The second lesson I administered within my Practicum III was a two day lesson that included both formative and summative assessments as well as small and whole group collaboration. I have attached my lesson plan for a more detailed explanation within the "Artifacts" sub-section below. Day 1 was essentially more of a group lesson, while Day 2 of Lesson 2 was when students worked in smaller groups. Day 1 was more a lecture, collaborative discussion, and completion of a worksheet. Day 2 was specifically allocated towards my summative assessment, which was a class debate. Within the IB History chapter students had learned about the presidencies of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. I then challenged students to debate with one another key events and strong quality characteristics that defined both American presidents, while also identifying any potential negatives or "rebuttals" against their president. The debate was simple: "Who was a better U.S. President?." 

Within Day 1 of my Lesson 2 I finalized the chapter pertaining to Jimmy Carter. I gave a review followed by a brief lecture regarding Jimmy Carter, the Energy Crisis, and his 1979 "Crisis of Confidence" Speech. During the review I discussed with students, incorporating open ended and higher order-of-thinking questions, where I additionally built and extended students' thoughts and questions. After watching a portion of Carter's "Crisis of Confidence" Speech on YouTube we as a class again collaboratively discussed and developed our own analysis and interpretations. During both informal discussions students worked as a group discussing with one another, building upon each others thoughts, reactions, and evidence; this was also provided an opportunity for me to informally assess students' levels of comprehension. From there students individually completed their assigned "Crisis of Confidence" worksheet and submitted it on Schoology so I could collect a formative assessment grade and again assess students' level of comprehension and mastery of my learning goals.

Day 2 was allocated more so to small group work and the summative assessment debate. In order to save time, ensure balanced teams, and overall fluidity of the lesson I predetermined both teams, assigning roles to match the specific skill, personality, and learning level I believed to match the student. The specific roles within each group included: opener, statement speaker, rebutalist, or closer. After giving a brief schedule, short lecture, and general guidelines for the debate, I had teams displayed on the projector as well as posted on the class' Schoology page. Students then moved to their specific group side, Team Ford on the left and Team Carter on the right. The debate rubric was also posted on Schoology as a guideline for the students. Then students had 35 to 40 minutes to prepare for their specific role within their debate team; I did have to be flexible with the timing and extend my time in order for students to feel more prepared and finalize their thoughts. During this time I walked from group to group to assist with any questions, guide students, ensure students are staying on task, and attempt to relieve any potential anxiety towards the debate. Once students had a general outline and had identified their key points, I suggested both individual groups to further divide into smaller groups, having the assigned rebutalists working together, the assigned statement speakers working together, and with the opener and closer working together. For the remaining 15 minutes of debate preparation students were able to more explicitly finalize their findings and interpretations, while also presenting additional ideas, facts, and examples that they had not thought about as a debate team. With the remaining 25 minutes of the class I regulated the debate, and it was a great success! The debate proved to be an excellent opportunity for students to display their mastery of the unit, learning goals, and history standards. Overall, this lesson improved communicational and collaborative skills as well as students worked as a group, individually, and within two variations of small groups.