Evidence Requested in the ncate offsite Reports Not Provided in the Addendum Submitted by the University of Cincinnati boe visit: November 4-6, 2012 Responses to Concerns and Requests for Further Evidence



Download 1.71 Mb.
Page8/11
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size1.71 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11
Data from current pilot of the focused dispositions assessmentData collection was still underway when the IR was submitted. The spring pilot of the focused dispositions form yielded these data (items highlighted in yellow are areas for fall discussion with programs):

2012 Pilot of Detailed Dispositions Form for Urban Teachers

Please indicate the focus or foci of this observation. You will then be directed to a specific set of indicators.

 

#

%

 

 

Rapport and relationships with students

56

45%

 

 

Communication and classroom language

39

31%

 

 

Motivating students

24

19%

 

 

Learning environment

23

18%

 

 

Instructional management

41

33%

 

 

Instruction

41

33%

 

 

Assessment

18

14%

 

 

Initiative

34

27%

 

 

Reflection

34

27%

 

 

Differentiating instruction

17

14%

 

 

Culturally responsive instruction

24

19%

 

 

Rapport and relationships with students

Strength

Observed sometimes or emerging

Point for discussion

Responses

I-Thou Interaction - interacts with each student at a person to person level

29

14

1

44

Calls students by name

28

15

1

44

Greets students at the door

10

32

1

43

Makes personal conversation with students with more than superficial knowledge

24

17

2

43

Smiles

37

7

0

44

Makes eye contact

39

3

1

43

Active listening - reflects back the emotion in a clarifying statement

29

13

1

43

Gives evidence of having heard the student by reflecting the idea of feelings of the student

26

15

1

42

Jokes to relieve tension

20

22

1

43

Asks questions and makes comments that demonstrate personal interest

30

13

1

44

Show humor

25

18

0

43

Provides praise and reprimand without producing student embarrassment

25

19

0

44

Show respect and give compliments

39

5

0

44

Encourages attendance and enthusiastically personally attends extra curricular activities

17

16

6

39

Communication and classroom language

Strength

Observed sometimes or emerging

Point for discussion

Responses

Welcoming tone of voice

24

7

0

31

Reflects a calm visage

25

4

0

29

Clarifies understanding, recognizing that they may be responsible for the lack of understanding

17

11

1

29

Paraphrases and expands on student ideas

16

13

1

30

Provides support (e.g., "I appreciate how difficult this seems.")

17

13

1

31

Varies pitch, volume, and inflection

15

11

4

30

Nods and gestures to encourage and demonstrate enthusiasm

21

9

1

31

Motivating students

Strength

Observed sometimes or emerging

Point for discussion

Responses

Encouraging feedback, such as complimenting sincerely

15

4

1

20

Praises the accomplishment/achievement

15

4

1

20

Challenges students to think, problem solve, take up the challenge

10

8

3

21

Asks questions that intrigue students

5

14

1

20

Relates to students experiences in their community, as a class, as members of a school

9

10

1

20

Provides a rationale for the lesson, concept, skill that is accepted by students

8

12

0

20

Allows students to make some decisions

14

6

0

20

Involves students in discussion, activity, or teaching

18

2

0

20

Enforces classroom routines

11

6

0

17

Uses cooperative/collaborative learning structures

11

9

0

20

Praises the accomplishment/achievement

16

3

1

20

Learning Environment

Strength

Observed sometimes or emerging

Point for discussion

Responses

Written communication is legible, clear, and attractive

16

4

0

20

Books readily available in the room

6

7

4

17

Relevant posters, changed frequently

11

5

2

18

Pictures of the class/students

5

6

4

15

Computers/software available and in use for reinforcing instruction

6

7

4

17

Videos used as instructional media

10

4

2

16

Arranges the classroom to facilitate interaction

6

7

4

17

Instructional Management

Strength

Observed sometimes or emerging

Point for discussion

Responses

Clarifies how the student might use feelings constructively

10

18

0

28

Manages classrooms through clear procedures which are verbalized and reviewed

13

19

2

34

Provides opportunities to make decisions about procedures

14

18

0

32

Refrains from using negative judgments (e.g. should never, everybody ought, any fifth grader would understand this)

27

4

0

31

Uses explicit reprimands (In this room people are quiet while others are talking. Please keep quiet for our speaker).

