CCHS « A Place for My Ramblings

Teacher Inquiry Report

Context of the Project

School, Classroom Context, and Students’ Backgrounds

Central Crossing High School is part of the South Western City School District. It opened in 2002, as the district continued to expand with an influx of immigrants. At the freshman level, there are different levels of classes beginning with Sheltered classes specifically for ELL students, as well as Silver and Gold Dyad classes designating different ability groupings. The school website states that the mission for their school “in partnership with the community, is to enable each learner to achieve excellence in a challenging, safe environment while promoting a sense of belonging and mutual respect for our diverse population. Students will demonstrate proficiency in academic standards, including communication skills and technical knowledge, as the staff will work to advance life long learning for all students.” This draws off of Dewey’s theories and makes sense due to the diverse population that they referenced. The school averages around 1660 students in classes everyday, with 14% Black, 2.1% Asian, 5.5% Hispanic, 1.4% Multi-Racial, and 76.7% White. They are diverse in other ways as well, with 35.5% being economically disadvantaged, 8.2% having limited English proficiency, 13.9% having disabilities (Central Crossing High School).

The classroom I am observing is a very different setup from the traditional classroom. Dyad classes are arranged so that the teacher is actually instructing two classes at once, in a double classroom. This means that there are two adjoining rooms that have an optional wall between them. My mentor teacher and her team teacher, a social studies teacher, have opted to do nearly all their lessons jointly, meaning the wall is rarely, if ever, closed. The arrangement of the desks is in rows, reflecting the teacher-centered orientation of the class.

The Silver Dyad inclusion class has an average reading level of about third grade, though it ranges from about first to eighth grade level readers. I found through my survey that most of the students really do not like their English class, though in general they do see the use of taking English. I have also found that they do not have much confidence in their reading, but do not know what they need to improve on (see Appendix A). One of my mentor teacher’s goals is to, if not help the students enjoy reading, at least make it a task that is no longer so arduous. One of the ways she works to accomplish this is by always doing all the reading for class out loud, this way students are not burdened with reading for homework that they would struggle to understand. Something interesting that Heather has noticed is that her “stronger readers tend to not like writing, and [her] stronger writers really do not like to read” (Barnes). One of the ways she encourages every one to read is through peer pressure. When the class reads aloud students call on one another to read, and when called on, the student must read at least one sentence before calling on someone else.

The Silver Dyad class is an overview of different literary genres. They have studied mythology, novels, short stories, and plays. The reading focuses mainly on basic comprehension skills that will be required on the Ohio Graduation Test, as well as some deeper thinking analyses of texts. The writing the class focuses on is also based on the OGT requirements. They focus heavily on the five-paragraph essay, though they also do writing to learn activities, as well as fill out worksheets to aid comprehension and understanding (see Appendix C).

Your Role as Teacher in this Classroom

For my multi-day teaching lesson I taught “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker, and had the classes focus on the term heritage and what it means in general, and what it means to them. The first two days of the lesson we read the story aloud, and the teaching was presented mainly through a transmission mode of learning, with me asking recitation style comprehension questions intermittently throughout the reading. I think I did this because I needed to be sure students understood the general plot and idea of the story before we could move into a discussion about the story. The third day I acted as a facilitator for discussion, pushing students to deepen their understanding of heritage. I was still more of a focal point in the classroom than I would have liked because the students were unfamiliar with the discussion format and so needed more direct support and scaffolding from me.

I did not have as good of a working relationship with these students as I would have liked. I had a hard time remembering their names, and that was a huge obstacle to work with when trying to facilitate a discussion with reluctant students. I was not as effective as I could have been in communicating the material to the students and creating a sense of urgency for them to learn it. I also did not feel as though I had much in the way of power or agency with these students. I think in part this was because I was treated as strictly an observer, rather than a teacher, so when I got up in front of the classroom, the students were already predisposed to disregard half of what I said.

This is a very different context than the one I experienced at Westerville Central High School in the autumn. During that placement I had already developed a strong rapport with the students by working with them nearly every day, and so they worked well with me in my lesson. They participated well with the short lectures, and then were excited about the writing assignment I gave them because it allowed them a lot of freedom to express their own opinion. I think one of the issues with my students this quarter was that I did not know them well enough to choose content for my lesson that they could relate to.

Learning Goals – Plan Relations

For my lesson I taught “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker, and had the classes focus on the term heritage and what it means in general, and what it means to them (see Appendix F). The goals for my lesson were for students to develop an opinion on a text and be able to support that opinion with examples from the text. I also wanted student to explore multiple perspectives when working through their opinion.

I began my multi-day teaching with an introductory activity about what the students’ names are, what they mean, and if they would change them. We had a brief discussion around this introductory activity, leading into the concept of family names. I then wrote the word ‘heritage’ on the board and as my pre-test, as students to write down what they thought heritage meant, or any guesses that they had about the meaning of it. We then went on to read the story aloud. My mentor-teacher has set up the class so that students do all reading for class in class and out loud.

As we read the story, I would stop the students occasionally to ask them questions about what they would read, or to clarify different points. This was mostly done in a recitation format. The first day I had the students do most of the reading, but the second day I decided to change my plans a little and I read the last part of the story out loud. The students seemed to have a better comprehension of the story when I read aloud, versus when they read aloud. On the second day, after having read the story I had time left over. I had originally planned to engage students in a discussion, but changed my plans due to their inexperience having class discussions. I instead had the class respond to a Dear Abby article regarding family heirlooms that related to the story. We then talked about what they written as their response to this letter.

One of the big challenges I faced was discussion etiquette. The students had never really participated in a class discussion before, and so they did not know how to act in a discussion setting. They were talking about unrelated subjects while their peers were making contributions to the discussion. This presented a challenge for me because the reason the discussion had worth was because it gave students a chance to hear multiple perspectives about an argument, but because the students were not respecting each other and listening to each other’s comments, then the purpose of the discussion was undermined. There were a lot of good ideas that I could have built on had I not had to devote as much attention to classroom management and just struggling to hear the students myself.

Your Teaching and Your Students’ Learning

Description of How Your Teaching Unfolded

I began my multi-day teaching with an introductory activity about what the students’ names are, what they mean or where they came from, and if they would change them (see Appendix G). We had a brief discussion around this introductory activity, leading into the concept of family names. Students seemed quite willing to share, though their responses remained rather superficial. The idea was for them to do this activity with no inclination of how it would relate to the story, but in hindsight perhaps it would have been better to give them some background on that section of the story, and then had them write.

After this introductory activity I wrote the word ‘heritage’ on the board and as my pre-test, as students to write down what they thought heritage meant, or any guesses that they had about the meaning of it. This was difficult for the students, as some did not even have a clue what it was. I tried to give examples, but it was hard to do so without them latching onto my definition as the correct one. We then went on to read the story “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker aloud. My mentor-teacher had set up the class so that students did all reading for class in class and out loud.

As we read the story, I would stop the students occasionally to ask them questions about what they would read, or to clarify different points. We engaged in some mini-discussion along the way. These did not generally last long, but were useful in allowing students to explore the text. I tried to focus my own speaking here on not guiding them towards a specific answer, but letting them develop their own meanings. Most of the students did not seem used to this freedom, and were not sure how to respond. The first day I had the students do most of the reading, but the second day I decided to change my plans a little and I read the last part of the story out loud. The students seemed to have a better comprehension of the story when I read aloud, versus when they read aloud.

On the second day, after having read the story I had time left over. I had originally planned to engage students in a discussion, but changed my plans due to their inexperience having class discussions. I instead had the class respond to a Dear Abby article regarding family heirlooms that related to the story. We then talked about what they written as their response to this letter (see Appendix G). This discussion went really well, and the students got really into it, bringing in their own personal perspective. They had a lot of great ideas, and I heard from students who do not speak up very often in class, giving me suggestions for how they would respond to this article.

