 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
A Resource Teacher’s Role in the Regular Classroom
Copyright
2003 by Donna Malpeli Am I Truly Helping Students? This school year, my teaching position has moved from the regular classroom to a resource teaching position. Making this transition has been one of the biggest challenges that I have faced thus far in my teaching career. I have faced a variety of obstacles, ranging from scheduling difficulties, the vague role of my new position, interactions with teachers and students, and my knowledge of the curriculum. As I began the year, I had two goals in mind, I wanted to make a difference in the learning of the students, and I wanted to do this in a way that capitalized on collaboration with the teachers with whom I work. As the year has progressed, I feel that I am making progress toward my goals, but their complete success is in question. The primary puzzlement that I am experiencing in this new role is how the ways in which my interactions with the teachers and students with whom I work are affecting student performance. Background Midway Elementary School (all names in this report are pseudonyms) is located in a diverse community in a suburb in northern Virginia. The school is dedicated to child-centered learning, working to meet the diverse needs of individual learners. Strong inclusion and differentiation committees have provided much staff development in support of these areas. Reading comprehension strategies in addition to strategies to promote written achievement are the focuses for this year. Children are encouraged to take risks, to work in cooperative groups, and to demonstrate respect and responsibility. The school has a population of 550 students, with approximately 80 special education students. It has a population of 169 students in the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program. These children come from all over the world, including Japan, Korea, Vietnam, China, Egypt, Pakistan, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, El Salvador, Peru, Mexico, Russia, and Bosnia. There are an enormous variety of ethnic, religious, socioeconomic, and cultural differences in each classroom. This diversity provides a rich basis to explore cultural and ethnic diversity. This school has a yearly Multicultural Celebration highlighting cultural dress, food, and language. This is the most widely attended school-wide event. Due to the fact that many of our parents do not speak English, one secretary in the front office is fluent in Spanish, as is our parent liaison. We also have frequent contact with translators to encourage parent-teacher communication. At the conclusion of last year, our school was targeted as a potential EXCEL school. We were identified for this program, aimed to provide extra support and funds to our school, due to our low Standards of Learning (SOL) test scores, although the 2002 test scores have given Midway the credentials of Fully Accredited. We were also identified because of our high rate of poverty, as evidenced by our 44% rate of students receiving free and reduced lunch. Due to budget constraints, this program was not funded, but we did receive funding to become a school-wide Title I school. As a school-wide Title I school, we have one additional reading and one additional math specialist. This funding has also allowed Midway to begin a full-day Kindergarten program. This is aimed to provide our young learners, many of whom have had limited educational opportunities, more time in the school setting. When Midway became a School-Wide Title I school, the staff was given the opportunity to brainstorm the most effective ways to utilize these funds. After much deliberation, the consensus was full-day Kindergarten and a half-time SOL Resource teacher, my current position. The intent of this position is to provide third and fifth grade teachers and students with additional support in the content areas to help students achieve, thereby increasing SOL test scores. Due to the fact that this position is new to Midway and the county, I had the job of designing it to suit the needs of our students and teachers. I began by using the administrators’ and teachers’ thoughts on my role as the basis for my position. My principal voiced her feelings on the importance of my working with the children who have the potential to be just below passing or just below pass advanced on the SOL test. She also wanted me to target concepts that our school’s test data has shown to be a deficit. The fifth grade teachers have voiced a need for me to work on certain science concepts and math skills, primarily with the “at risk” students. The third grade teachers also enlisted my assistance on certain science and social studies skills, reading comprehension, and they would like me to work with children who are in need of enrichment. Taking these factors into account, I began the year by providing all of the teachers with a list of ways that I could work with the students to guide our beginning of the year discussions. Defining my role is an ongoing endeavor. Research by McQuarrie and Zarry (1999) states that the role of a resource teacher should include direct instruction, assessment, administration, consultation, and collaboration. Keeping all of these factors in perspective has been a challenge. Currently, I work in a third grade classroom each Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday for one hour during reading. The third grade switches classes for reading, and the students with whom I work, are primarily just below or on grade level in reading. I also work each of those days for one hour in a fifth grade math class. All of these students are just below level or on level in math. I work with four fifth grade pullout groups, one time a week for one-half hour. When working with these groups, we do guided reading and writing, targeting