Curriculum Design was one of my favorite classes in the Seattle Pacific teacher leadership program, particularly because most of the assignments were specifically focused on the curriculum of my AP English Language & Composition course. I took the class over the summer, so the work I did was immediately applicable to the upcoming school year. Each step in the process helped me improve and unify a curriculum that I had compiled from multiple sources over the years.
Two assignments in particular helped me analyze and improve my curriculum. The first was the curriculum assessment types assignment. Through this task I chose eight assessments in a single unit and analyzed the assessment type and purpose, the standard being assessed, and the degree of alignment. While half of my assessments were considered strong, three were considered moderate and one weak. The weak assessment, a brainstormed list of memories being used to develop a personal memoir, was eventually modified to better reflect the standard.
The second assignment was the final curriculum analysis. I analyzed different aspects of my AP English curriculum, including organizational centers, standards alignment, assessment, instruction, and curricular resources. My overall analysis focused on organizing centers, which Lalor (2017) identifies as a “central idea upon which a unit of study is built” (p. 10). I had some of the pieces, but I had done little to put them together into a coherent piece. Before school began, I spent time doing that work, creating a document I shared with my students and parents and which outlined my plan for the school year. My plan outlined in the curriculum analysis is incomplete; I still need to perform more curriculum assessment analysis on my various units, and better alignment with the College Board standards for the course is necessary. I also need to renew my emphasis on improving instruction. I had identified this as a critical weakness of my curriculum, and had focused on the need for a lesson-analysis chart (Lalor, 2017, p. 132) that would allow students to “understand the learning intentions behind the activities they undertake in the classroom” (Wiliam, 2011, p. 55).
References
Lalor, A.D.M. (2017). Ensuring High-Quality Curriculum: How to Design, Revise, or Adopt Curriculum Aligned to Student Success. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded Formative Assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Monday, April 16, 2018
Reflection on Teacher Leadership Standard 11: Utilize formative and summative assessment in a standards-based environment
Background
In my previous work with professional learning communities, I have experienced the stress of formative assessment. The formal PLC model advocated by Rick DuFour includes a component on how teachers will know whether or not their students have learned. When I worked in California, my school district required that formative assessments, the “how,” must include measurable data that could be shared in our teams. The prominent form of this assessment came in multiple choice tests, and during the early years of my career, this is how I viewed formative assessment: it was another test to give students. All of my professional development on formative assessments focused on this attribute, and rarely did I view formative assessment as anything other than a multiple choice quiz.
The “how” component is critical, but the heavy emphasis on multiple choice blinded me to the potential and benefit of formative assessment. Upon starting a new teaching assignment in Washington state, I worked with colleagues and a school district that viewed formative assessment differently. It did not need to be formal, but it still needed to answer how I would know if the students had learned. Colleagues shared tools such as exit slips and questioning, many things that I had done for years but had never viewed as formative assessments. Entering my Standards-Based Assessment class, I had a small collection of tools and a general idea of what they were good for.
Learning and applied practice
Dylan Wiliam’s (2011) book Embedded Formative Assessment has been helpful in the process of learning about the role formative assessments play in my classroom. Wiliam’s definition of formative assessment emphasizes that it happens during learning, and this has had a tremendous impact on my thinking. Stopping instruction to give a test was counterproductive, especially if the results of that test were not analyzed until a later date. By the time my team had gone over the results, the class had moved on to another unit. We knew that was a problem at the time, but we plowed ahead anyway, following a school district mandate. Wiliam’s practical techniques open up the toolbox and allow the assessments to occur naturally and at appropriate times to allow the teacher to influence student learning.
Through the process of writing the assessment into action paper I discovered even more resources. The idea of writing workshops has me excited, as my students can choose the type of feedback and assessment they want through that process. I learned about Kaizena, an app that allows students to record questions and attach them to their papers and allows the teacher to record feedback. These two elements I have incorporated into my practice this year with mixed results. My assessment into action paper focused on establishing writers workshops. My workshops had different stations in which students would peer review, search for “dead words” (overused words, vague phrases, etc.), read aloud, search for grammar errors, and receive feedback from me. Kaizena was another station, but I quickly found that students were hesitant to use the app. The obstacles were technical (not all students had access to a smartphone) and practical (students would upload a paper but had to wait for me to give feedback, which I couldn’t do until much later). Kaizena had better success during later assignments, especially during the research paper, when students uploaded their papers and received feedback the weekend before the paper was due.