13

19

0

32

Makes statements regarding self-management and personal responsibility rather than relying on teacher presence and control

15

15

0

30

Moves around the classroom

26

4

3

33

Assumes role of learner, listener, supportive adult as needed

26

6

0

32

Provides clear rules and procedures

14

17

1

32

Actively teaches rules and procedures

15

16

0

31

Consistent with rules/procedures

20

12

0

32

Reminds students of rules

13

18

0

31

Provides nonverbal signals that behaviors need to change

12

17

1

30

Consistently and fairly provides natural consequences

7

20

1

28

Uses the least intense correction possible

20

10

0

30

Ignore minor issues when students continue to be engaged; picks battles

23

8

0

31

Use rationale rather than power arguments

16

12

0

28

Respond positively to justified criticism

23

6

0

29

Provides redundant cues - visual and verbal; kinesthetic and verbal; written and spoken

12

15

1

28

Appropriate flexibility in applying rules

17

14

0

31

Makes rules together with students

6

16

2

24

Instruction

Strength

Observed sometimes or emerging

Point for discussion

Responses

Frequent and varied testing

7

17

6

30

Provides adequate wait time

12

16

5

33

Changes tack when lesson is lagging

8

22

3

33

Probe for students' background, beliefs, and interests

19

14

1

34

Explain the reason for activities

12

20

2

34

Uses content specific pedagogy

21

12

0

33

Assessment

Strength

Observed sometimes or emerging

Point for discussion

Responses

Engages students in evaluating their own work

7

7

0

14

Engages students in reviewing their progress

5

9

0

14

Varies assessments using:

6

6

1

13

learning logs

3

5

2

10

performances

6

7

0

13

portfolios/work samples

6

6

0

12

post-test/pre-test

4

5

2

11

questioning

8

5

0

13

students as teachers

3

7

0

10

Initiative

Strength

Observed sometimes or emerging

Point for discussion

Responses

Seeks or accepts new tasks

22

5

1

28

Acquires resources for teaching

17

9

1

27

Identifies a mentor or model teacher who is active, positive, and engaged

12

8

0

20

Generates new ideas, relationships, applications, products

15

6

4

25

Seeks out and uses data and strategies to address classroom concerns

11

11

2

24

Consciously modifies behavior toward students to obtain desirable results

10

12

0

22

Makes predictions about the effort of one's behavior on students and tests those predictions

13

8

1

22

Reflection

Strength

Observed sometimes or emerging

Point for discussion

Responses

Separates one's opinions from data

18

5

1

24

Verbalizes that conditions or events can improve

19

7

0

26

Uses data as opposed to acting on impulse

13

12

0

25

Analyzes own behavior

20

6

0

26

Believes students are capable of liking him or her

24

3

0

27

Differentiating Instruction

Strength

Observed sometimes or emerging

Point for discussion

Responses

Analyzes student work and reteaches

8

3

0

11

Implements IEP identified accommodations and adaptations

3

6

2

11

Adaptive technology

4

5

1

10

Alternative activities

4

5

0

9

Inclusive instruction

8

4

0

12

Independent study

3

4

1

8

Learning contracts

3

5

1

9

One on one

12

1

0

13

Peer support

7

4

0

11

Small groups

9

3

0

12

Varied assignments and activities; no single activity/assignment longer than 20 minutes without movement or change

8

5

0

13

Varied texts

7

4

1

12

Culturally Responsive Instruction

Strength

Observed sometimes or emerging

Point for discussion

Responses

Persevere despite challenges that may arise

12

4

0

16

Demonstrate commitment to carrying out all objectives, activities, and projects to promote high standards