the science concepts being studied in class. In addition, I go into each of the four third grade classrooms on a rotational basis, to teach or supplement the instruction of more challenging social studies and science concepts. I pull a group of eight above level third grade students to work on enrichment science and social studies materials each week. Finally, I work with six third graders in need of math enrichment two times, each week, and I also serve as a resource on SOL topics for the staff, while pulling together supplemental materials for teachers to highlight challenging SOL topics. My principal and I meet once a month to define and redefine my role. Prior to obtaining this position, I taught third grade at Midway for three years. Before that, I taught third grade in Baltimore County, Maryland for one year. At Midway I taught with one of the third grade teachers on the team for all three years that I was in third grade. I taught with one of the teachers for two years, and one for one year. I team-taught for the subjects of reading and spelling with the ESOL teacher the first two years that I was at Midway. In doing this, we divided our duties, planned primarily on our own, and met occasionally to plan together. I also team taught last year with the LD teacher for math instruction. I completed the majority of the planning. She, then, adapted what she felt was necessary and primarily, followed my lead. In all of these situations, the children were grouped into flexible groups, and we worked with small groups of children. The design of this math instruction was based on an inservice presented by Roberts and Koller (2001)). This teacher’s differentiated instruction was based upon the work of Carolyn Chapman (2001). For the purpose of this investigation, I am going to concentrate on the third grade reading class and the fifth grade math class that I go into the regular classroom to teach. This year, I teach with April Harris in the third grade reading class, three days a week. April is a fourth year teacher, and we taught third grade together for two years. April’s classroom espouses the philosophy of the school. She has a print-rich environment in the classroom, with labeled items, a word wall, a variety of books, and computers available for student use. We teach through guided reading, shared reading, word study activities, and literature circles. This literacy instruction in this classroom is based upon the research of several key researchers in the field, some of whom are Richard Allington, Johnston, and Day (2002). Our word study instruction is based upon the works of Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, and Johnston (2000). Flexible grouping (Chapman, 2001) is used routinely in reading and word study to differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all of the learners in the classroom. Children are encouraged to express their ideas, ask questions, and work toward their own answers. They are expected to demonstrate respect for one another and act responsibly. The children have nightly reading and spelling homework. If this homework is not completed, they receive a consequence in their homeroom classes. There is inconsistency in the completion of their homework. Sticker incentives are being given each day to try to promote homework completion. Since this has begun, homework completion has been increasing. There are nineteen students in this class, eleven girls, and eight boys. Six students are Caucasian, four students are Hispanic, two students are Asian, two students are Kurdish, two students are Somalian, and four students are African American. Ms. Harris and I each teach two word study groups and two reading groups each day. For the first quarter of the year, Ms. Harris taught all reading, and I taught all word study. After looking at and assessing student grades at the end of the first quarter, we decided to change this system to allow for greater opportunities for flexible groupings and to allow each of us to see all of the children in reading and spelling. In addition to working with Ms. Harris on grades, we worked together to provide feedback on reading and spelling achievement at parent-teacher conferences. The fifth grade class in which I work has twenty-four students. There are eight boys and sixteen girls. There are four Caucasian students, five Samalian students, eight Hispanic students, two Asian students, two African American students, and three Kurdish students. I taught ten of these students when they were in the third grade. The fifth grade teacher, Liz Lock, has been teaching fifth grade for four years. This is her second year teaching fifth grade at Midway. Mrs. Lock teaches the math lesson to the whole group each Monday and Tuesday, while I teach the main lesson each Wednesday. We each spend time circulating through the room, assisting students as needed everyday. Cooperative learning is fostered through frequent math games and projects. Mrs. Lock and I did not confer at conference time on grades, and I did not attend any of the parent-teacher conferences, although I did offer. Students are expected to turn in their homework each day. I collect and grade homework two days a week, and Mrs. Lock does on the other two days. Students, who do not complete homework, are expected to bring it in the following day, with a signed parent note. On the whole, students turn in their homework on a regular basis. Students are encouraged to act responsibly with respect. They are expected to ask questions when they do not understand and practice the material on a daily basis at home to increase their efficiency in their math work. Both of these classroom teachers offer sound educational programs, and both have been open to working with me. However, my role in each classroom has been very different, as evidenced by the above summary. Framing the Issue The primary puzzlement