tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633217866579413382024-02-18T17:39:12.659-08:00Thinking, learning and teachingEducation doctoral students posts about about what they are reading and ideas about educationwayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.comBlogger138125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-57401538816796073182018-02-02T12:10:00.000-08:002018-02-02T12:10:02.832-08:00Zhao (2002) Conditions for Classroom Technology Innovations TCR<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 27.0pt; text-indent: -27.0pt;">
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S. & Byers, J.L. (2002). Conditions for Classroom Technology Innovations. Teachers College Record, 104 (3), 482-515.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 27.0pt; text-indent: -27.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidRYFVQvWSWQXGnTzIi4qdLi8zd9MkgDKQT4rUsxva_E4UdMy5c5Fdsm21r5Y5R2WL_QRUjS4atl6ulrhusDY1UQWiVkLGI_4oW_iCCgvNIAHSbvyBeNyeqn01_DamzooEHdsNtyfkB89J/s1600/Zhao_2002_Fig_1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="536" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidRYFVQvWSWQXGnTzIi4qdLi8zd9MkgDKQT4rUsxva_E4UdMy5c5Fdsm21r5Y5R2WL_QRUjS4atl6ulrhusDY1UQWiVkLGI_4oW_iCCgvNIAHSbvyBeNyeqn01_DamzooEHdsNtyfkB89J/s320/Zhao_2002_Fig_1.JPG" width="298" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>click to enlarge</i></div>
<br />
9 factors in 3 categories<br />
<br />
The Innovator (teacher)<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Knowledge of the technology and its enabling conditions</li>
<li>Pedagogy-technology compatibility</li>
<li>Knowledge of the organizational and social culture of the school</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
The Innovation (project)<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Distance from the school culture</li>
<li>Distance from available resources</li>
<li>Distance from the innovator's current practices</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
The Context (school)<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Technology infrastructure</li>
<li>Human infrastructure</li>
<li>Organizational culture</li>
</ul>
wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-4266246789592018832017-03-20T10:54:00.004-07:002017-03-20T10:54:41.280-07:00Effective Professional Development - Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles et al (2003)According to Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003, p. 44), Effective Professional Development<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Is driven by a well-defined image of effective classroom learning and teaching;</li>
<li>Provides opportunities for teachers to build their content and PCK and examine practice;</li>
<li>Is research-based and engages teachers as adult learners in the learning approaches they will use with their students; </li>
<li>Provides opportunities for teachers to collaborate with colleagues and others to improve their practice;</li>
<li>Supports teachers to serve in leadership roles;</li>
<li>Links with other parts of the education system; and</li>
<li>Is designed based on student learning data and is continuously evaluated and improved.</li>
</ol>
<br />
<div>
Citation:</div>
<div>
<div>
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K.E., Mundy, S., & Hewson, P.E. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-66934996533413071012016-07-12T11:42:00.003-07:002016-07-12T11:42:32.574-07:00Six Types of Educators according to KQED<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.333333333333332px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">From KQED.org:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.333333333333332px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Have you ever wondered what type of educator you might be? Are you a Teacher 2.0, a Motivator, or a Scholar? Maybe you’re more of a Social Justice Champion, a Cultivator, or a Project Planner? Take the quiz to discover your teacher type and refresh your teaching skills in time for the upcoming school year by signing up for KQED Teach. </span><a href="https://ww2.kqed.org/education/2016/07/08/what-type-of-21st-century-educator-are-you/" style="line-height: 1.38; text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.3333px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">https://ww2.kqed.org/education/2016/07/08/what-type-of-21st-century-educator-are-you/</span></a></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.333333333333332px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Six Types of Educators</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
</div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.3333px; line-height: 1.38; white-space: pre-wrap;">Teacher 2.0 - You're constantly looking for new tools and solutions to apply to the classroom. You believe that digital literacy is the most important skill students need for the future. Some of your key values include technology literacy, adaptability, creativity, collaboration, communication, and media literacy.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.3333px; line-height: 1.38; white-space: pre-wrap;">Motivator - You focus on activating intrinsic motivation in students and inspiring students to be self-directed learners in order to prepare them for professional and personal challenges. Some of your key values include flexibility, self-direction, intrinsic motivation, tenacity, and resilience.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.3333px; line-height: 1.38; white-space: pre-wrap;">Scholar: You value traditions and knowledge in your content area. Your lessons focus on building essential academic skills to prepare students for college. Some of your key values include cultural literacy, traditional literacy skills, accountability, and mastery of content knowledge.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.3333px; line-height: 1.38; white-space: pre-wrap;">Social Justice Champion: Your lessons focus on a critical examination of society, institutions, and authority in order to empower students to lead change. Some of your key values include initiative, leadership, cross-cultural skills, global awareness, civic literacy, and media literacy.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.3333px; line-height: 1.38; white-space: pre-wrap;">Cultivator: Your lessons focus on students social and emotional well-being. You make assignments personal, ensure all students needs are being met, and value reflection and emotional growth. Some of your key values include student health and well being, self-awareness, social skills, and resilience.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Project Planner: You value deep learning experiences in order to make content relevant to your students. You consistently promote active engagement with real-world problems in your lessons. Some of your key values include critical thinking, problem solving, self-direction, collaboration, and producing for an authentic audience.</span></li>
</ol>
wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-27899112096341708112016-04-10T05:07:00.007-07:002016-06-09T07:23:50.387-07:00Core Practice in Science Ed - Facilitating Classroom Discourse<b>Facilitating Classroom Discourse</b><br />
The teacher creates opportunities for students to engage in science related talk with the teacher and among peers. Fluency with this practice is demonstrated by the teacher providing opportunities for small group and whole class discussion; facilitates students’ sharing of evidence- and/or model-based explanations and arguments; and encourages students to take up, clarify, and justify the ideas of others. Furthermore, this practice focuses on the extent to which the teacher can establish the normative rules for discourse between students and model common discursive practices used in science. (p 1197)<br />
<br />
from Kloser, M. (2014). Identifying a core set of science teaching practices: A Delphi expert panel approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1185–1217. doi: 10.1002/tea.21171<br />
<br />
<a href="http://corepracticeconsortium.com/research" target="_blank">Core Practice Consortium</a><br />
<br />
<br />wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-75983040639951369272016-03-29T15:09:00.000-07:002016-03-29T15:09:12.148-07:00Faculty First: The Challenge of Infusing the Teacher Education Curriculum with Scholarship on ELLsCosta, J., McPhail, G., Smith, J., Brisk, M. (2005) Faculty First: The Challenge of<br />
Infusing the Teacher Education Curriculum with Scholarship on English<br />
Language Learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(2), 104-118.<br />
<br />
This article describes the first of a 3-year project offered to the faculty of a TE program, as well as the ideas of and feedback from the institute participants as they worked together to change individual course syllabi.<br />
<br />
Successfully engaging faculty in a learning activity requires careful attention to four broad factors:<br />
1) the culture of the academic department,<br />
2) the source of change efforts,<br />
3) the external influences at play, and<br />
4) the process of faculty education.<br />
<br />
-----------------<br />
p106<br />
Educating TE faculty about ELLs requires that faculty be intellectually receptive to reflecting on issues and concepts of multiculturalism and multilingualism and to critically examining “the knowledge construction process and text analysis within different disciplines” (Nevarez et al., 1997, p. 166). Faculty must also be ready to examine personal assumptions and to sharpen their awareness of the cultures, languages, and the classroom experiences of ELLs. In this way, TE faculty will be better able to guide TE students.<br />
<br />
