Bienday Pear ( ce Study H | ¢ loo Sh 7 eee é ssloes See - 1.) a) Julianne’ intentions were to teach her students to recognize that dialogue occurs agextmem™ cee ‘when two individuals converse with one another. Further, se intends that her students.” will understand the necessary and essential elements of dialogue ‘and incorporate them” Sees oe into short writing activities between two individuals. By conducting these learning Wei ea activities with her students, she hoped to guide them to the end goal of being proficient in ge¢ro”7 writing dialogue. Finally, she wished for these activitics to engage on a deeper level with 7 { ( the st that they were reading. 1.) b.) Julianne was not wrong to feel uncomfortable about some aspects of her lesson, but should give herself more credit for the suecesses that her students was able to achieve. She herself exhorts her students to remember that they must not become overly- attached to their first draft, and consider that student drafts should be evaluated as such. If she is unsure ither student are capable of independently knowing which questions task | nil to engage critically, there is ample opportunity to model this and work towards a eth 4 learning outcome. tga 1.) 2 Julianne may have benefitted from using a form of assessment for learning to - 5 aye nur. ‘gauge the progress of her students during the course of the lesson, and modifying her 4 instruction ccotdingly. She did incorporate a form of self-assessment fat she instructed students to complete at the end of the activity, but a visual check (such as 1-5 fingers, or something similar that can be read at a glance) could have given her useful information. She did circulate and question her students (formative assessment) but could perhaps have taken advantage of asking these questions to the whole class and allowing them to v listen to all responses and brainstorm answers together.2.) a.) There were several areas where the morning lesson could have been improved. In addition to the group composition (discussed below), the learning outcomes could have been communicated much more clearly at the beginning. A more explicit example, such as constructing a dialogue as a class based on a class novel or youth catechism (such as. Harry Potter, a character whom nearly all students could be assumed to be familiar with) \ ‘would have given students a clear picture of what kind of eitical questions they were! : expected to think up. 2.) b.) Julianne had the opportunity to ask the class if they were comfortable with the activity, as mentioned above. When she called the class back together at the end of the practice activity, she had the groups read and act out the dialogues that they had written. (/ qa The followup questions and comments that she made represent a lost opportunity to V ¢ a engage her students in formative assessment. By asking deeper, critical questions she yo ati would have both modeled the behaviour that she expects her students to engage inand a » i been able to assess their level of understanding and determine where they stood at that CO ‘moment. This information could then have been used to plot the course of her afternoon ir lesson, particularly if she observed any trends or commonalities between a large number of groups. 2.) c.) Julianne allowed students to select their own partners, and they gravitated towards their frends, While some ofthese partnerships were well-formed, others were not // functional and proved disruptive, Manuel, in particular, would stand to benefit from a partner who possessed more patience and who could have guided him instead of becoming frustrated and verbally confrontational. There was no mention in the text of= using student behaviour to determine suitable groups. There was, however, a mention of yi, GP env students being grouped according to reading level. Because the morning lesson did not, actually focus on the novels that the class had been reading, this distinction may not have | Ul been beneficial, particularly for the students with the fewest reading skills. 2.) d.) When Allen was having difficulty, Julianne provided him with scaffolding and helped guide him to reaching his conclusions. This was a much more positive interaction than the one she had with Katie, where her frustration was evident. The piece of information that is most indicative of her attitude towards students who struggle is the difference between her attitude towards Katie and Manuel. Her frustration towards Katie ‘would seem to stem from her perception that Katie's difficulty is due to a lack of effort. This may or may not be the truth, but it is coupled with a communicated belief that Katie pal is not capable of completing the assignment satisfactorily on her own (the suggestion to sul | use the checklist herself was thrown in as an afterthought, only to be attempted ifnobody eopane * else in the class could help her). Her approach to Manuel is informed by her (accurate) perception that his difficulties are due to his present grasp of the English language and do l | \ not reflect on his character. By contrasting the way that she phrased her responses to Allen and to Katie, I will say that she inadvertently sent them very different messages about the worth of their work and their role within the classroom. 3.) a.) In her morning lesson, Julianne had an opportunity to use both assessment as learning and assessment for learning by having a group dialogue before allowing students to pair off. By using this assessment tool, she could have informally determined which ad OS os should be provided to the entire class. Alternatively, she could have used this activity as (ga ™ as groups would need would negd more assistance, or even if further worked examples,