14

2

0

16

Describe challenges through multiple lenses

12

4

0

16

Demonstrate unique paths to problem solving

11

3

0

14

Hold high expectations

16

0

0

16

Emphasize strengths rather than deficits

14

1

0

15

Demonstrates self-examination regarding relationships

11

4

0

15

Creates learning opportunities adapted to diverse populations

11

3

0

14

Ardently interested

12

3

1

16

Persistence

14

2

0

16

Value of children's learning

15

1

0

16

Putting ideas into practice

12

3

0

15

Approach to at-risk students

12

4

0

16

Professional/personal orientation to students

12

3

0

15

Professional/personal orientation to bureaucracy

10

5

0

15

Professional/personal orientation to fallibility

11

4

0

15

Strong planning and organization

11

4

1

16


Reflections on the Hughes Initiative

Hughes STEM High School & UC School of Education Literacy Coaching Initiative (Chet Laine, UC; Jaime Beirne, Cincinnati Public Schools, 2012)
Description of the Initiative: The Hughes STEM High School & UC School of Education Literacy Coaching Initiative is designed to meet the needs of the Hughes STEM freshmen, particularly those with special needs (i.e., unmotivated, neglected, special education). The coaches, UC School of Education teaching candidates, are college juniors, seniors or graduate students seeking integrated English language arts teaching license, valid for grades seven to twelve, or a mild to moderate Special Education teaching license, valid for teaching kindergarten through grade twelve.
Approximately 20 coaching teams (English & special education pairs) will work closely with small groups of Hughes STEM freshmen. These teams will coach Hughes STEM freshmen at the high school during the day and/or after the school day, six hours per week for 10-11 weeks. These UC licensure candidates will be supervised by faculty, field service supervisors, and doctoral students. An accompanying university course will be offered in the Hughes STEM Professional Development Center each Wednesday from 4:30 until 6:50 for approximately 11 weeks from Wednesday, September 22, to Wednesday, December 8, 2010.
According to Allington (2006), teachers and administrators who wish to design reading remediation and intervention programs need to focus on four research-based components: (1) students need to read a lot; (2) students need books they can read; (3) students need to learn to read fluently; and (4) students need to develop thoughtful literacy. The literacy Hughes STEM/School of Education coaching program will feature high-interest materials designed to engage reluctant readers, research-based teaching strategies, and alternative literacies interventions, such as literature circles, photovoice, and creating graphic novels. This coaching initiative will enhance existing programs at the high school, including the work of a new Title I teacher.
Rationale for the Initiative: 85% of school learning requires careful reading (Simpson & Nist, 2000b). Academic success depends to a considerable degree upon students' ability to engage in strategic reading of academic or informational text. This is particularly important in the fields of science, engineering, technology and mathematics. “Reading is the centerpiece of intellectual development in any and all disciplines. While it is absolutely necessary to encourage and facilitate the increased involvement of students in the STEM field, as political leaders around the world are now doing on a regular basis, it is even more important to first assure that their literacy skills are developed to the optimum extent” (Harvey, 2010, p. 18).
Notes on Review of Related Research: Although we drew from many sources for this summary, Richard Allington’s What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based practices, Informed choices for struggling adolescent readers: A research-based guide to instructional programs and practices by Deshler, Palincsar, Biancarosa and Nair, and research and research reviews by Nist and Simpson are primary sources. Allington is a nationally-recognized scholar and author. Allington summarizes the research for teachers and administrators who wish to design reading remediation and intervention. In Part I of the text by Deshler, Palincsar, Biancarosa and Nair, the authors highlight research on what works with adolescent learners and discuss how to implement instructional programs to fit the unique needs of individual schools or district. In Part II, the authors present a directory of more than 40 programs designed for middle and secondary students. In April 2000, the National Reading Panel (NRP) released its research-based findings in two reports and a video entitled, "Teaching Children to Read." This 35-page report explains the origin of the National Reading Panel and its congressional charge. It describes the research methodology used and the findings of each of the National Reading Panel subgroups: (1) Alphabetics, (2) Fluency, (3) Comprehension, (4) Teacher Education and Reading Instruction, and (5) Computer Technology and Reading Instruction. The report also offers information on reading instruction.