p115<br />
TE program change could occur because of several concurrent factors.<br />
+ First, the faculty was ready to participate in the institute, as demonstrated by their philosophical agreement with the university’s and department’s focus on issues of social justice and on their voluntary participation.<br />
+ Second, funding for the institute allowed participants to be compensated for their time and made it possible for the facilitator to supply each participant with important reading material in the form of journal articles, data, and Internet resources, including some readings pertinent to the areas of each participant’s greatest interest.<br />
+ Third, the facilitator provided expertise and guidance in navigating the theoretical and practical knowledge about educating ELLs, as well as a plan for enacting concrete change across the curriculum.<br />
+ Fourth, the facilitator’s constructivist approach in the institute activities and interactions demonstrated flexibility in allowing participants to approach their learning as they wanted, acceptance of the variety of experiences and points of view that participants brought to the institute, and the valuing of cultural and linguistic differences among participants (Jackson & Caffarella, 1994).<br />
<br />
In short, through the institute, the facilitator modelled important practices that could be applied in teaching TE students about how to best serve ELLs.<br />
<br />
=============<br />
article Outline<br />
<br />
Intro / larger issue: TE for ELs<br />
<br />
FACULTY EDUCATION FOR CHANGE<br />
4 factors that influence faculty in a learning activity<br />
TE Faculty Education on ELLs for Curricular Change: need for faculty to be intellectually receptive<br />
<br />
THE FACULTY INSTITUTE ON ELLS<br />
Background<br />
Description of context<br />
Institute Participants and Their Prior Experience<br />
Institute Goals<br />
<br />
Institute Activities<br />
ELLs and the Sociopolitical Climate of Public Education<br />
ELLs and School Climate<br />
Classroom Context That Supports All Learners<br />
Faculty Reflection and Syllabi Changes<br />
Summer Seminar<br />
Program Change<br />
<br />
DISCUSSION<br />
Individual change<br />
Program change<br />
Curriculum-wide changes<br />
Future research<br />
<br />
Conclusion<br />
<br />
<br />
===========<br />
Participants - 7 T.E. faculty (about 1/3 of total) - dept chair, plus linguistics prof., doctoral students, TEP placement director, local school reps (16 total)<br />
- SOE prepares ~800 PSTs/year - 560 undergrads, 250 grad students<br />
<br />
Institute Goals (p.107)<br />
+ The purpose of the institute was to change the teacher education curriculum to better prepare teachers for work with linguistically and culturally different (LCD) students.<br />
+ As an individual goal, each participant was expected first to look for ways to change his or her syllabus. Each new syllabus was expected to include material concerning the education of bilingual learners and delineate its objectives, topics and core knowledge, readings, assignments, and evaluation approaches. Faculty were to then implement all changes the next time they taught those courses.<br />
+ To integrate changes at the departmental level, participants would then work together to define the core knowledge about ELLs, as reflected in individual syllabus changes, and then decide in concert the best way to present the core knowledge across the curriculum. In this way, the new knowledge could increase in sophistication from one course to the next and share a common vocabulary.<br />
<br />
Faculty Institute Activities (Spring 2003 - Feb-May)<br />
+ Sessions (7 meetings) in one semester<br />
+ Discuss Readings & three overarching questions [see below]<br />
+ Discuss videos of SIOP<br />
+ School visits<br />
<br />
Summer Seminar (one day meeting)<br />
The summer seminar was a chance to present to the whole group those ideas for change that individual participants planned to incorporate in their individual courses.<br />
<br />
Three (3) overarching questions cover in the Faculty Institute on ELL<br />
1) How do we educate ELLs in the present sociopolitical climate of public education?<br />
2) How can we create a school climate that is conducive to learning for all learners?<br />
3) How can teachers create a classroom context that will promote learning for all learners?<br />
<br />
+ Other activities included monthly workshops for practicum supervisors and the development of two handbooks for elementary and secondary levels. All supervisors and preservice students in field placements received a copy.<br />
<br />wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-15133804620626028792016-03-29T15:08:00.002-07:002016-03-29T15:08:26.514-07:00The Training All Teachers Project - Carla MeskillInfusing English Language Learner Issues Throughout Professional Educator Curricula: The Training All Teachers Project 2005 TC Record<br />
Carla Meskill, University at Albany, State University of New York<br />
<br />
The federally funded Training All Teachers (TAT) project is an innovative program of curricular enhancement for preservice and inservice educators across disciplines. The project focuses on English language learners (ELLs) in U.S. schools and the fact that the training of school personnel in issues related to these learners’ needs has not kept pace with the growing numbers of these learners. The goal of the TAT project is to increase opportunities for all pre-/inservice teachers, pupil services personnel, administrators, and other education personnel to learn about issues specific to ELLs. To these ends, School of Education faculty across departments and disciplines participated in a variety of activities designed to support integration of ELL issues into their teacher/professional graduate courses. The goals and structure of these faculty development activities and their outcomes are discussed, as well as the implications of such training.<br />
<br />
The goals of the Training All Teachers (TAT) program of activities are<br />
(a) to infuse ELL issues throughout core curricula for teachers and school personnel in training and<br />
(b) to extend this knowledge into on-site partnerships with in-service practitioners and school personnel.<br />
<br />
Content of PD<br />
+ present ELL-related information (change beliefs & knowledge about ELLs)<br />
+ develop / revise course syllabi<br />
+ "push-in" work<br />
<br />
Professional development efforts concerning ELLs in U.S. schools must gently confront these often ingrained misconceptions. For the TAT Project, doing so consisted of sharing basic information with faculty in specific education courses and encouraging productive conversation. In the following section, specific activities designed for various participating faculty and students is detailed.<br />
--> Beliefs targeted<br />
Societal/Conceptual Challenges Regarding the Education of ELLs<br />
1) beliefs about the English language<br />
2) beliefs about ELLs' native language<br />
3) beliefs about language & learning<br />
4) beliefs about ELLs and their families<br />
<br />
In an effort to undertake curricular revision and enhancement of core courses required of all preparing and practicing classroom teachers, school administrators, counselors, and area specialists training at the university, TAT forums consisted of (a) ‘‘push-in’’ work, wherein ELL experts worked directly in participating faculty classrooms to infuse ELL issues on an ongoing basis; (b) group workshops with follow-on support, wherein faculty grouped by discipline were provided with knowledge and tools as a group, then individual support throughout the academic year; and (c) peer presentations, wherein graduate students specially trained in ELL issues presented tailored information to faculty and their students on demand.<br />
<br />
The training emphasized the following broad topics:<br />
Language: the nature of language and its relation to society and culture;<br />
Acquisition: the processes of first language (L1) and L2, including best instructional strategies and accommodations;<br />
Culture: cross-cultural issues in schooling;<br />
Regulations: roles and responsibilities of schools and school personnel regarding ELL children;<br />
Communication: methods for communicating effectively with school personnel and parents regarding ELL children.<br />
<br />
Additional topics of concern were determined for each of the focal groups: for example, special methods and accommodations for the teaching of mathematics to ELL children for math teacher educators, issues associated with biliteracy for reading specialists, and particular emphasis on state and federal regulations regarding ELL children for special education specialists and school administrators.<br />
<br />
Collaboration groups (~30 participants?)<br />
+ Math education<br />
+ Reading<br />
+ English language arts (ELA)<br />
+ Ed administration<br />
+ School counseling<br />
+ Ed psych<br />
+ Special ed<br />
<br />
<br />
OUTCOMES<br />
In part because of the complexities of such a potentially sensitive issue (individual faculty course content) and in part because of the dearth of models for working with higher education faculty on curricular enhancements, in addition to the core elements described above, project staff relied almost exclusively on planning and processes that emerged from work with individual faculty. As such, our project evaluation efforts, like our negotiations with participants, were structured to be as open-ended and responsive to individual contexts as possible.<br />
<br />
Each of the participating faculty completed a questionnaire to assess<br />
(a) any shifts in their beliefs concerning issues related to ELL children;<br />