On the third and final day of my multi-day teaching I heavily scaffolded students into a class discussion around heritage and the different ways of valuing it. I had students fill out a discussion web that forced them to examine both sides of an argument. I used this graphic organizer as a way for students to gather their ideas together in a group before we moved into the discussion. I was not sure how they would do speaking on the fly, so I gave them something they could fill out and reference throughout the discussion. The discussion web worked well, but there was some tension in the classroom at first when I had the student get into pairs, they did not want to work with only one other person, and then when the pairs formed groups of four, some pairs did not want to mix again. The group mixing was an important aspect of the activity because it allowed the pairs to hear differing perspective and gain new insights into the text. I tried to be firm with the groups about mixing into groups of four, but in some instances it was not worth the fight because they were doing the work, so I let them form bigger groups than I had originally planned.

We then came together for a whole class discussion and used the points they came up with to support the side of the argument they agreed with, while I challenged them with points from the opposing side. This decision to challenge them on their points came as a result of the fact that there were only about 3 or 4 different points the class came up with and shared, so I threw those points back into the discussion, rephrasing them and asking students to refute them. Often times, students had a good point to refute my argument on their discussion web (see Appendix G), and just had not shared it with the class. This argumentative format allowed for more students to share what they had written and more viewpoints to be heard. At the end of the discussion for my post-test, I again asked students what they thought heritage meant, and to tell me one new thing they would learned during the lesson (see Appendix F).

I think overall that this was an effective discussion as a beginning discussion with this group of students. I think students got some good ideas from it, and learned at least that there are differing viewpoints, if not how to argue them quite yet. When talking to students after my teaching they felt that they would learned something more about heritage, what it means, and the differing ways of appreciating it (see Appendix D). They also said I did good job of making them feel like their opinion was beneficial to the class, and they felt safe sharing it. One of the students mentioned that she was frustrated with the amount of talking happening in the room during the discussion. Another student admitted that the story was boring, and that he slept through part of it, but enjoyed the discussion format (Students).

Analysis of the Video

I chose to use the whole class discussion section of my lesson for the video analysis session because it is a good sampling of how the all the mini discussions had a tendency to go. There was great potential for students to explore their envisionment of the text, but due to the excessive amount of chattering I tried to push through the discussion because it seemed like a waste of time. This was because the good ideas that were being voiced by the students were not being heard by their peers in the class, as so I tried to keep everyone as on task as possible, and as a result ended up short-changing the discussion (see Appendix H).

My teaching focused strongly on the assumption that multiple perspectives are useful. I was trying to get students to consider how they might argue the other side of an argument. This lesson, with more time, could easily have moved into a lesson on writing an argumentative paper, as students were learning to consider how someone might find fault with their argument. I also tried to focus on putting questions at the center of the literary experience, but I found when I went back through my transcriptions, because I had given the students a question to begin with and had them focusing more on multiple perspectives, and how they could answer that question, they did not focus nearly as much on voicing their own questions about the text. These are good examples of how I attempting to guide the discussion through a demonstration of Langer’s principles of envisionment (Langer 56-60)

The video analysis session with my peers was helpful in validating my own observations about my teaching. Some helpful suggestions were provided, such as for the whole class discussion I may have found it more beneficial to put the students back in rows before discussing, rather than letting them stay in their groups. This would have made it so there would no longer be any students who had their backs to me. This problem of students not respecting each other or me with their talking could also have been mediated by outlining some guidelines before beginning the discussion. This was something my peers pointed out to me that I had not even considered, but probably should have because I knew that the students were new to class discussions, and so would not already know what some guidelines should be. Another improvement that I could make in regards to the talking that was suggested by my peers was to strive not to talk over students. I am not sure how the discussion would have gone had I not talked over the students because the majority of them when talking were not discussing the assignment, rather their personal lives outside of school. I suspect just standing at the front and waiting for the students to stop talking and pay attention would not have worked. I think if I ad tried this strategy they would have been fine just continuing to talk amongst themselves.

One observation that both my peers and I made about my discussion was that I moved through it too quickly. There were instances where I could have asked students to elaborate on a point that they made, rather than moving onto the next group and asking for their opinion. I am not sure how this would have played out because I had to do a lot of prompting to get the responses I did. I am not sure students would have understood what I meant had I asked them to tell me more about their point. I did a good job of taking in what my students were saying and responding accordingly to their points, as well as doing a good job staying on track with my lesson despite the distractions that my class was creating.

Analysis of Student Responses to Your Pre- and Post-Assessment

In order to make sense of and see patterns in my data, I conducted a series of analyses that began with looking at the differences in the responses in the pre- and post-tests that I gave (see Appendix B). This test was just the one question asking students to tell me what they thought heritage meant. For the pre-test I got a huge range of responses: some students already had a really good grasp of some of the meanings of heritage, and others simply had no idea, probably had never heard the word before I asked that question, and took a wild guess.

For the post-test I asked students to add or change one thing form their original definition of heritage, to show me what they had learned during the lessons. I ended up having to disregard the responses form the first period class because I asked them to make the changes on their paper that I had handed back to them, and I only got back about 4 responses from the class of 30 students. For the second period class I got many more responses back because I instead asked them to flip over the sheet they would already been working on and to write me a new definition for what they thought heritage meant, including any changes they thought they had from their previous definition. I found that asking students to find a paper I had passed back early that class was one step to many for most of the students, and that they responded much better when I asked them to simply write on the piece of paper they already had in their hands.

Another method I used to analyze and make sense of my data was to examine the responses that students wrote down in their discussion webs. I was specifically interested in seeing if students had nay points written in their discussion webs that had not been presented and discussed as a class. I found that about half the students had additional responses that had not been shared with the class at large. While this was disappointing in the sense that some students did not participate as much as they could have in the discussion by contributing some more viewpoints, it was also heartening in the sense that some students clearly were able to respond to the question without the support of the class. The had ideas that differed from what the class talked about, and thus made some connections to the text on their own without my specific prompting.

A General Description of Findings

This report has been significant in helping me to identify where I am still struggling in my teaching and communication with students. I have been able to focus, through my findings, on what areas need improvement because I have seen where students met or missed the mark on my expectations. The purpose of my study becomes clearer and more significant when read in the light of other work (Langer; McCann et al.; Beach et al.) I worked to facilitate an authentic discussion during out whole class discussion of the text. Unfortunately the discussion fell a little short due to both the students lack of experience discussing, and my lack of experience facilitating a discussion by asking students to elaborate on the points that they were making. I moved to quickly through the discussion and ended up cutting off what could have been an excellent authentic conversation about heritage.

My lesson centered around the concept of heritage: what it is, how to define it, and how to appreciate it. I attempted to measure this in my pre- and post-tests when I asked students what heritage meant to them, and what they thought it was. After my lesson students were better able to narrow down or augment their definition of heritage. For example, Matt took ideas from the Dear Abby article and expanded his original definition to include the idea of inheritance. Another student, Jessica, had originally described heritage by listing some of her family’s traditions, but then for the post-test narrowed her focus down to include the idea of inheritance (see Appendix G).

When I interviewed a sampling of the students about how they felt about my lesson, one of them said she felt like she learned more about what heritage means, and that there are “all different kinds of ways of valuing [it]” (Students). I had hoped that they would get this out of the lesson. I also hoped that would learn about valuing differing perspectives, as Langer mentions in his principles of envisionment, but in the interview the students did not explicitly mention that, though they did demonstrate it when filling out their discussion webs. They did fairly well coming up with ideas for both sides of the question (see Appendix G).

Most of the students who completed both the pre- and post-test made some clarification or specification in their definition; however, there were many students, especially in the first period class, who did not complete the post-test. I do not know if this was because they did not feel like completing the work, or if they did not know what to write down to expand or modify their definition. Every group turned in a discussion and about three quarters of the class did not have anymore written down than what we had discussed in class, about a fourth of the class had a discussion with additional points that had not been brought up in class. This shows that at least some were really giving thought to the multiple perspectives about appreciating heritage that are out there.

Reflection and Analysis

I think the most challenging thing about the two classes during my multi-day teach was the motivation. It was hard to convince the students to do the work because they just were not interested and did not want to be at school. I did not know them that well so I could not really cater to their interests, the best I can do is take what they gave me during a discussion, and run with it.

