(1) The lesson was confusing because although it was split into 3 distinct parts, I only gave the 1, 2, 3 visual cues. While this was fine for the first day (i.e., all students were on the same stage), it got confusing as different students finished the steps at different times. Similarly, even within the subtasks, some of my instructions were too vague. To plan their cars, for example, I asked students to draw a picture of the car, label it, and then write down the procedure. Though I did have the major vocabulary written on the board, I did not have this three-step plan laid out. I paid for this mistake with constant questions about what to do next.

(2) Despite my idea that pairing weak and strong students together was a good one, the fact of the matter was that only 5 of 28 students in my class were native-English speakers. There were few good models for any student to follow.

(2) Similarly, my emphasis on having them both write in their journals was frustrating to some; a large portion of this 3 day science lesson ended up being about writing; this had a negative effect because the students tended to see the writing as busy work – I mean, why recopy the planning/telling when its already done? This repetition tended to de-contextualize the activity, the opposite of what I was trying to do! Since this was science class, I was justified in emphasizing the Plan-Build-Tell model; however, as I was not assessing writing, I was not justified in emphasizing writing to the degree that I did.

(3) I asked the students to tell how they built their car, and to note any changes they made from their original plan. Unfortunately, I did not model this procedure for the students. This made the whole process very confusing to all students, not to mention the ESL students.

(4) Though I did give a short lesson on what to do if someone got hurt, and the dangers of working with sharp tools, hoping to be “constructivist”, I did not model any of the ways in which different car parts could be made. On second thought, this lack of guidance was not “constructivist”, but as scissors and sharp skewers were involved, could have actually been “destructivist-of-body-parts/dangerous”!

REVISED LESSON

Procedure:

-- Review the concepts of safety, danger, and the procedures of what you should do when an accident occurs. Show students different ways to make their cars/car parts, highlighting the dangers involved (4).

-- Write PLAN, BUILD, TELL (with an accompanying picture) (1c) on the board as a visual cue for the stages below. After completing a step, students must come see the teacher, so under each heading write, “COME SEE THE TEACHER” (1a). For reinforcement, make a little jingle/song about the plan/build/tell model (1d).

Pair the students up, and have them make a plan for a car. Have them draw a picture of the car, label it, and then to write their procedure; this plan may be written using rebus sentences (2b). Only one student needs to write the plan in their journal (2a). For very weak pairs, scribe for the students (2c). Throughout the lesson, remind students of the stages they must complete, and their order (1b).

When the pairs’ plan is ready, have them to choose the appropriate materials from the large table at the front, and then build their car.

On day 3, most students will have almost finished their cars, and should be telling how they did it. Model for the students how to make notes about any revisions they made to their plan. In white chalk, show a basic plan for building a car (don’t forge to put in an intentional mistake!). Then, show how you changed your plan, writing this down in red chalk (3).

When car is finished, have them to note any changes they made to their plan, and to describe in writing what they used and how they made each part; this part may be written using rebus sentences (2b). Only one student needs to write the plan in their journal (2a). For very weak pairs, scribe for the students (2c). Throughout the lesson, remind students of the stages they must complete, and their order (1).

The justifications to changes made below are in response to the negative features mentioned above.

(1a) Under each 1, 2, 3 heading, I would write, “COME SEE THE TEACHER”, so that students would remember that they had to do this. This visual cue would help the ESL learner to do all stages of the process.

(1b) To help facilitate the student’s work, I would give them constant verbal cues about the different stages. I would stop every 15 minutes and having them review the tasks that they needed to be doing, as well as the order of the tasks. Speaking in plain sentences, and ensuring that all students knew what to do would give several reinforces to the ESL student; constant auditory reminders would help them to organize their work schedule.

(1c) Instead of merely a 1, 2, 3 visual cueing system, I would make short word-cues, and create a symbol for each one: PLAN (picture of someone thinking a light bulb); BUILD (picture of someone building something); TELL (picture of someone writing). By condensing a lot of meaning into a single word, these word cues would be helpful to the ESL student by keeping them on track, as well as giving them practice with high-frequency words. The pictures would further help the ESL student for similar reasons; connecting pictures with words can help to consolidate important vocabulary.

(1d) I would also turn the above task-sequence into a little jingle/song. Something like, “PLAN, PLAN, BUILD IT GOOD, TELL US ALL, YOU KNOW YOU SHOULD”, or something similar, accompanied by claps, foot tapping, or whatever the students could make up. This extra cueing would serve as a reminder for the ESL student, and would be motivating as well.

(2a) Instead of having both students write out their plans and reflections (telling), I should have just let one of them write it, or trade turns with one writing out the plan, while the other would write the procedure. This would have seemed more “fair” to all students, and would have kept the task contextualized, something very important for language learners.

(2b) As I was not assessing writing, I should have allowed the students to express more in pictures, or in rebus sentences. I could have, for example, written a model sentence on the board, “I made the _______ with the _________”, had the students copy them, and then allowed them to draw in the wheel and the film-container lid respectively. By providing a model, and concentrating on content, this writing process would provide a model for the ESL student, and help them to express their understanding.

(2c) For students having great difficulty, I should have used anecdotal notes, short conferences, or even scribing to record their understanding of the concepts. This would help the ESL student to use oral expression and example to show their understanding, focusing them on content over language structure.

(3) I should have modeled the process of noting changes to their plan for the students. An on board demonstration using different colored chalk would have helped all students to understand what it was that I wanted. I could have, for example, written a plan on the board in white chalk, and then showed any changes to my plan using red chalk.

(4) I would model for the students different ways in which the various car parts could be made. Some of the procedures had the potential to be dangerous, for example, poking a skewer through the cardboard box could poke out an eye. I would let students choose the method they wanted, but highlight the dangers involved. Visually modeling this procedure would help the ESL student.