(b) whether and how they had integrated training session content into their curricula; and<br />
(c) additional ELL-related issues they would be interested in pursuing in subsequent trainings<br />
5 faculty responses<br />
<br />
Additionally, 123 graduate students in participating courses completed a questionnaire concerning their knowledge of ELLs (see Appendix B). Students (n=123) from seven of the courses taught by participating faculty completed a questionnaire concerning their knowledge and understanding of ELLs.<br />
<br />
The TAT Project used push-in workshops in Math, ELA, School Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education classes, where TAT trainers infused ELL issues directly through minilectures, class activities, and discussions.<br />
<br />
Findings<br />
+ faculty's perceptions of ELLs changed<br />
+ In terms of faculty, participating instructors reported undertaking integration or plans to integrate this information in their professional educator curricula and consistently underscored the need for additional efforts at integrating ELL issues for future education professionals of all kinds.<br />
+ After working with the TAT Project, these faculty expressed eagerness to expand the role of ELL issues in their future courses.<br />
+ TAT-related course experiences appear to have provided students not only with increased awareness, but also with specific strategies for working with these children.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-56134926104661884922016-03-29T15:07:00.000-07:002016-03-29T15:07:03.887-07:00UConn - Toward Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teacher EducationToward Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teacher Education<br />
The Impact of a Faculty Learning Community on Two Teacher Educators<br />
Mileidis Gort, Wendy J. Glenn, and John Settlage<br />
<br />
Gort, M., Glenn, W., & Settlage, J. (2008). Toward Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teacher Education. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 178–194). New York: Routledge.<br />
<br />
The work presented here represents an initial step in a larger process of TE curriculum reform. We describe a faculty development initiative, including goals, activities, and resulting curricular changes, through the eyes of two focal participants—an English teacher educator and a science teacher educator— responding to the question: “What did participants learn as a result of this professional development experience?”<br />
<br />
Faculty development initiative<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>goals, </li>
<li>activities, and </li>
<li>resulting curricular changes</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<b>Theoretical Framework</b><br />
Our work is informed by work on faculty learning communities (FLCs) as powerful catalysts for initiating, developing, and sustaining faculty involvement in professional development (Cox, 2001, 2004; Decker Lardner, 2003; Hubball & Burt, 2004; Richlin & Cox, 2004; Richlin & Essington, 2004). FLCs are promising contexts for constructing meaningful local knowledge, challenging assumptions, posing problems, studying faculty/student learning and development, and reconstructing curriculum (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Cole & Knowles, 2000; Cox, 2004).<br />
<br />
Participants<br />
At the time of the study, Wendy, the English educator, was in her fifth year of teaching at the university.<br />
John, the science educator, is also a White, monolingual native English speaker.<br />
Millie, the bilingual educator, taught and directed the graduate program in Bilingual/Bicultural Education at the research site for five years.<br />
<br />
Monthly meetings: to expand their knowledge about the processes of language acquisition; the role of language in learning and assessment; cultural awareness and sensitivity; and classroom implications in the areas of planning, instruction, and assessment. Two faculty members in Bilingual Education served as mentors and provided participants with various readings and related materials and activities.<br />
<br />
Representative activities included:<br />
• Reviewing and discussing the stages of second language acquisition and application of this knowledge to sample teacher–student linguistic exchanges in an imagined classroom setting with the goals of (1) identifying the stage of second language proficiency represented, and (2) evaluating the teacher’s response from a linguistic perspective.<br />
• Evaluating ELL writing samples and discussing classroom teachers’ responses to these pieces and the larger issue of ELL assessment in school settings.<br />
• Sharing and discussing state and national policies related to the education of ELLs and reflecting on how this information might help pre-service teachers recognize the necessity for differentiated instruction for ELLs.<br />
• Reviewing and discussing the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004) and considering how the tool might be used in conjunction with existing lesson plan formats.<br />
• Writing personal journals focused on their experiences throughout the process.<br />
<br />
Mentoring/individual meetings / course revision work<br />
Between monthly whole group meetings, participants met individually with a mentor to receive more personalized support and guidance in the revision of the methods course curriculum.<br />
<br />
Some participants implemented the first revised syllabi when they taught the methods course the following semester. Wendy implemented the syllabus changes in the subject area methods course required for secondary English Education students in the fall of their senior year, just prior to student teaching. John implemented the syllabus changes in an elective, graduate-level course for Science Education students in their third (and final) year of the program. Throughout the implementation process (including first and subsequent iterations), study group participants and a mentor (Millie) engaged in electronic discussions surrounding plans, processes, successes, failures, and emerging and lingering questions.<br />
<br />
Impact of the Faculty Development Initiative / Findings<br />
<br />
Lesson 1: Conscious Effort is Required to Move Beyond Ignoring, Pretending to Understand, and/or Skirting ELL Issues in “Mainstream” Content Area Methods Courses<br />
In their methods courses prior to participation in the study group, both John and Wendy treated ELL issues as subsumed under working with culturally diverse learners.<br />
Study group activities and experiences led to a heightened awareness of the<br />
lack of specific attention to linguistic diversity in general, and ELLs in particular,<br />
in John’s and Wendy’s methods courses.<br />
By explicitly addressing language issues and the ELL population, John created<br />
a space in his course to explore the impact of cultural and linguistic diversity<br />
in teaching and learning science.<br />
<br />
Lesson 2: ELL Infusion Requires a Shift in the Roles of Instructor and Student<br />
ELL infusion compelled instructors to relinquish control of some course components to give voice to those who possessed cultural and linguistic funds of knowledge and were able to speak from experience in ways they themselves could not.<br />
<br />
The language immersion experiences generated relevance, empathy, and understanding for pre-service teachers in John’s and Wendy’s classes. More significantly, the lessons highlighted Wendy’s and John’s own limitations as instructors. Collaboration with other experts (i.e., Carolina and Katy) who possess appropriate linguistic and cultural funds of knowledge led to an educational experience that John and Wendy themselves could not have provided given their English monolingualism and majority-culture histories and identities.<br />
<br />
Lesson 3: FLC Experiences Led to a Revised Definition of Effective Educator<br />
In John’s and Wendy’s revised definitions, effective educators create supportive spaces in which both language and culture are explicitly addressed so that culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogical decisions can be made.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-70510573964810699862016-01-26T11:11:00.005-08:002016-01-26T11:11:55.903-08:00Examples of science talk - Pauline GibbonExamples of science talk<br />
<br />
1. Look, it’s making them move. Those didn’t stick.<br />
(Student talking in a small group)<br />
2. We found out the pins stuck on the magnet.<br />
(Student talking to a teacher)<br />
3. Our experiment showed magnets attract some metals.<br />
(Text from a student’s written report)<br />
4. Magnetic attraction occurs only between ferrous metals.<br />
(Text from an encyclopedia)<br />
<br />
Source: Pauline Gibbon, Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learningwayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-58253775502781691052016-01-19T09:12:00.003-08:002016-01-19T09:12:34.977-08:00Predictors of the Instructional Strategies that Elementary School Teachers Use with English Language Learners<a href="http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=17437" target="_blank">Predictors of the Instructional Strategies that Elementary School Teachers Use with English Language Learners</a> by Lucy Rader-Brown & Aimee Howley (2014), Teachers College Record Volume 116 Number 5, 2014, p. 1-34, Number: 17437<br />
<br />
Findings:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Findings showed that teachers reported frequent use of research-based strategies, but their preference was for strategies recommended for all learners. They were less likely to use strategies specifically intended for ELLs. </li>