Issues encountered
For my present teaching assignment, one dilemma for me will be the lack of a colleague to work directly with. I will be the only AP English Language teacher, so any discussion of how my students are meeting the learning expectations will have to be in the context of vertical or cross-curricular alignment. Fortunately, I have options in this area. By identifying the specific skills students are lacking, I can take those skills to other English teachers and solicit their input. Across the board, English-language arts skills generally are the same at the secondary level, so strategies that work in one class will transfer to another class with different content.
Supported by research
Wiliam’s (2011) book will be critical to my future practice. I appreciate his practical approach to formative assessment and his classroom applications are simply explained and varied in their use for elementary and secondary environments.
Shelby Scoffield’s (2016) article on Edutopia about writing workshops has strongly influenced my approach to giving feedback. This has been a bone of contention for me for years, the ingrained idea that I have to write comments on every paper, but the knowledge that students do not read them. Scoffield’s ideas about organizing writing workshops will help me provide my students feedback they can actually use.
Research by Alvarez, Espasa, and Guasch (2012) found that students respond better to suggestions and questions rather than direct corrections. Later research by Guasch, Espasa, Alvarez, and Kirschner (2013) found that a combination of epistemic and suggestive feedback best improved the quality of collaborative feedback in online situations. The authors defined epistemic feedback as requests for explanations in a critical way, and suggestive feedback as advice on how to proceed that invites exploration.
Finally, the ideas about peer feedback I learned from Gielen, Tops, Dochy, Onghena, and Smeets (2010) will help me develop peer review sessions. Their findings showed that students improved when they were given writing prompts to use for peer feedback, such as “I paid attention to,” and “I found it difficult to” (p. 152). I can incorporate these sentence frames into feedback forms that allow me to clearly see how my students are doing.
References
Alvarez, I., Espasa, A., & Guasch, T. (2012). The value of feedback in improving collaborative writing assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 37:4, 387-400. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.510182.
Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36:1, 143-162. doi: 10.1080/01411920902894070.
Guasch, T., Espasa, A., Alvarez, I.M., Kirschner, P.A. (2013). Effects of feedback on collaborative writing in an online learning environment. Distance Education, 34:3, 324-338. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2013.835772.
Scoffield, S. (2016). Creating a writers’ workshop in a secondary classroom. Edutopia. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
In my previous work with professional learning communities, I have experienced the stress of formative assessment. The formal PLC model advocated by Rick DuFour includes a component on how teachers will know whether or not their students have learned. When I worked in California, my school district required that formative assessments, the “how,” must include measurable data that could be shared in our teams. The prominent form of this assessment came in multiple choice tests, and during the early years of my career, this is how I viewed formative assessment: it was another test to give students. All of my professional development on formative assessments focused on this attribute, and rarely did I view formative assessment as anything other than a multiple choice quiz.
The “how” component is critical, but the heavy emphasis on multiple choice blinded me to the potential and benefit of formative assessment. Upon starting a new teaching assignment in Washington state, I worked with colleagues and a school district that viewed formative assessment differently. It did not need to be formal, but it still needed to answer how I would know if the students had learned. Colleagues shared tools such as exit slips and questioning, many things that I had done for years but had never viewed as formative assessments. Entering my Standards-Based Assessment class, I had a small collection of tools and a general idea of what they were good for.
Learning and applied practice
Dylan Wiliam’s (2011) book Embedded Formative Assessment has been helpful in the process of learning about the role formative assessments play in my classroom. Wiliam’s definition of formative assessment emphasizes that it happens during learning, and this has had a tremendous impact on my thinking. Stopping instruction to give a test was counterproductive, especially if the results of that test were not analyzed until a later date. By the time my team had gone over the results, the class had moved on to another unit. We knew that was a problem at the time, but we plowed ahead anyway, following a school district mandate. Wiliam’s practical techniques open up the toolbox and allow the assessments to occur naturally and at appropriate times to allow the teacher to influence student learning.
