NOVEMBER

24, 2019

WHAT NOW?
MATC SYNTHESIS PAPER

WHITE, TAYLOR NICOLE

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 I have written many papers that outlined why and how I ventured into teaching.

For the most part, each paper has begun the same way “For as long as I can

remember” and proceeded to outline the typical clichés “I always wanted to be a

teacher” “I have always loved kids” etc. I was tempted to (and in a few drafts actually

began to) start this paper the same way. I was going to take you on a journey on how I

always loved teaching and creating lessons and how that has carried me through this

program and made me a better teacher, but that merely scuffs what my experiences

have been as a new teacher in the field and in this program. Often, I will be asked what

my dream is and I have been fortunate enough to be living my dream. I recognize that

not many people are fortunate enough to come out of college and do what they have

always wanted to do, where they wanted to do it and with the people they wanted to do

it with, but I am also cognizant of the old familiar cliché that “if your dreams don’t scare

you they aren’t big enough”.

As I concluded my student teaching, I knew I eventually wanted to capitalize on

the momentum I had going to school and teaching full-time, I also knew I wanted to

pursue administration. In my head, the logical order of my teaching career was teaching

for a number of years and eventually pursue administration so the next step was

pursuing a Masters in Administration, but once I realized the requirements entailed a

second round of year round field placements it was clear that was not my next course of

action. I began to ask myself “what next”? This question was reoccurring in my first year

not only from myself, but from peers and family through a variety of conversations and

situations. As I consider this question at the conclusion of this program, I still don’t have

an answer. This paper will not answer this question; rather, it will show how this
program encouraged constant inquiry in someone who initially thought they had it all

figured out.

One of the aspects of teaching I have always been excited about was developing

lessons and projects that would help my students learn the content, and excite them

about learning. I wanted my students to be so engaged with the lessons we were doing

that they didn’t realize we were learning, they just thought this is what we do. Working

through developing units during my student teaching made me realize how much I loved

this process and especially when my students found a lesson or activity they really

connected with. Artifact 1 is a unit that was most impactful for myself and my students.

This artifact- created in my first graduate class- is a writer’s workshop unit. During this

time, my first grade students were able to spend 30 minutes to an hour daily engaging

in independent writing following a whole group mini lesson. This time was something

they looked forward to every day, and allowed them to flourish. One student in particular

previously had difficulty initiating in work without someone sitting next to him and

constantly prompting him to get started and during this time, he initiated his own work

and worked diligently every day to write. By the end of this unit, this student produced

multiple pages of writings and was visibly proud of himself with the work he did. This

experience in particular showed me the importance of student choice in engaging with

curriculum and highlighted the possibilities that are opened up for all students when

content is fun, engaging and relevant to them.

After realizing the path of pursuing a Master’s in Administration was not for me

immediately out of school, I asked myself what was next for me. When searching

through the different Master’s degree’s I happened upon the Masters of Teaching and
Curriculum. Reading through the standards and goals of the program, I knew this was

the program for me. Each standard and goal was something I was either passionate

about- such as commitment to diversity of students, understanding subjects, reflecting

and analyzing on teaching and being a “good teacher”- or were things I wanted to work

on as I started out my career (becoming a teacher leader, better communicating and

collaborating with colleagues). This decision was solidified when I met the Executive

Director of Computer Science and Innovation in my district and was asked to pilot a

Computer Science curriculum in my Kindergarten classroom. This gave me the perfect

opportunity to put everything I would learn in this program to the test real-time. Although

I was already excited about teaching, my excitement was heightened as I finally had the

opportunity to apply what I was learning to my current classroom and professional

setting.