Getting the class to read and have on topic discussions was also difficult due to classroom management problems. There were a lot of kids sleeping or with their heads down, and there were lots of side conversations going on. My mentor teacher suggested that I start off class by warning the students that if they get too chatty, I may move them, or if they are sleeping that I may have them stand for the rest of the class. It sounds like an excellent idea, but I do not know if I could follow through on those threats because I had never seen my mentor teacher follow through on any. It is also hard to do much classroom management because I only know the names of a few students in the class. I decided to use popsicle sticks with names on them for the second day of teaching to get students to participate, and that helped a little bit on that front. My peers during the video analysis section suggested that when I have a discussion after doing group work to have the students arrange themselves back in their rows. This way they would not have their backs to me and would be in the set-up they were used to for whole class time.

Another thing that I noticed while teaching was my level of comfort between first and second period. I did not experience this last quarter during my multi-day teach because my mentor teacher last quarter only taught one of each class, so there was no opportunity to double up. I found that after having done the lesson during first period, I was able to make some minor adjustments to what I was doing second period, and because I had already taught the lesson once, I was much more confident in my teaching during second period. I asked slightly different questions, and asked the students to write down slightly different things between the two periods.

The students did seem to have a better grasp of the definition of heritage, what it meant to them, and the different ways of appreciating it after the lesson. One of the student’s I interviewed after the lesson said she felt like she knew more about heritage now than she did before the lesson began (Students). I also think the students learned about arguing an idea from both sides. This was not something that I explicitly taught, but the further we moved into the discussion and the more I asked students to refute a point that I had made with appoint of their own, the more comfortable they got with the practice, and the quicker they were to argue with me and provide counter examples.

My mentor teacher thought I did fairly well with the lesson I had prepared, but that I need to know more about the students so that I can choose an adequate text for the class as a whole. “Everyday Use” was a little long for the inclusion class, and I realized this after the first day of reading, but could not change my plans to incorporate a different text at that point due to school copy policies. She also thought that I seemed a little uncomfortable during the lesson: I did not walk around much, and was hesitant to really get on students about not paying attention. She also thought that I was really professional, prepared, and flexible when dealing with changing schedules due to the snow days (see Appendix I).

My cohort colleague noticed the same thing I did about my class being excessively chatty. She thought I did well dealing with the noise level, and being firm about staying on track with my lesson and my expectations. She noted that I could be explicit about instructions regarding group work than I was. Mainly the issue revolved around the amount of extraneous chatter in the room (see Appendix K).

My university supervisor thought that my lesson went well overall. She noted that I did well in providing a space for every student to have a voice and make connections to their own lives, but that I should think of strategies to actively engage students. She thought I did good job picking an appropriate text for the students and grade level, as well as providing opportunities for students with multiple intelligences to excel, which is especially evidenced by some of the student work (see Appendix G). I was also reflective in my teaching, and willing to make necessary changes between lessons (see Appendix J).

Implications of the Study

Given the opportunity to re-teach this lesson I would first have to better consider my students. One of the main problems I found with my lesson was that the students had no interest in the story, and so discussion became difficult because students either did not pay attention during the reading of the story or could find almost no connections to their personal lives in the story. If I were to teach a lesson again using this story and focusing on heritage, I would want to precede the unit with some knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement, and use that as a basis for discussing some of what happens in the story.

However, if I were to again teach a lesson focusing on multiple viewpoints, I would change the story I used all together. One of the things my mentor teacher mentions in her evaluation was that “Everyday Use” was a little bit long for the inclusion class to be reading in that short amount of time (see Appendix I). I need to work on remembering that not all students are at the expected reading level, and that event he reading level within the class varies. Therefore, I need to work on overcoming the assumption that students should all be able to read and understand a text I am presenting, and find ways to better support them in their learning. I would probably use a text such as “All of Summer in a Day” by Ray Bradbury instead. It has the same opportunities for students to examine multiple viewpoints and debate various aspects of the story, but it is also short and at a lower reading level, which would probably cater more to the students in the class. It also is a story about students, and presented in such a way that students would be able to better relate to it.

The students did seem to learn about heritage from my teaching, as is evidenced by their pre- and post-tests. They also came up with many good points from both Dee’s and Maggie’s points of view regarding heritage and appreciating them, and thus were learning how to see an argument from multiple points of view. One of the things that I found difficult about this lesson was what to do about absentee students. Because we were reading the story aloud in class, and students are not required to reading at home, I did not know how to involve a student in discussion who had not read the story, or how to include them in the class beyond summarizing the story, or having them read silently while the rest of the class worked.

I found doing teacher inquiry in my classroom for this field experience to be a beneficial learning experience because I was able to carefully analyze where my teaching fell short, and where I succeeded in helping students to learn. I was able to support and supplement my examination of my own teaching by analyzing it through the frameworks and lenses provided by Langer, McCann et al., and Beach et al. This helped me not only to see where I need improvement, but ways in which I can focus and guide my improvement to better help and support students in their learning.

References

“Central Crossing High School.” Southwestern City Schools. 22 Sep 2008. Southwestern

City Schools, Web. 25 Feb 2010. <http://www.swcs.k12.oh.us/Schools/High

%20schools/central_crossing__high_school.htm>.

Barnes, Heather. Personal interview. 14 Jan. 2010.

Beach, Richard et. al., Teaching Literature to Adolescents. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates Inc., 2006.

Langer, Judith A., Envisioning Literature. Columbus University: Teachers College Press,

1995.

McCann, Thomas M., et. al., Talking in Class: Using Discussion to Enhance Teaching and

Learning. National Council of Teachers of English, 2006.

Students, MDT focal class. Personal interview. 18 Feb. 2010.

Appendices

Appendix A: Student Survey

Appendix B: Pre- and Post-Test

Appendix C: Interview Questions for Mentor Teacher

Appendix D: Interview Questions for Case Study Students

Appendix E: Materials and Handouts

Appendix F: Lesson Plans for Multi-Day Teaching

Appendix G: Student Work Samples

Appendix H: Analytic Memo

Appendix I: Written Response from Mentor-Teacher

Appendix J: Written Response form University Supervisor

Appendix K: Written Response from Cohort Colleague

March 7, 2010 Posted by krueger66 | homework, Portfolio | 865, CCHS, discussion, envisionment, inquiry, teaching reflection | Leave a Comment

Analytical Memo for Video Analysis Session

Part I: The Big Picture

High School High is part of the South Western City School District. It opened in 2002, as the district continued to expand with an influx of immigrants. The district is the sixth largest district in the state, covering a huge diversity of students. My focal class is an inclusion level class of freshman English. The students are middle to lower socio-economic class, from a variety of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The students in my class don’t all speak English at home, and in general, would rather not have to go to school at all. They most don’t enjoy reading, but most do see that it will have some value in their future.

For my lesson I taught “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker, and had the classes focus on the term heritage and what it means in general, and what it means to them. My lessons hit a bit of road bump due to the snow days, because I taught my first day, then had a 3 day break, then my second day, then had a 4 day break, then finally taught my last day. I began my multi-day teaching with an introductory activity about what the students’ names are, what they mean, and if they would change them. We had a brief discussion around this introductory activity, leading into the concept of family names. I then wrote the word ‘heritage’ on the board and as my pre-test, as students to write down what they thought heritage meant, or any guesses that they had about the meaning of it. We then went on to read the story aloud. The class has been set up by my mentor-teacher so that all reading for class is done in class and out loud by students.

As we read the story, I would stop them students occasionally to ask them questions about what they’d read, or to clarify different points. The first day I had the students do most of the reading, but the second day I decided to change my plans a little and I read the last part of the story out loud. The students seemed to have a better comprehension of the story when I read aloud, versus when they read aloud. On the second day, after having read the story I had time left over. I had originally planned to engage students in a discussion, but changed my plans due to their inexperience having class discussions. I instead had the class respond to a Dear Abby article regarding family heirlooms that related to the story. We then talked about what they written as their response to this letter. On the third and final day of my multi-day teaching I heavily scaffolded students into a class discussion around heritage and the different ways of valuing it. I had students fill out a discussion web that forced them to examine both sides of an argument. We then came together and used the points they came up with to support the side of the argument they agreed with, while I challenged them with points from the opposing side.

Part II: Two Different Analyses of A Significant Event in the Classroom Discussion

First Analysis: Developing an Envisionment Classroom

I chose to use this section of my lesson because it is a good sampling of how the all the mini discussions had a tendency to go. There was great potential for students to explore their envisionment of the text, but due to the excessive amount of chattering I tried to push through the discussion because it seemed like a waste of time. This was because the good ideas that were being voiced by the students weren’t being heard by their peers in the class, as so I tried to keep everyone as on task as possible, and as a result ended up short-changing the discussion.

