Video Analysis #2: Special Education Self-Contained Math Class

In the video, “Special Education Self-Contained Math Class,” the teacher utilizes many of the instructional strategies that have been taught in this course. However, there are also several missed opportunities for her to strengthen her practices, which will ultimately promote student learning. For instance, setting objectives enables a teacher to establish the class direction, thus guiding learning (Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, & Stone, 2012). The teacher in this video calls on a student to read the objectives out loud, which is a good instructional practice. However, it would have been strengthened by having the students paraphrase the objectives, even perhaps engaging in cooperative learning to paraphrase together. This would provide the opportunity for more student engagement with the learning objective as well to provide an opportunity for the student to work together. Also, during the lesson opening, while activating student prior knowledge, the teacher uses questioning (“What do we already know about geometry?”). While it is a strong practice to use questioning to get students thinking, this questions is slightly too broad and students may struggle to focus on what is important, depending on how long they have been enrolled in the geometry class. Perhaps focusing her question a little more would have guided the students to the response she wanted more readily.

Feedback was an area where the teacher really used many of the components cited by Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, and Stone (2012). When calling on a student, she stated, “Thank you so much for [indecipherable] and raising your hand,” calling attention to the behavior she was praising. This feedback addressed what was correct instead of merely being qualitative (i.e. “good job”). However, there is no identification of the next step for progress, which is a vital element of effective feedback (Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, & Stone, 2012). Even something simple such as, “keep it up” would indicate to the student what not only the correct action was but to continue it. The teacher also was good at providing feedback in a timely fashion—she came around to each student to check their answers for solving the perimeter and area. This ensures that students are not operating with misconceptions as they continue through the lesson. Another strength was providing recognition. The student were clearly participating in some sort of established points system. The praise provided in relation to this system was specific and relied on the expectations (raising hands, being quiet, taking notes). The expectations were even written on the board. The teacher also used a timer to check in with the students to see if they were meeting those expectations. When they were, a block was colored in on a chart that worked the students toward something, the point thus attached to a more concrete reward. All of these strategies are cited by Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, and Stone (2012) as methods to improve student learning. The use of teacher notes that included nonlinguistic representations (pictures, charts) were also beneficial to student learning, given the spatial nature of the content area the lesson was covering (Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, & Stone, 2012). However, one of the students seem to grow antsy at one point, suggesting that something slightly more kinesthetic at some point would be engaging. I would be curious to know if the students had received more training in how to take notes similar to the teacher’s style in previous lessons.

Overall, I felt that the teacher had a good grasp of feedback and providing recognition, but would benefit from the inclusion of more group activities or something with a little more motion to engage learners further.

Dean, C.B., Hubbell, E. R., Pitler, H. & Stone, B. (2012). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Observation #2 – One Teacher’s Questioning Style

H2 – Honor student access to content material.

This standard reflects teacher usage of multiple instructional strategies in order to accommodate a variety of student academic language ability levels and cultural and linguistic backgrounds [1]. This program standard was exemplified through an observation of my sixth period classroom and mentor English Language Arts teacher.

After starting class, the teacher began reading the end of Chapter 15 of To Kill a Mockingbird. She read out loud in a clear voice and asked clarifying questions regarding the characters, events, and vocabulary of the novel. The questions were intended to be informal checks for understanding and tended to be literal in nature, such as, “Who is Mr. Cunningham?” and, in response to the class response, “Who is Walter?” However, she also included some inferential questions, such as “How old is [Scout]? And she’s talking about legal affairs. What does that say about her?” Overall, the questions were roughly 75% closed-ended and 25% open-ended during this time. They could be framed through four-level analysis; some questions remained on a level one (“Who is Walter?”) while others were more level four (“So what? Why is this important?”). There was no issue of gender as the questions had choral responses. The questions themselves were framed somewhat ‘curtly,’ though the students still continued to respond. After reading for ten minutes, the teacher had students then write a reflection to the open-ended question, “Why did the men not attack Atticus and Tom Robinson?” [2].

This observation serves as evidence of learning as it promoted self-reflection about my own questioning practices. For instance, I liked that my mentor teacher used more close-ended questions while reading and then an open-ended question as the written reflection. It was a nice way to incorporate both styles with different activities. This reflection also served as a formal check for understanding in addition to providing students with the opportunity to practice writing [3]. I learned how to structure questioning so that diverse learning styles could be engaged with the material (using four-level analysis style questioning, for example). I also learned a bit of behavior management in a general education classroom setting as I observed the teacher use a firmer rapport to keep students on track. Learning both of these lessons—how to structure reading in a general education classroom to appeal to a diverse set of learners as well as how to keep a classroom in check—have strong implications for learners as I will need these skill sets to effectively teach [5].

In terms of recommendations, one suggestion is the use of a more rapport-based line of questioning. While the teacher does an excellent job of questioning the students, the firmness of her responses feels like it generates less classroom rapport and engagement. However, this suggestion might be appropriate for myself but not for the teacher persona of this particular teacher. Therefore, while I will practice a firmer hand in larger group settings, I will also practice finding a balance between this sterner style and my own [6].