Introduction: Connecting Theory and Practice

When selecting the standards I would be using for my connected lesson I discussed with
my co-teacher what standards the students still had to master. She explained they were currently
working on a unit involving figurative language and had only been exposed to metaphors,
idioms, and similes thus far. She told me to take a look at the standard and see if I wanted to
cover a lesson on any of the additional types of figurative language that were left:
onomatopoeia, hyperbole, personification, and symbolism. I opted to put together a lesson on
personification.
The two standards I would be covering in my connected lesson included: LA.5.2.1.7
which has the students identify and explain the authors use of figurative language and
LA.5.4.1.2 which calls for the students to write a variety of expressive forms, in this case a short
fictional piece, and include figurative writing (personification) within the writing piece. These
two standards were also taught to the students in fourth grade so by administering a preassessment I can determine if the students remember this content or not, and determine the best
way to go about teaching it. It is a state standard that the students have to show completion in
and will continue to be taught as they progress through their schooling. Leaving fifth grade with
a solid understanding of figurative language and the different types will be beneficial for my
students.
I decided to implement guided release as a teaching strategy. Since my students will be
heading into sixth grade next year, this strategy takes them from teacher-centered whole group
instruction to a more student-centered independent practice and/or collaboration. It is often
known as I do, We do, You do. In the first step, I do, as the teacher I will provide direct
instruction to the students, model how the worksheet should be filled in by thinking aloud what I

might write. I will then ask students if they need any clarification before releasing them to work
independently. While students are working I will pull small groups that may need additional
instruction or may need to complete their graphic organizers among others to talk and discuss.
This is known as the We do component of the scaffolding strategy. Finally, in the You do
component, students who were not pulled for small group instruction will continue to work
independently and take full responsibility for the outcome of their work. As the teacher, my role
in this component would be to assess their work, provide feedback, and monitor their
understanding of the concept.
Assessment: Focus on Data Collection and Analysis
I chose to administer a pre-assessment check (see appendix A) that required the students
to look at a set of sentences that contained examples of personification. The students were then
given the task of identifying the object/animal being personified as well as the human
characteristic it was being given. I did this because the standard, LA.5.2.1.7, stated that the
student will identify an authors use of figurative language (CPALMS.org). Figurative
language is a standard that was also taught to my students in fourth grade so this assessment
helped me to see what the students remembered and which specific students might need
individualized help. I also went in with the notion that the whole class might struggle and this
might be something I need to administer as a whole class reteach.
After I administered the assessment, I graded each student individually and created a line
graph (see appendix B) so I had a visual representation of how many problems the students got
correct out of 5. The majority of the class (7 students) got all 5 problems correct. Four students
missed one problem, two students got three problems correct, and two students only got one or
zero problems correct. Given this data more than half the class is able to identify the

object/animal being personified and select the correct human characteristic being assigned. This
leads me to believe I do not need to administer a whole class reteach but instead briefly go over
what personification is and lead directly into the activity that will then move students into the
second standard we will be covering in this lesson. The second standard, LA.5.4.1.2, requires
the students to write a fictional piece that employs figurative language. During individual work
time I will pull the four students who struggled with the pre-assessment so I can give them more
individualized help and see what it is that is preventing them from identifying the correct
object/animal and human characteristic. I will also use this time to help them plan for the writing
assessment portion of this lesson.
For day one, my formative assessment will include any observational notes I make as
well as a graphic organizer (see appendix C) the students will use to plan out their writing for
day twos lesson. The graphic organizer requires them to identify the object being personified
(the specific crayon color they have been assigned) and pull out any human characteristics found
within the letter they have been assigned. They will then identify the problem (why their specific
crayon left the box) found within their letter, and come up with specific solutions to the
problem.
Day two is when the students will complete their summative assessment. They will
utilize the graphic organizer from day one and create a fictional letter to their specific crayon.
They will use the problem solution graphic organizer to convince their crayon to come back to
the box and describe how they will ensure the crayon is happy again. Through this writing they
will utilize personification. I will assess their writing by looking for examples of personification
to ensure the student understood the concept. I plan on differentiating this assessment by giving
my ESE and ELL students a summative assessment (see appendix D) that includes space to draw

a picture to give a visual representation since I know writing can be difficult for them. I will also
pull them back to explain their drawings/writing if needed. All remaining students will submit
just the writing portion (see appendix E) of this assignment.
On day two I pan on modeling how the students writing should look using a fictional
letter I wrote to my cat apologizing for dressing him up for Halloween. I will identify the animal
and highlight specific human characteristics I am giving the animal. This is a strategy that works
well for ELL learners, this gives them a clear visual of what it is you are looking for through an
example.
Connected Lessons: Using Data to Drive Instruction
Day 1 Lesson Plan