that I am experiencing in my role as the SOL resource teacher is how the ways in which my interactions with the teachers and students with whom I work are affecting student performance. In looking at this puzzlement, there are three questions that I would like to further investigate. First, how do my beliefs, values and prior experiences contribute to my role in each classroom, thereby contributing to student success? Next, how does my teaching style differ between the third and fifth grade classes in which I teach? Finally, how does my familiarity with the teachers, students, and materials contribute to student success? As I search to answer this puzzlement, I chose two cultural questions that I feel are influencing my role in affecting student achievement and teacher instruction within the classrooms with which I work. First, question 3.1: How might my beliefs and values in addition to the beliefs and values of April and Liz be contributing to our interactions, teaching styles, and student achievement? (Jacob, 1999). The other cultural question, which I have adjusted slightly, that could be impacting my puzzlement, is 3.5.1: How might my negotiations of classroom cultures be contributing to the puzzling situation? (Jacob, 1999) As I move between classrooms, the cultures change quite a bit. I believe that these differences and my response to these differences could be affecting my influence on student achievement in each of the classrooms. Data Collection In order to answer the cultural questions, I have collected much data through self-reflective journals focused on my framing questions, observations and anecdotal notes, interviews, and surveys. The observations and anecdotal notes on these observations in Liz’s and April’s classrooms aided in my reflections on their teaching styles and encouraged the development of my interviews and survey questions (see Appendices B, C, & D). Answering Framing Question #1: How do my beliefs, values and prior experiences contribute to my role in each classroom, thereby contributing to student success? Self-reflective journals have been a key factor in my data collections for this project. First, I reflected on my own teaching style and planning in addition to the classroom environment that I established when I was in the regular classroom. My reflections of my previous teaching experiences and the survey that I completed on my learner-centered beliefs (See Appendix A) have revealed that I am a firm believer in differentiated instruction. Reading the works of Carolyn Chapman (2001) has formed the basis for my differentiated instruction. I often use flexible grouping to provide what I believe to be the most effective form of differentiated instruction. This type of instruction is based upon Vygotsky’s (Rozycki & Goldfarb, 2000) research on teaching students at their zone of proximal development. This is the level at which students learn best with teacher assistance or scaffolding. I encourage students to think and construct their own knowledge about what they are learning, which enables them to connect their current learning to their previous knowledge (McCombs and Whistler, 1997). I am a firm believer in structure, predictable schedules, and the establishment of routines, which my experiences have proven, form a solid basis for effective instruction. While inspecting the ways in which I plan, I found that I first look at the objectives that I am trying to teach to establish “the big picture.” After that, I break this down into its smaller components and then, plan each individual lesson to address those components. I like to plan the basics of my lessons one week in advance so that I know the direction in which I am headed, and then, refine the lessons as I get nearer to teaching them. I have also reflected on my previous experiences with resource teachers when I was in the regular classroom, teaching third grade. I acknowledge that team teaching is a gradual, growing process. I believe that the small group instruction was effective, but the collaboration that I had with the resource teachers that were working in my classroom was not as effective as it could have been. McQuarrie and Zarry (1999) discovered in their study of the roles of resource teachers that the collaboration and planning aspect of the resource teacher’s role was the least well developed component. This was due primarily to time constraints, which is very similar to my situation. Now that I am the resource teacher, I have been using my previous experiences as the foundation of my role. In doing this, I have gone into the rooms, believing that small group instruction is essential when two teachers are in the classroom, and acknowledging the fact that collaborative planning is important. Some of my assumptions have contributed to my difficulties in Liz’s classroom, as I have been resistant to different forms of team teaching and math instruction. A final source of data collection in my investigation of my beliefs and values and their contribution to student success was student surveys (see Appendices C & D). I utilized these surveys to understand the students’ view of my role in the classroom and their beliefs on their success in each of the classrooms. These surveys revealed that the majority of the students in April’s room view both of us as having a positive effect on their reading and spelling achievement. They rated our instruction high, and they enjoyed having two teachers in the classroom. The majority of the students felt very successful in reading and spelling. The survey of the fifth graders showed that they viewed us both as valuable instructors, however, Liz’s ratings were slightly higher. About one-fourth of the class viewed themselves as unsuccessful in math, but they said that having two teachers in the classroom was helpful. They rated the instruction at a mid-level. A few of the students commented