Langer outlines four points that are essential in an envisionment-based classroom. My teaching focused strongly on the assumption that multiple perspectives are useful. There are several examples of this through the transcript, where I am focusing the students on developing counter arguments for what they believe. Take, for example, the following exchange beginning at line 136:

T: If I’m arguing as Dee, and I say “Well Dee refused the quilts the first time so she shouldn’t get them this time.” What would you say to argue with me? (19)

S₅: I wouldn’t, because I agree with you.

T: But if you had to. If you had to argue that point.

S₄: Wait. What point? (20) Like…

T: Okay, so I’m saying that for example “Dee refused to have the quilts the first time, because she said they’re old-fashioned, but now she wants them. So I don’t think she appreciates her heritage.” How would you argue with me? (21)

S₄: She wanted to hang it up to show her Grandma’s quilting skills.

T: Okay, so did you guys see how we just did that? (22) I argued a point, and as a response, we found a point for the other side. Because she wanted to protect the quilts. She wanted to hang them.

During this exchange I am just beginning to get students to think about how someone else might view the same situation from a different point of view than them. I was trying to get them to consider how they might argue the other side. This lesson, with more time, could easily have moved into a lesson on writing an argumentative paper, as students were learning to consider how someone may find fault with their argument.

The other three principles that Langer presents as essential for an envisionment-based classroom weren’t as prevalent in my lessons, and some not at all in this section of the transcript. I tried to focus on putting questions at the center of the literary experience, but I found when I went back through my transcriptions, because I had given the students a question to begin with and had them focusing more on multiple perspectives, and how they could answer that question, they didn’t focus nearly as much on voicing their own questions about the text. There was an instance at line 189 where a student posed a question to the class, but because the class was talking they didn’t hear her question, and so even though I reposed it for her after the class quieted a bit, it seemed as though the question came from me, and we fell back into the IRE discussion pattern.

During this same portion of the discussion the student who asked the question is working to develop and expand her understanding. There are other moments such as the student in line 105 pointing out that Dee wore the orange dress. Here, if I had asked her to explain this reasoning, rather than doing it myself, I could have pushed her expand on her understanding and have let her help the other students in the class to expand on theirs as well. Also, by letting her explain, I could have treated her as a life-long envisionment builder by allowing her to take more ownership of her idea by putting it at the center of the class discussion, and letting her build on and explain it.

Through out the discussion I neglect to give students the opportunity to expand on their ideas, I simply take them, and move on, asking for another student response. This is especially evident at the beginning of the transcription. For example, beginning at line 53 I zoom through 2 sets of responses that I could have asked students to elaborate on:

T: Okay, let’s move to this group here. What did you guys pick? What is your side? (6)

S₅: *inaudible*

T: Alright, what is your reason for no? (7)

S₅: Because she can get whatever she wants. And…yeah…

T: Okay, so you think because she’s selfish maybe? (8)

S₅: Mmhmm.

MT: Shh… Guys!

T: Okay, let’s go to the group in the back. What did you guys pick as your side? (9)

S₆: No.

T: You picked no. Why did you pick no? Give me a reason. (10)

S₆: Because she had the same name as her grandma, but she changed it.

T: Guys! Okay, so she changed her name? (11)

S₆: And it was the same name as her grandma.

T: Okay, so… Not only did she change her name, but it was her heritage name. It was a family name. Okay, group up front here. What did you guys have? What was your side? (12)

I think the reason that I initially did this was because I knew my students hadn’t ever really gotten the opportunity to voice there opinions to the class, so I wanted to make sure that every group got a chance to speak and have something to contribute. I think this could have gone better had I given them an opportunity to elaborate on their point, or explain why they’d chosen it before moving on to the next group.

The strong presence of the fourth principle, students and teachers assume that multiple perspectives are useful, and the slightly lesser presence of the second principle, questions are at the center of the literary experience, suggests that I am comfortable pushing my students to expand their thinking, and that I see the value, and expect my students to as well, in questioning assumptions about a text or its interpretation.

Because there was only a slight presence of the first principle, students are treated as life-long envisionment builders, and third principle, students are expected to develop and expand their understandings, I can begin to infer that I am not yet comfortable turning over the classroom to the students for discussion. I think that because I am concerned that they’re struggling to comprehend the text, that I’m not letting them build their envisionment and take the time to explore their understandings, much less vocalize and build on them in front of the class. I think my lack of pushing students to elaborate and not allowing them to expand on their ideas led to a rather superficial discussion, despite the potential it had to be authentic.

Second Analysis: Questioning

During the video segment I chose to share a total of 29 questions were asked that related to the discussion or clarification of the points being made. Only 4 of the 29 questions asked were from students. Three of those were clarification questions and the other I had to repeat for the class due to excessive talking. I think the lack of questions posed by students stemmed a lot due to me not prompting them to pose questions directed at their classmates. Most, if not all, of these students have never participated in a class discussion of this sort, and while I provided scaffolding for them to use for ideas throughout the discussion, I didn’t model or instruct students on how to ask questions of their classmates. I didn’t even give them the sense that they were allowed or should challenge their classmates.

Of the 29 questions that were asked all but 3 received a response. I think I got such a good student response because I had students write down responses to the questions before we began the discussion. Allowing students, especially those who are inexperienced at discussing, the time to think about their responses ahead of time was immensely beneficial.

All but 2 of the questions asked were authentic, and I used uptake on about 75% of the responses, and nearly half had some elaboration that followed the uptake of the response. I think there was a high percentage of authentic questions because the way I structured the discussion, I wasn’t looking for any specific answers, rather I was looking for students to provide me with examples to back up their opinion. Because I first asked students what side they agreed with, I was able to use a lot of uptake when I asked them to give me a reason why they chose that side. For example:

T: Okay, let’s move to this group here. What did you guys pick? What is your side? (6)

S₅: *inaudible*

T: Alright, what is your reason for no? (7)

S₅: Because she can get whatever she wants. And…yeah…

T: Okay, so you think because she’s selfish maybe? (8)

S₅: Mmhmm.

I took the response the student gave me, and then based on that response asked him for his reasoning. Then I summarizes what I thought I was hearing, and asked him if I was correctly interpreting his response. This little bit of elaboration could have gone further had I allowed the student, or prompted the student, to expand his thinking and tell me more about why he chose that reasoning to back up his opinion. Because I quickly moved on to the next group I tended to thwart expanded responses from students.

I think overall that this was an effective discussion as a beginning discussion with this group of students. I think students got some good ideas from it, and learned at least that there are differing viewpoints, if not how to argue them quite yet. I think I need more practice at facilitating a discussion, and this particular group of students needs more practice at participating in a discussion. I need to work more on not moving on so quickly, and taking the time to prompt my students to explain their thinking more. I need to work on strategies to get more students involved in the discussion, and how to push the ones that are involved to extend their thinking even more by encouraging them to ask their own questions and respond directly to their classmates, and not just to me.

Question Analysis

MDT Discussion Transcript

February 22, 2010 Posted by krueger66 | homework | 865, CCHS, discussion, envisionment, teaching reflection | Leave a Comment

Reflection on CCHS Teaching: Day One

Reflection on Teaching: Day One

I completed my first day of my multi-day teach today, and while it went all right, it certainly could have gone better. I think the most challenging thing about these two classes is the motivation. It is hard to convince them to do the work because they just aren’t interested and don’t want to be at school. I don’t them that well yet, so I can’t really cater to their interests, the best I can do is take what they give me in the classroom, and run with it. I tried to that with our story and mini discussions throughout the lesson today, but because they’ve never had a discussion before, it’s hard to take all of that into account at once.

Getting the class to read and have on topic discussions was also difficult due to classroom management problems. There were a lot of kids sleeping or with their heads down, and there were lots of side conversations going on. Heather suggested that tomorrow I start off class by warning the students that if they get too chatty, I may move them, or if they’re sleeping that I may have them stand for the rest of the class. It sounds like an excellent idea, but I don’t know if I’ll be able to follow through on the threats because I’ve never seen Heather follow through on any. It is also hard to do much classroom management because I only know the names of a few students in the class. The seating chart I have for the class isn’t necessarily accurate, because the students move around, and I haven’t had many chances to interact with the students and learn their names.

