Given my own unique situation, it was somewhat more difficult to secure an observation/mentorship with a single teacher. As such, it behooved me to not rely on just one, but several teachers to converse with, learn from, and discuss the particulars of their classes. Since beggars can rarely be choosers, I was by necessity forced to expand my “horizons” and expectations beyond the breadth of my particular field. I had the privilege of communicating, viewing, and working with several of the excellent staff of Shanghai Livingston American School as both observer/learner, and as substitute teacher. Particularly, I was able to observe and teach Ms. A’s 5th grade class. Ms. A is new to LAS, but has extensive experience in elementary education in the US. Additionally, I was in contact with and substituted for Mr. L’s elementary music and MS/HS ESL classes, and Ms. B’s middle and high school music and music history classes. Both Mr. L and Ms. B have been at LAS for several years, and are the heads of their respective departments. For even more great advice and answers, I was able to learn from and converse with high school English teacher Ms. G, who is considered to be one of the top teachers in the facility.
As previously mentioned, my observations were not uniform in their
distribution or discipline. I consider this an asset, as it gave me a markedly
wide array of insight, strategies, and hands-‐on experiences with multitude of
difference class make-‐ups. More than anything, I was interested in understanding
how my mentors’ planning stages fed into the execution phases. Frequently there is a significant divide between laying down a plan of action, and actually carrying it
out. In the words of Robert Burns, “the best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men/ Gan aft
agley [often go awry]” (Burns, 1785). What was most notable was these teachers’
simultaneous comprehensiveness of planning and flexibility in execution. Much of
what I saw, read, and spoke about left the distinct impression of people who
planned for every eventuality they could think of for a particular lesson, and
consequentially were able to “roll with the punches” when this or that particular
class took the discussion or ideas a new and intriguing direction. It was very clear
that each of the teachers with whom I have interacted was versed in and believe in
the precepts of Understanding by Design, or a closely related planning system
(Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006). They knew the endpoints, as well as the
instructional guideposts they needed to guide their classes by, and were – as much
as they were able – prepared to lead their classes through that labyrinth as
efficiently as possible, but still be considerate to both individual needs, and the
occasional off-‐track, or meta-‐conversation.
I was very interested in seeing how my teachers interacted and conversed
with their classes, especially as it pertained to making sure that the entire class was
focused and participatory. The answers, unsurprisingly, were as varied as the
individuals I interacted with. Several of the teachers, specifically Ms. B and
Mr. L, tended toward a more teacher-‐centric model of classroom management
and interaction. Much of what was done during the instructional portions of the
classes was front-‐and-‐center, eyes on the teacher note-‐taking. And these systems
were, insofar as I was able to ascertain, effective. Students were, for the most part, attentive and still felt comfortable enough to ask questions or add a piece of
information from time to time. Ms. A's 5th grade class fell – to my mild
surprise – somewhat short of the examples Ms. B and Mr. L had provided.
Though there was plenty of teacher-‐centered direct instruction – as it both expected
and largely required to effectively interact with a class of 11-‐12 year olds – Ms.
A tended toward a far more open, collaborative and interactive style than I
had anticipated seeing. Students were, though led by their teacher, broken into
smaller groups and encouraged to discuss and find solutions to the questions and
problems presented in their lessons.
While I was, unfortunately, ultimately unable to find a suitable time to
observe Ms. G's classes, I was still able to converse with her and glean some
very keep insights from her. Having asked how she fields and utilizes class
discussion and posing questions to students, she offered, “I use questions as a way
to review material taught. [...] I also use questions to ignite a class discussion in
order to check for understanding regarding a specific unit we've been covering. It
serves as an informal assessment for me. My questions are either directed at the
class or specific individuals. I specifically ask students to raise their hand when I'm
awarding [extra credit]. There are other times that I will randomly call on my less
reluctant students to answer to ensure they understand even though they aren't
volunteering to answer questions. [...] It is a much more challenging strategy to use
with my Asian students, so I have to take baby steps. In the past, I've used the
Socratic Circle Questioning method and it has worked wonders and the kids love it”
(Ms. G, 2012). This was an extremely relatable and informative point for me, as I
have seen time and again the specific difficulties posed in getting Asian students to
speak out, or answer questions to which there may not be a single definitive answer.
Additionally, I had been relatively unfamiliar with the Socratic Circle method of
discussion, so it was very interesting hear about it be used effectively.