that they were sometimes confused by our different forms of instruction. These surveys allowed me to see that the students in April’s room feel more successful than the students in Liz’s classroom, which I believe is a result of the similar beliefs and values that April and I hold and the different beliefs that Liz and I hold. These differences affect my teaching style in each of the classrooms, which is discussed through my data collection based on framing question #2. Answering Framing Question #2: How does my teaching style differ between the third and fifth grade classrooms in which I teach? Acknowledging the factors of differentiated instruction and flexible grouping (Chapman, 2001), a constructivist approach to instruction (Allington et al., 2002), the establishment of routines and predictability, and specific planning beliefs as central to my beliefs and values on education enabled me to develop interview questions and make focused observations based on these topics. These data then allowed me to answer my second framing question. My interview with April (see Appendix B), her child-centered survey (see Appendix A), observations, anecdotal notes, and reflections on these observations revealed that April believes strongly in grouping children into flexible groups for word study and reading instruction. As a result, we regroup frequently, work with small groups, and each play a vital role in instruction. She also places a strong emphasis on planning, which is why we meet for at least one hour weekly to plan instruction. We also talk nearly each morning to refine our lessons for the day, working to meet the needs of the students as they arise. We work with small groups of children and are able to spend the entire hour each day instructing the students because we spent a considerable amount of time at the start of the year establishing routines and procedures. All of these factors demonstrated that April and I have very similar beliefs and values on methods of instruction and planning. Reflections, anecdotal notes, and my interview with Liz revealed that our weekly meetings are much briefer, only about fifteen minutes per week. Liz teaches the whole group on Monday and Tuesday, and I teach the whole group on Wednesday. Liz often provides the students the math formulas with which we are working. I often present them the concept, and try to encourage them to construct the formulas. Jones and Tanner’s (2002) study revealed two effective methods of math instruction. One is funneling, in which the teacher leads the discussion to arrive at a predetermined solution. The other is focusing, in which the teacher’s questioning strategies lead the children to discover the solution on their own. These seem to be the two different ways that Liz and I teach, which research has shown are both effective. My reflections and interviews with Liz revealed that her beliefs and values are not as similar to mine as they were to April. The math class does not truly address differentiated instruction, flexible, small groupings are rarely used, and our collaborative planning is minimal, which makes our lessons somewhat disconnected. Although Liz’s instruction does not seem to focus as much on the learner-centered philosophies of education, her survey results (see Appendix A) revealed her to be a strong learner-centered educator. After interviewing Liz, she revealed that often, she feels that she cannot teach according to her learner-centered learning beliefs. This is due to the fact that she feels pressured by state and local mandates, which is a very real challenge among many educators. This feeling of a loss of power was investigated in a study conducted by Jenice Goldston and Gail Shroyer (2000). This study showed that when teachers feel a loss of power over their professionalism, student success suffers. Answering Framing Question #3: How does my familiarity with the teachers, students, and materials contribute to student success? My final reflections were based upon my familiarity with the groups with which I have been working. I am very familiar with both the teachers and curriculum in third grade. I was already aware of many of April’s teaching methods and beliefs before entering her room. Something that has been quite useful has been my knowledge of the third grade curriculum and the teaching strategies that work well with third graders. Fifth grade has been very new to me. This is my first time working with students of this age and with this curriculum. I am re-teaching myself many of the math concepts before teaching them to the students, and I am just getting to know Liz as a person and an educator as she is also getting to know me. I have taught many of the students before, but my reflections have revealed that I have sometimes used this prior knowledge in a negative way. I have found that I sometimes hold expectations congruent with my previous knowledge of these students, and their capabilities are very different than they were two years ago. Positively, for the students with whom I had great success in the past, I know what worked with them, and I can try it again. I have also already established my expectations with many of them, which has been very beneficial in obtaining their respect. Reflection on my fifth grade instruction has also demonstrated to me that I have a more challenging time being flexible in my instruction. I believe this to be due to many factors, namely, the newness of fifth grade instruction and curriculum and my adjustment to working in Liz’s classroom. The conclusions that I have drawn from my data, in answering my framing questions, directly relate to my answer to CIP Question 3.1: How might my beliefs and values in addition to the beliefs and values of April and Liz be contributing to our interactions, teaching style, and student achievement? (Jacob, 1999). April and I have very similar beliefs, values, and