The Quality Teaching Framework - a Tool of Assessment in the Teaching-Learning Process in a Classroom - Case Study Example

Analysis of Current Pedagogy in the room Instructions: Provide an analysis of the pedagogy in a room you visit using both the readings and the 18 elements of the QT framework. You will need to provide a description of the lesson or activity that will enable your analysis to make sense to readers. You should use the Quality Teaching Classroom Practice Guide to assist your judgments of the lesson. You will need to explain your judgments for both the discrete episode of teaching and associated elements of the QT framework, and for what this kind of pedagogy produces in general. Having a hand in the development of a child’s literacy skills gives a teacher a great sense of fulfillment. Merely teaching him to read already provides much satisfaction, how much more if he develops comprehension skills that would lead to a more solid knowledge base? A child’s appreciation of reading and books may depend on his teacher’s influence and adeptness in the teaching-learning process. This paper will be analyzing one teacher’s current pedagogy in the classroom and the possible effects on her students. Lesson Background: Observation was held in a 50-minute class involved in reading texts. The reading tasks were aimed at developing the students’ reading skills, and deepening their understanding of the text, by having the students participate in collaborative reading and by examining specific events and settings. The students engaged in talking and listening tasks expected to develop their listening and oral presentation skills. . The class was divided into 4 ability groups with 5-6 students in each group. A menu board was on display for students to collect their assigned activities. A text appropriate to their level was assigned to each group. Each group worked independently while the teacher went around working with a specific Reader’s Circle group. Beforehand, the teacher and students negotiated how much of the text is to be read before the next session. (e.g 2-3 chapters). On their own, the students analysed the cover of the book and predicted what the text might be about. The students recorded and displayed this on large paper. The recordings were on what they liked about the story (e.g. characters, events etc.); what they didn’t like; anything that they didn’t understand (e.g. parts of the story, or why certain characters behaved in a certain way; patterns (e.g. in the text, illustrations, events, etc.) The group met again this time with the teacher to discuss what they read and any other issue related to the text that came up. All the students’ responses were recorded under the categories listed above. Section 1: Description of lesson episode The lesson began with the teacher in the Reader’s Circle group meeting in a designated area in the classroom. The necessary materials were on hand for their use. The teacher led the group by directing her students and keeping them focused on the tasks like scribing the identified details related to the text. The students analysed the cover of the book appropriated to their group and predicted what it might be about. They recorded on large paper the predictions as well as what they liked and did not like about the story; parts which were unclear to them; some patterns in the story that they have observed. After reading and recording their insights, the students began the discussion about the text they have read and any other related issues that needed discussing. The teacher recorded all the students’ responses under the categories they have come up with. She analysed with the students the information gathered and try to make connections. She focused on the students’ attention on character development; plot development and theme development and the techniques that the author used to create the story. Section 2: QT judgements of lesson episode: The following table identifies the elements of quality teaching present in the episode; provides the scores given for each of the 18 elements and; includes evidence from the episode to justify the score. Dimension 1: Intellectual Quality Element Score Comments 1.1 Deep knowledge 5 Students were tasked to focus on the minutest detail of the text and relationships between concepts were explored. 1.2 Deep understanding 4 Students wrote all their insights regarding the text. The fact that they were free to bring up questions or issues that were unclear to them showed that the teacher valued it to target deep understanding of the text after the lesson is long over. 1.3 Problematic knowledge 5 Coming together as a group to discuss the text brings about various perspectives aired out that needed acceptance and acknowledgement and respect from all even if some of the ideas did not agree with their own viewpoints. For some points, students needed to argue for and against in order to come to a clearer understanding of the text and the issues that surrounded it. 1.4 Higher-order thinking 3 A significant amount of time was spent in recording students’ insights on the text, and mostly, they were interested in the ideas written that came from them. It was only with the teacher that they shifted more focus on the whole picture to engage in higher-order thinking such as evaluation, critical argumentation, making judgments and synthesizing concepts. 1.5 Metalanguage 2 Activities focused more on the mechanics of the story – the story elements of characterization, plot, events that transpired; and the students’ personal reactions to it more than the studying the language of the text. 1.6 Substantive communication 3 Students were asked to enumerate the things they knew about the story including what they liked best and least about it, and instead of them being tasked to communicate deeper via an exchange of opinions, it was the teacher who stepped in to facilitate that role. Dimension 2: Quality learning environment Element Score Comments 2.1 Explicit quality criteria 1 It was not made clear how the quality of the task is expected. The students were just provided instructions and were left to work on their own before the teacher called them to a Reader’s Circle. By then, it was the teacher directing the group and writing responses. Quality of the task fulfilled was not given much attention to. 2.2 Engagement 4 Students showed eagerness to share their insights to the group and contributed much to the discussion with or without the teacher. 2.3 High expectations 4 Teacher expected all students to participate and share in the responsibility of working on the task. 2.4 Social support 5 Students were able to give and receive support from each other and from their encouraging teacher. Those who at first were hesitant to share their insights on the text were gently prodded to surface their ideas into verbalization. No judgements against each other’s ideas were called, and all responses were respected. 2.5 Students self-regulation 4 Students were aware of their limits in the task. Those who were discouraged to stop before the task was completed were pulled to finish it with the support of others. Those who were overly enthusiastic to go beyond the time given were asked to wind down and choose their best insights to share. The group activities were generally self-regulated even if some groups became rowdy and others utterly passive. 2.6 Student direction 2 Although the teacher seemed to have planned an organized lesson, the parameters she provided limited students to exercise their freedom of choice. Dimension 3: Significance Element Score Comments 3.1 Background knowledge 4 The fact that students’ inputs were asked for regarding how they predict the story will go already takes into consideration their background knowledge and experiences based on the cover. Also, the task on asking them what they liked best and least in the story and explaining why already signifies interest in their personal background knowledge. 3.2 Cultural knowledge 1 There was no reference to cultural knowledge in the lesson. 3.3 Knowledge integration 4 Discussions tied together what the students understood from the story as well as how it affects them personally. Patterns in the events of the story were also noted, fusing technical knowledge in literature of the students and their critical thinking skills. 3.4 Inclusivity 5 Students are given every opportunity to work in this class; their opinions are valued and welcomed. Students responded to their teacher warmly and with respect, and readily volunteered ideas and thoughts. 3.5 Connectedness 3 The large paper documenting all the students’ responses was central in helping students connect what they know from the text to what they know from real life, however, this was not given much emphasis in their group discussions. 3.6 Narrative 4 The students had much to say about the text and how they personally related to it. This was evident in the discussions, although the large paper did not specify all the details due to space and time constraints. The story was an effective instigator of communication among the students, engaging them to narrate their own insights. Section 3: Evaluating Quality Teaching in Lesson Episode “Ability grouping refers to the process of teaching students in groups that are stratified by achievement, skill, or ability levels.” (McCoach, O’connell & Levitt, 2006, p. 339). Group work is used as a strategy to facilitate the organisation and management of the class and as an approach to support differentiation for the range of attainment within the class. Ability grouping facilitates focused teaching which increases pupil achievement by reducing the range of ability within a particular group. Children working in groups achieve success when targets are set and time limits are given at each phase of the activity and that they are given enough time to share their own ideas and to explain these to one another. The teacher ideally intervenes, or at some point becomes a contributing member of the group modelling appropriate listening and collaborative behaviours (Williamson, 2006). Williamson (2006) concluded in her study with grouping children that individual work may spur pupils’ feelings of isolation, with no one to bounce ideas off. They feel more confident and motivated when working in a group and reporting back to the class due to the elevated confidence in the work they were part of producing as a group. They felt less frustrated when a problem seems unsolvable because in working as a group, they are more willing to spend time discussing with others alternatives to tackling problems. Vygotsky (1978) believed that children’s intellectual development is influenced more by social context than by individual experiences. His theory places a great deal of emphasis on effective social interaction. Collaboration in learning brings about more knowledge acquisition than what would be generated through independent, individual learning. The idea of grouping children according to their ability has many advantages. Many teachers may argue that it is a more effective way of teaching. Grouping makes better use of time. If children of similar ability were grouped together for example, it would be easier for a teacher to talk and give instructions directly to that group. Paying particular attention to time restrictions, tasks would be more efficient and less tedious for children if they were working collaboratively with children of similar ability. In addition, working in similar ability groups enables the teacher to assess each groups needs more effectively and allows children on the same level to have the opportunity to share ideas with each other and support each other in their learning. As seen in the lesson episode observed, ability groups encourage collaborative learning because the students of equal status work together in small groups toward a common goal. It fosters much social interaction, which may be the key to understanding others better (Saleh, Lazonder & De Jong, 2005). As in most interactions, communication is essential as both parties get to have a better grasp of concepts talked about. The party receiving explanations gain more understanding while the party doing the explanation benefits from the “cognitive restructuring” involved in peer tutoring which may trigger the realization and repair of misconceptions and knowledge gaps (Webb & Palinscar, 1996). Knowledge becomes co-constructed by group members as they build on each other’s ideas and considering and discussing the significance of personal beliefs until mutual agreement is reached (Damon & Phelps, 1989; Slavin, 1995). This agrees with Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of intersubjectivity. This is when two people are engaged in a task and begin from different understandings but with interaction, comes to an agreed, shared understanding. This is usually manifested when students initially debate opposite arguments but upon more understanding of the concept because of listening to each other’s opinions, will both end up seeing the concept in one direction. Black (2002) agrees that in planning the curriculum, teachers should choose learning activities that fully engage students. She explains that for students to know and understand important curriculum concepts, hands on activities should also be “minds-on”. The teacher was successful in doing this with the group as she first assigned some tasks to them and then left them on their own to work and engage in the activities suggested in the menu board. It was evident that children actively participated in the activities both individually and in groups. Cazden (2000 p.251) describes one of the skills of a reading recovery teacher is that of individualizing the curriculum for the students by identifying and then building on the strengths of the student. The teacher’s high level of expectation for these students stems from the knowledge she has of them and the ability to build upon their strengths. Her belief that all students can learn heightens the value she places on learning and this is conveyed to the students. Each person has a literacy identity or “the sum total of what he or she already knows and can do.” (Anstèy & Bull, 2006). This includes the socio-cultural processes and knowledge of the learner. Life experiences provide people with a gamut of resources about literacy and literate practices, contributing to their overall identity. These different domains or identities are collectively known as discourse worlds and suggest that students draw on two in particular to make meaning, the lifeworld (i.e., everything that exists outside school) and the school-based world. The distinction between the two is that the lifeworld represents real world experiences, and school experiences represent contrived experiences in the academic setting. Newmann, et al (1995) emphasize the importance of the learning connection between the classroom and the real world. It is essential that teachers show their students how to know and use their literacy identities because what students know, understand and can do with texts depend on being aware of the resources available to them – the knowledge and experiences they have. When students realize that they do not have the precise ones they need, then they can use what they have, combining whatever elements to suit the tasks at hand. In the lesson observed, including in the activity the students’ personal reaction to the text (e.g. What they like most/ least about it) adds its significance to their life outside the classroom setting. Newmann, Marks, & Gamoran (1995 p.8) claim that “authentic pedagogy pays off in improved academic achievement” was clearly evident in this lesson by the way the students could draw upon their prior learning and verbalise their understanding. In relation to this, Avery (1999, p.368) suggests that higher order thinking, deep knowledge, substantive conversation and connections to the world beyond the classroom ensured authentic instruction. In conclusion, the lesson episode observed proved an effective pedagogy strategy in surfacing each students’ insights and in eliciting their active participation in the activity. Although the QT assessment did not yield a perfect score, the lesson itself was adjudged as on its way to becoming a great pedagogy applied in the classroom. The Quality Teaching Framework was proven as an essential tool of assessment in the teaching-learning process in a classroom. Moreover, it definitely helps in the teacher’s reflection and self-evaluation of her strengths and weaknesses and in pursuing her goals related to professional development. References Anstèy, M. & Bull, G. (2006) From Teaching and Learning Multiliteracies: Changing Times, Changing Literacies. International Reading Association Avery, P. (1999). Authentic assessment and instruction. Social Education, 65, 368-373. Black, S. (May 2002). Stretching Students’ minds: effective teaching is about what students will learn – not just what they’ll do. Inform, pp. 30-33. Calkins, L. (1997) Raising Lifelong Learners, A Parents’ Guide. MA: Perseus Books. Cazden, C (2000). Taking cultural differences into account. In B. Cope & Kalantzis (Eds.); Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge. Chapter 12, pp. 249-266. Damon, W. & Phelps, E. (1989). Strategic users of peer learning in children’s education. In T. Berndt & G. Ladd, eds, Peer Relationships in Child Development, pp. 13–157. New York: Wiley. McCoach, D.B., O’Connell, A.A., Levitt, H. (2006) “Ability Grouping Across Kindergarten Using an Early Childhood Longitudinal Study”, The Journal of Educational Research, July/August [Vol. 99(No. 6)] Newmann, F. M., Marks, H.M., & Gamoran, A. (1995). Authentic pedagogy: Standards that boost student performance. Issues in Restructuring Schools, Issue Report 8. NSW Department of Education and Training (2003) ‘Quality teaching in NSW public schools: A practice guide’ Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W. & De Jong, T. (2005) “Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation”, Instructional Science 33: 105–119 Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Boston: Allyn Bacon. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Webb, N.M. & Palinscar, A.S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee, eds, Handbook of Educational Psychology, pp. 841–873. NewYork: MacMillan ). Williamson, V. (2006) “Group And Individual Work” , Mathematics Teaching Incorporating Micromath.,March 2006 Read More