Philena Hope

6. Submit a Log

LOG

  • January 1, 2018 at 4:21 PM
  • Visible to public
What went well-Why?
For my science class, I love the openness of the FRAME Routine.  Students did not get confused with trivial details of abstract concepts and could focus simply on the main ideas therefore, allowing more opportunities for classroom discussions through a structured FRAME. 

Additionally, I found the FRAME Routine could be implemented as a spring board into a lesson or an exit piece to assess students learning.  

What was a challenge-why?
Several of my students were slow writers or demonstrate difficulty with keeping the pace of the classroom.  I found that we were having to wait on them in order to progress through FRAME Routine.  This was definitely a challenge in finding a way to get through the FRAME while still meeting the instructional objectives in the time allocated.

What adjustments have you made?
My Coach, Janie Brown, suggested I use voice recording to examine my questioning techniques with the students on the "So What?" statement.  This approach was implemented in order to maximize student participation and engagement during the FRAME Routine.  As a result, I realized that I was asking more detailed oriented questions, rather than allowing students to generate their own ideas on the "So What?" statement.  Another adjustment was giving students time to share with a peer and then presenting to the class a paired summary of the "So What?" statement.

Ideas generated for issues encountered:
My co-teacher and I realized in order to keep to the rigor of our content and pace of instruction we would have to accommodate our slower writers.  As a result, key areas of the FRAME Routine are already pre-generated for our identified learners, which gives them more of an opportunity for discussion and completion of the FRAME Routine.