Very soon after entering the program, I realized one goal and standard I felt

strongly connected to in the program, was a standard I idealized as opposed to actually

valued. TE 807 asked me to consider what “good teaching” really meant. I knew good

teaching meant constantly learning and improving on your practice, but when it came

time for me to learn from others how I could better my practice, I realized I valued being

complemented on what I did well as a teacher and didn’t really see the value in learning

what I could do better. Faced with this reality, I was forced to ask myself what I needed

to do next to change my mentality around “observations” and peer coaching. Artifact 2

shows how asking different questions, helped me to take the focus off of what I was

doing right or wrong and how you can learn more about your students and how the

environment around them effects their learning. It also helped me to realize why I didn’t
see the value in constructive criticism in observations because “the central problem

facing the teacher …[is] control,” (Labaree, 2000). I felt I was doing everything in my

control to be a good teacher and “do all of the things” correctly and felt that any criticism

was saying that I wasn’t doing something well enough. After realizing this, I began to

think differently about challenges in the classroom and observations. Now from this, I

welcome constructive criticism around my instruction and have even created a google

form for guests to fill out when they enter the classroom to help me further examine my

practice. It has also helped me to approach PLC’s differently. When thinking about a

problem myself or my colleagues have, I now try to shift the focus from what we or the

students aren’t doing and looking at the larger and deeper problem by asking the

questions I gathered from my peer coaching.

Finding a new way to look at constructive feedback allowed me to then have

more genuine and authentic discussions with my classmates in other classes about

challenges I was having in the classroom around the new curriculum and how I reach all

of my students. The best opportunities I had to do this were through my spring and

summer semester classes. In these classes I was constantly engaged in discussions

with classmates about resources and curriculum as well as assessments I did with

students. I was able to better view the feedback given and not take it personally, but as

an idea to consider for the betterment of myself and my students. Artifacts 3 and 4 are

just a few examples of the feedback given by classmates and instructors and some of

the dialogue that happened around that.

This new perspective on feedback allowed me to view evaluating others and

resources differently, I felt more confident offering feedbacks and evaluations. In CEP
805, I was able to work on another area I felt confident in which was analyzing

resources. Prior to this course, I viewed educational resources as more of a one size fits

all thing, especially online games. I felt that each game had something valuable to offer

everyone and if they had leveled gaming components, they also offered valuable

differentiation for students. Artifact 5 is my final project from this class which is a

collection of math resources for parents, teachers and students. This class and activity

required me to truly evaluate these resources through a different lens than I typically do.

As opposed to looking at the activity as a fun thing for students to do, I was forced to

view these activities as extensions of learning that happens in the classroom and

evaluate what standards these games align with. This is an important component of

curriculum development though I didn’t realize it at the time. This work is similar to

Wiles’ content walks he encourages teachers to do as they work through enhancing

existing curricula laying the foundation for the curriculum development work I was doing

with the district and helped me to see the importance of aligning everything I do as a

teacher as closely to the standards students are asked to master as possible to

continually foster rigorous learning in and outside of the classroom.

This activity directly impacted how curriculum development and evaluation

looked like in my science instruction. While taking TE 861A I was very involved in

curriculum development for the district’s Computer Science (CS) program. After

engaging in evaluating online resources for science, I was better able to look at and

evaluate the resources the district provided us for ELA and Science and find ways to

align those lessons and standards to the CS curriculum myself and a team of teachers

were developing. In this team, I was responsible for finding ways to integrate CS
concepts and content into the existing curriculum, so practicing the earlier exercise

allowed for me to take a deeper dive into both Science and ELA to see where we could

bring about computer science standards to re-inforce these core concepts in Artifact 6.

By taking this curriculum walk (Wiles, 2009) and working through evaluating outside

resources and their alignment to curriculum and standards, I was able to create a

curriculum plan that I am currently using in my classroom to help students build upon

the core content knowledge and bring in computational thinking and computer science

skills.

I was also able to further evaluate myself and my students’ work in a different

manner. Artifact 4.5 is the finalized product of my literacy learner analysis project in TE

846. The feedback provided on this project allowed me to dig deeper in my analyzing

assessments as well as using that information to inform interventions for students. By

constantly receiving feedback on my throughout and planning process in my

interventions, I was able to take a deeper look at what exactly my students were having

difficulties with and what form of instruction and intervention would best suit them.