Originally when I planned this lesson I was going to spend 15-20 minutes teaching a
whole group lesson on what personification was and how students could identify the
object/animal that was being assigned a human characteristic. However, after looking at the data
I collected during the pre-assessment quiz, I noticed the majority of the students scored a 4/5 or
higher. With only 4 students scoring a 3 or below. I then decided to change my original plans
and briefly go over what personification was as a refresher before jumping into the initial
activity. When students were released to work on the graphic organizers independently, I would

then call the 4 students that had difficulty with the pre-assessment to the guided reading table. I
would then be able to pin point what their misconceptions were and address them. I would also
be able to work through the graphic organizers with them to ensure they understood what was
being asked of them (to identify the object being personified and pull out the human
characteristics being assigned to the object).
Day 2 Lesson Plan

I was able to grade the students graphic organizers during planning period on day 1 and
was impressed with the human characteristics the students were able to pull out from their letters.
I had planned on using 10-15 minutes at the beginning of day 2s lesson to go over issues I may
have encountered looking at the students graphic organizers. Because this wasnt the case, I was
able to jump right in to modeling how they would use the information they had completed using
their graphic organizer to write their friendly letter (summative assessment). I had also planned
on pulling small groups or students for one-on-one help, but by assessing their formative
assessment (graphic organizer) found this to be unnecessary.
I used a variety of formative assessments when working with my ELL student. She was
one of the students I pulled for a small group reteach on day 1. I took observational notes while

working with her as well as graded her graphic organizer like the rest of the students. I also
created a different summative writing worksheet for my ELL and ESE students that provided
space for them to draw a picture as well as lines for them to write their letter. Depending on the
level your ELL student is at, sometimes visual representations are easier if their vocabulary is
still developing. My ELL student is considered level 5 advanced. She is able to write at or near
grade level, with teacher support if needed. However, I know she is not considered a strong
writer so I wanted her to have the option to back up her writing with a visual representation to
help solidify her letter.
Reflection on Student Learning and Teaching Practice
Day One
After going over the results of my pre-assessment data, my original plan of going over
personification as a whole group changed. I realized a majority of my students were able to draw
on material covered in their fourth grade classes to help them identify both the object/animal
being personified, as well as the human characteristic being assigned. For this reason I decided
to quickly go over the definition of personification and give a two examples before diving right
into the activity I had planned. Later during independent work I would pull the four students
who struggled with the pre-assessment to the side for a small reteach where I could help guide
them through the graphic organizer they would be completing.
The objective that I would be covering on day one of my connected lesson required that
students be able to identify figurative language, in this case personification, and how it is used to
describe feelings and objects. I selected a book titled The Day the Crayons Quit, because it
clearly depicts crayons with human characteristics. I felt like this would be a high interest book

among my students as they might be able to relate to the main character, or perhaps some of the
feelings of the crayons. Each student was assigned a crayon color and had to remain alert and
focused as I circulated with the book showing the illustrations. The illustrations were drawn in
the specific crayon color, cueing the correct students to read. On one instance I had to quietly
interject when a student began reading at the wrong time, but I tried to make sure through my
mannerisms and the tone of my voice that it was ok and it was actually another students turn to
read. One student seemed unsure it was there turn to read so I pointed at them to let them know
it was indeed their color. I also used a hand gesture to encourage one of my more soft spoken
students to read louder so the students in the back could hear. I was amazed at how focused and
engaged the students were. As I circulated with the book they would crane their necks to see the
illustrations and how they connected with the letters. Increased student engagement through the
use of student interest is something Im passionate about, and I believe this lesson helped prove
that by finding material the students can relate to or find enjoyable helps to keep them focused.
One thing I realize I need to work on after reflecting on this lesson is covering all
instructions and providing students with a task if they finish early. After I finished working with
the small group I pulled, I heard Im finished, what should I do now? quite a few times and
had to repeat take out an RC book and quietly read over and over. I didnt think to have an
enrichment activity for those students who tend to finish fast, or even simply remind students if
you finish early take out a book and read. I hear my CT say this repeatedly before releasing
students to complete tasks, I guess just assumed students would know that is the routine.