I’ve also decided to switch gears as much as I can. Central Crossing has a policy that any copies must be in at least 2 days in advance, so deciding to provide additional or different materials to students based on formative assessment can’t happen on a day to day basis, but I will be making some small changes. I’ve put all the students names on strips of poster board, and when I’m asking clarifying questions about the reading, I’ll be drawing their names from a cup. Realizing the students won’t particularly like this strategy, I’m also going to write a few “stock responses” up on the board that I found on Yvonne Hutchinson’s website. They require students to say something, but also provide them with examples of what to say if they are confused, don’t want to participate, or weren’t paying attention. I worry that students will take advantage of these responses and feel as though they now don’t have to pay attention, but I also hope that it will help more of them to feel comfortable speaking up in class.

Another thing I would change if I got the chance to go back and redo this lesson is I would have chosen a different story. I think I would have used “All of Summer in a Day” by Ray Bradbury, rather than “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker. While I originally thought this story would be universal enough to allow every student to make ties to their own heritage and history (which it still might, we’ll have to see how discussion on the third day goes), I’m now thinking that it may be too long for the narrowness of the theme we’re talking about. Granted the first half of the story is not as interesting as the second half. I think they would have been more interested to read “All of Summer in a Day” because it’s only a few pages, and has a very open ending that they could debate and talk about.

Another thing that I noticed while teaching was my level of comfort between first and second period. I didn’t experience this last quarter during my multi-day teach because my mentor teacher last quarter only taught one of each class, so there was no opportunity to double up. I found that after having done the lesson during first period, I was able to make some minor adjustments to what I was doing second period, and because I’d already taught the lesson once, I was much more confident in my teaching during second period. I asked slightly different questions, and asked the students to write down slightly different things between the two periods.

February 9, 2010 Posted by krueger66 | homework | 884, CCHS, discussion, reflection | Leave a Comment

Describing the Classroom Context Through Ethnographic Eyes

Central Crossing High School is part of the South Western City School District. It opened in 2002, as the district continued to expand with an influx of immigrants. There are different levels of classes beginning with Sheltered classes specifically for ELL students, as well as Silver and Gold Dyad classes designating different ability groupings. My focal class is Heather Barnes first and second period Silver Dyad of Freshman English. During my observations the class was learning the finer details about writing a five-paragraph essay. The topic of their essay, “what would life be like if you were blind, deaf, and mute,” was chosen to lead into their reading of The Miracle Worker by William Gibson, a play centering around the life of Helen Keller.

The classroom I’m observing is very different from any I’d observed before. Dyad classes are arranged so that the teacher is actually instructing two classes at once, in a double classroom. This means that there are two adjoining rooms that have an optional wall between them. Heather Barnes and Melissa Fischer (the social studies team-teacher) have opted to do nearly all their lessons jointly, meaning the wall is rarely, if ever, closed. The arrangement of the desks is in rows, reflecting the teacher-centered orientation of the class. Though, while talking to Heather, she revealed that the arrangement of rows wasn’t her favorite, but having the double classroom made it a necessity if all the desks were to fit.

Each lesson begins with either Heather or Melissa going over “housekeeping” matters. They review paperwork and permission slips that need to be signed, extra curricular activities that are happening at the school, and other similar topics. After that the class will review what they went over in the past session. In the case of the class session that I observed Heather began the class by asking students questions about the brainstorming they’d done the previous day.

It is interesting to note that though Heather and Melissa teach in a Dyad classroom, the desks remain facing the front of each individual room, rather than the back of each room, and thus the center of the joined room. During instruction the teacher will remain in this center area, though most often the students backs will remain towards her. Sometimes the students will twist around in their seats, but most often will remain facing away, giving the appearance of being unengaged in the lesson.

When the lesson writing five-paragraph essays continues today Heather begins by asking students what step they think comes next in the writing process, now that they’ve done some brainstorming. One student responses “Start the paragraphs?” Heather agrees, and begins to put up her mini-posters describing the different steps in the writing process. She put up the brainstorming steps they used the day before, and moves onto describe the writing of the intro, body paragraphs, and conclusion.

The use of the mini-posters is a strategy that Heather employs, especially in her Silver Dyad class, to provide additional help to students who are more visual learners, or need a little extra help understanding the material. After the class she asked Alison Cartwright, the special education teacher who is in the classroom to help out during the Silver Dyad class, for some help coming up with ideas to better help the students understand the steps for writing a five-paragraph essay.

As Heather walks the students through the steps in writing the five paragraph essay, she is subtly, or maybe not so subtly, providing them with a template to follow when writing their essay. She follows up on this template idea by having them complete a highlighting editing exercise later in the writing process. Basically, this exercise has forced the students to take a careful look at what they’ve written. They need to highlight their hook, thesis, topic sentences, conclusion and clincher, as well as identify 3 specific details in each body paragraph and work on transitioning between paragraphs. The heavy-duty scaffolding that this provides the students seemed to be extremely helpful in keeping them focused on the task of writing the essay, and not feeling too overwhelmed.

After Heather had gone over all the steps in the writing process she passed back the brainstorming papers the students had completed the previous day. The timing for this was wise, because if she had passed them back before going over the basic steps of how to write a five paragraph essay, then the students would likely not have paid as much attention, and may have begun writing their essays without listening to the instructions.

During the classes I’ve observed there have been both minor and major interruptions. The minor ones are often dealt with in one of two ways: by quietly confronting students or using non-verbal classroom management skills, such as proximity, or alternatively by confronting the student in front of the whole class. While I am unsure of the wisdom of confronting an adolescent in front of all of his peers, it does seem to work in most cases they’ve employed it. Heather, Melissa and Alison seems to have a good sense of which students will respond favorably to this public calling out, and which will not. In most cases it seems to be a type of jesting that is okay due to the bond that they’ve developed with the students. In the case of major interruptions, I’ve seen things get a little out of hand when a student is unmotivated and vocally angry, and when the teacher rises to the taunt that he gives. The whole class quieted and the student was trying to verbally spar with the teacher. Heather finally just told him to “Get out!” and I presume that he went down to the principal’s office.

February 7, 2010 Posted by krueger66 | homework | 865, CCHS, ethnography | 1 Comment

Survey Report & Lesson Plan

Introduction to the Classroom and Curricular Context

My classroom is at Central Crossing High School, as part of the Southwestern City School district. My focal class is a Freshman Silver Dyad (intervention/inclusion) team taught English and Studies class during 1^st and 2^nd period. This means that my mentor-teacher has arranged the class to follow a mostly lecture and recitation format supplemented by seatwork, with occasional teacher-led discussion. The students are heavily scaffolded in all of their activities, focusing on basic reading and writing skills. They have read aloud short stories, young adult novels, and plays, and they have written short responses to reading, five paragraph essays, as well as other informal writing.

Students’ Backgrounds

The Silver Dyad inclusion class has an average reading level of about third grade, though it ranges from about first to eighth grade level readers. I found through my survey that most of the students really don’t like their English class, though in general they do see the use of taking English. I’ve also found that they don’t have much confidence in their reading, but don’t know what they need to improve on. My mentor-teacher helps take some of the burden of reading off of the students by reading everything aloud in class, so the students will never have to worry about completing reading for homework that they’d struggle to understand. The students in the class are very social, and have no qualms about talking in class about topics that aren’t related to the class work. I think they could be motivated to talk because I found through my survey that most of them have big dreams regarding what they want to be when they grow up. This means they obviously have interests, and if those interests could be integrated into the classroom, I suspect they’d be more likely to have discussions.

General Introduction to the Lesson Plan

I struggled to come up with a lesson plan that would center on an easy to read story that had good discussion value. I presented my mentor teacher with a list of stories that I’d found that I thought would work, and she thought “Everyday Use” would work best. I want students to learn about the value of heritage, and the different ways of appreciating it because they have such varied background themselves. I found that the students aren’t used to having discussions, and assume that my mentor-teacher is the discussion leader in their class, because they’ve never had enough of a discussion to determine if one of their peers could be a discussion leader. I want to scaffold them into a discussion in my lesson, and give them a chance to talk and make their own meanings out of a text to move beyond the understanding that there is only one correct interpretation.

