Please click on the highlighted links to go directly to the artifact!
Artifact 1: (Three links)
Standards: 1, 2
Goals: 2
Artifact 1 is a mixture of different methods to implement
technology in the classroom in order to tackle common misconceptions. I chose
to do this project with my eight-grade science class. This is work compiled from my CEP 800 class.
The digital story
captures the journey through discovery my eight graders undertook when they
taught first graders characteristics of living and nonliving organisms. I
pre-assessed my students and noticed that they were having some major
misconceptions on this topic, especially with the concept of “moving” used to
describe a living object. For example, some students thought that a bike would
be a living organism because it moves. We learned in CEP800 that one of the
ways to ensure mastery of a concept is to be able to teach it to younger
students. Eight graders crafted and designed their own lessons and were able to
learn the concepts while teaching them to the first graders, successfully
tackling misconceptions along the way.
The technology based
lesson plan is also about the characteristics of living and nonliving
things, challenging again the concept of “movement” as one of the
characteristics. Students used microscopes and Motic cameras to capture images
of a living bug on a fern in their laptop, posting their findings in their
science blogs along with a brief explanation of what they learned during the
lab.
The student interview
was a way for me to pre-assess two of my students in my eight grade science
class. This interview’s main objective was to learn how much my students knew
about magnets, and to capture this pre-assessment in order to review it during
and after the unit was introduced to the class.
This artifact served many major accomplishments in my
science classroom. The first one, it taught me how to use technology in a
simple, efficient way. The second accomplishment was for me to be able to not
only identify the misconceptions they had prior to starting a unit, but also to
be able to draft and adapt lesson plans to tackle those misconceptions. Most
importantly, students were able to see the “before” and “after” effect of
learning, which they loved.
This artifact was important for my teaching because I always
wanted to develop my skills and my pedagogical knowledge in the technology area
as many different programs have been developed and can be used efficiently in
the classroom. This type of pursue of personal goals is clearly described in
goal 2, accomplished teaching. It was important for me that the students
utilized all this work somehow and that it wasn’t just “busy work” for me as a
teacher. I was committed to the students and understood their diversity and
capacity to learn. We were able to identify misconceptions, have fun,
interactive lesson plans that involved projects and teaching other grade levels.
Students still talk about the lessons they did and how much they learned,
showing me that I was successful in creating a positive learning community in
the classroom.
Artifact 2:
Standards: 1, 4
Goals: 1, 2
Artifact 2 is an action research project I did for my TE 808
class. For this action research, I investigated: How the implementation of a
positive behavior intervention system (PBIS) improved student behavior and
reduced the number of in class disruptions, in a seventh grade science room.
During this project, I was able to write a literature review, obtain and
provide peer writing feedback, write a proposal and a book review, and align
this whole project to the MATC standards and goals. All this work is compiled
in a website.
This artifact is important to me for two main reasons.
First, it was the first time I conducted an action research project and learned
the many technicalities, parts and mechanics of the project itself. This
project was also important because positive behavior intervention is a crucial
issue for me. I saw this project as a perfect opportunity to put into action my
informal research done years before. Therefore, this project was able to give
me the means to communicate and formally conduct an action research on a topic
that was dear to me.
After doing this project, I could see the main differences
between a regular research paper and an action research. I kept thinking of the
saying I had in my website: “If you always do what you always did, then you’ll
always get what you always got.” I was able to automatically use the action
plan in my classroom and it was great to see that the work we did at the
university was relevant to our daily work as a teacher. A positive learning community where the
relationship between my students and I was very proactive is probably one of
the biggest outcomes of this project. The nature of this class expects you and
requires you to be reflective of your own practice, and based on those
reflections we then improve our own teaching.
After this project, I learned to critically inquire about different
professional literature and research, and analyzed all this new information in
accordance to our point of view, and different perspectives.