In their articles, Simpson and Nist report on what are sometimes called “study strategies” or “active reading.” Finally, the New London Group’s seminal article “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures,” emphasizes “how negotiating the multiple linguistic and cultural differences in our society is central to the pragmatics of the working, civic, and private lives of students” (1996, p. 60).


Research-Based Strategies: Among the difficulties that adolescents who struggle with reading encounter are the following:


  1. difficulty discerning important from unimportant information;

  2. selecting, organizing, and interpreting across multiple texts;

  3. accessing a repertoire of effective reading strategies;

  4. managing executive control over underlying cognitive, metacognitive, and affective processes that are the foundation of these strategies;

  5. believing in their ability to control their success; and

  6. being motivated to read actively (Simpson & Nist, 2000b).

In addition, their goals for reading may not match their instructors' goals, especially given the competing demands of work, families, social events, personal problems, and other courses.


The academic difficulties for adolescents who struggle with reading are compounded by strategies that are ineffective. Research on strategic instruction suggests that it is best to teach students a limited number of research-validated strategies over an extended period of time. Research has found that there are a limited number of research-validated strategies. Four that consistently emerge are (1) students generating questions about what they read; (2) writer-based summaries; (3) self-generated elaborations; and (4) organizing strategies (Nist & Simpson, 2000b):


  1. When students generate questions about what they have read, they are actively processing text information and monitoring their understanding of that information. As a result their text comprehension improves. Several methods have been validated to train students how to create task appropriate questions that elicit higher levels of thinking. One is using generic question stems that ask students to analyze, predict, compare and contrast, apply and evaluate at text (e.g., “What is an example of …?”). Another research-validated strategy is reciprocal teaching, in which students work collaboratively in small groups or pairs, asking each other questions and answering them in a reciprocal manner. This research shows that the question answering is equal in importance to the question asking because students are encouraged to clarify concepts, create alternative examples, or relate ideas to their partners’ prior knowledge in order to answer the question from their partner.




  1. Writer-based summaries are external products that students create for themselves in order to reduce and organize information for their subsequent study and review. For a summary to be effective, students must use their own words to form connections across the concepts and relate the concepts to their own prior knowledge and experiences. Writer-based summaries not only improve students’ comprehension, but also help them monitor their understanding. This is not a strategy that is quickly mastered. Unless the teacher provides explicit instruction of some duration, there will be no impact on student performance.




  1. When students generate elaborations, they create examples or analogies, draw inferences, and explain the relationships between two or more concepts. The research shows that students can be trained to create elaborations and that self-generated elaborations can significantly affect students’ performance on both immediate recall and recognition measures, as well as delayed recall measures. One method, elaborative interrogation, involves students in making connections between ideas they have read and their prior knowledge by generating “why” questions and then answering those questions. Another method, oral elaboration, involves students in generating their own elaborations and then reciting them orally.




  1. The most researched and validated, but not necessarily the most effective, strategies are those designed to help students organize information. One organizing strategy is to have students identify main ideas and subordinate ideas, make connections among those ideas, and choose a way to visually represent those ideas in a spatial form. These representations, often referred to as concept maps, generally depict a hierarchical or linear relationship, and can be created in such a way as to represent complex interrelationships among ideas. Mapping seems to be most effective in situations where students must read and study complex expository texts and then demonstrate their understanding on measures requiring higher-level thinking such as synthesis and application. Concept mapping benefits students (a) whose teachers provide training in how to map, (b) who study these maps, and (c) who persist in the strategy.

Based on their own research and that of others, Nist and Simpson recommend the following:




  1. Use a limited repertoire of research-validated strategies must be taught over an extended period of time.

  2. Effective strategy instruction must be explicit and direct.

  3. A substantial amount of time has to be committed to instruction. Such instruction must be intensive and of significant duration.

  4. Strategy instruction should occur within a specific context. Strategy instruction needs to occur in the setting where it will be used (e.g., history, mathematics, science). The student needs to see how the strategy pertains to the tasks and texts in that setting.

  5. Students must understand the teacher’s objectives and goals, must be aware of how the teacher thinks about his or her content domain, and must learn how to organize that information.