<li>Regression results showed that teachers’ attitudes and the percentage of ELLs in their schools were significant predictors of teachers’ use of research-based strategies - a positive predictor in the first instance and a negative predictor in the second. </li>
<li>Ancillary analyses revealed that teachers’ years of experience and bilingualism, as well as the schools’ resources, were significant predictors of teachers’ attitudes toward ELLs, with more experienced teachers exhibiting more negative attitudes, and bilingual teachers and those in higher resource schools exhibiting more positive attitudes.</li>
</ul>
<br />
Background/Context: According to demographers, the number of English language learners (ELLs) in U.S schools has been increasing and is likely to continue to increase in coming years. For various reasons relating to language acquisition, cultural adjustment, and persistent discrimination, these students tend to experience academic difficulties. Improvement in their performance depends on teachers’ use of effective instructional strategies, but few surveys have investigated the extent to which teachers use such strategies or the conditions that encourage them to do so.<br />
Focus of Study: This study addressed the following research questions: (a) To what extent do elementary content-area teachers use various research-based practices for teaching ELLs? (b) In consideration of appropriate statistical controls, to what extent are elementary content-area teachers’ professional training, attitudes, bilingualism, and their schools’ characteristics, singly and in combination, associated with their reported use of a set of research-based strategies for teaching English language learners?<br />
<br />
Participants: Participants were a random sample of Ohio elementary school teachers (n = 419) in schools in the highest quartile of ELL enrollment.<br />
<br />
Research Design: The current study surveyed elementary teachers in Ohio and then used multiple regression methods to identify significant predictors of teachers’ use of research-based strategies with ELLs.<br />
<br />
Conclusions/Recommendations: Findings point to the likelihood that continued efforts to prepare elementary school teachers to work with ELLs will entail the provision of additional resources to schools with large and increasing ELL populations. In addition, efforts to increase teachers’ use of research-based strategies with ELLs will involve professional preparation powerful enough to change attitudes. Instruction in a second language appears to be an approach that bears consideration.wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-32882482636607286322016-01-04T09:32:00.004-08:002016-01-04T09:32:51.201-08:00EDR: Seriously Considering Design in Educational Games <div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Gaydos, M. (2015). Seriously Considering Design in Educational Games. Educational Researcher, 44(9), 478–483.</span><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"> </span><a href="http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15621307" style="color: #1155cc; font-size: 12.8px;" target="_blank">http://doi.org/10.3102/<wbr></wbr>0013189X15621307</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Abstract: Research suggests that well-designed games can be good for learning under the right conditions. How such games are designed remains poorly understood, as studies have focused more on whether games can produce learning than on how such games work or how they can be reliably developed. That is, though the design of a game is considered essential to its effectiveness, educational games lack a theory-informed definition and have predominantly shared design in terms of "principles" or "heuristics." The aim of this paper is to discuss how we define and share educational game design and why design is important for improving educational game research and development.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
I liked this quote:</div>
<div style="font-size: 12.8px;">
"They argue that investigations into whether games can be effective should give way to investigations into how or under what conditions they are effective (D. B. Clark, Tanner-Smith, & Killingsworth, 2015; Tobias & Fletcher, 2011). While game-based learning has shown potential, what is needed are ways to reliably convert that potential into action." [p.478]</div>
</div>
</div>
wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-14340502013556533652015-12-15T10:17:00.001-08:002015-12-15T10:17:18.068-08:00Original Definition of ScaffoldingOriginal Definition of Scaffolding<br />
The metaphor of scaffolding was first applied to educational contexts when Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) wanted to explain how adults help infants learn to solve problems. They found that adults did not simply tell the infants how to solve the problem or just demonstrate how to do it. Rather, the adults used six strategies—“recruitment, reduction in degrees of freedom, direction maintenance, marking critical features, frustration control, and demonstration”—to temporarily support children’s efforts until they gain sufficient skill (Wood et al., 1976, p. 98). Of note, three of the six original scaffolding strategies are motivational (recruitment, direction maintenance, and frustration control) and the other three are cognitive (reduction in degrees of freedom, marking critical features, and demonstration). Thus, scaffolding in its original sense was equal parts motivational and cognitive support.<br />
<br />
Source: A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition by Brian R. Belland , ChanMin Kim & Michael J. Hannafin<br />
<br />
Brian R. Belland , ChanMin Kim & Michael J. Hannafin (2013) A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition, Educational Psychologist, 48:4, 243-270, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2013.838920wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-75750470811260067282015-12-15T08:34:00.000-08:002015-12-15T08:34:01.846-08:00Comparing Socio-Cognitive, Sociocultural and Situative Perspectives - Schoor et al. 2015"Regulation During Cooperative and Collaborative Learning: A Theory-Based Review of Terms and Concepts" by Cornelia Schoor, Susanne Narciss & Hermann Körndle<br />
<br />
Excerpt:<br />
<div class="NLM_sec NLM_sec_level_2" id="s0004-0001" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; line-height: 16px;">
<h3 style="border: 0px none; color: #474747; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The Socio-Cognitive Approach</h3>
<div class="paragraph" style="font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; margin: 7px 2px 20px; word-wrap: break-word;">
From a (socio-) cognitive perspective, the role of the social in self-regulated learning is to influence individual regulation. The situation and context—including the social context—can influence self-regulation of learning (cf. Nolen & Ward, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0066" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2008</a></span>). This approach focuses on the individual, which is the unit of analysis (Hadwin & Oshige, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0028" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2011</a></span>; Nolen & Ward, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0066" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2008</a></span>; Volet, Vauras, et al., <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0099" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2009</a></span>). However, the social context provides support for the development of self-regulation (e.g., Schunk & Zimmerman,<span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0083" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">1997</a></span>). Relevant mechanisms for this support are modeling of self-regulation and feedback (Schunk & Zimmerman, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0083" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">1997</a></span>), which traces back to Bandura (<span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0003" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">1986</a></span>). The sociocognitive approach grounds some research on social modes of regulation; for example, Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia (<span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0072" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2011</a></span>) placed their work in the context of sociocognitive approaches but also drew on “research examining social regulation of group learning” (p. 376). Järvelä and Hadwin's (<span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0038" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2013</a></span>) analysis of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation is also based on the sociocognitive model of self-regulated learning by Winne and Hadwin (<span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0108" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">1998</a></span>).</div>
</div>
<div class="NLM_sec NLM_sec_level_2" id="s0004-0002" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; line-height: 16px;">
<h3 style="border: 0px none; color: #474747; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The Sociocultural Approach</h3>
<div class="paragraph" style="font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; margin: 7px 2px 20px; word-wrap: break-word;">
Based on Vygotsky, the sociocultural approach focuses not on individual cognition and motivation (as is the sociocognitive approach) but on socially mediated cognition and motivation at the individual level (Nolen & Ward, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0066" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2008</a></span>). The role of the social is that of a mediator of cognition. The social mediation takes place by externalization and internalization (McCaslin & Hickey, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0059" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2001</a></span>; Nolen & Ward, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0066" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2008</a></span>). The level of analysis is the interaction of the individual with the culture. Although social mediation and cultural influences are relevant mechanisms in all kinds of relationships, social modes of <i>regulation</i> within this approach usually refer to an asymmetric relationship where one person externalizes her skill to make it accessible for the other person who, during their learning process, internalizes that skill (cf. Hadwin, Wozney, & Pontin, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0030" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2005</a></span>). In a broader sense, the culture or social environment as a whole supports the individual's internalization (Volet, Vauras, et al., <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0099" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2009</a></span>) or the person's development (McCaslin, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0057" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2009</a></span>; McCaslin & Burross, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0058" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2011</a></span>). Internalization is often seen as a transition from other-regulation to self-regulation (Wertsch & Bivens, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0104" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">1992</a></span>), or the appropriation of self-regulation. Other-regulation, in this context, refers to the notion that a more capable person undertakes regulatory tasks for someone else as long as she or he is not able to self-regulate. This transitional period from other- to self-regulation is often called coregulation (Hadwin & Oshige, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0028" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2011</a></span>; McCaslin & Hickey, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0059" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2001</a></span>) although the term <i>coregulation</i> is also used to express that not only the individual but also social sources influence a person's development (McCaslin, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0057" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2009</a></span>; McCaslin & Burross, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0058" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2011</a></span>).</div>
</div>
<div class="NLM_sec NLM_sec_level_2" id="s0004-0003" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;">
<h3 style="border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: 0px none; color: #474747; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
The Situative Approach</h3>
<div class="paragraph" style="font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; margin: 7px 2px 20px; word-wrap: break-word;">
An approach that emphasizes the system in which activity occurs is the situative perspective (e.g., Greeno, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0023" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2006</a></span>). Research on socially shared regulation emerged from within this perspective. Here, the main claim is that all cognition occurs as activity within a system. Whereas the sociocultural approach retains an interest in the individual whose processes are shaped by the social environment through internalization, the situative approach views processes from the systemic point of view. The focus is on the individual within a system rather than on the individual. The role of the social is that of a system with which the individual is interwoven. The system might be a learning group, but also a community of practice (Wenger, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0103" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">1998</a></span>), or a whole society. The system encompasses not only people but also material, such as the instruments of a cockpit, as in the studies of distributed cognition (e.g., Hutchins, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0033" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">1995</a></span>). The material can serve as external representations of knowledge of the system. In communities of practice (Wenger, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0103" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">1998</a></span>), a group's (community's) knowledge is preserved in form of practices (cf. Greeno,<span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0023" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2006</a></span>). It is often claimed that, therefore, the unit of analysis must be the system itself, such as a group (Nolen & Ward, <span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0066" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2008</a></span>). In slight contrast to this claim, Greeno (<span class="referenceDiv" style="display: inline; height: 0px; position: relative; white-space: nowrap; width: 0px;"><a class="dropDownLabel" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540#cit0023" style="color: #104083; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: normal;">2006</a></span>) stressed that analyses at multiple levels, including analysis at the individual level, is possible within the situative perspective. Regulation of group learning, in this perspective, is necessarily studied not only at the individual level but also at the group level.</div>
<div class="paragraph" style="font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 20px; margin: 7px 2px 20px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="font-size: 13px;">Source: </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Cornelia Schoor, Susanne Narciss & Hermann Körndle (2015) Regulation During Cooperative and Collaborative Learning: A Theory-Based Review of Terms and Concepts, Educational Psychologist, 50:2, 97-119, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540</span></span></div>
</div>
wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-4433220086625358692015-09-29T15:29:00.001-07:002015-09-29T15:29:08.665-07:00Korthagen 2011 Making teacher education relevant for practiceThe gap between theory and practice in teacher education has led to much criticism regarding the effectiveness of teacher education. In this article, the causes of this gap are discussed and related to a framework for teacher behaviour and teacher learning. Using this framework, the so-called "realistic approach" to teacher education has been developed, which marks a new direction in the pedagogy of teacher education. This approach, developed at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, is described in this article, and its basic principles are discussed. Several evaluative studies into the realistic approach show its positive outcomes. Important conclusions are presented for (1) programme design, based on (2) a view of the intended process of student teacher learning, (3) the pedagogical interventions and arrangements used, and (4) the professional development of teacher educators.<br />
<br />
Korthagen, F. (2011). Making teacher education relevant for practice. ORBIS Scholae, 5(3), 31–50. Retrieved from <a href="http://www.orbisscholae.cz/archiv/2011/2011_2_02.pdf">http://www.orbisscholae.cz/archiv/2011/2011_2_02.pdf</a><br />
<br />
See also:<br />
Korthagen, F., & Kessels, J. (1999). Linking Theory and Practice: Changing the Pedagogy of Teacher Education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17. <a href="http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028004004">http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028004004</a><br />
<br />
Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can Teacher Education Make a Difference? American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 153–224. <a href="http://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042001153">http://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042001153</a><br />
<br />
Hoekstra, A., & Korthagen, F. (2011). Teacher Learning in a Context of Educational Change: Informal Learning Versus Systematically Supported Learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 76–92. <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110382917">http://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110382917</a>wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-74094943585852633922015-08-25T15:00:00.001-07:002015-08-25T15:00:30.915-07:00Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive Schooling. Caring about school and feeling cared about.Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive Schooling: US-Mexican Press Youth and the Politics of Caring. New York: SUNY.<br />
<br />
p21:<br />
How teachers and students are oriented to each other is central to Noddings's (1984) framework on caring. In her view, the caring teacher's role is to initiate relation, with engrossment in the student's welfare following from this search for connection. Noddings uses the concept of emotional displacement to communicate the notion that one is seized by the other with energy flowing toward his or her project and needs. A teacher's attitudinal predisposition is essential to caring, for it overtly conveys acceptance and confirmation to the cared-for student. When the cared-for individual responds by demonstrating a willingness to reveal her/his essential self, the reciprocal relation is complete. At a school like Seguin, building this kind of a relationship is extremely difficult-for both parties. Even well-intentioned students and teachers frequently find themselves in conflict.<br />
<br />
<br />
p. 24<br />
Thus, an obvious limit to caring exists when teachers ask all students to care about school while many students ask to be cared for before they care about.wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-19326221284951312372015-08-06T11:48:00.002-07:002015-08-06T11:49:08.396-07:00Stiggins - Assessment Matrix of Targets and Methods<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhtRuKyP6ylIasTZ0vEGEuYWFbz0g0PtLreevnVpgsMSqJ-5wqBygLbHzRIA-N7EV1ysNvg0O3g3OGCqCbG44bTXeJmicBxcMO-btb3a30XcYvy4DhpIEu1tCW-uyQjM6vUwM5x_Ub3To9/s1600/Stiggins+Assessment-Matrix-Methods-Targets.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhtRuKyP6ylIasTZ0vEGEuYWFbz0g0PtLreevnVpgsMSqJ-5wqBygLbHzRIA-N7EV1ysNvg0O3g3OGCqCbG44bTXeJmicBxcMO-btb3a30XcYvy4DhpIEu1tCW-uyQjM6vUwM5x_Ub3To9/s320/Stiggins+Assessment-Matrix-Methods-Targets.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Stiggins, R.J. (2005). Student-Involved Assessment for Learning, 4th ed. (p. 65). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Resources:</div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.aea267.k12.ia.us/system/assets/uploads/files/710/aligning_achievement_targets_and_assessment_methods_matrix_by_richard_stiggins.pdf" target="_blank">AEA 267</a></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www-tc.pbs.org/teacherline/courses/inst325/docs/inst325_stiggins.pdf" target="_blank">PBS Teacher Line</a> - Stiggins Chapter</div>
<div>
Stiggins articles: <a href="http://ati.pearson.com/downloads/Asssessment-Through-the-Students-Eyes.pdf" target="_blank">Students view</a></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.lsalearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Assessment-Matrix-Bena.pdf" target="_blank">Bena's version</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-73445407687511698262015-06-22T09:25:00.004-07:002015-06-22T09:25:48.333-07:00Stoddart (2010) - learning and doing science - a sociocultural viewStoddart and colleagues (2010) take the position that “learning and doing science is not just a process of acquiring a set of facts, principles, and procedures; it also involves using the language of science in ways of talking and representing the natural world through discourse, interaction and collaboration. Science is a discourse about the natural world.” (p. 164).<br />
<br />
"In addition to being a discipline, science activities are achieved through a social process where the language used for competent participation requires specialized ways of talking, writing, and thinking about the world in scientific ways (Cervetti et al., 2007). Learning and doing science is not just a process of acquiring a set of facts, principles, and procedures; it also involves using the language of science in ways of talking and representing the natural world through discourse, interaction, and collaboration. Science is a discourse about the natural world: “Biology is not plants and animals. It is language about plants and animals . . . . Astronomy is not planets and stars. It is a way of talking about planets and stars” (Postman, 1979, p. 165). Learning science and talking about science are, therefore, interrelated. The discourse of science has its own vocabulary and organization that are embodied in the ways scientists think and communicate about their work. Language mediates and structures the ways in which scientists think about and investigate problems. These processes include formulating hypotheses, proposing alternative solutions, describing, classifying, using time and spatial relations, inferring, interpreting data, predicting, generalizing, and communicating findings (Chamot & O’Malley, 1986; National Science Teachers Association, 1991). The use of these language functions is fundamental to the process of inquiry science (NRC, 1996). By engaging in scientific discourse, students learn how to think about science, how to “do” science, and, consequently, develop their own scientific understanding."<br />
<br />
Stoddart, T., Solís, J.L., Tolbert, S. & Bravo, M. (2010). A framework for the effective science teaching of English language learners in elementary schools. In D. Sunal, C. Sunal & E. Wright (Eds.), Teaching Science with Hispanic ELLs in K-16 Classrooms (Research in Science Education Series), 151-181. Albany, NY: Information Age Publishingwayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-5051367501703058262015-04-26T10:28:00.001-07:002015-04-26T10:28:22.808-07:00Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What Makes for Powerful Classrooms, and How Can We Support Teachers in Creating Them?<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Schoenfeld's theory of problem solving<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
p.405 If one seeks
the reason(s) for someone’s success or failure in a problem-solving attempt in
any knowledge-rich domain, the cause of that success or failure will be located
in one or more of that person’s: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
a. domain-specific knowledge and resources,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
b. access to productive “heuristic” strategies for making
progress on challenging problems in that domain,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
c. monitoring and self-regulation (aspects of
metacognition), and<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
d. belief systems regarding that domain and one’s sense of
self as a thinker in general and a doer of that domain in particular (in more
current language, one’s domain-specific identity).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What Makes for Powerful
Classrooms, and How Can We Support Teachers in Creating Them? A Story of
Research and Practice, Productively Intertwined. Educational Researcher, 43(8),
404–412. doi:10.3102/0013189X14554450<o:p></o:p></div>
wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-51238132133602897662015-04-23T16:26:00.001-07:002015-04-23T16:26:46.246-07:00Cochran-Smith’s four dimensions of effective teacher preparationCochran-Smith’s four dimensions of effective teacher preparation<br />
<div>
<ol>
<li>who should teach (recruitment)</li>
<li>what teachers learn (curricular focus)</li>
<li>structure</li>
<li>conceptual framework</li>
</ol>
<b>A Theory of Teacher Preparation</b><br />
The third question in a theory of teacher education for social justice is: How can we conceptualize teacher preparation intended to prepare teachers to engage in practice that enhances justice? Again, the answer to this question is central because it reflects the direct link between teacher preparation and teaching practice. My argument here is that in order to support teaching practice that fosters justice, teacher preparation must be theorized in terms of four key issues: who should teach, which is instantiated in practices and policies related to the selection and recruitment of teacher candidates; what teachers learn, which plays out in the curriculum and pedagogy to which teacher candidates are exposed; how and from/with whom teachers learn, which has to do with the intellectual, social and organizational contexts and structures designed to support candidates’ learning; and how all of this is assessed, or how the outcomes of preparation are constructed and measured and what consequences these have for whom. Figure 4 provides a graphic representation of teacher preparation for justice in terms of the interrelationships of decisions regarding selection, curriculum, structures, and outcomes; the figure emphasizes that teacher preparation for social justice is transformative and collaborative, but also involves working within and against the accountability system.<br />
<br />
Toward a theory of teacher education for social justice by Marilyn Cochran-Smith<br />
Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Reseach Association<br />
New York City March 2008 (to be published in The International Handbook of Educational Change (2nd edition), Michael Fullan, Andy Hargreaves , David Hopkins, & Ann Lieberman, Editors. Springer Publishing)<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
"Each program can be distinguished by its structure, admission requirements, curricular focus, and conceptual framework. According to Cochran-Smith and Zeichner (2005), these characteristics are pivotal to the discussion of teacher education programs because they influence the kinds of students who enroll, the experiences they have, and the kinds of continuing support available for them. Although some science teacher education programs are delivered by school districts or state departments of education, this chapter focuses on programs based in universities with substantial science and mathematics departments, because we aim to prepare secondary teachers with deep and current knowledge of their content areas." (Fraser-Abder, Abell, & Trumbull, 2009, p.24)<br />
<br />
Pamela Fraser-Abder, Sandra K. Abell, and Deborah J. Trumbull (2009). Models of secondary science teacher preparation, chapter in A. Collins and N. Gillespie (eds.), The Continuum of Secondary Science Teacher Preparation: Knowledge, Questions, and Research Recommendations, 23–32. © 2009</div>
wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-7689317690461532852014-09-27T20:44:00.002-07:002014-09-27T20:44:47.692-07:00NGSS Science and Engineering PracticesNGSS Science and Engineering Practices <br />
1. Asking questions <br />
2. Developing and using models <br />
3. Planning and carrying out investigations <br />
4. Analyzing and interpreting data <br />
5. Using mathematics, information and computer technology, and computational thinking <br />
6. Constructing explanations and designing solutions <br />
7. Engaging in argument from evidence <br />
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating informationwayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-33768389864568174822014-09-16T08:31:00.001-07:002014-09-16T08:55:07.549-07:00Lesh & Clark (2000) - Formulating operational definitions of desired outcomes of instruction in mathematics and science education<div class="MsoNormal">Lesh, R., & Clarke, D. (2000). Formulating operational definitions of desired outcomes of instruction in mathematics and science education. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), <i>Handbook of research</i> <i>design in mathematics and science education </i>(pp. 113-149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In science, some phenomena (e.g., neutrinos, black holes) may not be directly observable, but may be knowable by its effects (p.125). The authors argue that many aspects of learning and knowledge may not be directly observable either, but we can make inferences about what someone knows by what they can do. "For example, we may not know how to define what makes Granny a great cook; however, it still may be easy to identify situations that will elicit and reveal her capabilities, and it also may be easy to compare and assess alternative results that are produced." (p.140)<br />
<p>p127: Cognitive objectives function similarly to the ways cyclotrons, cloud chambers, and vats of heavy water are used in physics. That is, they are defined operationally by specifying: (a) situations that optimize the chances that the targeted construct will occur in an observable form; (b) observation tools that enable observers to sort out signal from noise in the results that occur; and (c) quality assessment criteria that allow meaningful comparisons to be made among alternative possibilities. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">p130: In particular, in the case of conceptual systems that students develop during the solution of individual problem solving sessions: (i) model-eliciting activities put students in situations where they confront the need to produce a given type of construct, and where the products that they generate require them to reveal explicitly important characteristics of their underlying ways of thinking; (ii) ways of thinking sheets focus on ways of recognizing are describing the nature of the constructs that students produce; and (iii) guidelines for assessing the quality of students' work provide criteria that can be used to compare the usefulness of alternative ways of thinking. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">p133: Three final characteristics should be mentioned that pertain to operational definitions involving the development of students, teachers, and programs. First, the development of these problem solvers tends to be highly interdependent. Second, when something (or someone) acts on anyone of these complex systems, they tend to act back. Third, researchers (as well as the instruments that they use) usually are integral parts of the systems that they are hoping to understand and explain. <o:p></o:p></div>wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-48934327554439194892014-09-03T15:38:00.002-07:002014-09-03T15:40:32.774-07:00Using Designed Instructional Activities to Enable Novices to Manage Ambitious Mathematics TeachingLampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. (2010). Using Designed Instructional Activities to Enable Novices to Manage Ambitious Mathematics Teaching. In M. K. Stein & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional Explanations in the Disciplines (pp. 129–141). Boston, MA: Springer.<br />
<br />
<b>Instructional Activities Using Routines as Tools for Teacher Education</b><br />
• Choral counting: The teacher leads the class in a count, teaching different concepts and skills by deciding what number to start with, what to count by (e.g., by 10s, by 19s, by 3/4s), whether to count forward or backward, and when to stop. The teacher publicly records the count on the board, stopping to elicit children’s ideas for figuring out the next number, and to co-construct an explanation of the mathematics that arises in patterns.<br />
• Strategy sharing: The teacher poses a computational problem and elicits multiple ways of solving the problem. Careful use of representations and targeted questioning of students are designed to help the class learn the general logic underlying the strategies, identify mathematical connections, and evaluate strategies in terms of efficiency and generalizability.<br />
• Strings: The teacher poses several related computational problems, one at a time, in order to scaffold students’ ability to make connections across problems and use what they know to solve a more difficult computational problem. This activity is used to target a particular strategy (as compared to eliciting a range of strategies). For example, posing 4 × 4, then 4 × 40, and then 4 × 39 is designed to help students consider how to use 4 × 40 to solve 4 × 39, developing their knowledge of compensating strategies in multiplication (Fosnot & Dolk, 2001).<br />
• Solving word problems: The teacher first launches a word problem to support students in making sense of the problem situation, then monitors while students are working to determine how students are solving the problem, gauges which student strategies are best suited for meeting the instructional goal of an upcoming mathematical discussion, and makes judgments about how to orchestrate the discussion to meet those goals.<br />
<br />
[a fifth IA in recent articles is Quick Images: The goal of this activity is to build students' ability to visualize a quantity.]<br />
----------------<br />
<br />
<b>A Focus on Instructional Dialogue</b><br />
A relatively recent focus of Leinhardt’s work on teaching routines has been how they are used in “instructional dialogue” (Leinhardt & Steele, 2005), a practice we would consider to be the centerpiece of ambitious mathematics teaching. In this kind of teaching, an explanation is co-constructed by the teacher and students in the class during an instructional conversation. Maintaining a coherent mathematical learning agenda while encouraging student talk about mathematics is perhaps the most challenging aspect of ambitious teaching. In their study of teaching through instructional dialogues, Leinhardt and Steele (2005) demonstrated the use of eight kinds of “exchange” routines in this kind of teaching to accomplish explanatory work, including maintaining mathematical clarity in the face of student inarticulateness, fixing the agenda of the class on a single student’s idea, making it safe for students to revise incorrect contributions, and honing students’ contributions toward mathematical accuracy and precision. The exchange routines that Leinhardt and Steele (pp. 143–144) identified include the following:<br />
• The call-on routine, which is initiated by a rather open invitation to discussion and has two separate components: the initial identification of a problem and the speaker who responds, followed by a second part in which the class is prompted to analyze, justify, or critique the statement given by the first speaker or another speaker in the discussion.<br />
• The related revise routine in which students were asked to rethink their assertions and publicly explain a new way of thinking about their solutions.<br />
• The clarification routine “which was invoked when a confusion arose regarding an idea or conjecture volunteered into the public space, which in turn involved understanding the source of confusion.”<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-48559191236137095572014-09-03T15:17:00.004-07:002014-09-03T15:17:55.784-07:00Ambitious Teaching Practice - Lampert, M., Boerst, T., & Graziani, F. (2011)Lampert, M., Boerst, T., & Graziani, F. (2011). Organizational Resources in the Service of School-Wide Ambitious Teaching Practice. Teachers College Record, 113(7), 1361–1400.<br />
<br />
Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record Volume 113 Number 7, 2011, p. 1361-1400<br />
http://www.tcrecord.org/library ID Number: 16072<br />
Organizational Resources in the Service of School-Wide Ambitious Teaching Practice<br />
by Magdalene Lampert, Timothy A. Boerst & Filippo Graziani<br />
<br />
Challenges of Ambitious Teaching (pp 1364-7)<br />
1. Teaching students to perform on authentic tasks needs to happen at the same time as teaching the basics (Kilpatrick, Swafford, Findell, National Research Council, 2001; Snow et al., 2005). Consequently, one challenge of ambitious teaching that occurs across subject matters is keeping different kinds of content on the table at the same time.<br />
<br />
2. Assessment is a second challenge. Teachers with ambitious learning goals must do more than act reflexively on judgments of separate elements of students’ work as right or wrong according to an answer key. ... In mathematics, teachers need to know a broad spectrum of methods that students might invent to solve problems and what mathematical understanding is embedded in their inventions in order to assess competence and promote sense-making (Franke, Kazemi, & Battey, 2007).<br />
<br />
3. A third challenge of making academically demanding work available to diverse students is adjusting teaching to what particular students are currently able to do (or not). Teachers teach a variety of different individuals in a common social setting, and in order to succeed with diverse learners, they need to find ways to “microadapt” based on continually assessing and learning about students as they teach (Corno, 2008).<br />
<br />
4. In addition to these intellectual challenges, this kind of teaching also requires teachers across subject matter domains to manage more complex and risky forms of social organization (Cohen, 1998; Kennedy, 2007). ... adapting teaching to learning requires working in the relational space where students’ anxieties and fears can intrude on the learning process (Corno, 2008). Ambitious teachers need to lead discussions in which students learn from talking about ideas and enable students to engage productively in collaborative investigation with partners they might not chose as friends (Chapin, O’Connor, & Anderson, 2003; Kazemi, 1998; Rex, Murnen, Hobbs, & McEachen, 2002).<br />
<br />
-----------------------------------<br />
<br />
Social practice theory - pp. 1367-9<br />
To understand how the challenges of ambitious teaching could be managed regularly at the level of the school, we needed to investigate not only what individual teachers could do to address them, but also what they can do routinely with their colleagues as part of a structured social system working on a joint enterprise using a common set of resources to meet common objectives. We employed the concept of a “social practice” to name this kind of system and to analyze the link between the existence of organizational resources in a school and the effects of the common work that occurs across individual teachers as they use them. A social practice takes shape as people interact with one another using the tools of their trade, developing a shared repertoire they can call upon to get their work done (Engeström & Middleton, 1998).<br />
<br />
In clarifying how “social practice theory” is different from other kinds of cultural theories, Reckwitz (2002) emphasizes its focus on how the coordination of individual action with commonly available resources enables the coherent use of those resources.<br />
<br />
In social practices, Reckwitz observes, these different kinds of resources interact to form a ‘block’ that cannot be reduced to a set of single elements. Social practice is more than just “talk”. It is built in the multidimensional terrain where practitioners interact in particular places in particular ways using particular objects.<br />
<br />
Teachers who work on problems of practice together interpret what they see students doing through their common values, norms, rules, beliefs, and assumptions, and given that shared interpretation, individuals decide what to do (Little, 1982; Weick & McDaniel, 1989)<br />
<br />
-----------------------------------<br />
FINDINGS<br />
<br />
Three inter-related dynamics:<br />
Teachers’ common commitments to ambitious goals<br />
Teachers’ individual and collective use of resources to scaffold the practice of ambitious teaching<br />
Teachers' social use of resources in planning and evaluations of lessons and students<br />
<br />
SOCIAL, MATERIAL, AND INTELLECTUAL RESOURCES IN SUPPORT OF AMBITIOUS PRACTICE<br />
In analyses of the lessons we observed, we examined in detail how individual teachers used the school’s resources to mediate the challenges of ambitious teaching in ways that were similar to what Lampert observed as a language-learning student. We noted the prevailing use of resources across routine phases of the work of teaching. Our analysis took into account three phases:<br />
• planning: i.e., how teachers prepare for ambitious practice;<br />
• instruction: i.e., what teachers do in interaction with subject matter and diverse students across time; and<br />
• reflection: i.e., how teachers think about, talk about, learn from, evaluate and capture their insights about students and content from enacted practice.<br />
<br />
During instruction, teachers use resources in social interactions with students to maintain and accomplish ambitious goals (Cohen, Raudenbusch, & Ball, 2003).<br />
<br />
<br />
Fig 2 & 3<br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> Authentic Analytic</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">------------------------------------------</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Listening | | |</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Speaking | | |</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Reading | | |</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Writing | | |</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">------------------------------------------</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In this article, we use the term “teaching” to refer to what teachers do in relationships with students and subject matter in environments. It is the teacher’s contribution to a phenomenon we will call “instruction” as defined by David Cohen, Steve Raudenbusch, and Deborah Ball: “Instruction consists of interactions among teachers and students around content in environments. . .‘Interaction’ refers to no particular form of discourse but to teachers’ and students’ connected work, extending through, days, weeks, and months. Instruction evolves as tasks develop and lead to others, as students’ engagement and understanding waxes and wanes, and organization changes (Lampert, 2001). Instruction is a stream, not an event, and it flows in and draws on environments — including other teachers and students, school leaders, parents, professions, local districts, state agencies, and test and text publishers.”(Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Summer, 2003, Vol 25, no.2, p.122)wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-1549363881996847812014-05-28T09:52:00.001-07:002016-06-09T07:57:52.087-07:00Guskey (1995) - Teacher change and development - PDGuskey, T., & Huberman, M. (1995). Professional Development in Education: New Paradigms and Practices. New York: Teachers College Press.<br />
<br />
Optimal Mix chapter pp 114-131<br />
<br />
Guskey (1995) – Teacher change and development is both an individual and organizational process. Teachers are more likely to develop and change in positive ways when the organizational and social contexts are supportive. Focusing on individual change while neglecting organization system level issues can limit success of programs. Organizational changes alone might not result in changes in teachers practices or student learning. [p. 119]<br />
<br />
Teacher beliefs are more likely to change after trying out new instructional strategies and experiencing some sort of success.<br />
<br />
See also:<br />
Guskey, T. (2002). Professional Development and Teacher Change. <i>Teachers and Teaching</i>, <i>8</i>(3), 381–391<br />
<br />
Guskey, T. (1986). Staff Development and the Process of Teacher Change. <i>Educational Researcher</i>, <i>15</i>(5), 5–12.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-58454989732584967722014-05-23T10:49:00.003-07:002014-05-23T10:50:00.000-07:00CCSS Math - 4 area of emphasisThe Common Core State Standards (CC) provide guidelines for how to teach mathematics for understanding by focusing on students’ mathematical reasoning and sense making. Here I will only summarize four emphases provided by the CC to describe how mathematics instruction for ELs needs to begin by following CC guidelines and taking these four areas of emphasis seriously. <br /><br />Emphasis #1 Balancing conceptual understanding and procedural fluency <br />Instruction should a) balance student activities that address both important conceptual and procedural knowledge related to a mathematical topic and b) connect the two types of knowledge. <br /><br />Emphasis #2 Maintaining high cognitive demand <br />Instruction should a) use high-cognitive-demand math tasks and b) maintain the rigor of mathematical tasks throughout lessons and units. <br /><br />Emphasis #3 Developing beliefs <br />Instruction should support students in developing beliefs that mathematics is sensible, worthwhile, and doable. <br /><br />Emphasis #4 Engaging students in mathematical practices <br />Instruction should provide opportunities for students to engage in eight different mathematical practices: 1) Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them, 2) reason abstractly and quantitatively, 3) construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others, 4) model with mathematics, 5) use appropriate tools strategically, 6) attend to precision, 7) look for and make use of structure, and 8) look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning. <br />
<br />
Source:<a href="http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academic-papers/02-JMoschkovich%20Math%20FINAL_bound%20with%20appendix.pdf" rel="nofollow" style="color: #835ea5; text-decoration: none;"> Mathematics, the Common Core, and Language</a> by Judit Moschkovichwayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2163321786657941338.post-3658747074302053702014-04-13T08:42:00.003-07:002014-04-13T08:42:31.805-07:00Five principles for creating effective second language learning environments<b>Five principles for creating effective second language learning environments</b><br />
by Tony Erben<br />
<br />
Principle 1: Give ELLs many opportunities to read, to write, to listen to, and to discuss oral and written English expressed in a variety of ways<br />
<br />
Principle 2: Draw attention to patterns of English language structure<br />
<br />
Principle 3: Give ELLs classroom time to use their English productively<br />
<br />
Principle 4: Give ELLs opportunities to notice their errors and to correct their English<br />
<br />
Principle 5: Construct activities that maximize opportunities for ELLs to interact with others in English<br />
<br />
Source: Erben, T., Ban, R., & Castaneda, M. (2009). Teaching English Language Learners Through Technology. New York: Routledge [<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Language-Learners-Technology-Curriculum-ebook/dp/B001ON78NE" target="_blank">Amazon</a>]wayfinder650http://www.blogger.com/profile/13224313375743993188noreply@blogger.com1