Artifact 3:
Standards: 1, 4
Goals: 1, 2
Article 3 is an ABC Case Study project I did for my CEP 832
class. I choose one of my students and identified a specific behavioral issue
that later I collected and analyzed data on. I then proposed a behavioral
strategy plan and analyzed its effectiveness. Finally, I compared my
professional stance pre and post using those strategies. The challenging behavior I targeted for my
project was the non-responsiveness and defiance that my student exhibited
during my reading lesson.
This case study was important to my teaching because of the
nature of the reading program we were using as a school. Corrective reading B1,
requires students to answer in a choral unison response after a teacher asks a
question, gives think time and provides them with a signal. This case study was
important for the school because many classes were facing the same behavioral
issues during reading class. Students were not answering on signal and were
getting many major referral forms (behavior tracking sheet) due to defiance.
Soon after the class was over, I was able to recommend the
strategies analyzed in this project to other colleagues that were facing the
same behavioral issues. The most important outcome from this whole process was
the strong relationship I was able to build with my student. I enjoyed seeing
him in different non-structured settings and I was able to start conversations
that allowed us to grow a sense of mutual respect. This enabled me to
understand my student as an individual, creating a positive productive
relationship in my classroom. Also through this process, I was able to reflect
and systematically inquire into my own beliefs and assumptions in my classroom.
It was important for me to see that I could only control my behavior in the
classroom, which in turns creates a different environment and changes the
students’ behavior.
Artifact 4:
Standards: 1, 3, 6
Goals: 1, 3
The school I am currently working at had a cohort from the
Lehigh University that offered two classes to the teacher leaders or
coordinators. For one of the classes, SpED 465, we were asked to complete an
IEP Analysis and Development project. This project consisted on researching a
minimum of 5 alternative education plan forms, proposing other models based on
research and RTI framework, providing samples of revisions to the form we were
using and, as a group, presenting a two to three sample IEPs to staff and
collecting input through PD. Finally, we summarized the staff input and made
suggestions to administration for the new IEP. After meeting in our small
groups, and sharing almost 30 different forms of IEPs and learning plans, we
came up with our top five choices. These are the ones we proposed based on
research and the RTI framework. Out of those five forms, we decided on the
three that met our needs the most and presented the to the rest of the staff
along with our back then current IEP to be discussed from a Math, writing and
Data perspective.
This project was important for our school because we serve a
very special population. Our students are behind an average of three grade
levels, have learning disabilities and/or behavior problems. Our school is very
small in size (it is expanding to 500 students, but currently has about 350)
and it consists of four smaller “schools”. We have elementary, middle, high
school and ATLC, (Awsaj Teaching and Learning Center) which serves students at
our school that are in need of intensive interventions. When I first came to this school, we only had
two major schools, elementary and secondary, and all of our kids were in some
type of IEP. However, this IEP was not efficient and teachers did not review or
used it to differentiate their daily lessons. This project was an attempt of
our school to create a system that was more convenient and applicable to our
students.
It was interesting to see what staff had to say about the
four IEPs or learning plans we presented to them. Some of the staff were not
used to working with these forms so did not feel comfortable making
suggestions, while others wee wither frustrated with our current IEP and wanted
changes, or really liked our current IEP and preferred to work with something they
were comfortable and familiar with. It was obvious that we were all committed
and understood our students and their diversity throughout this whole process.
We wanted students to develop and maximize their potential and ability to
learn. This was clearly an issue and a problem of practice in our school, and
we used different theoretical perspectives and conceptual frameworks to tackle
this situation. This was the first project I was able to do as a teacher
leader, beyond the classroom walls and it taught me how to provide professional
development while keeping everyone focused on a topic but at the same time
respecting the different opinions and perceptions others teachers bought to the
table.
Artifact 5:
Standards: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6
Goals: 1, 3
The school I am currently working at, had a cohort from the
Lehigh University that offered two classes to the teacher leaders or
coordinators. For one of the classes, SpED 452, we were asked to describe and
analyze the school current assessment framework, review student performance
data from the last three years, identify students needs, based on student
performance and using the RTI framework and finally, present a powerpoint to
the staff on the collective findings during professional development.
When assessing the students at our school, we follow the
four major types in an assessment system. We have screening, diagnostic,
progress monitoring and summative assessments. In prior years, we had many
assessments we used at our school, but this data was often filed away and not
reviewed or analyzed. It was important that a team of teacher leaders got
together and analyzed this available but not used data in order to triangulate
it and make recommendations based on the findings. These recommendations would
help us be more effective with our program and level placements.
Although this project looked at three years worth of Math
data, it was the perfect catalyst for our school to start looking at data
differently and more analytically in all subject areas. Teachers are currently
attending biweekly data meetings with their coach and using data as the third
person in the PLC meetings. It is great to see such a great shift in regards to
this approach. As a coach, I have been able to use data to back up my
decisions. I also notice that teachers respect, support and trust a decision
more if it is based on different sets of data. Looking back at how our school utilized data
to make decisions and how it is used now, I see a great development. I am proud
to be part of this movement where we look at the student as a whole, paying
close attention to their diversity, capacity to learn and developmental rate.
Thanks to this project, we also started looking at available resources through
different lenses and conceptual frameworks and analyzed issues and problems of
practice in an effective, proactive way. This project helped me reflect on my
own beliefs, assumptions and practices and understand how students can be
affected based on decisions and actions we make daily. I was able to practice
my communication skills and present a written project to the director of my
school and to the rest of the school in a professional development presentation
and through smaller professional learning communities.
Artifact 6:
Standards: 3, 5, 6
Goals: 1, 3
During my EAD 867 class, we were asked to review different
case studies and write a reflection paper. The paper was supposed to be divided
into a brief summary of the case study, major issues and tensions, and
suggested next steps. We were asked to support our ideas for this paper with
the articles and literature provided by the class instructor and based on our
own research on the different leadership topics.
This paper was important to me because it gave me a
different perspective of the different issues in leadership. Because I didn’t
have other prior experience to that of the school I currently work at, it was
important that I investigated and analyzed other issues in leadership that were
not necessarily congruent to my own environment, specially if I wanted to move
back to the states into a leadership position.
Through this paper I was able to understand and use
different theoretical perspectives and learn about the different frameworks to
analyze issues and problems of practice and policy. I was also able to practice
my communication skills and information literacy through a well-written essay,
meeting the technical and mechanical requirements of the class. Most
importantly, I was able to review the literature and read many different
interesting articles, that related
directly to my work and practice. This paper introduced me to a larger,
international leadership community; one that I am eager to join. Through
critical inquiry and teacher leadership, I was able to make connections between
my current work and the different scenarios proposed in the class. Which in
turn helped me develop next steps in real life after analyzing different issues
and tensions at the workplace.
Artifact 7:
Standards: 5, 6
Goals: 1, 3
A second assignment that I chose as artifact 7 was from my
EDD 867 class. In this assignment, we were giving different articles and
literature and the book “Leading with soul” from the author Lee G. Bolman and
asked to write an essay about what we believed were the differences between
leading and managing.
This particular assignment was important to me because I was
starting to concentrate more on my leadership classes while pursuing my MATC
degree. It was essential for me to start leading with soul as soon as I signed
up for a leadership position and I wish I would’ve taken this class before.
Teachers and administrators at my school did not see the difference between
leading and managing, and this paper portrays the main characteristics of each.
This assignment helped me use different research and
literature to explain the main differences between leading and managing to
other teachers and administrators in my building. It gave me the tools
necessary to deliver my ideas supported by the readings, articles and book. It
also helped me understand the main idea behind “hire the heart and train the
brain” described in my synthesis paper. It also taught me that a leader is not
a good leader if he/she is working alone, this whole process is derived by
professional community work and a shared vision.
No comments:
Post a Comment