Learning Claim:
1. Applying student interest to lessons can result in greater student engagement and focus.

2. Giving explicit directions for during and after an activity can cut down on time spent
reiterating to students what they should be doing as they complete a task.
Day Two
After day one, I realize at points I forgot to give clear and direct instructions so I wanted to
ensure this did not happen on day two. If I asked any questions I asked for students to raise their
hand if they thought they had the answer. I reminded students multiple times to draw after they
completed their writing. I also made sure to give them directions for when they completed the
task, they were to remain quiet and read their RC books so those students still working were not
distracted. Compared to day ones lesson, I was able to see the difference giving full explicit
directions can make. On day one I kept running into the same question, Im finished, what do I
do? so on day two since I covered this at the start of the lesson the students knew exactly what
was expected of them when they finished writing. This resulted in a smoother lesson with less
time wasted answering the same questions over and over.
After reading my students summative writing assessments, the creativity that jumps off the
pages was astounding. One student whose crayon was feeling rather short from overuse, came
up with the solution of creating a shorter box just for that crayon so it felt like it fit in. Other
students used a colored pencil in the same color as their crayon to write the letter. I wanted the
students to showcase their creativity and I think this lesson really helped to pull that out. The
best part was they all were able to showcase personification, the whole purpose for this lesson, in
a very clear manner while actually enjoying the assignment. Students stayed on task the entire
time and quietly raised a hand if they had any questions.

One issue I ran into when trying to implement this lesson was the differentiation aspect. I
wanted to provide a different letter format to my ESE and ELL students. They would still be
responsible for the writing portion but would have a box where they could also draw an image to
connect to the writing. I did this because I know from past assignments, writing is not their
strong suit. However, theyre able to depict what theyre thinking through drawings so I wanted
to provide this option for them. Unfortunately, when I presented this to my CT she preferred all
students be given the same worksheet (the one with the area to draw) in order to be fair. When
I went over the worksheet with the students I stressed that they needed to complete their writing
first and to ensure they turn in quality writing before moving on to the drawing portion. Instead,
I ended up with shorter letters from students who I knew were capable of more. I believe this
skewed the assessment results I was hoping for. I dont feel like my data really reflects what my
students can deliver. Although they all met the standard, I still wish I had been able to
differentiate the summative assessment.
Learning Claims:

Time management if implemented correctly ensures that teachers are able to cover
everything (including social studies) daily.

Explicit instructions help a lesson run smoothly and have a positive impact on time
management.

Allowing time for student interest and creativity can result in better student engagement
and quality work.

Differentiation can help supply more reliable data.

Final Reflection
I think the most beneficial adjustment I made was to cut down the day one lesson on
personification and simply make it a quick overview. After going over my pre-assessment data, I
realized a lengthy lesson was unnecessary and would just result in wasted time and possible
student disengagement. However, I did note there were 4 students who would benefit from extra
instruction which is why I chose to pull them for a small group reteach while the other students
worked independently. I think I would also begin to incorporate exit tickets with my lessons to
use as formative data. This kind of assessment could clue me in to whether students feel
confident in their knowledge or whether the lesson was interesting and engaging.
This assignment has taught me the importance of administering pre-assessments. Had I
not given a pre-assessment the week prior, I would have wasted 20+ minutes of instructional
time on material my students remembered from fourth grade. Instead I was able to maximize my
time by simply administering and evaluating pre-assessment data. My co-teacher does not utilize
pre-assessments before planning lessons but I think she found it fascinating that I was able to cut
out unnecessary time spent teaching a concept the students already knew; and I had sufficient
evidence to back it up if administration were to question why I presented an overview vs a full
lesson.
The only concern or wondering I have about pre-assessments is the legitimacy of the data
depending on the type of assessment the students are given. On some assessments students
might guess and luckily get the answers correct. So how can I create a pre-assessment that I feel
is reliable and wont leave me feeling as though students might not really understand the concept
being taught?

Pre-Assessment vs Summative Assessment Data

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F