teaching styles, which has an impact on the high level of student achievement. The beliefs, values, and teaching styles of Liz and I revealed more differences, and therefore my role has had less of an impact on student achievement. In addition, these data sources enabled me to answer question 3.5.1: How might my negotiations of the two different classroom cultures be contributing to the puzzling situation? Using Phelan, Davidson, and Yu’s (1998) “Students Multiple Worlds Model,” as a guide, I currently find myself falling into the “Different Worlds, Border Crossing Difficult,” (p.14) pattern. As I cross from the classroom culture in April’s room to the classroom culture in Liz’s room, the transition is difficult. Typical of this pattern, my success in affecting student achievement seems to be greater in April’s room when compared to Liz’s room, as April’s room is very similar to the culture that I have previously created in my classrooms. I am able to adapt to the classroom culture in April’s room, but I am an experiencing more of a challenge making this adaptation when moving into Liz’s room. Interventions and Monitoring While investigating this puzzlement, it has become clear to me is that my role in April’s classroom is highly effective in promoting student achievement while my role in Liz’s classroom is less effective in promoting student achievement. For this reason, I will be focusing on my work in Liz’s classroom when formulating interventions. To address my concerns, I developed, implemented, and am in the process of monitoring the following interventions. I decided that the most effective way to begin was to discuss my findings with both Liz and April. I shared my reflections on my beliefs and values and how their survey and interview answers correlated with what I discovered about myself. In doing this, we have been able to open up a dialogue in addressing our similarities and differences. This has allowed Liz and me to acknowledge our differences and to work with them, as will be addressed in the following interventions. I have and will continue to emphasize the ways in which Liz and I can capitalize on our differences to most effectively teach the students. All students learn differently, which is the foundation behind differentiated instruction (Chapman, 2001). Liz and I have begun to acknowledge that our teaching differences provide the children alternate ways of thinking and analyzing information on the same topic, thereby meeting different learners’ needs. The fact that Liz and I each teach through funneling and focusing (Jones & Tanner, 2002) respectively, research shows, will increase student achievement. Liz and I have shared this with the students to ensure that we are all aware that different teaching methods promote student learning (Jones & Tanner, 2002). I now feel that my transition into Liz’s classroom is smoother, as I feel confident that my teaching style now enhances student learning rather than conflicting with it. This I feel has begun and will continue to improve my instruction and student achievement. In order to monitor its effect on student achievement, I will continue to make observations and reflections. I also plan to give the student survey again in mid-February, after six weeks of this intervention. I will compare the first survey results with the second survey results to note the students’ feelings on their success and their views our teaching. I developed an intervention in order to address Liz’s concern over a loss of power over her teaching due to state and local mandates. To acknowledge this challenge, I provided her a copy of the article “Teaching to the Test?: Test Preparation in the Reading Workshop,” by Donna Santman (2002), which addresses this problem and provides practical solutions to use in the classroom to maintain a quality learning environment and still address state and local mandates. When I read this article, I had an enlightened view of “teaching to the test.” Liz accepted this article, and said that she plans to read it. She has not had a chance to read it yet, but once she does, we are going to discuss our feelings on it, and try some of the interventions suggested in the article. One of these interventions involves allowing the children the opportunity to work with the language of the test. Santman (2002) suggests having the children experience test type questions and the language associated with the test. She describes having the students work with test-type questions within the context of each unit that is taught. I predict that if Liz and I were to do this throughout each math unit, the time spent on test preparation in April and May would be much less, thereby freeing time for other more child-centered learning activities. After Liz read the article, we will discuss it, and I will discuss implementing this strategy. I will monitor the results of this strategy by comparing the amount of time that we spend this year on test preparation when compared to the amount of time that Liz spent last year. I plan to implement the following intervention with Liz’s support beginning at the start of the third quarter. Vygotsky (Rozycki & Goldfarb, 2000) explains the need to meet students at their zone of proximal development and provide scaffolding to foster student success. I believe that this same philosophy is true when working with other educators. Liz revealed to me during our interview that her training on differentiated instruction and flexible grouping has been minimal in math, which has made her apprehensive to begin. For this reason, I plan to provide her a concrete program for small, flexibly grouped math instruction (Roberts & Koller, 2001). This program is being utilized in some classrooms throughout Midway and we have observed it in use in both a third and fourth grade classroom during our planning time. Liz and I have planned to meet during