  6. Students must become aware of their personal beliefs about learning and realize that the teacher may have different beliefs about learning. This will have an impact on students’ choices about how they will read.

  7. In order for reading strategies to transfer, students must (a) be able to describe why a particular strategy is appropriate for a particular task, (b) be able to describe the advantages of a particular strategy, and (c) be able to modify a particular strategy for fit a new situation.

School of Education faculty members, supervisors and doctoral students will provide the prospective English and special education teachers with support as they implement these research-based strategies.
High Interest and Low Difficulty Texts: The academic difficulties for students who struggle with reading are compounded by texts that are too difficult (Allington, 2006). Being forced to read books that are too difficult destroys motivation, the development of a healthy reading process and academic progress. Providing readable, high-interest text for the Hughes STEM freshmen is critical. Among the high interest and low difficulty materials that will be used are some graphic novels. Graphic novels grew out of the comic book movement in the 1960s. The facts that graphic novels include visual images engage students who struggle with reading and writing. These students often see literature defined too narrowly; they expect painful, boring experiences. 7. Rocco Versaci, “How Comic Books Can Change the Way Our Students See Literature: One Teacher's Perspective”, English Journal 91.2 (2001), pp. 61–67. Full Text via CrossRef Some of the graphic novels that will be used are the following:


  • Art Spiegelman's Maus is a Pulitzer Prize-winning Holocaust memoir that casts the Germans and Jews as cats and mice.

  • Still I Rise by Roland Owen Laird and Elihu Bey tells the history of African Americans in the United States, beginning in 1619.

  • Keiji Nakazawa's Barefoot Gen series tells of Japan before and after Hiroshima.

  • Joe Kubert's Fax from Sarajevo depicts the war in Bosnia and Hercegovina in the 1990s.

  • Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis series is an autobiographical account of her life, including her childhood in Iran during the Islamic revolution. This graphic novel goes beyond representing historical facts and offers a portrait of a culture.