I came away from observing Ms. B's music and music history classes feeling most strongly impressed by her system of in-‐class assessments. More specifically, how they were conducted. Though there were also standard pen-‐and-‐ paper quizzes during my time with her class, it was her system of authentic, performance-‐based assessment that really stood out. Students, either individually or in small groups, had prepared a musical composition from the period they were studying, and were to perform it for the rest of their class. The class’ job was to assess the person/group’s performance for themselves, based on a set rubric provided by Ms. B. After collecting and checking the student assessment sheets, they were compiled and returned to the performers. By having the students not only perform but also assess, it made the entire exercise more authentic for both parties, while also giving the students a more active and in-‐depth understanding of both performing and critiquing. Subsequently, they were to continue working up the same piece for further performance and assessment in the following weeks.
This level of interactivity and authenticity was something I’d not seen in action before, and it seemed to be a very successful method for such practical assessments.
My observation and interaction with Ms. A's class had me reassessing my own style of class discussion and lecture. Whereas I have tended to model my behavior on the “typical” classroom teacher style of being front-‐and-‐center most of
I came away from observing Ms. B's music and music history classes feeling most strongly impressed by her system of in-‐class assessments. More specifically, how they were conducted. Though there were also standard pen-‐and-‐ paper quizzes during my time with her class, it was her system of authentic, performance-‐based assessment that really stood out. Students, either individually or in small groups, had prepared a musical composition from the period they were studying, and were to perform it for the rest of their class. The class’ job was to assess the person/group’s performance for themselves, based on a set rubric provided by Ms. B. After collecting and checking the student assessment sheets, they were compiled and returned to the performers. By having the students not only perform but also assess, it made the entire exercise more authentic for both parties, while also giving the students a more active and in-‐depth understanding of both performing and critiquing. Subsequently, they were to continue working up the same piece for further performance and assessment in the following weeks.
This level of interactivity and authenticity was something I’d not seen in action before, and it seemed to be a very successful method for such practical assessments.
My observation and interaction with Ms. A's class had me reassessing my own style of class discussion and lecture. Whereas I have tended to model my behavior on the “typical” classroom teacher style of being front-‐and-‐center most of
the time, Ms. A operated quite differently. As she explained and went through
the process of constructing The Sieve of Eratosthenes to find prime numbers, she
very slowly paced the rows of the class, observing her students as they worked,
even as she went through the directions. If they had a question, or she saw an error,
she would pause and show them the proper way. I noticed that her students
remained on task significantly better when she was doing this, than other classes I
have seen and taught, being led simply from the head of the class.
The time I’ve spent with these teachers has been tremendously valuable for my own classes. Through their advice, examples, and seeing such strategies practically employed, I’ve been able to grasp many of the concepts and theories presented thus far in the NPTT curriculum much better than a mere reading of them could allow. By seeing and understanding how their strategies work for them, especially “big concepts” like implementing the backward design of Understanding by Design, and differentiation of instruction to accommodate students from a variety of backgrounds and cultural ethos, it has been much easier to either implement them in my current classes, or to at least visualize how I would implement them in the future.
The time I’ve spent with these teachers has been tremendously valuable for my own classes. Through their advice, examples, and seeing such strategies practically employed, I’ve been able to grasp many of the concepts and theories presented thus far in the NPTT curriculum much better than a mere reading of them could allow. By seeing and understanding how their strategies work for them, especially “big concepts” like implementing the backward design of Understanding by Design, and differentiation of instruction to accommodate students from a variety of backgrounds and cultural ethos, it has been much easier to either implement them in my current classes, or to at least visualize how I would implement them in the future.
Resources
A, D (2012). Observation and Communication.
B, B (2012). Observation and Communication.
Burns, R (1785). “To A Mouse.”
G, K. (2012). Personal Communication.
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. ISBN: 1-‐4166-‐0284-‐4
A, D (2012). Observation and Communication.
B, B (2012). Observation and Communication.
Burns, R (1785). “To A Mouse.”
G, K. (2012). Personal Communication.
|
Tomlinson, C.A., & McTighe, J. (2006).
|
Integrating differentiated instruction and
|
|
understanding by design: Connecting content and kids.
|
Alexandria, Virginia:
|
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. ISBN: 1-‐4166-‐0284-‐4
No comments:
Post a Comment