the teacher work days at the end of January so that I can present her with the materials and information that I gained at the inservice workshop given by Roberts & Koller (2001). While monitoring this intervention, I am cognizant of the fact that, as Kathryn Au (1997) emphasizes, it is imperative to allow time for change to take place. For this reason, we have decided that I will plan for small group instruction to begin each Wednesday, which is the day of the week that I normally teach the students. This will allow us to begin differentiated instruction and flexible grouping, one step at a time. When we begin, Liz and I will discuss its success each week during our planning time. We plan to add one or two more days per week if it is successful in increasing student achievement, as will be evidenced by the second student survey as well as student work samples. In addition to experimenting with differentiated instruction and flexible grouping, I am now equipped with research by Jones & Tanner (2002) that demonstrates that whole group math instruction is beneficial when the teaching is, “…a two-way process in which pupils are expected to play an active part by answering questions, contributing points to discussions, and explaining and demonstrating their methods and solutions to others in the class” (p.266). Acknowledging this research has encouraged my planning of whole-group instruction to contain these factors, and it also gives me the confidence that this type of instruction is beneficial. I have shared this definition with Liz, so that she is aware as well. My observations and reflections on the lessons that both Liz and I have taught have revealed that we are both working to encourage a great deal more student interaction in our lessons. After communicating my philosophies on planning to Liz, we were able to set a specific time to plan instruction on a weekly basis. Liz’s initial resistance to doing this was due to time constraints. Therefore, we have set up a specific thirty to forty-five minute block of time weekly to plan. We only allow ourselves this amount of time to encourage efficiency. Now, we each have a better perspective on the objectives for the week and can plan accordingly. Thus far, our instruction flows better from day to day, and we each have more to contribute, which lends itself to much more of a team teaching experience. This has also made a difference in my ability to fulfill more aspects of my role as a resource teacher, including communication and collaboration (McQuarrie & Zarry, 1999). My reflections also revealed that I am at times coming to the fifth grade math class with a biased opinion of some of the students’ capabilities. Now, that I am aware of this, I have been making a conscious effort to be open to the fact that the students’ abilities are very different from their third grade abilities. Keeping this in mind has encouraged me to do more preassessment rather than rely on previous knowledge or assumptions. My final intervention will be to continue to reflect on my role, beliefs, and values in each classroom. I will monitor student achievement through reflections, observations, interviews, and work samples. Constant reflection from a new, enlightened perspective will enable me to continue to systematically investigate the influence that I am having on student achievement (Mills, 2000). Conclusions and Implications In working to answer my puzzlement, which asked how the ways in which my interactions with the teachers and students with whom I work, affect student performance, I made several discoveries. These findings were based on my research which focused on cultural questions 3.1 and 3.5.1 (Jacob, 1999). Question 3.1 asked how might my beliefs and values in addition to the beliefs and values of April and Liz be contributing to our interactions, teaching styles, and student achievement? Investigating this question allowed me to reflect upon and articulate my own teaching beliefs and values. With this knowledge, I was then able to compare my beliefs and values to those of April and Liz. These comparisons allowed me to view our similarities and differences and then, share this knowledge with April and Liz. April and I have continued in the manner in which we were teaching with a newfound knowledge and communication about our beliefs and values. Now, Liz and I have been able to establish more open communication and a more comfortable teaching environment in which we are aware of and encourage one another’s differences to enhance student achievement. After investigating question 3.1, the border crossing that I was finding difficult between April and Liz’s classrooms is no longer so trying (Phelan, Davidson, and Yu, 1998). In looking at question 3.5.1, how might my negotiations of classroom cultures be contributing to the puzzling situation, I initially found that I was having a very challenging time crossing the border between April and Liz’s classrooms. Due to this difficulty, my instruction as well as student achievement was suffering in Liz’s classroom. I now feel that I fit more into the “different worlds/border crossing managed,” (Phelan, Davidson, and Yu, 1998, p. 14) category. Liz and I understand and encourage these differences, which has made teaching in her classroom much easier and beneficial. This study has had and will have even further implications on my teaching outside of my interactions in April and Liz’s classrooms. First, I am now more aware of the benefits of reflection on my teaching success. Being able to articulate my beliefs and values has enabled me to have a firm basis upon which to have professional conversations with the colleagues with whom I work. This enables me to walk into other teachers’ classrooms, conduct some informal observations and interviews and note our similarities and differences. This knowledge, I have found, forms the basis for effective