6. Submit a Log

Implementing the FRAME works well for so many reasons.  As I mentioned earlier, I have been using the FRAME Routine for about 20 years.  I use it to introduce new content, float content, and to review content by referring back to their FRAMEs.  The FRAME Routine gives the students the structure that they need to make sense of the information and to make connections between information and concepts.  Because I have been implementing for so many years, I really did not have any issues.  The biggest thing is to always remember to complete the Extend your understanding.  

 What went well - Why?

• Overall, the use of the Alternative Co-Teaching Model was successful because students who struggled with the vocabulary were able to actively engage and participate in the co-constructing of the Frame. This model allowed for the learning of many of the other students to be extended in order to challenge their thinking.

What was a challenge - Why?

• The overall challenge was trying to meet the needs of all students while using this Frame. It was difficult to differentiate the Frame in a way that still fostered a student-centered co-construction.

What you will do next time?

•  In order to extend the students’ understanding, I would present a word problem with different models. The students would have to review the word problems and find the model that it matched. This would allow for some higher-level thinking and align my instruction with the students in the larger group.

What adjustments you made

•  As the students assisted with co-constructing the differentiated FRAME, I adjusted their suggested wording to fit students’ understanding. This allowed for students to understand their FRAME with the correct content.

The students were able to explain their thinking through different multiplication strategies and show with visuals. Keeping their attention was extra challenging during this session (as they know I was recording and became interested in the video camera). Next time, I would like to differentiate the frame to involve the higher students in the classroom. I would also allow for more time with the lower students, as we needed to use math manipulative before showing our work on the frame.

What went well?
Overall, the use of the Alternative Co-Teaching Model was successful because students who struggled with the vocabulary were able to actively engage and participate in the co-constructing of the Frame. This model allowed for the learning of many of the other students to be extended in order to challenge their thinking. I was happy with how well the students worked in collaborative groups. After I modeled completion of some of the components of the Frame, students were able to successfully work together to create their own word problems and models of multiplication and add them to their individual Frames. This allowed for student choice and gave students a feeling of ownership for their own work.

What was a challenge?
Our overall challenge was trying to meet the needs of all students while using this Frame. It was difficult to differentiate the Frame in a way that still fostered a student-centered co-construction. It was also difficult for the students to brainstorm word problems that would match each model of multiplication. Students successfully worked in collaborative groups, but this task was still very challenging for most students.

What will you do differently next time?
The spacing on the Frame was smaller than expected, so I would include lines in each section for students to write on. This would assist with handwriting difficulties and would allow students to be able to read their work easier after completion.

What adjustments were made?
In the smaller group, visuals of each multiplication model were provided to assist students with identifying the main ideas and activating their prior knowledge about each model. These cut-and-paste visuals also eliminated the written creation of models for students with occupational therapy weaknesses.