MDT Winter 2010 Lesson Plan

Teacher(s): Jan Krueger

Date: 2/8/10-2/10/10

Title/Topic: The Importance of Heritage

Suggested Grade Level(s): 9

DAY 1

Objectives and Rationale	This lesson is designed to guide students through the procedures of reading, questioning, and analyzing a text. The guiding concept centers around the importance of heritage, and what kinds of actions and beliefs are regarded as valid ways to show an appreciation of one’s heritage. I can… Make predictions about what will happen next in a story. Summarize what has happened in a story. Infer symbolic and thematic meanings to help me understand characters’ values. Use examples from the text to support my opinion.
State Standards:	*Ohio Standards:* Reading Process: Concepts of Print, Comprehension Strategies and Self-Monitoring Strategies Standard 1. Apply reading comprehension strategies, including making predictions, comparing and contrasting, recalling and summarizing and making inferences and drawing conclusions. 2. Answer literal, inferential, evaluative and synthesizing questions to demonstrate comprehension of grade-appropriate print texts and electronic and visual media. Reading Applications: Informational, Technical and Persuasive Text Standard 5. Analyze an author’s implicit and explicit argument, perspective or viewpoint in text. Reading Applications: Literary Text Standard 1. Identify and explain an author’s use of direct and indirect characterization, and ways in which characters reveal traits about themselves, including dialect, dramatic monologues and soliloquies. 7. Explain how foreshadowing and flashback are used to shape plot in a literary text 10. Explain how authors use symbols to create broader meanings. Writing Applications Standard 6. Produce informal writings (e.g., journals, notes and poems) for various purposes.
Materials Needed:	What texts, materials, websites, and equipment will you need to implement your plans? Please include materials that students and teachers may need. Intro Activity Questions Student Copies of “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker Teacher annotated copy of “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker List of discussion starter questions Paper, pencils Dry Erase Markers
Context:	This lesson series falls in the middle of a unit on The Miracle Worker.
Procedures including: • Opening •Activities • Closure	Opening: Introductory Activity: What’s in a Name? (10-15 min) 1. Ask students to get out a sheet of paper. Give short writing prompts one at a time, read aloud. Let students know they will be sharing these with the class, and then turning them in: What is your first name and why do you think you were named that? What do you think your name means? If you could change your name, would you? Why or why not? What would you change your name to, if you could (school appropriate, please)? Why would you change it to that? 2. Have students turn to a partner and share what they wrote with each other. 3. Ask if any students are willing to share what their name is, why they were named that, and what they think their name means. Follow-up by asking if they’d change their name, why, and what to. 4. Have that student call on another student to share their answers. Let about 3-5 students share. 5. Ask students to write 2-3 sentences on what they think heritage means. Then ask then to rate 1 to 5 (5 being highest) how much they would like to know more about what other people think heritage means. Activities: Begin Reading “Everyday Use” (25-30 min) 1. Pass out copies of “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker to students. 2. Have students keep their “What’s in a Name” pre-writing out, to write thoughts down on when we pause. 3. Explain that we’ll be reading the story out loud. I’ll be stopping at several points so we can think about what is going on. Students will be using a ‘popcorn’ style of reading aloud. Explain how this is done, if students don’t already know. 4. Read the story, stopping along the way at discussion points (labeled in Teacher Text) Closing: Wrapping Up (2-3 min) 1. Collect copies of “Everyday Use” 2. Have students hand in Intro Activity paper, along with any notes they took during the story and discussion. 3. Let students know we’ll be continuing with the story tomorrow.
Assessment:	Formative Assessment: 1. Throughout the reading I will be gauging the students understanding of the text by having them make predictions, summarize, and think about questions they have. They will be encouraged to write down any thoughts they have during these brief, informal discussions. 2. Intro Activity will be collected, including the answer to “What is heritage?” and their interest rating. This will serve as the pre-test.
Justification and Reflection:	Why are you teaching what you’re teaching in the way that you’re teaching it? Why this topic? How does lesson relate to your students’ interests and attitudes toward reading and English language arts? How are you demonstrating an understanding and responsiveness in terms of race, culture, gender, class, sexuality, and other differences? How does this lesson relate to past and future lessons and fit within the overall discipline? List (in a reference page) any resources that helped guide the construction of the lesson. For example, Beach, R., Appleman, D., Hynds, S., & Wilhelm, J. (2006). Teaching Literature to Adolescents may be the foundation for a lesson on teaching strategies for understanding narratives. I structured this lesson so that it follows a similar read-aloud format to what the students are familiar with. The read-aloud format is useful in aiding comprehension of the material, and allowing me to guide students into thinking about and developing an envisionment of the text.

DAY 2

Objectives and Rationale	I can… Infer symbolic and thematic meanings to help me understand characters’ values. Make predictions about what will happen next in a story. Summarize what has happened in a story. Use examples from the text to support my opinion.
State Standards:	*Ohio Standards:* Reading Process: Concepts of Print, Comprehension Strategies and Self-Monitoring Strategies Standard 1. Apply reading comprehension strategies, including making predictions, comparing and contrasting, recalling and summarizing and making inferences and drawing conclusions. 2. Answer literal, inferential, evaluative and synthesizing questions to demonstrate comprehension of grade-appropriate print texts and electronic and visual media. Reading Applications: Informational, Technical and Persuasive Text Standard 5. Analyze an author’s implicit and explicit argument, perspective or viewpoint in text. Reading Applications: Literary Text Standard 1. Identify and explain an author’s use of direct and indirect characterization, and ways in which characters reveal traits about themselves, including dialect, dramatic monologues and soliloquies. 7. Explain how foreshadowing and flashback are used to shape plot in a literary text 10. Explain how authors use symbols to create broader meanings. Writing Process Standard 1. Generate writing ideas through discussions with others and from printed material, and keep a list of writing ideas. Writing Applications Standard 6. Produce informal writings (e.g., journals, notes and poems) for various purposes. Communications: Oral and Visual Standard 1. Apply active listening strategies (e.g., monitoring message for clarity, selecting and organizing essential information, noting cues such as changes in pace) in a variety of settings.
Materials Needed:	What texts, materials, websites, and equipment will you need to implement your plans? Please include materials that students and teachers may need. Student Copies of “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker Teacher annotated copy of “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker List of discussion starter questions Paper, pencils Dry Erase Markers
Context:	This lesson series falls in the middle of a unit on The Miracle Worker.
Procedures including: • Opening •Activities • Closure	Opening: Review (3-5 min) 1. Have students turn to a partner and work together to summarize what happened in the story “Everyday Use” so far. 2. Ask for a group to volunteer to summarize yesterday’s reading for the class. Activities: Finish Reading “Everyday Use” (30-35 min) 1. Pass out copies of “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker to students. 2. Pass back Intro Activity/Notes sheet from yesterday, so students can continue to write down thoughts. 3. Finish reading the story, stopping along the way at discussion points (labeled in Teacher Text) Overflow: 1. Ask students to turn to one or two other people and discuss the concept of heritage. Some guiding questions/statements: Are their any items in your family that symbolize your heritage? Why can passing stuff down from parent to child mean so much? Why does it cause drama in families sometimes? How do you think parents should handle this matter? Describe a disagreement you’ve had with a sibling or good friend about who should get to have a certain item. 2. Before students leave ask them to write down one sentence on what they think was their best contribution to the discussion, and one sentence about something they found interesting that someone else said.
Assessment:	Formative Assessment: 1. Throughout the reading I will be gauging the students understanding of the text by having them make predictions, summarize, and think about questions they have. They will be encouraged to write down any thoughts they have during these brief, informal discussions. 2. If time allows, I will be walking around during the small group discussion at the end of class to listen in on students’ discussions. They will also be required to turn in their two sentences regarding the discussion.

