This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
George Mason University EDUC 614 William Rodick Summative Video Analysis
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS Classroom Description The American School of Metropolitan Florianopolis (ASMF), located in Florianopolis, Brazil, is an IB World School, with both the Primary Years Programme and Middle Years Programme complementing standards compiled from Common Core State Standards (CCSS), American Education Reaches Out (AERO), and Brazilian national standards (PCNs). The philosophy of the International Baccalaureate, its learner profile attributes, its emphasis on holistic learning, and its aim to build globally-minded, well-rounded students, runs throughout the curricular aims of the entire school, and into each classroom. Instruction at the school is given in English for our American program, and in Portuguese for our Brazilian program, and the school offers language courses in Spanish and Chinese. ASMF is a small, private school of about 220 students providing curriculum and instruction from pre-school to 12th grade. Class sizes are increasingly smaller in middle and high school. The size of ASMF allows for greater parental involvement than one might experience at a large public school in the U.S. At the same time, the size of the school does limit the availability of resources for students with special needs, although there is an on-hand school psychologist, and because a large portion of the population is local, a full English as an Additional Language (EAL) department. The IB MYP Year 5 (10th grade) Language A English class, which I teach, is made up of a group of 12 total students. This course meets three times per week – Mondays from 1:30 to 3:00 p.m., Tuesdays from 9:30 to 11:00 a.m., and Fridays from 2:15 to 3:00 p.m. Each of these class meetings is held in a different classroom, and each of those classrooms regularly belong to another teacher, who is kind enough to allow us its use. As a result of the inconsistency of our classroom environment, students do not have assigned seats, and the location of desks within a classroom is
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS different depending on the room, and occasionally different depending on the way that classroom’s teacher had previously wanted his or her desks to be arranged. However, depending on the learning activity, we do rearrange desks frequently to accommodate pair work, discussion, and other groupings. For this videotaped lesson, students were arranged in two groups on opposing sides of the room, so that they could work with their teams, but address their opponents, who they were debating. This classroom affords us the use of two whiteboards, a projector and screen, a classroom computer, and about 16 easily moveable desks (desks are sometimes used for other classrooms when there happens to be a need). Each student brings in his or her own electronic device, and for many this means a personal notebook computer, and for others this means an iPod or iPhone. Of the 12 students in the course, 10 identify themselves as Brazilian, and of those 10, 1 is a first-generation Brazilian with Italian ancestry, and 1 is a firstgeneration Brazilian with Chinese ancestry. Of the remaining 2 students, 1 is French, and 1 identifies himself as American, although he was born in Venezuela. There are 5 girls in the course, and 7 boys. None of the students in this course have an official individual education plan (IEP). The school does not have a program for special education students, and does not have a system for identifying students with learning disabilities or emotional disturbances. All but one of the students in the class has a primary language other than English (10 have Brazilian Portuguese as a first language, and 1 has French). Three of the students had never studied English from the perspective of a language arts or literature curricular framework before this school year, and only one student ever studied English from that perspective before becoming a student at the school.
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS Lesson Description and Analysis This videotaped lesson is the last of three debates held during a unit in which students are reading non-fiction books, writing editorials, and completing steps for the IB MYP personal project – an independent work of research and creation that serves as a culminating lesson for students in 10th grade. The debates serve as a complement to the skills of language analysis and development of argumentation that are required for the writing of the editorial and in the reading of nonfiction. The debates afford students an opportunity to engage with nonfiction through a unique format different from their editorials, and in collaboration with peers. The debate is an opportunity for students to use certain overarching skills for the course, and for me as the teacher to help them in developing those skills. It is a formative lesson by which students can understand aspects of performance that are directly applicable to the editorials, which is a summative assessment for the unit. The IB is guided by ten learner profile attributes, and of the five focused on within the unit, the debate examines the practice and development of two of those attributes: reflective and thinker. The debate had students become reflective of their knowledge and of their work as individuals and as a team, and during the debate, students considered previous responses along with the responses of their opponents before each turn. Students also relied heavily on their skills as thinkers, synthesizing multiple sources of information, including unexpected information as it was introduced in a back-and-forth debate format, consistently attempting to be persuasive and supportive of one larger argument. The MYP is also driven by skills that are considered transdisciplinary and essential for ensuring that students have good allaround working skills, and these are called the approaches to learning. Of the four approaches to learning skills planned for this unit, students practiced each in the
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS debate. Skills of reflection and thinking overlap from the learner profile, but additionally, students had to exercise organizational skills and information literacy skills. Much like students will use organization to impact audience in writing editorials, they needed to organize the team’s arguments in order to be persuasive in the debate – a task designed more purposefully in this second videotape analysis. Before the debate, students were provided a topic, but needed to conduct research to find support for the arguments they were making, and in the search for such information, they needed to determine which sources were beneficial and credible – a similar skill to what is required of them in writing their editorials. This third debate expanded upon the learning aims of previous debates, and as such, was designed to accommodate a progression of student learning. There were two major design flaws for the second debate that had to be addressed. The first flaw was a lack of student engagement. Although students were active and participative, they were not invested in the topic for discussion. This led to my own frustration, which was visible in my reaction to student passivity. The second flaw was student motivation. With my encouragement, students worked collaboratively, but the ideal would be for such work to be self-driven. Both of these flaws could be corrected by altering lesson design to account for student interest. Before the second debate, I had posted a discussion board thread asking students to suggest interesting topics for debate. There was no response, so when we began class, students felt forced to decide on a topic, and they had to choose between topics that they felt were pushed on them. I decided to alter the design for the third debate to find out about student interest early enough that disinterest could be addressed and the plan could be changed.