Going through this activity and evaluating one student’s work, allowed me to better

serve other students I was working with over the summer and currently impacts my

small group interventions in my current classroom. I learned to look deeper into my

students’ backgrounds and motivations. This work continues to challenge me and

prompt me to think “what next”? I always thought of myself as someone who understood

my students and their diverse backgrounds, but until this project, I didn’t think too

critically about what that means in terms of the learning they do in the classroom and

how they engage with the various tasks we are doing in the classroom. One way I have
seen this come through is looking at a challenge I am having with some of my students

giving up prior to having tried a task- specifically in their online work. By looking at these

students and their backgrounds (coming straight to kindergarten from home) I realized

that they spent most of their time home with family or caretakers in constant close

proximity. That proximity is a form of comfort and reassurance for them and in difficult or

challenging times and environments, this proximity alone gives them the confidence

needed to attempt a task. Knowing this allows me to now consider “what’s next” in

terms of my small group implementation and what their independent learning space

looks like.

Working through this program turned everything I thought I was good at on its

head. I was not only given a reality check, but a different perspective on what teaching

and learning looks like and is effected by. This put me in a constant state of inquiry, the

term lifelong learner gathered a new meaning. Asking what’s next didn’t just take place

in the context of my life, but on my student’s learning. What’s next in understanding how

the classroom set up is fostering or hindering growth? What’s next in the integration of

computer science and how is that impacting their development and understanding of

multiple content areas? This aided me in evaluating curriculum and activities when

working through the development of our district’s CS blueprint. With so much practice

evaluating, giving and receiving feedback, I was better equipped to evaluate the

resources that came into our planning group as well as my own resources I created. I

was able to hear feedback on lessons I created and use that to adjust those lessons

and evaluate my student’s performance from these lessons and activities. Practicing

evaluating work helped me to further fix and tweak the lesson to go back and try it
again, but better. My journey through this program allowed me to feel more confident in

collaborating with other teachers around the district and through the program, analyze

data and reflect on my teaching and the effect that and other factors have on my

students and their learning processes. All of this work helped to develop me as a

teacher leader. This work in the program alongside the work being done at the district

level put me in a position to be able to share the effects of putting all I had learned

together into the computer science curriculum development with others outside of the

district and across the state of Michigan.

All of this work provided the opportunity to really engage in the work of creating

and developing part of our curriculum for computer science in kindergarten.

Inadvertently, I was able to then develop my communication skills and put me in a

position as a teacher leader in the state of Michigan. This small scale curriculum cycle

(Wiles, 2009) placed me in a position to present the work we have been doing in our

district to teachers and school improvement contractors around the state of Michigan

(Artifact 7). This program has allowed for doors and opportunities to open up for me that

I never dreamed of. With the conclusion of this program, I am again asked to consider

the question “What next?”

This capstone has given me a new perspective on curriculum development and

has helped me to view the work I have done thus far as a part of each piece of Wiles’

curriculum cycle. I am able to evaluate my student’s needs prior to a new unit, make

changes and integrate different lessons and standards in my own curriculum walk,

evaluate their work with my master teachers and make the necessary adjustments to

continue improving my work as a teacher and my students’ learning and development.

As our district transitions to finding a new Executive Director of Computer Science, I

have a new understanding of the process of developing a curriculum and can advocate

for pieces we previously missed to be included in the further development and

implementation of our curriculum plan. I also have a constant need and drive for

working with other teachers in my school and district to continue working to evaluate

and analyze our work to continue to best serve our students based on their needs.

I have no definitive answers for what my next “dream” is for my career, but I have

a new passion for continuing to improve my practice both in and outside the higher

education sphere. I am excited to share this excitement and passion with the adult

learners around me and hopefully bring forth a new passion for continual inquiry and

curriculum development in our school and district.

Works Cited

Labaree, D. (2000, May/June). On the Nature of Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2),

227-33.

University of Michigan. (2018). Teaching Works. Retrieved from teachingworks.org:

http://www.teachingworks.org/work-of-teaching/high-leverage-practices

Wiles, J. (2009). Leading curriculum development. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press