Reflection on Teacher Leadership Standard 10: Instructional Practices

Looking back at my writing for EDU 6526 Survey of Instructional Strategies, I see a variety of key learning points. I wrote about effectively using student-led objectives and providing feedback. I realized I do not use summarizing as much as I should. I learned that I need to do more to reinforce effort and provide recognition. And I shared a mixed belief in the value (or lack thereof) of homework. All of these in-class reflections come back to haunt me in a way as I review my actual practices over the course of the past school year. I realize that my teaching practices have not changed much; I still practice the old style of teaching and I have largely forgotten what I learned last summer.

I had set myself a goal of having students set their own learning objectives as a means to increase their motivation and to give them a greater sense of control over what they learn (Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, and Stone, 2012). Marzano (2007) also identifies setting goals and objectives as having a large effect size. My proposal was to have students create a K-W-L chart at the beginning of each unit to address that unit’s essential questions. I have not done this, but with one unit remaining for the school year, I do have time to put this into practice. My goal is to have students set their own objectives through the W (what they want to know) section of the chart. As they complete that section throughout the unit, they would have a record of all they have learned, a gratifying reward for their hard work.

When I think about summarizing, I realize that my students do more of that than I originally thought. Dean et al. (2012) define summarizing as "the process of distilling information down to its most salient points" (p. 78). For my particular class, which teaches rhetorical skills, I have students create a rhetorical triangle for each non-fiction text they read - and they read a lot. The triangle must include information about the speaker, the audience, and the subject, as well as the various appeals to logic, emotion, and credibility; the author’s purpose, main idea, or theme; the tone; the mode of the essay; and the various rhetorical devices used. These are the "salient points" of rhetorical analysis, which occupies every objective when we read non-fiction. The triangle and its components serve as a form of summary frames for the students, allowing them to understand the material better (Dean et al., 2012). I also have students share their findings and observations with each other, providing a form of reciprocal teaching. Marzano, Gaddy, and Dean (2000) write that "the more we use both systems of representation, the better we are able to think about and recall our knowledge" (p. 86).

My reflection on providing effective praise and recognition highlighted the “good job” comments I shared on papers, but as I think about my grading and feedback processes this year, I realize that my comments have been much more focused on the skills the students are or should be demonstrating. Instead of writing “good job,” I identify the specific skill I believe they have done well on, such as writing a clear and strong thesis that has all the necessary components. Perhaps I also need to move away from adding a score on most writing, which would align with a study cited by Wiliam (2011). That study found that if teachers provide diagnostic comments and then put a score on an assignment the effect is the same as just putting a score. Where I also need to improve my skill is in providing praise regarding my students’ effort, praise that ties directly to their accomplishments.

Homework continues to be a mixed bag in my classroom. I do not give a lot of homework in assignment forms. Students do a lot of reading and their assignments are often in the form of reading a text, completing the aforementioned rhetorical triangle, and coming to class being prepared to discuss the text. In a way, this form of a flipped classroom leaves class time for those discussions and direct instruction. My few homework assignments were not high on the rubrics established by Pitler and Stone (2012), but I believe I have had even less homework this year that is not in the form of working on or researching a formal essay.

Maybe my practices this year are not so haunting. I know I have much room for improvement in my instructional strategies, and this reflection has given me an opportunity to revisit some strategies that can still have a strong impact on the remainder of the school year - and beyond.

References

Dean, C. B., Hubbell, E. R., Pitler, H., and Stone, B. (2012). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. J., Gaddy, B. B., and Dean, C. (2000). What works in classroom instruction. Aurora, CO: McREL. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED468434.pdf

Pitler, H., and Stone, B. (2012). A handbook for classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

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.