Dr.

Andrew Falk, Science Teacher Educator

610 EAST UNIVERSITY AVENUE, RM 1228
ANN ARBOR, MI 48109-1259
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION - Teacher Education 510-213-3255 (c)
734-647-9158 (f)
ahfalk@umich.edu
March 25, 2011
To Whom It May Concern:
I’m writing to recommend Danielle Sciatto as a creative and skilled beginning High
School Science Teacher. Danielle was a student in my Secondary Science Methods course last
semester at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. The course was a demanding one, requiring
participants to integrate guiding principles for science teaching and learning formulated from
research with specific teaching practices that they enacted and refined over the course of the
semester. In addition to synthesizing ideas from readings from a variety of sources, participants
planned several specified science teaching activities, rehearsed them with peers, enacted them
with secondary students, and modified their designs based on analysis of video of their
enactments. Over the semester, Danielle showed herself to be a capable designer of structured
inquiry-based lessons, a skilled facilitator of learning activities, a thoughtful adapter of her own
practice based on student thinking, and a productive member of a larger group of colleagues.
An important part of supporting students in developing proficiency with both the content
and nature of science is involving them in the process of inquiry – engaging in the collection and
examination of data as evidence in relation to questions about the natural world. Danielle can
readily design and enact inquiry activities that engage students in analyzing and using data to
answer questions. For example, in launching a larger investigation of the question “Why do
plants need sunlight?” she had students make observations of plants grown under different light
conditions, and asked them to hypothesize as to why the differences they observed occurred. She
also designed an activity that engaged students in examining the body structures of dissected sea
lamprey and perch specimens in order to make and support scientific arguments about whether
one of the two creatures was responsible for wounds (shown in pictures) that had been observed
on the bodies of Lake Trout. Both examples illustrate the way Danielle designs opportunities for
students to develop understanding of the natural world based in evidence drawn from their
observations.
The design of activities is only a first crucial step; implementing them in a way that
pushes students to think deeply and participate fairly is also essential. Danielle is a skilled
facilitator of small and large group conversations with students around science content. In
reviewing video of her teaching for this letter, I watched her follow up on ambiguous student
responses, pressing them to completely articulate their ideas - a key aspect of both science and
learning. She also explicitly made an effort to call on or draw out ideas from a variety of
students, supporting broader participation in and learning through discussion. And she invited
other students to build or comment on each other’s ideas, supporting the kinds of student-student
interaction that can often be elusive.
No design or enactment is perfect, and an important part of teaching is reflecting on
classroom interactions to improve one’s practice. While many beginning teachers fall into a trap
of thinking only about their own actions, in her reflections on videos of her teaching Danielle
focused on students’ ideas that she could build on or could use to inform revisions to the lesson.
For example, she recognized that she could build on students’ ideas about ‘fish that eat other
fish’ toward more general understandings of predators and predation. She also recognized that
overfishing was a compelling alternative explanation for the decline in trout population for
multiple students, and that incorporating data showing the size of trout catches over the time of
the decline into the lesson would provide important evidence to address the idea.
Teaching is becoming increasingly collaborative within departments and schools, and a
critical part of teachers being able to capitalize on collaborative time is their ability to talk about
their teaching with each other. This is difficult for many teachers because it can feel like personal
critique, or like there are not clear viable alternatives. In records of Danielle debriefing of lessons
by and with her peers, I saw her providing productive feedback focused specifically on the
features of the lesson, as opposed to the people teaching it. She balanced affirming positive
aspects of teaching with identifying areas for improvement, and when she did the latter, offered
multiple alternative ways to approach that part of the lesson. In a recent conversation with
Danielle’s current field instructor, he reported to me that with her in their seminar sessions, he
feels almost as if he can sit back and observe – she is such a skilled participant in and facilitator
of those conversations.
I believe Danielle will be a valuable asset to her students, her department, and her school
community; I hope that you will take advantage of everything she has to offer.

Sincerely,

Andrew Falk