Through the process of writing the assessment into action paper I discovered even more resources. The idea of writing workshops has me excited, as my students can choose the type of feedback and assessment they want through that process. I learned about Kaizena, an app that allows students to record questions and attach them to their papers and allows the teacher to record feedback. These two elements I have incorporated into my practice this year with mixed results. My assessment into action paper focused on establishing writers workshops. My workshops had different stations in which students would peer review, search for “dead words” (overused words, vague phrases, etc.), read aloud, search for grammar errors, and receive feedback from me. Kaizena was another station, but I quickly found that students were hesitant to use the app. The obstacles were technical (not all students had access to a smartphone) and practical (students would upload a paper but had to wait for me to give feedback, which I couldn’t do until much later). Kaizena had better success during later assignments, especially during the research paper, when students uploaded their papers and received feedback the weekend before the paper was due.
Issues encountered
For my present teaching assignment, one dilemma for me will be the lack of a colleague to work directly with. I will be the only AP English Language teacher, so any discussion of how my students are meeting the learning expectations will have to be in the context of vertical or cross-curricular alignment. Fortunately, I have options in this area. By identifying the specific skills students are lacking, I can take those skills to other English teachers and solicit their input. Across the board, English-language arts skills generally are the same at the secondary level, so strategies that work in one class will transfer to another class with different content.
Supported by research
Wiliam’s (2011) book will be critical to my future practice. I appreciate his practical approach to formative assessment and his classroom applications are simply explained and varied in their use for elementary and secondary environments.
Shelby Scoffield’s (2016) article on Edutopia about writing workshops has strongly influenced my approach to giving feedback. This has been a bone of contention for me for years, the ingrained idea that I have to write comments on every paper, but the knowledge that students do not read them. Scoffield’s ideas about organizing writing workshops will help me provide my students feedback they can actually use.
Research by Alvarez, Espasa, and Guasch (2012) found that students respond better to suggestions and questions rather than direct corrections. Later research by Guasch, Espasa, Alvarez, and Kirschner (2013) found that a combination of epistemic and suggestive feedback best improved the quality of collaborative feedback in online situations. The authors defined epistemic feedback as requests for explanations in a critical way, and suggestive feedback as advice on how to proceed that invites exploration.
Finally, the ideas about peer feedback I learned from Gielen, Tops, Dochy, Onghena, and Smeets (2010) will help me develop peer review sessions. Their findings showed that students improved when they were given writing prompts to use for peer feedback, such as “I paid attention to,” and “I found it difficult to” (p. 152). I can incorporate these sentence frames into feedback forms that allow me to clearly see how my students are doing.
References
Alvarez, I., Espasa, A., & Guasch, T. (2012). The value of feedback in improving collaborative writing assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 37:4, 387-400. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.510182.
Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36:1, 143-162. doi: 10.1080/01411920902894070.
Guasch, T., Espasa, A., Alvarez, I.M., Kirschner, P.A. (2013). Effects of feedback on collaborative writing in an online learning environment. Distance Education, 34:3, 324-338. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2013.835772.
Scoffield, S. (2016). Creating a writers’ workshop in a secondary classroom. Edutopia. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Sunday, April 15, 2018
Reflection on Teacher Leadership Standard 4: Engage in analysis of teaching and collaborative practices
Two courses over the Seattle Pacific University teacher leadership program emphasized teacher leadership standard 4: engage in analysis of teaching and collaborative practices. EDU 6528 Accomplished Teaching introduced us to the necessary practice of reflection. EDU 6600 Communication and Collaboration also required regular reflection and expanded on strategies for collaboration. My reflections at the end of each course serve as an overview of my learning about this standard throughout the program.
Over the course of Accomplished Teaching I learned much about the process of reflective practice as a teacher. I saw how effective the process can be in collaborative sessions, and I learned how to practice reflection individually and in progressively larger groups of people. What I missed was my own fault - I misread the date of our second face-to-face meeting in the University Place cohort, so I missed out on an opportunity to reflect with my colleagues about my videotaped lesson and about my students’ work. Through the process of developing and teaching the lesson, however, I learned much about my own practices and was able to apply techniques I learned through the reading of our text, Reflective Practice to Improve Schools: An Action Guide for Educators (York-Barr et al., 2006).
The initial reading assignments introduced me to a formalized reflection. The idea of reflection as a continuous practice appealed to me, partly because I have been reflecting in various forms throughout my career. The book’s authors created a Theory of Action for Reflective Practice, one that starts with a pause, continues with openness, and includes inquiry, thinking, learning, and action. The continuum ends with enhanced student learning (York-Barr et al., 2006). I have practiced all of these at points in my career, but the coalescing of these elements into one theory has allowed me to focus my reflection on that final goal, enhanced student learning. Only by taking time and being open to change can I begin asking questions, thinking about the answers, learning new material, and applying it to my practice.
This process helped as I approached the videotaped lesson [lesson plan]. My initial conversations with my colleague Alex at our first face-to-face class led me to think I had a promising grasp on my lesson. His questions, however, led me to stay focused on my objectives and not try to fit too much into my instruction. After the lesson, I remembered why watching yourself teach is awkward, but I had to keep an open mind about what I initially thought was a decent lesson. The biggest question I asked myself was whether my students had actually learned anything. Our discussion was centered on a few students; not everybody had an opportunity to contribute, and upon reflection, I was able to come up with some collaborative strategies, such as think-pair-share, that I have since applied to other classroom discussions. [Synthesizing Elements of Accomplished Teaching]
While I missed out on an opportunity to reflect with my colleagues after the lesson, I have found multiple opportunities to reflect throughout the course of this program. I have found the interaction enlightening and valuable, and I have taken many ideas from those reflective sessions back to my classroom. I have also spent more time reflecting with my colleagues at work and developing a more reflective practice.
When I began EDU 6600 I did not see the title, “Communication and Collaboration,” as reflecting the emphasis placed on professional development. I was surprised by how much of the course was about professional development, and not necessarily in a positive way. My previous experience with professional development had generally been negative, especially when such activities were organized by the school district. My initial reflection for the course and most of my initial discussion group posts were about my dissatisfaction with my experiences in professional development.
The examination of different learning models brought attention to my limited and poor experience with professional learning. Honestly, one area where I wish I would have done more with was my experience as an academic coach early in my career. I spent two years sitting in an office because I did not know any better. Had I known the benefit of coaching, and had I been coached on how to coach, I could have taken advantage of this valuable opportunity to learn. My problems were not unique; Johnson and Donaldson (2016) reported a study that found that second-stage teachers in these leadership roles had challenges that discouraged teacher leadership. What was missing in my experience was leadership at my school; I had two principals during my coaching tenure, one of whom was transferred midway through his first year, the other who was coasting toward retirement. I did not know how I fit into the school’s plan, and according to J. C. Maxwell (2008), “one way to add significance to the lives of the people you lead is to show them the big picture and let them know how they contribute to it” (p. 86-87).
Another aspect of my professional learning has been through professional learning communities, both in California and Washington state. Neither has been an ideal situation, but then I never viewed them as vehicles for professional learning. In California we were prescribed by administration to accomplish certain tasks (take minutes, discuss data, etc.) and in Washington the groups were more for planning curriculum than looking at data. Some of my PLCs were more collaborative than others, and those I found more beneficial to me as a teacher, regardless of the tasks we accomplished. What I strive for is the collaboration cited by Angelle (2016) when she writes that “to ensure success for these teacher leaders, the school culture must value their work, the school principal must support their work, and their teacher colleagues must be willing to work alongside them as they strive for a more effective school” (p. 107).
By looking at my own practice through the lens of professional development, I now see where collaboration and communication come in. My previous experiences lacked those components, and when I reflect on my more positive professional learning, collaboration and communication are the highlights. My best training sessions have been Advanced Placement summer institutes, and those have been highly collaborative. In the Seattle Pacific teacher leadership program, I have collaborated and communicated with my cohort and have found it highly rewarding.
As I move forward into larger roles of teacher leadership in my career, I will keep those two aspects of professional learning foremost in my mind. I must be willing to collaborate with my colleagues and keep open all lines of communication. I must keep the door open, literally and figuratively. That will do the most to bring up myself as a teacher and my colleagues as well.
References
Angelle, P. S. (2016). Teachers as leaders: Collaborative leadership for learning communities. In E. Blair (Ed.). Teacher leadership: The “new” foundations of teacher education (p. 101-108). New York: Peter Lang.
Johnson, S. M., & Donaldson, M. L. (2016). Overcoming the obstacles to leadership. In E. Blair (Ed.). Teacher leadership: The “new” foundations of teacher education (pp. 157-162). New York: Peter Lang.
Maxwell, J. C. (2008). Mentoring 101: What every leader needs to know. Nashville, TN; Thomas Nelson.
Perkins, P. (2017). EDU 6600 Initial Reflection. bPortfolio. Retrieved from https://perkinsbportfolio.blogspot.com/2017/09/in-my-teaching-career-professional.html
York-Barr, J., Sommers, W. A., Ghere, G. S., and Montie, J. (2006). Reflective practice to improve schools: An action guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Zepeda, S. J. (2013). Professional development: What works. New York: Routledge.
Over the course of Accomplished Teaching I learned much about the process of reflective practice as a teacher. I saw how effective the process can be in collaborative sessions, and I learned how to practice reflection individually and in progressively larger groups of people. What I missed was my own fault - I misread the date of our second face-to-face meeting in the University Place cohort, so I missed out on an opportunity to reflect with my colleagues about my videotaped lesson and about my students’ work. Through the process of developing and teaching the lesson, however, I learned much about my own practices and was able to apply techniques I learned through the reading of our text, Reflective Practice to Improve Schools: An Action Guide for Educators (York-Barr et al., 2006).
The initial reading assignments introduced me to a formalized reflection. The idea of reflection as a continuous practice appealed to me, partly because I have been reflecting in various forms throughout my career. The book’s authors created a Theory of Action for Reflective Practice, one that starts with a pause, continues with openness, and includes inquiry, thinking, learning, and action. The continuum ends with enhanced student learning (York-Barr et al., 2006). I have practiced all of these at points in my career, but the coalescing of these elements into one theory has allowed me to focus my reflection on that final goal, enhanced student learning. Only by taking time and being open to change can I begin asking questions, thinking about the answers, learning new material, and applying it to my practice.
This process helped as I approached the videotaped lesson [lesson plan]. My initial conversations with my colleague Alex at our first face-to-face class led me to think I had a promising grasp on my lesson. His questions, however, led me to stay focused on my objectives and not try to fit too much into my instruction. After the lesson, I remembered why watching yourself teach is awkward, but I had to keep an open mind about what I initially thought was a decent lesson. The biggest question I asked myself was whether my students had actually learned anything. Our discussion was centered on a few students; not everybody had an opportunity to contribute, and upon reflection, I was able to come up with some collaborative strategies, such as think-pair-share, that I have since applied to other classroom discussions. [Synthesizing Elements of Accomplished Teaching]
While I missed out on an opportunity to reflect with my colleagues after the lesson, I have found multiple opportunities to reflect throughout the course of this program. I have found the interaction enlightening and valuable, and I have taken many ideas from those reflective sessions back to my classroom. I have also spent more time reflecting with my colleagues at work and developing a more reflective practice.
When I began EDU 6600 I did not see the title, “Communication and Collaboration,” as reflecting the emphasis placed on professional development. I was surprised by how much of the course was about professional development, and not necessarily in a positive way. My previous experience with professional development had generally been negative, especially when such activities were organized by the school district. My initial reflection for the course and most of my initial discussion group posts were about my dissatisfaction with my experiences in professional development.
“I have taught at two different schools and I have seen two different models, neither of which has been particularly effective, of delivering professional learning. I have experienced an overabundance of professional learning with no common theme, and I have experienced too little professional learning” (Perkins, 2017).As I progressed through the course and developed an understanding of adult learning, I began to see why my previous experiences had not worked: I had never been in charge of my own learning. Dalellew and Martinez (1988), as cited in Zepeda (2013) state that adult learning is more self-directed, but I did not direct any of my own professional development until recently. My districts have required trainings for a variety of reasons: to introduce new programs, to reinforce old programs, or to satisfy the union contract. I may have found some of the sessions interesting, but those were rarely followed up on with practical classroom applications; the needs of the classroom have always been so great that I rarely found time to follow up myself.
The examination of different learning models brought attention to my limited and poor experience with professional learning. Honestly, one area where I wish I would have done more with was my experience as an academic coach early in my career. I spent two years sitting in an office because I did not know any better. Had I known the benefit of coaching, and had I been coached on how to coach, I could have taken advantage of this valuable opportunity to learn. My problems were not unique; Johnson and Donaldson (2016) reported a study that found that second-stage teachers in these leadership roles had challenges that discouraged teacher leadership. What was missing in my experience was leadership at my school; I had two principals during my coaching tenure, one of whom was transferred midway through his first year, the other who was coasting toward retirement. I did not know how I fit into the school’s plan, and according to J. C. Maxwell (2008), “one way to add significance to the lives of the people you lead is to show them the big picture and let them know how they contribute to it” (p. 86-87).
Another aspect of my professional learning has been through professional learning communities, both in California and Washington state. Neither has been an ideal situation, but then I never viewed them as vehicles for professional learning. In California we were prescribed by administration to accomplish certain tasks (take minutes, discuss data, etc.) and in Washington the groups were more for planning curriculum than looking at data. Some of my PLCs were more collaborative than others, and those I found more beneficial to me as a teacher, regardless of the tasks we accomplished. What I strive for is the collaboration cited by Angelle (2016) when she writes that “to ensure success for these teacher leaders, the school culture must value their work, the school principal must support their work, and their teacher colleagues must be willing to work alongside them as they strive for a more effective school” (p. 107).
By looking at my own practice through the lens of professional development, I now see where collaboration and communication come in. My previous experiences lacked those components, and when I reflect on my more positive professional learning, collaboration and communication are the highlights. My best training sessions have been Advanced Placement summer institutes, and those have been highly collaborative. In the Seattle Pacific teacher leadership program, I have collaborated and communicated with my cohort and have found it highly rewarding.
As I move forward into larger roles of teacher leadership in my career, I will keep those two aspects of professional learning foremost in my mind. I must be willing to collaborate with my colleagues and keep open all lines of communication. I must keep the door open, literally and figuratively. That will do the most to bring up myself as a teacher and my colleagues as well.
References
Angelle, P. S. (2016). Teachers as leaders: Collaborative leadership for learning communities. In E. Blair (Ed.). Teacher leadership: The “new” foundations of teacher education (p. 101-108). New York: Peter Lang.
Johnson, S. M., & Donaldson, M. L. (2016). Overcoming the obstacles to leadership. In E. Blair (Ed.). Teacher leadership: The “new” foundations of teacher education (pp. 157-162). New York: Peter Lang.
Maxwell, J. C. (2008). Mentoring 101: What every leader needs to know. Nashville, TN; Thomas Nelson.
Perkins, P. (2017). EDU 6600 Initial Reflection. bPortfolio. Retrieved from https://perkinsbportfolio.blogspot.com/2017/09/in-my-teaching-career-professional.html
York-Barr, J., Sommers, W. A., Ghere, G. S., and Montie, J. (2006). Reflective practice to improve schools: An action guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Zepeda, S. J. (2013). Professional development: What works. New York: Routledge.
Saturday, April 14, 2018
Reflection on Teacher Leadership Standard 7: Instructional Frameworks
When working with Britté to prepare our screencast for Standard 7, I had to dig deep to get a grasp on the concept of instructional frameworks. Honestly, I hadn’t thought much about the need for frameworks, but at one point I saw that TPEP and Marzano were frameworks, and then the standard clicked for me. As Britté and I looked through our various courses, we realized that we have used instructional frameworks multiple times throughout the course.
The most obvious for me is the Marzano framework (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2014), which my district uses in its evaluation process. I’ve spent time this year looking at the difference between proficient and distinguished and have noticed that parent engagement and student-led learning factor heavily in moving from proficient to distinguished on the framework. Those frameworks helped us analyze our own teaching when we completed the video assignment in Accomplished Teaching way back in our first quarter in the program. This year, I have changed my practice to include more parent engagement and student-led learning, specifically in an attempt to improve my practice in the area of Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs. The frameworks serve as a guide for my improvement as a teacher.
Another framework came through developing our own professional growth plans for Surveys of Instructional Strategies. The PGP required reflection on our part, an essential component originally introduced in Accomplished Teaching, as well as action and evidence. The PGP included several reflective prompts that mimic the type of individual reflective practice that York-Barr, Sommers, Ghere, and Montie (2006) identify. For example, the question, “Why did you select this strategy?” forces the teacher to have a justifiable explanation they can share with themselves and others. The solution comes from the teacher themselves, rather than an outside source (York-Barr et al., 2006).
Finally, we used a series of questions as prompts to analyze our vision for our school in the Visionary Leadership Analysis that we did for Leadership in Education. The questions provided the framework and again forced us to reflect on leadership within out school. Owens and Valesky (2015) note that revising a vision or mission allows a leader to reach consensus about a better product. Combine that with our individual reflection and we have a better understanding of what our school’s mission should be - or could be.
As I have reviewed different frameworks and how they are put into practice, I see that they have at least two things in common: an emphasis on reflection and an emphasis on collaboration. Considering our work in this program, this comes as no surprise. Sherrill (2016) notes that “the best way to go about improving the quality of [teachers’] professional practice is to spend more time learning from and working with colleagues” (p. 223). Likewise, collaboration, for example, in a critical friends group promotes reflection that improves teacher relationships, increases awareness of research-based practices, and their ability to improve instruction (Zepeda, 2013). This mimics the advantages that York-Barr et al. (2006) see in reflective practice in small groups. Through these practices, an instructional framework has tremendous potential to improve teacher practice and, by extension, student learning.
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2014). The Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model by Washington State Criteria. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/TPEP/Frameworks/Marzano/Marzano-rubrics-by-criteria.pdf
Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2015). Organizational behavior in education: Leadership and school reform. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Sherrill, J. A. (2016). Preparing teachers for leadership roles in the 21st century. In E. Blair (Ed.), Teacher leadership: The “new” foundations of teacher education (pp. 222-228). New York: Peter Lang.
York-Barr, J., Sommers, W. A., Ghere, G. S., Montie, J. (2006). Reflective practice to improve schools: An action guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Zepeda, S. J. (2013). Professional development: What works. New York: Routledge.
Sunday, April 1, 2018
Reflection on Teacher Leadership Standard 3: Educational Research
Prior to this program, I had little time to look into research concerning my teaching practice. The practice of teaching occupied my mind constantly, but other than the occasional professional development, I rarely took time to consider the profession of teaching and how to improve it. Not that I had ignored research or had no desire to look into research; I just never set that as a priority in my career. While taking Action Research and Applying Research, however, I saw the potential for becoming a better teacher through educational research, both through practicing such research and reviewing it.
Through the Action Research class I devised a plan to improve how I use revision in my AP English Language & Composition class. I developed a workshop model that used peer review to improve student writing. I was able to measure both how students improved developed action plans to improve their writing and how they used those plans to improve their writing. The end results were promising, and I have used that model regularly since I conducted the study.
Through that research I identified multiple articles that apply to my practice. One, for example, considered the reliability and validity of peer review specifically in AP English classes. The study found that “carefully designed peer review tasks can provide students with helpful feedback” (Schunn et al., 2016, p. 22). Through that research I have expanded my own use of peer review in my classroom, and I intend to continue looking into and conducting research on peer review as a means of improving my students’ writing.
In the Applying Research class I saw the potential for identifying good research and critiquing said research. The class helped me identify the different components of research and examine the relationship between those components.
Again, the assignments in that class aligned with my own classroom practice; the secondary research article I analyzed dealt with the need to identify propaganda and promote media literacy, while the primary research cited in that article studied strategies for teaching how to identify fake news and propaganda. While I initially found the secondary article by Hobbs (2017) informative and valuable, I later analyzed that she had overgeneralized the results found in the primary research by Kahne & Bowyer (2017). The overgeneralization did not significantly affect Hobbs’ (2017) argument, but it did cause me to pause and reflect about the importance of examining the primary research.
Upon reflection, I wish I would have had the Applying Research class before Action Research. After taking Applying Research I find myself more familiar with the terms used in research paper. I better understand what independent and dependent variables are, I comprehend how research is assembled and carried out, and I know the statistical tools being used and their purpose. I had none of that knowledge when I conducted the literature review for my Action Research project, and that information may have affected my use of that literature to guide my own research. For example, a study by Yoder (1993) examined how peer review could be used to help journalism students in college. Had I known about external validity, I might have realized that the results Yoder (1993) found were unlikely to be able to be generalized to my particular population of high school English students. Besides, Yoder (1993) had a small sample size that may not have been representative of the larger population.
I plan to continue to consume and examine educational research throughout my career. One challenge I foresee is access to primary research; through the Seattle Pacific teacher leadership program I have access to the library’s databases, but when that access has ended, I will have to find other means to access primary research. I am not worried about secondary research; the internet is full of that, and I feel confident in my ability to sort the wheat from the chaff. For example, a recent article by Ford and Lee (2018) in the English Journal offered a case study on how to improve high school vocabulary instruction. The authors cited 11 sources, most of which were other secondary or curricular sources. The one piece of primary research came from a study of fifth graders, focused on learning in context, and was 34 years old (Jenkins et al., 1984). I found several ideas within the article, but without more solid research proving their efficacy, I’m reluctant to change my entire vocabulary program based on one piece of secondary research.
References
Ford, R. D., & Lee, M. E. (2018). Fostering a new approach to vocabulary, 30 years in the making. English Journal, 107(4), 39-44.
Hobbs, R. (2017). Teaching and learning in a post-truth world: It’s time for schools to upgrade and reinvest in media literacy lessons. Educational Leadership, 75(3), 26-31.
Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 767-787.
Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2017). Education for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 3-34.
Schunn, C., Godley, A., & DeMartino, S. (2016). The reliability and validity of peer review of writing in high school AP English classes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(1), 13-23.
Yoder, S. L. (1993). Teaching writing revision: Attitudes and Copy Changes. Journalism Educator, 47(4), 41-47.
Through the Action Research class I devised a plan to improve how I use revision in my AP English Language & Composition class. I developed a workshop model that used peer review to improve student writing. I was able to measure both how students improved developed action plans to improve their writing and how they used those plans to improve their writing. The end results were promising, and I have used that model regularly since I conducted the study.
Through that research I identified multiple articles that apply to my practice. One, for example, considered the reliability and validity of peer review specifically in AP English classes. The study found that “carefully designed peer review tasks can provide students with helpful feedback” (Schunn et al., 2016, p. 22). Through that research I have expanded my own use of peer review in my classroom, and I intend to continue looking into and conducting research on peer review as a means of improving my students’ writing.
In the Applying Research class I saw the potential for identifying good research and critiquing said research. The class helped me identify the different components of research and examine the relationship between those components.
Again, the assignments in that class aligned with my own classroom practice; the secondary research article I analyzed dealt with the need to identify propaganda and promote media literacy, while the primary research cited in that article studied strategies for teaching how to identify fake news and propaganda. While I initially found the secondary article by Hobbs (2017) informative and valuable, I later analyzed that she had overgeneralized the results found in the primary research by Kahne & Bowyer (2017). The overgeneralization did not significantly affect Hobbs’ (2017) argument, but it did cause me to pause and reflect about the importance of examining the primary research.
Upon reflection, I wish I would have had the Applying Research class before Action Research. After taking Applying Research I find myself more familiar with the terms used in research paper. I better understand what independent and dependent variables are, I comprehend how research is assembled and carried out, and I know the statistical tools being used and their purpose. I had none of that knowledge when I conducted the literature review for my Action Research project, and that information may have affected my use of that literature to guide my own research. For example, a study by Yoder (1993) examined how peer review could be used to help journalism students in college. Had I known about external validity, I might have realized that the results Yoder (1993) found were unlikely to be able to be generalized to my particular population of high school English students. Besides, Yoder (1993) had a small sample size that may not have been representative of the larger population.
I plan to continue to consume and examine educational research throughout my career. One challenge I foresee is access to primary research; through the Seattle Pacific teacher leadership program I have access to the library’s databases, but when that access has ended, I will have to find other means to access primary research. I am not worried about secondary research; the internet is full of that, and I feel confident in my ability to sort the wheat from the chaff. For example, a recent article by Ford and Lee (2018) in the English Journal offered a case study on how to improve high school vocabulary instruction. The authors cited 11 sources, most of which were other secondary or curricular sources. The one piece of primary research came from a study of fifth graders, focused on learning in context, and was 34 years old (Jenkins et al., 1984). I found several ideas within the article, but without more solid research proving their efficacy, I’m reluctant to change my entire vocabulary program based on one piece of secondary research.
References
Ford, R. D., & Lee, M. E. (2018). Fostering a new approach to vocabulary, 30 years in the making. English Journal, 107(4), 39-44.
Hobbs, R. (2017). Teaching and learning in a post-truth world: It’s time for schools to upgrade and reinvest in media literacy lessons. Educational Leadership, 75(3), 26-31.
Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 767-787.
Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2017). Education for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 3-34.
Schunn, C., Godley, A., & DeMartino, S. (2016). The reliability and validity of peer review of writing in high school AP English classes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(1), 13-23.
Yoder, S. L. (1993). Teaching writing revision: Attitudes and Copy Changes. Journalism Educator, 47(4), 41-47.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)