Material Detail

This lesson has many positives. Firstly, the lesson uses subject matter that will interest students (Ellis Island and Immigration) as well as an age-apropraite website. Students at this level should have no problem exploring the site and learning. In addition, the lesson structure with having students explore the site and then having a whole-class discussion before students start the project is a great strategy to ensure student learning.

However, the lesson could be improved. Firstly, a direct reference to state and/or national standards (ex. ISTE) would give the lesson more direction and focus (the specific number for the benchmark stated). In addition, some missing words detract from the credibility. Also, a rubric for grading the group project would provide more perspective to the teacher as well as give students more meaningful feedback. Lastly, the "1-2 week" timeline seems somewhat extensive for the completion of the project. The teacher would also have to make sure that students are familiar with the use of PowerPoint and its functions.

Positive Feedback: The lesson provides for ample student choice in how to complete the assignment, PowerPoint, speech, etc. Inviting other classes to watch the presentations makes the assessment more authentic. The “pleasant consequences” and “novelty” components of the motivation section are relevant forms of motivation for most students. The website that accompanies this activity seems age appropriate and is from a reputable source for Education material, Scholstic.com. The lesson seems appropriate for the ability, age, and experience levels of the intended student audience.

Critical Feedback: Some basic grammatical errors (missing words) in the lesson plan make it hard to follow and cause the lesson to lose some credibility. The evaluation procedure seems vague because there is no mention of a specific rubric for the presentation and because the evaluation of the Internet research lacks detail, “I will also observe the researching process to see that they can successfully research on the Internet.” Amount of time spent on project “give students a week or two, about 40 minutes a day...” seems both arbitrary and excessive. It seems to be a large amount of time to spend on one such project, especially with all of the standards to be covered and the fact that groups will still have to present. The “meaningfulness” component to the motivation could be stronger and made more diverse. The lesson lacks overall specificity. For example, the researching process as described seems very student directed. Students, especially of this age group, could use more scaffolding and structure for their researching procedures. The lack of specificity of the unit also fails to address many aspects of student diversity, including language barriers and physical and mental disabilities.

Technical Remarks: