Data Analysis, Reflection, & Next Steps:

A. Describe how your lesson went – including guiding questions on various levels:
First activity focused on introducing students to the concept of managing differentiation by asking them their initial thoughts/responses to the questions
“How do I prepare to differentiate?” “How do I prepare my students and my classroom?” and “How do I manage the groups and activities?”
These questions acted as guiding questions to help prepare the students for the topic they would be exploring for the lesson. They also acted as pre-assessments of the students’ understanding of that topic.
After students worked in groups to explore different aspects of managing differentiation, they came back together to share what they learned and expand their understanding of managing differentiation. Teachers wrote out how students’ connections between their learning to the three questions presented at the beginning of class. Readdressing these questions helped organize students’ thoughts, and writing responses up on the posters helped students’ visualize how their understanding of managing differentiation has changed over the lesson.
Finally, students were given exit tickets, which asked, “How do you think managing differentiation might affect student success?” This higher-level question is used to challenge students to think deeper about what they just learned. The question encourages students to use the knowledge they just gained and apply it to a hypothetical situation that they may encounter in their own careers. Meaning must be given to managing differentiation in order to understand how it may affect student success. Not only is this question relevant to the students’ careers, but the meaning they find through answering it may influence their practice.

B. What did you learn about yourselves as teachers and co-teachers?
We learned the following:
  1. 1. Somewhat difficult to relinquish power/control to co-teacher.
  2. 2. Communication styles are different.
  3. 3. Teaching styles are different.
  4. 4. Learning to share “power” and that in the end it’s all going to work-out fine.
  5. 5. Co-teacher has different skills, mind-set, and viewpoints towards how a lesson should be implemented.
  6. 6. Lesson planning and teaching the lesson within allotted time constraints can be stressful, and it’s beneficial to have good lesson timing and minutes allowed for each frame/section of lesson.
  7. 7. Important to keep track of time with a timer.
  8. 8. Experienced anxiety a bit due to time management and importance of keeping track of time.
  9. 9. Nice to have support from co-teacher and didn’t feel alone. We were working towards one common goal collaboratively.
  10. 10. Peace of mind knowing you can trust and rely on co-teacher to follow through.
  11. 11. It’s okay to not not have all the angles covered. Reflect, re-adjust, and do better next time.
  12. 12. We wanted to succeed and have a fun well-planned lesson for our students.

C. Bulleted list of data you gathered and your written analysis, including relevant video clips

Data gathered from TLIC ratings:
  • For #12, we were given a “3”:
TC plans how to communicate the content and language learning goals/targets/objectives to students so that they can articulate what they are learning, why they are learning it, and how they will be successful in demonstrating their understanding.
Comments about this score included that our lesson was well planned and articulated. Aside from the confusion about the purpose of the photos in the file folder, it was easy to grasp what was expected of students.
We agreed that our folders’ contents could have been explained better orally (they were addressed in writing on a piece of paper in the folder, but students did not know to read that paper first).

  • For #22, we were given a “3”:
TC plans differentiated learning opportunities to meet students’ diverse needs (e.g., small group instruction; differentiating the content, the processes students use to learn the content, and/or the ways students can demonstrate their understanding).
This student said that we did a great job to differentiate activities and expectations were great; however directions could have been more clear.
Shortly in to the group activity, we noticed that we could have been more explicit about the purpose of each resource in the file folders by sorting through an example folder with the students. Not doing so resulted in confusion about what to do with each of the resources, and completing tasks that weren’t necessary. We learned, especially when you are presenting a variety of learning tools to accommodate for differentiated instruction, it is important to clearly explain what the purpose of the tools and give clear directions.

  • For #24, we were given a “4”:
TC collaborates with other professionals including CT and learning specialists (SPED, ELL, Speech/ Lang., Interventionists, School Psych) to engage in co-teaching models to deliver specific, purposeful instruction to meet the needs of the students.
Comments we were given based on this score were, “Great Job both sharing responsibility, organization, and helping students! Each co-teacher has exceptional understanding of the content, and demonstrated great strategies for how management of differentiating groups can work in the classroom setting. Thank You So Much!!!”
We did use the DI book and my CT’s experience in differentiated instruction in order to help develop our co-teaching plans. However, we did not use any other specialists to help us assess/deliver DI for our students. This grade may have been a bit generous, considering our access to specialists and their expertise on our students learning. However, we did the best we could with what information we did have about our students. We provided kenisthetic, visual, audio, and writing tools for students to use to access the content and we even put them into groups or by themselves based on their preference for how to work in class.

  • For #16, we were given a “1”:
TC selects or creates appropriate (developmental, sensitive to cultural, linguistic, and ability differences), high quality formative assessment strategies that provide ongoing information to the teacher and students about student progress towards the content & language goals/targets/objectives.

Comments we were given based on this score were that they really enjoyed the “HELP” flags as a formative assessment tool for teachers to be able to check in with students for understanding. They also said that they were not sure what other formative assessment we could have used understanding our time constraints, but that it’s something to think about.
Although we agree that we can always use different an/or more forms of formative assessment, we believed that we used more forms than these students may have been aware of. Not only were the “HELP” flags one way were were able to check in with students and assess their working-understanding of the content, but our pre-assessment, check-ins, matching activity, post-assessments, and exit tickets were also strategies we used for formative assessments.

Examples of formative assessment:coteaching_001.JPG
pre-assessment in purple, post in orange
  • fa1.png
(scan is a little bit hard to read, but they correctly matched each of their statements)
  • fa2.png
  • fa3.png
  • fa4.png
  • fa5.png
Pink cards were used for students to write preference of working in groups or individually. These answers were used to differentiate grouping for the activity. Blue card asked a higher level question to be used as an exit ticket/formative assessment)
  • HELP signs students could put up to indicate they needed teacher assistance without interrupting their work.

Examples of Thinking Data:
  • td1.png
  • td2.pngtd3.png
  • td4.png
  • a4.png
Students could use audio recorder to record learning through discussion.

Materials in folders:
Example of directions from one of the file folders:
  • di1.png

  • supplemental reading

Table Tent:
  • mat2.png

Examples of data in video:

  • ● 3:00 minutes (Formative assessment in the beginning of lesson - asking what students initial thoughts were on three framing questions)
  • ● 6:00 minutes (Explaining that they can work on extra task if finished or stuck, but didn’t let them know which resource in the packet was to be used for extra task. Using an example folder to identify purpose of each of the contents would have been helpful)
  • ● 7:00 minutes (Noise level demonstration-originally we were planning on teacher modeling acceptable noise level then we decided to have the students participate-should have stayed with original plan!)
  • ● 9:26 minutes (Jessica and Rebecca looking at packet contents and we didn’t explain which one was for required activity and which one was for the extra task)
  • ● 11:52 minutes (HELP sign went up in front of Naomi, illustrating its effectiveness in getting teacher’s attention without interrupting student work)
  • ● 14:36 minutes (Rebecca and Jessica HELP sign went up and they needed some direction and focus to get on the right track) (Teacher helped them)
  • ● 17:10 minutes (Guiding questions)?
  • ● 19:21 minutes (MOO COW too low/could barely hear it).
  • ● 20:55 minutes (Review - went over what they learned)
  • ● 21:25 minutes (Post assessment - wrote down students’ learning and how they related to framing questions. (Used different colored marker than in beginning)
  • ● 25:40 minutes (We exemplified what we were teaching)
  • ● 27:20 minutes (Formative assessment with exit tickets. Responses would be to help develop a hypothetical future lesson.)

When looking at the data collected, it is satisfying to see the different ways students chose to record their learning. Some recorded thoughts through drawing pictures, others made graphic organizers with pictures we provided, others took notes on what they learned, and every group chose to complete the kinesthetic activity of matching concepts and gluing them onto a paper.
However, the completions of the matching activities in each group may have been to a lack of clear directions on our part. Although there were clear written directions in the folder, we did not show which of the resources in the folders were which before the groups got started. This left groups to sort through each of the resources in the folder, not knowing exactly what to do with them if they hadn’t identified the document with the directions on it. Many groups went straight for the matching activity, which had simple directions on it. I don’t think they knew it was a choice activity to enhance learning, not required.

D. What adjustments would you make if you were teaching this again to your partner school colleagues?
  1. 1. Provide clear directions from the onset to reduce, eliminate, and minimize confusion.
  2. 2. Organize file folder which contained lesson instructions and activities.
  3. 3. Students will have a clearer understanding of main activity and extra/side task.
  4. 4. Have a louder stop signal. Moo Cow could barely be heard. Good concept, tool, and strategy. Needs to be louder so students can hear when it’s time to stop working.
  5. 5. Provide fresh school supplies (glue).
  6. 6. Be more natural and not read from an index card.
  7. 7. Change voice tone/pitch so it’s not monotone.
  8. 8. Students will know what to do with contents in packet/file folder.
  9. 9. When student asks a question be as honest and truthful as possible. If not sure, then ask co-teacher to help answer the question.