Literature Circles: Students who struggle with academic reading grow progressively less interested in reading and remain unsuccessful. It is critical that programs motivate students to read independently. A direct correlation can be found between reading achievement and amount of text processed per day. We improve as readers by reading (Allington, 2006). This is often called the Matthew effect. The use of literature circles improves students’ abilities to analyze texts and increases their self-determination in selecting texts and discussing ideas (Allington, R., 2006; Almasi, J.F., 1995; Almasi, J.F., Arya, P., & O’Flahavan, J.F., 2001; Almasi, J.F., McKeown, M.G., & Beck, I.L., 1996; Alvermann, D., 1996; Alvermann, D., Young, J.P., Weaver, D., Hinchman, K.A., Moore, D.W., Phelps, S.F., Thrash, E.C., & Zalewski, P., 1996.).
Kurzweil Technology: Many high school readers can read the words on the page; it’s the comprehension that gets them. Researchers have examined the complex nature of reading fluency (Hudson, Pullen, Lane & Torgesen, in press). While not a complete reading program itself, reading fluency is as an essential element of every reading program (National Reading Panel, 2000). Fluent reading is one of the defining characteristics of good readers, and a lack of fluency is a common characteristic of poor readers. Research shows the relationship between poor fluency and poor comprehension. A lack of reading fluency is a good predictor of reading comprehension problems. Fluent reading is made up of at least three key elements: accurate reading of connected text at a conversational rate with appropriate prosody (expression). A fluent reader can maintain this performance for long periods of time, retains the skill after long periods of no practice, and can generalize across texts (Hudson, Lane, & Pullen, 2006, 702). Fluency is improved through repeated, monitored oral reading using a variety of reading materials, and by hearing models of fluent reading.
Alternative Literacies: As the world becomes much more technologically advanced and a larger number of students are growing up exposed to computers and technology, it is clear that changes need to be made in instruction. “Pre-digital” educators are faced with students who are native users and fluent in digital technology. This phenomenon has propelled educators and researches to examine new definitions of literacy. This field of research, New Literacy Studies, challenges the notion that literacy is simply reading and writing. The New London Group’s seminal article “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures,” emphasized “how negotiating the multiple linguistic and cultural differences in our society is central to the pragmatics of the working, civic, and private lives of students” (p. 60). Although many students successfully communicate through these new literacies, they struggle with the academic literacy demands of high school and college. Unfortunately, research has shown that students seldom bring out-of-school funds of knowledge to bear in the classroom context, even though these funds are sufficiently rich with possibilities to not only build bridges between in- and out-of-school contexts but also to expand and deepen understanding of the target content knowledge. Students need guidance from teachers in order to bridge their in- and out-of-school literacy practices.
Photovoice: Photovoice is a multimodal literacy strategy where participants use cameras to represent and/or codify a concept or topic through visual means and then add written text as a complementary meaning-making device. As an instructional approach, Photovoice activities encourage students to “identify, represent, and enhance their community by sharing and discussing visual images” (Meyer & Kroeger, 2005, p. 187). Because it requires only the purchase of a disposable camera and access to writing tools, Photovoice is an affordable and easily transportable way to introduce students to the idea of multimodal literacy (Wang & Burris, 1997). The use of photography is particularly useful for students who struggle with reading and writing because of the visual stimuli that it provides as they find images that represent words and then use their words to describe the images (Hibbing & Rankin-Erickson, 2003). Using photography in instructional approaches is likewise a strong student motivator, creating new avenues and opportunities for self-reflection and in-depth meaning making on the part of the student-photographers and their audiences. Further, Photovoice is viewed as a powerful tool for examining the iterative nature of meaning-making for both producers and consumers of literacy artifacts. As students share their Photovoice projects, meanings dynamically evolve, with each viewer decoding the texts in personally new ways (Brown, 2005) and the meaning-making process itself continuously mediated by the specific sociocultural contexts at work in any given classroom (Alvermann & Hagood, 2000). Photovoice has been shown to encourage positive social interactions among participants (Kist, 2005), which in turn helps to expose the otherwise “hidden” literacy identities of both the photographer and the viewer(s). Brandt (2001) notes the ways these kinds of interactive activities can serve as springboards for writing, and Van Horn (2008) points out that Photovoice activities, in particular, can encourage the creation of a diverse learning community, arguing that “as students view, talk, and write, they become more cognizant of their own various cultures” (41).
Creating Graphic Novels: Adolescent readers and writers can increase their skills by reading and writing graphic novels (Bucher & Manning, 2004; Frey & Fisher, 2004). An assigned one-hundred-fifty page novel will intimidate many readers who are afraid of the time (and effort) it will take to read the novel. A one-hundred-fifty page graphic novel, however, is more easily read—the reading strategy of visualization is done right on the page—and takes less time to read than adolescents expect, building confidence. Teaching students how to create graphic novels makes them into competent storytellers. The challenges these struggling adolescent readers and writers face in school, standard text-only writing, becomes, with scaffolding, the challenge of telling their story in another format instead of the challenge of writing anything at all.
Edmund J. Osterman is a freelance illustrator, drawing comics and illustrations for print and online publications including the Mercantile Library, American University, and the Kid’s Book Project for Make-a-Wish International. A licensed teacher (Ohio Adolescent to Young Adult Integrated English Language Arts), Mr. Osterman is a teacher at Princeton High School and is pursuing a master’s degree at the University of Cincinnati. When teaching adolescents to create young adult graphic novels, Mr. Osterman begins by having them read model graphic novels and comics of high quality (e.g., Jeff Smith’s Bone, Bill Watterson’s Calvin and Hobbes, James Kochalka’s Peanut Butter and Jeremy’s Best Book Ever). These works appeal both to novice readers and highly literate adults. He then shows them how the artists use a variety of ways to show action and emotion. He breaks down how these drawing methods (e.g., steam coming out of a character’s ears to show anger) are culturally specific. (In Japanese Manga, a common and immediately understood symbol is a balloon coming out of a character’s nose; this indicates sleep.) Once students with poor self-efficacy in their drawing skills understand that they can draw exciting and valuable comics even if they can’t draw realistically, Mr. Osterman works on their storytelling, specifically the economy of language and choosing what part of the scene to draw in each panel.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page