In my fourth and fifth grade split classroom, I have created an innovative lesson plan to teach students to use a Prusa 3D printer.
In this plan, I am teaching the use of a 3D printer through the lens of a geometry standard for my fourth graders, and through a measurement standard for my fifth graders; however, both fourth and fifth graders will be learning from both standards as this is a cohesive unit where all students are participating. At the end of the unit, students will have created a 3D printed Lego. Prior to printing a design they have created, students have learned concepts of 3D shapes, measurement, and how to use Tinkercad.
I had the opportunity to share my lesson plan with two of my CEP 811 classmates. I received feedback on UDL, Universal Design for Learning, and Intersectionality (basically, these two elements make sure ALL students are considered in the lesson plan). I also gave feedback to two peers on their lesson plans. I really appreciated seeing others’ lesson plans because I was able to modify my plan based on some of their ideas. I was also able to adjust my lesson plan based on the feedback I received from my peers. When I shared my lesson plan with my peers, I felt that I had considered all of my students; however, after peers reviewed my plan it was evident that I didn’t fully explain the modifications I naturally do for my students. The most difficult part of this experience was trying to put a plan I had in my head in-to words. It has been many years since I’ve written lesson plans in as much detail as what is expected. I also think it is much easier to give feedback than to receive feedback. I tried to be specific with feedback and offer praise in areas where my peers excelled, and that is what I received as well. However, when I received feedback from my peers that offered suggestions for changes or things to consider, I took it as a personal attack, even though that is not what was intended. When I took a step away, a day to think about what was suggested, I came back to my lesson plan with fresh eyes and realized I had lots of room for improvement.
After considering all of my peers’ and instructors’ suggestions for my lesson plan, I made quite a few changes. I feel the biggest change I made was restructuring the objective of the lesson. Originally, the learning goal for the students was to learn to use the 3D printer. I knew my goal was for them to learn math concepts and use the 3D printer as a tool in this process. In my lesson plan, I used Screencastify as a way for students to show their learning. After a peer suggested that not all of my students may want to use this technology, I added additional methods for students to show learning. In addition to these changes, I also added the rubric I would be using to score students learning. There were a few suggestions that my peers made that I chose not to or was unable to change. A peer suggested using more adult support in the classroom. I would LOVE more support, and in any other year I would ask for parent volunteers. Unfortunately, I am the only adult with the students, and due to Covid-19 volunteers are not permitted to enter the building. A peer also suggested using another method for students to apply learning rather than Tinkercad, because it requires small motor functioning that some students may not have. I choose not to change this because in my current class, all students are able to manipulate Tinkercad, but am thinking of ways to adapt, such as using partners, if needed in the future.
When I created the 3D printed lesson plan I didn’t realize the amount of scrutiny it would be under, but I am grateful for all the suggestions I was given. With the feedback I received, I feel I was able to create a more inclusive lesson plan.
Comments