DAY 3

Objectives and Rationale	I can… Examine and discuss differing perspectives. Infer symbolic and thematic meanings to help me understand characters’ values. Summarize what has happened in a story. Self-assess my contribution to a group discussion. Use examples from the text to support my opinion.
State Standards:	*Ohio Standards:* Reading Process: Concepts of Print, Comprehension Strategies and Self-Monitoring Strategies Standard 1. Apply reading comprehension strategies, including making predictions, comparing and contrasting, recalling and summarizing and making inferences and drawing conclusions. 2. Answer literal, inferential, evaluative and synthesizing questions to demonstrate comprehension of grade-appropriate print texts and electronic and visual media. Reading Applications: Informational, Technical and Persuasive Text Standard 5. Analyze an author’s implicit and explicit argument, perspective or viewpoint in text. Reading Applications: Literary Text Standard 10. Explain how authors use symbols to create broader meanings. Writing Process Standard 1. Generate writing ideas through discussions with others and from printed material, and keep a list of writing ideas. Writing Applications Standard 2. Write responses to literature that organize an insightful interpretation around several clear ideas, premises or images and support judgments with specific references to the original text, to other texts, authors and to prior knowledge. 6. Produce informal writings (e.g., journals, notes and poems) for various purposes. Communications: Oral and Visual Standard 1. Apply active listening strategies (e.g., monitoring message for clarity, selecting and organizing essential information, noting cues such as changes in pace) in a variety of settings.
Materials Needed:	What texts, materials, websites, and equipment will you need to implement your plans? Please include materials that students and teachers may need. Student Copies of “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker Teacher annotated copy of “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker List of discussion starter questions Paper, pencils Dry Erase Markers Everyday Use Discussion Web
Context:	This lesson series falls in the middle of a unit on The Miracle Worker.
Procedures including: • Opening •Activities • Closure	Opening: Have Discussion Web drawn on board. Review (3-5 min) 1. Have students turn to a partner and work together to summarize what happened in the story “Everyday Use.” 2. Ask for a group to volunteer to summarize the story for the class. Activities: Discussion Web (15-25 min) 1. Explain to students what a Discussion Web is, and how to fill one out. Students will be thinking of reasons to answer both sides of the question. Remember to try to have an equal number of reasons on each side. 2. Have students get into pairs and pass out Discussion Web worksheets to each pair (Remind them to write both partners names on it). Pass out copies of “Everyday Use” and their notes from the previous days so that student can refer to the text. Students will have 5-10 minutes to fill out the worksheet. 3. Have pairs share their top reason for each side of the argument. I will write these on the board. 4. Put student pairs together (so now they’re in groups of four). Explain that students will now be comparing their reasons, and coming to a group conclusion. Remind students to keep an open-mind while discussing, and let them know they’ll have a chance to explain disagreements with the group when we discuss as a class. Students will have another 5-10 minutes to work. Whole Class Discussion (7-10 min) 1. Ask groups, one by one, to share their conclusion. Ask them for the reasoning that led them to this conclusion. Ask if there are any opposing reasons that complicate their conclusion. 2. If all groups came to the same conclusion, play Devil’s Advocate, and challenge the class on their conclusion. If some groups disagree, have them challenge each other, providing them with some example challenge questions if necessary. Closing: Self-Assess & Exit Slip (7-10 min) 1. Have students get out a sheet of paper. Remind them to write names at the top. 2. At the top of the page have them write their group’s conclusion, along with the top 3 reasons for this conclusion. About halfway down the page have them write whether or not they agreed with their group’s conclusion, and if not, what reason(s) stopped them from agreeing. 3. One the other side of the page ask students to rate their contributions to the discussion with their group. Tell three things you did. (ex: I had a lot of ideas and shared them with the group; I helped my group find reasons in the text; I listened carefully to what my group members said; I didn’t feel like doing this activity and drew pictures instead. 4. Have student look at their Intro Activity where they wrote down what they thought heritage meant. Ask students to write 2-3 sentences on how their understanding of heritage has changed from that original definition. 5. Have students hand in their copy of “Everyday Use,” their note/intro activity sheet, their discussion web (with both partner’s names on it), and their self-assessment.
Assessment:	Formative Assessment: 1. I will be walking around during the small group discussion at the end of class to listen in on students’ discussions. Summative Assessment: 1. Students will be handing in discussion web. This will be used to demonstrate their thought process for the discussion. 2. Students will be handing in their group and individual conclusions, as well as a self-assessment on how they participated in the discussion. 3. Students will be evaluating and changing their definition of heritage and handing that in. This will serve as the post-test.

References for Lesson Plan:

Newell, George. Class discussions and notes. 11-27 January 2010.

Tierney, Robert J., John E. Readence. “Discussion Web.” Reading Strategies and Practices: A Compendium. 5^th edition. Ed. Virginia Lanigan. Allyn & Bacon. 2000. 310-314. Print.

Walker, Alice. “Everyday Use.” Literature and Language. Ed. Barry Bernstein. McDougal Little. 999-1008. Print.

Justification and Rationale

I chose to teach “Everyday Use” in this way, partly due to suggestions from my mentor-teacher. She told me that these students couldn’t be expected to have read and understood a book, unless it has been read aloud and explained in class. So the first two days of my MDT have been structured so that students will be reading aloud the story, and I will be asking them differing levels of questions at various places in the story. The final day I will be using a discussion web to scaffold them into both a small group and a class discussion. I recognize that the students aren’t used to, don’t know how, or aren’t comfortable participating in discussions, so I’ve designed the lesson to teach them how to participate in a discussion and given them what is hopefully a safe space and safe topic to discuss for the first time.

Since I don’t really know what the students’ interests are, beyond what they want to do when they graduate high school, I’m hoping that a discussion of heritage will at least relate to all the students in some way. My introductory activity is designed to pull students in, and get them thinking on a little deeper level about what kind of things regarding family carry meaning. The students seem to really enjoy talking about themselves, so the introductory will give them a chance to talk about themselves and bring their own experiences into the classroom in a positive way. By allowing them to talk about themselves I’m hoping that this ability to bring their own lives into the discussion will carry over to the discussion on the third day when they debate the differing ways of valuing one’s heritage. Because a heritage and family traditions are something that everyone has is some form or another, I’m catering to all the different groups of students in such a way that everyone should have at least one thing they can talk about if they so choose.

This lesson doesn’t really fit in with what the students are doing in the days leading up to and the days after it. My mentor-teacher set aside a block of days for me to do my multi-day teach, and didn’t mind if it didn’t relate to what the students are currently doing. The class is reading The Miracle Worker right now, so the lesson will fall in between acts in the play. I will most likely be using the play to explain the time period of “Everyday Use,” but not for much else. I may be able to pull in some examples from the play, but they don’t relate enough for there to be strong connections betwee

February 7, 2010 Posted by krueger66 | homework, lesson plan | 646, CCHS, lesson plan, reflection | Leave a Comment

Reflection on Central Crossing High School

Now that I’ve been in my school for a little longer, and have gotten to experience more of the classroom culture and procedures that help the run, I feel more able to talk about my experience at Central Crossing High School with Heather. The aspect of her classroom that I find to be the most interesting is the team taught dyad classes. All of Heather’s classes are team-taught with Melissa, a social studies teacher. I find I interesting how they’ve structured their class to maintain the team taught atmosphere and develop a more cohesive curriculum.

World History and English were always my favorite subjects in high school, and I would have liked to be in a class that combined them the way Heather and Melissa do. I really like the way they take the time to be sure their lessons will connect to each other’s lessons. For example, Melissa’s History class is just starting to learn about the Russian Revolution. They’re learning about Nicolas II, all his children, and Rasputin, and how the monarchy was overthrown and replaced but the Soviet regime. To pair with this, Heather’s class is starting to read Animal Farm. When I talked to Heather, she said when they did this unit last year, they had a couple days where they taught with the wall closed, rather than open. This meant that instead of teaching to the double class once, they closed the partition and each taught to the singular classes, and then the classes switched. Heather said it was really interesting to observe how the students who had Melissa’s class first made the connections between the history and the novel without much prompting. She really likes how the structure of the dyad classes makes it easier for students to make these connections, and how working closely with Melissa has made that kind of team teaching possible.