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS During the class before the third debate, I provided opinion sources that students could look through to get ideas, and we explored topics together. Each student then responded to the discussion board with three topics, and I shared my own as an example (Debate Topics – Appendix A). We discussed, provided reasons for choosing a topic, and then voted. We decided on a debate about the use of military drones. After a brief period for allowing students the opportunity to conduct research that would inform them of a stance, we broke up into “for” and “against” groups. New discussion prompts were posted for students where each student needed to post an argument connected to a persuasive appeal, along with a found resource (Group Shared Arguments – Appendix B). This would ensure that the group had a collective trove of information that could be used efficiently as they worked in groups during pre-debate preparation time. Carol Ann Tomlinson (2008) emphasizes how empowering students as learners, who are able “to gauge their work based on criteria for success,” is an important part of differentiation (p. 30). It is for this reason that the rubric is a central point for self-evaluation and that I make reflection an integral aspect of the course. On the day of the debate, the class began with a reflection that was deliberate and focused: What happened in the last debate for you as an individual and as a team? What went well, and what didn’t go as well? Once students had time to reflect, and discuss their reflections briefly with neighbors, we went to the board to discuss the types of skills related to our rubrics and the writing of our editorials that overlapped with success in the debate. Another guideline for the design of this lesson was purposeful inclusion of wait time. Classroom dynamics can lead students to be riddled with anxiety, and thinking on the spot is only one method in which our brain responds to information.
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS As Jensen (2005) notes, “students’ brains are busy with many things and need time for activation” (p. 141). However, in many classrooms, “if a student thinks for a few seconds, and has something important to say, the time for appropriate communication has passed [, but] if instructors slowed down the pace by waiting more between communications, then students would be able to think over what was being discussed, would have more to say, would become more involved, and would be empowered to bring their cognitions into the discourse to a higher degree. Also, they would be more inclined to listen to one another and to comment on one another’s ideas” (Joyce, Showers, & Rolheiser-Bennett, 1987, p. 21). As was an element of the previous debate, students could consider the material, consult sources, get feedback from peers, and then demonstrate their knowledge to the class. For the moment of the class that required on the spot thinking – rebuttals to arguments from one side – students were given time to prepare their arguments as a group, and any student could deliver the rebuttal. Although this might increase the chances that only the best speakers would contribute during rebuttal, the students naturally handed off responsibilities to all who felt comfortable contributing. There were still one or two students on each team who did not deliver rebuttals, but these are the students who felt the least comfortable speaking at all, and they still benefitted from having the floor during the regular portions of the debate. In addition to using a wait time model adapted to this activity, the lesson relied heavily on the social model of teaching. The debate is essentially a cooperative learning activity, through which students cooperate with experts in the field by analyzing and using online sources, crafting their own work, getting feedback and revision in collaboration with their peers, and then analyzing each other’s work in the context of an overall argument for their team. Through a cyclical checking and
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS rechecking of their ideas against the ideas of peers and experts, students are consistently engaging in progressions of learning. This is expounded once students share their ideas with the oppositional team, and hear designed feedback that is inherently negative, pushing students back into the learning so that they can craft statements again based on new feedback. In an article on teaching models and their effectiveness, Joyce, Showers, and Rolheiser-Bennett (1987) found that “the more complex the outcomes (higher-order processing of information, problem solving, social skills and attitudes), the greater are the effects,” and the design of this debate created situations for complex interaction with information and outcomes (p. 17). Although one could argue that a debate alone might not be an example of project-based learning, I designed the lesson to align with the descriptions of Lattimer and Riordan (2011), so that our debate might reap similar benefits to those of projectbased learning: Academic rigor: “How do the projects address key learning concepts or standards, or help students develop habits of mind and work associated with academic and professional disciplines?” (Lattimer & Riordan, 2011, p. 19). The design of the lesson ensured that certain standards guided student learning, and these were related to subject-specific as well as the transdisciplinary skills that will be useful to students in their future professions. Some of these academic goals were explicit, and some were implicit, and these implicit skills are ones that extend beyond this lesson to be addressed through other activities in the unit. Explicit
LA.WR.10.1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence LA.WR.10.1.a. Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that
LA.WR.10.1.b. Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly, supplying evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience’s knowledge level and concerns. LA.WR.10.1.d. Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS
establishes clear relationships among claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence. LA.WR.10.2. Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas, concepts, and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content. LA.WR.10.2.b. Develop the topic with wellchosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic LA.WR.10.7. Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question) or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation. LA.WR.10.8. Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources, using advanced searches effectively; assess the usefulness of each source in answering the research question; integrate information into the text selectively to maintain the flow of ideas, avoiding plagiarism and following a standard format for citation. LA.WR.10.9. Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research. LA.SL.10.1. Initiate and participate effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners on grades 9–10 topics, texts, and issues, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively. LA.SL.10.1.a. Come to discussions prepared, having read and researched material under study; explicitly draw on that preparation by referring to evidence from texts and other research on the topic or issue to stimulate a thoughtful, wellreasoned exchange of ideas. LA.SL.10.1.d. Respond thoughtfully to diverse perspectives, summarize points of agreement and disagreement, and, when warranted, qualify or justify their own views and understanding and make new connections in light of the evidence and reasoning presented. LA.LA.10.1. Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage when writing or speaking. norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing. LA.WR.10.2.d. Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic. LA.WR.10.2.e. Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing. LA.WR.10.5. Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on addressing what is most significant for a specific purpose and audience. LA.WR.10.6. Use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish, and update individual or shared writing products, taking advantage of technology’s capacity to link to other information and to display information flexibly and dynamically. LA.SL.10.1.b. Work with peers to set rules for collegial discussions and decision-making (e.g., informal consensus, taking votes on key issues, presentation of alternate views), clear goals and deadlines, and individual roles as needed. LA.SL.10.1.c. Propel conversations by posing and responding to questions that relate the current discussion to broader themes or larger ideas; actively incorporate others into the discussion; and clarify, verify, or challenge ideas and conclusions.
Authenticity: “How do the projects use a real-world context and address issues that matter to the students?” (Lattimer & Riordan, 2011, p. 19). This third debate was more strategic in ensuring that the topic related to student interest. Students also had autonomy in choosing each person’s role in the overall argument and the information
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS that he or she wished to use. The question about drone use, which was a topic the students chose, is relevant, current, and most importantly, addresses questions that do not have direct answers. This follows David Thornburg’s ideas about creating inquiry that matches the technological influence and access for students who are thinking in a new world: “If people already know the answer, and it can be looked up on Google, why ask the question? Let's ask them real questions […] It's messy. It's unclear. There are differing points of view” (Borovoy, 2012). Applied Learning: “How do the projects engage students in solving semi-structured problems calling for competencies expected in high-performance work organizations (e.g., teamwork, problem-solving, communication, etc.)?” (Lattimer & Riordan, 2011, p. 20). As indicated through the standards that shape the activity, students work cooperatively to create the best argument possible, each working to contribute their own evidence and research that fits within the larger context of the major collective thesis – either for or against the use of military drones. We discussed the skills that drive successful debates before the debate began, and connected these skills to other learning they practiced in planning their editorials. The structure of their work was also solidified by the use of a rubric that gauges organization. Active Exploration: “How do the projects extend beyond the classroom and connect to work internships, field-based investigations, and community explorations?” (Lattimer & Riordan, 2011, p. 21). The active exploration for this task relied on interaction with the digital world. Students explored opinions through the use of editorials and news articles, but they also relied on personal experience – in one of the more moving speeches, which relied on pathos, the emotional appeal of argumentation, a student discussed his father’s death through military service, and
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS how the use of personnel in ground fighting, rather than the use of unmanned drones, costs countries and families. Adult Connections: “How do the projects connect students with adult mentors and coaches from the wider community?” (Lattimer & Riordan, 2011, p. 21). Although students were not connected to adults in physical communities, they did rely on me as the teacher to help them in developing argumentation, although much of my coaching had been ongoing through other debates and the editorial writing process. Students also digitally connected to adults, through the use of their expertise to support argumentation. Although this could be considered a stretch, this digital connection with experts in the field is nearly as beneficial as physical guidance, particularly as it models the type of mentorship that they are likely to face while working in career fields in the future. Assessment Practices: “How do the projects involve students in regular exhibitions and assessments of their work in light of personal, school, and real-world standards of performance?” (Lattimer & Riordan, 2011, p. 21). Students exhibited their skills for each other, and as students interacted through debate, they learned with and from each other. For this to extend into a true example of project-based learning, the students could hold the debate in a public forum. I had considered an extension of the project in this fashion, but until the students can develop full confidence in this process, an exhibition might turn into preparation for the project, rather than a focus on the learning that is gained through the project – a narrow use of projects is something that Lattimer and Riordan warn the reader about: “PBL often fails when the emphasis falls too heavily on the ‘project’ element of the title rather than on the ‘learning’” (p. 18).
