CAPSTONE IN REFLECTIVE TEACHING WEEK 3 5/22/12 EDRS 698

Agenda 5:00 –6:15  Outward reflection activity (TBD?)  Threaded discussion rubric  Threaded discussion examples  Review the 7 norms of collaboration and data protocol; questions etc. 6:15 – 8:00  Data Presentations Instructional Strategies(1 hour, 35 minutes)  BREAK 8:00 – 9:00 o Debrief, o Refine the data presentation protocol and Presenter/Peer consultant eval criteria, if needed o Prepping for next week

Threaded Discussion Examples Use the Threaded Discussion Rubric to examine this entry: ? How does the larger sociopolitical/cultural context influence the instructional strategies practices? The first social constraint that affected the implementation of grouping and differentiation within my student teaching classroom was school funding. With only one teacher for the entire class, I can only help so many students at a time. It would be much more beneficial to split students into equitable ability-based groups if I had additional adult support within the classroom. My cooperative teacher chose to occasionally meet with the high-achieving students in a group to focus on 5th grade math, but this would not have been a possibility if not for me being a student teacher. With additional funds, I would love to have a para in my classroom to help offer additional support and scaffolding to students at all levels. Similarly in a different school, I might need more ELL support. This was not an issue at DarMeer. My cooperative teacher had many resources available for incorporating differentiation. As a result, I was able to use manipulatives and other materials to help my low-performing students. She also had math supplies for 5th grade. These are materials that she has purchased in the past and/or with her own money. With the current cuts in funding, as a new teacher it would be unlikely that I would have access to so many resources. I will need to be more creative with homemade items in my classroom, which will cut into the already limited time I will have. Parents also have had an affect on certain actions within the classroom. There were multiple students within my classroom who were receiving additional support from their parents at home, and this typically resulted in an increase in that student’s performance. The students who did not receive this help at home, typically because of the parents’ job(s) or subject knowledge, relied solely upon the hour chunk of math they received each day in class. These children were at a disadvantage and would often fall further behind the others within the class. At DarMeer, there is such an emphasis on showing a full year’s growth for each student on the CSAP/TCAP. It is extremely difficult to focus simply on the learning targets at hand, without constantly considering whether or not students are going to be ready for “the test.” My instruction was all guided by the CDE standards, but there was certainly a great amount of pressure felt by my cooperative teacher to ensure that each student in the classroom could show a full year’s growth on the TCAP.

Threaded Discussion Example ? How did using multiple forms of assessment such as, student work, conference notes, and/or observations affect how you planned and implemented your lessons? How else did it affect your work in the classroom? How does the professional literature support your ideas/findings? How do your own practical theories guide you? My theory on this subject matter begins with the belief that assessments should guide all of my planning and instruction. A formal pre- assessment allowed me to see what students already knew about a particular learning target, so I prefer to administer this at the beginning of a unit of study. Daily assessments were conducted in the form of: (a) tests, (b) quizzes, (c) classroom discussions, (d) Think- Pair-Shares, or (e) individual and/or group work. Looking at the results of these combined, I would then modify future lesson plans that I had previously prepared. Let’s just say that I changed most of my lesson plans from what I had originally planned! I did not often incorporate anecdotal checklists within my student teaching classroom, but after reading about it throughout my research, I think it would be a valuable addition to how I guide my daily instruction. I have always been a student that prefers papers or written-response tests to multiple-choice tests. Knowing this about myself helps me to realize that my students will also vary in the ways their learning is most accurately reflected. For this reason, I believe that students need to receive a plethora of assessment methods. In addition, students deserve many opportunities to practice before being formally assessed. I agree with Stiggins (2004) that it is key for teachers to differentiate between assessment of learning and assessment for learning. If my classroom focuses on knowledge and reasoning targets to make up the bulk of instruction, then the assessments for learning may come in the form of activities like homework assignments, practice with drafting assessment questions, or self-assessment and goal setting on the basis of learning targets represented in assessment plans. The purpose of this assessment information is to provide the students and myself with information about strengths and areas of further learning, not to be used in calculating a final grade. This is where the difference comes in between the for and the of. Regardless of this separation of the implemented assessment goals, there will be times that I may choose to use some of these formative assessments to initially promote learning and ultimately impact the final grade for students, when beneficial. I think the most important piece to any method that I use will be how I deliver the information and my expectations to my students. I would like to have in place a protocol that allows students to revisit their work to make improvements if I decide to use an activity as a grade. I believe that this will show students that I am most interested in truly assessing their abilities and understanding of a subject, rather than looking for ways to trick them (Stiggins, 2004). References: Latz, A. O., & Adams, C. M. (2011). Critical Differentiation and the Twice Oppressed: Social Class and Giftedness. Journal For The Education Of The Gifted, 34(5), Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential Differentiation: What Types of Differentiation Do Students Want?. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), Sabharwal, S. (2009, June 16). Effect of Grouping on the Language Development of English Learners. ERIC: ED Stiggins, R. (2004). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right-using it well. Assessment Training Institute: Portland, OR.