I know we’re not supposed to be making comparisons and judgments about our two placement schools, but there has been one aspect of my schools that has been vastly different and intriguing to me, so I thought I’d explore it. One of the big differences I’ve noticed between Central Crossing High School and Westerville Central High School doesn’t have anything directly to do with teaching or instruction, it has to do with the level of social interaction that I see. The teachers at Central Crossing, or at least my mentor teacher and other teachers I’ve met, seem to be a lot more social that those I encountered at Westerville Central. My mentor teacher at Westerville Central would always eat lunch alone, and while she would talk to other teachers in passing in the hallways, she wouldn’t engage in extended conversations that didn’t relate in some way to the workplace. At Central Crossing the teachers I’ve met have been very social. They talk about their personal lives, and spend time together outside of the workplace. Heather eats lunch down in the teachers lounge with a whole group of other teachers from various subject areas.

This observation is interesting to me because I felt more comfortable at Westerville Central, and more like a teacher, but during my time at Central Crossing I’ve felt much more like a Student Observer. My feeling is that Central Crossing would be a more pleasant place to work as a teacher than Westerville Central because the teachers seem to have built good, solid relationships, both personal and professional, with each other, while at Westerville Central I didn’t witness much of this happening. I suspect I was more comfortable at Westerville Central because I didn’t know anyone, and hadn’t built relationships with any of the teachers there other than my mentor teacher, but since this was the norm, I didn’t feel out of place. At Central Crossing I think I feel like and outsider and an intruder because the relationships they’ve built are an integral part of their day, and help to bind the school community together. Just to be clear though, I’m not saying that Westerville Central doesn’t have these types of social interactions happening, only that with my previous mentor teacher, I never witnessed any. Nor am I saying that every teacher at Central Crossing has the same level of social interaction that I’m witnessing with my current mentor teacher.

January 25, 2010 Posted by krueger66 | homework | 884, CCHS, reflection | Leave a Comment

Report of Interview with Mentor Teacher

Heather Barnes has taught since 1997, and has taught freshmen English at Central Crossing High School, in the Southwest City School District, since it opened in 2002. She got her Bachelor’s from The Ohio State University and “was one of the last groups to be certified to teach with a bachelor’s only.” She later went on to get her Master’s in Educational Leadership from the University of Dayton. She always knew she wanted to be an English teacher. Her grandma was an English teacher and she knew that “being a teacher would allow [her] to have a family and a career.”

Heather’s first period class, my focal class, is called a Silver Dyad, and is an inclusion class, working on reading intervention. The average reading level for this class is about third grade, though it ranges from about first to eighth grade level readers. Her other two classes are Gold Dyad classes, which are more like honors classes. Heather’s classes take place in a very interesting environment. She team-teaches with Melissa Fischer, a Modern World History teacher. All of the freshmen classes at Central Crossing used to be taught in triads of English, History, and Business, but now Heather and Melissa are the only ones left. They’ve “fought to keep [their] class structured as a dyad.”

Both Heather and Melissa feel that there students make connections more easily between history and literature in their unique set-up than they would if the classes were taught separately. This is evidenced by the fact that they plan their lessons together to be sure that the topics align as well as possible. For example, the Gold Dyad classes have just moved into a new unit. Melissa’s class is studying the Russian Revolution, and Heather’s class is starting to read Animal Farm. Heather said when they did this unit last year “you could really tell which kids had Melissa’s class first, because they made the connections between the Russian leaders and the characters in the book without any prompting from me.” The joint planning, and often joint teaching, really seems to benefit the students and aid their learning by helping them to more easily make connections between subject areas.

The Silver Dyad class, first and second period, is the class that will be my focal class. Heather thinks this class will work out best for me simply due to scheduling reason. This class has more flexibility with pacing, allowing me to jump in, as well as allowing me to go slower with the teaching so I can do better too. Most of the students in the Silver Dyad come into Heather’s English class hating to read and write, so one of Heather’s goals is to, if not help the students enjoy reading, at least make it a task that is no longer so arduous. One of the ways she works to accomplish this is by always doing all the reading for class out loud, this way students aren’t burdened with reading for homework that they’d struggle to understand. Something interesting that Heather has noticed is that her “stronger readers tend to not like writing, and [her] stronger writers really don’t like to read.” One of the ways she encourages every one to read is through peer pressure. When the class reads aloud students call on one another to read, and when called on, the student must read at least one sentence before calling on someone else.

The thing Heather enjoys most about teaching is the bond that it allows her to build with students. She is able to use this bond with students to help motivate them, which is one of the biggest challenges with her Silver Dyad class. The students are also willing to be much more open in class discussion because they know that Heather cares about them. I witnessed her bond with the students first hand when, during their five minute break between classes, students would come up to socialize with her, rather than go out into the hall to socialize with friends in other classes. They talk to her about their other classes, their extra-curricular activities, and they social lives outside of school. The students enjoy being around Heather, just as much as she enjoys being around them, and it shows through all aspects of her teaching.

January 23, 2010 Posted by krueger66 | homework | 865, CCHS, ethnography, reflection | Leave a Comment

Initial Impression of Central Crossing High School

I don’t actually go to my placement until January 14^th, due to Central Crossings exam schedule, but to prepare for that, I taken a look at their school website. The picture of the building on the website looks a lot like where I went to high school in Loveland: reddish-orange brick, new and clean looking. They state that the mission for their school “in partnership with the community, is to enable each learner to achieve excellence in a challenging, safe environment while promoting a sense of belonging and mutual respect for our diverse population. Students will demonstrate proficiency in academic standards, including communication skills and technical knowledge, as the staff will work to advance life long learning for all students.” This draws off of Dewey’s theories and makes sense due to the diverse population that they referenced. The district averages around 1660 students in classes everyday, with 14% Black, 2.1% Asian, 5.5% Hispanic, 1.4% Multi-Racial, and 76.7% White. They are diverse in other ways as well, with 35.5% being economically disadvantaged, 8.2% having limited English proficiency, 13.9% having disabilities.

The diversity of the school will be an interesting environment to work in, as it is entirely different from my own high school experience. However, working at Westerville Central last quarter, I felt that my class at least was relatively diverse. I suspect that the biggest difference will be the resources that the school can draw on. Westerville is a very affluent district, and was able to provide the latest technologies to classroom teachers. The Southwest District doesn’t appear to be as affluent an area, so I suspect that the resource may not be as prolific. But the building appears to be clean and new form the outside at least, so I’m guessing that they won’t be entirely lacking in resources either.

My mentor teacher is Heather Barnes. The school provides teachers with the opportunity to have their own webpage through the school. Heather has done so. She teaches three blocked classes (periods 1/2, 4/5, and 7/8), one silver dyad, and two gold dyads. She has described the dyad grouping as different levels. She team-teaches with one of the World History teachers, integrating English and History into the same classroom. I will be going for as much of the day as I can on Tuesdays and all day on Thursdays. Hopefully this will give me a good sense of what the differing dynamics of a class can be. My MDT will likely add another day or two so that the days can fall consecutively.

The website for the school provides links to the many extracurricular the school seems to offer. There are separate pages for athletics, band and theater. The links on the page don’t take you directly to the webpages, but instead provide a link to the webpage. Seems redundant, but they are provided.

The school report was somewhat more difficult to find. I took some clicking around on the main district webpage through seemingly unrelated areas. Central Crossing High School is rated as Continuous Improvement. I tried to figure out how the rating system works, and I think they are rated Continuous Improvement because while their scores/percentages may be high, they didn’t meet one of more of their AYP score standards. It appears as though that failing is in the sciences, but I’m not certain on that.

January 10, 2010 Posted by krueger66 | homework | 884, CCHS, reflection | Leave a Comment

Archives
- April 2010 (4)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (12)
- January 2010 (9)
- December 2009 (4)
- November 2009 (18)
- October 2009 (22)
- September 2009 (1)
Categories
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS

A Place for My Ramblings

Homework, Poems, and Random Thoughts

Teacher Inquiry Report

Analytical Memo for Video Analysis Session

Reflection on CCHS Teaching: Day One

Describing the Classroom Context Through Ethnographic Eyes

Survey Report & Lesson Plan

MDT Winter 2010 Lesson Plan

Context:

Context:

Context:

Reflection on Central Crossing High School

Report of Interview with Mentor Teacher

Initial Impression of Central Crossing High School

Welcome!

Archives

Tags

Pages

Archives

Categories

RSS

Site info

Follow “A Place for My Ramblings”