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS Reflection I planned to keep the positive aspects of the last debate alive in this debate. I made directions clear, reiterating positions and directions so that students understood how to transition into group work. I reminded students of applicable knowledge from the previous lesson, making it clear that the lessons build upon one another so that students could use reflection to inform performance. I moved around the room, making sure that I could provide adequate attention and assistance to each student. I provided suggestions, differentiating guidance as necessary to reach student need while remaining cautious against limiting opportunities for thinking. I posed clarifying questions to formatively gauge preparedness, keeping teacher talk to a minimum even when students needed guidance, primarily relying on group talk for responding to questions. The lesson was directly connected to building argumentation skills similar to those that students will use when writing their editorials. The debate had an added bonus of allowing students the chance to practice these skills formatively and in groups, so that they could evaluate themselves during the process of practicing these skills. They also practiced collaboration and speaking skills. I was concerned that in the last debate, I had been the one who was most aware of the skills they were developing, and to provide students with greater ownership of their development, the review of associated skills before students prepared for the debate proved valuable. To a degree, students were engaged in conceptual understanding. This debate topic was more purposefully aligned to the conceptual goals of the unit than the last debate topic, which had focused on Lance Armstrong and the loss of his titles. This debate topic, about the use of military drones, certainly fit with our area of interaction focus – health and social education. The significant concept for this unit – “Culture
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS influences perception, and is a starting point for understanding others, and knowing how to be understood by others,” was not as connected to the topic, although students did discuss their cultural and national bias regarding the use of military drones. They also demonstrate the concept through their interactions during the debate, but this was not overtly addressed. I could have guided them more towards a topic that would directly connect to the significant concept, but I felt that using a topic that students found interesting was more important following the second debate. Students did use skills that were transdisciplinary and worked beyond subject-specific expectations. The lesson did not ask students to engage in a variety of activities, but within the large activity, students were asked to do many things, such as research, collaborate, present information, defend information, and evaluate the course of argumentation. Also, within the larger activity, students were able to take on varied roles. Regarding variety to reach student differences in learning, this lesson allowed students to do the things that they are good at (one student may have researched information for others, written ideas out before speaking, or could have remained completely by him or herself to contemplate the topic discussion) while also forcing them to exercise the skills that they may not be good at (collaboration, speaking, etc.). They were able to take advantage of self-assessment as a tool to guide individual learning and individual demonstration of skills. The previous debate had not been planned to take into consideration demographics or background knowledge. Since this group is largely made up of students who are still gaining proficiency in the use of the English language, I increased the time students had for planning before the debate began. I also had students seek related sources for homework before the class began so that they had greater opportunities to find information that matched their own reading levels and
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS initial ideas. The dependence on technology for this assignment – through the use of newspaper editorials, for which I provided links, and the use of guided discussion posts in the Schoology resource – helped students interact with a variety of information, much of which they could each shape to their individual abilities, interests, and ideas. Although it was intentional that I provide greater time in preparation for the debates, I did not keep track of time well enough. Two arguments were actually missed at the end, and students who were able to speak soon before the end of class felt rushed to finish. I also think this lesson could have benefited from a prior lesson that had been focused on teaching speaking and speaking skills. This is a group of students that lacks confidence in speaking, which is one reason for the format that I provided, but I could have enhanced confidence further if forethought in teaching these skills could have shifted student focus on persuasion and argumentation during the debate. I do plan to now use portions of the video recording and their performances as practical examples for reflection to teach speaking skills. Although students used the rubric to help guide their debates, the use of the rubric could have been continuous through the debate, so that students could have easily checked back to see how they were progressing as a team. Students were far more motivated, involved, and cooperatively responsible without the need for my reassurance. I am thrilled with how the exercise went, and how the learning was improved through the use of particular models and strategies.
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS References Borovoy, A. (2012). David Thornburg on the Evolving Classroom (Big Thinkers Series). Edutopia. K-12 Education & Learning Innovations with Proven Strategies that Work. Edutopia. Retrieved December 6, 2012, from http://www.edutopia.org/david-thornburg-future-classroom-video. Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Joyce, B., Showers, B., & Rolheiser-‐Bennett, C. (1987). Staff development and student learning: A synthesis of research on models of teaching. Educational Leadership, 45 (2), 11-‐23. Lattimer, H., & Riordan, R. (2011). Project-based learning engages students in meaningful work. Middle School Journal, 43 (2), 18-23. Tomlinson, C. (2008). The goals of differentiation. Educational Leadership, 66 (3), 26-30.
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS Debate Topics - Appendix A
SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS Group Shared Arguments – Appendix B
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.