The Seven Norms of Collaborative Work © Bill Baker, Group Dynamics Berkeley  Pausing Pausing before responding or asking a question allows time for thinking and enhances dialogue, discussion and decision-making.  Paraphrasing Using a paraphrase starter that is comfortable for you: “So…” or “As you are…” or “You’re thinking…” and following the statement with a paraphrase assists members of the group to hear and understand each other as they formulate decisions.  Probing Using gentle open-ended probes or inquiries such as, “Please say more…” or “Can you tell me about…” or “Then, are you saying?” increases clarity and precision of the group’s thinking.  Putting Ideas on the Table Ideas are the heart of a meaningful dialogue. Label the intention of your comments. For example, you might say, “Here is one idea…” or “One thought I have is…” or “Here is a possible approach…” or “I’m just thinking out loud…”  Paying Attention to Self and Others Meaningful dialogue is facilitated when each group member is conscious of self and of others and is aware of not only what s/he is saying but how it is said and how others are responding. This includes paying attention to learning style when planning for, facilitating and participating in group meetings. Responding to others in their own language forms is one manifestation of this norm.  Presuming Positive Intentions Assuming that others’ intentions are positive promotes and facilitates meaning dialogue and eliminates unintentional putdowns. Using positive presuppositions in speech is one manifestation of this norm.  Pursuing a Balance Between Advocacy and Inquiry Maintaining a balance between advocating for a position and inquiring about one’s own and other’s position assists the group to become a learning organization.

Instructional Strategies Small group Protocol Step minutes—Presenter distributes the one page overview or outline of their work. Presenter then discusses  Teaching practices to be discussed; Background/Context (to include teachers’ prior experience, knowledge, and values that affect that practice or set of practices i.e. Practical theories)  Questions or “puzzles of practice” (p. 9)  Teaching practices presented. Evidential artifacts/data.  Is anyone privileged or marginalized by these practices?  How do the larger social contexts constrain or otherwise influence these practices (pp )  Reflections and improvements  What does all of this mean for your teaching?  Step minutes—Peers ask clarifying questions round; move into probing questions  2 minutes to compose probing questions.  Step minutes—The larger group then discusses the material presented. What did we hear? What didn’t we hear that we needed to know more about? What do we think about the questions and the issues? The conversation should include both “warm” and “cool” comments. NOTE! Identify the outward reflective pieces you heard and where the presenter could go deeper. The presenter does not speak but listens and takes notes.  Step 4. 5 minutes—The presenter responds to what they heard.  Step 5. 2 minutes—Gather thoughts about your literature and the connection to what you heard.  Step minutes—All members describe the key points of their literature and the connections they heard. Discussion as a group focused on the presentation and literature.  Step minutes—Each member to turn the focus to selves; reflective writing for 15 minutes on how this conversation is going to influence your own reflective piece.

Debriefing the Strand 20 min Open up cross share—Presenter: Presenter what new ideas, perspectives, and approaches were identified by your peers? What assumptions — both your own and the group’s — surfaced? Peers—what statements suggested inward reflection on the part of the presenter? Outward reflection? Everyone—Big Aha’s; Questions that came up for whole group contemplation 15 minutes Whole group feedback on protocol, and criteria for good presenter/peer consultant

Evaluation for data presentation Data Presenter  Prepared/Time conscious  Respects and values peers contributions  Make logical connections between the teaching practices and the data.  Organized and easy to follow.  Visual aides; appropriate artifacts  Articulate  Enthusiastic /Confident  Connecting with audience  Adjust for understanding Consultant Peers  Maintains focus on the presenter’s information. No sidetracking  Constructive comments, Well-developed probing questions.  Prepared by examining own data. Prepared with their literature resources.  Attentive listening, note taking.  Compassionate/nonjudgeme ntal  patient

Prepping for Next Week Presenters prepare for the Community Connection presentations. All: By Saturday: Post by Saturday your responses to the threaded discussion question. Then by Tuesday, respond to at least two other people in each question area. Today’s presenters should leave the hard copy of your Powerpoint and your outline/overview of the presentation before leaving today. For Classroom Management in a couple of weeks, you will all post your voicethread and respond to your teammates