collaboration, and collaboration is the foundation of student success in a team teaching situation. This project has also shown me that I need to be open to different ways of working collaboratively with my colleagues. One way will not work with all teachers, but being equipped with multiple methods will enhance our success. I now am aware and have research regarding differentiated instruction (Chapman, 2001), flexible grouping (Roberts& Koller, 2001), whole-group instruction (Jones & Tanner, 2002), and the role of resource teachers (McQuarrie & Zarry, 1999). This information will enable me to vary my instruction and collaborative methods when working with teachers who hold varoius teaching beliefs and values. Finally, this project has caused me to look closely at the role of resource teachers in the regular classroom. The amount of resource teachers in many schools, especially Midway Elementary, increases each year. I plan to provide the resource teachers in my school with an overview of my investigation. This could encourage them to look closely at their beliefs and values and how they are similar and different when compared to the teachers with whom they work to enhance the resource teachers’ success throughout Midway. ---------- Update: June 2003 As the second half of the school year progressed, I was able to implement and evaluate several of my proposed interventions. First, I continued reflecting and journaling my thoughts at least weekly for the remainder of the year. I included thoughts on collaboration, planning, the success of various lessons, and the teaching strategies employed. I reflected on my these findings in both Liz and Autumn’s classes. This provided me a written record to which to refer. I knew what was working and what wasn’t and could plan accordingly. This also enabled me to document my professional growth and celebrate it. In addition to continuing reflective journaling, Liz did have a chance to read Donna Santman’s (2002) article, “Teaching to the Test?: Test Preparation in the Reading Workshop.” After she had read it, we discussed some of the strategies at one of our planning meetings. We then began to include test-type question throughout each of the units. In May, we did have much less reviewing to do, the children felt comfortable with most of the material, and we felt that they were better prepared than classes of previous years had been. We also began instituting small group differentiated services each Wednesday from February to May. These groups were sometimes based on ability and other times, they were grouped according to interest. The children enjoyed the change of instruction, and we felt that we were able to meet more of their needs this way. We discussed extending this type of instruction to two days a week, but we were not able to achieve this goal. This is something that we will keep in mind for next year. Finally, near the end of the year, I gave the students the student survey again. The results, which had initially been very high, in April’s room, stayed about the same. However, the results in Liz’s room, jumped significantly. Many less students felt unsuccessful in math. In a class of twenty-eight, only two students said that they felt unsuccessful as compared to eight who had stated this in January. They continued to state that having two teachers was beneficial. They commented that they liked the Wednesday small groups, and they also did not comment that they were confused by our different forms of instruction any longer. Appendix ALearner-Centered Survey (Located in: McCombs, B.L. & Whisler, J.S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school. San Francisco: Jossey, Bass, p.20-23. Directions: Please read each of the following statements. Then, decide the extent to which you agree or disagree. Circle the number to the right of the question that best matches your choice. Go with your first judgment and do not spend much time mulling over any one statement. PLEASE ANSWER EVERY QUESTION. 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Somewhat Agree;
Appendix BInterview Questions (These were the questions that formed the basis for my interviews with both April and Liz. As the interviews progressed, I asked additional questions when appropriate and eliminated questions as necessary.) Teacher Being Interviewed: Date: Time: 1. How long have you taught at Midway? 2. How many years teaching experience did you have prior to Midway? 3. What grades have you taught? 4. What are your preferred grades to teach? 5. Describe your ideal classroom. 6. What are your beliefs on differentiated instruction and flexible grouping? 7. Describe your training in these areas. 8. Tell me about your feelings surrounding ability grouping. 9. How do you feel about whole-group instruction? 10. Describe your uses of both whole group and small group instruction. 11. Describe your interactions with resource teachers in the past. 12. Tell me about your system of behavior management. 13. How do you handle incomplete assignments and homework? 14. How do you plan for instruction? Appendix C5th Grade Student Survey Directions: For each question below, circle the best answer. 1= Strongly Disagree; 2= Disagree; 3= I Don’t Know;
Appendix D3rd Grade Student Survey Directions: For each question below, circle the best answer. 1= Strongly Disagree; 2= Disagree; 3=
I Don’t Know;
References Allington, R., Johnston, Peter, & Day, J. (2002, July). Exemplary fourth-grade teachers. Language Arts, 79(6), 462-466. Au, K. (1997) Literacy for all students: Ten steps toward making a difference. The Reading Teacher, 51(3), 186-193. Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2000). Words their way. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Brandt, R.E. (1998). Powerful learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Chapman, Carolyn. (2001). Sail into differentiated instruction; Personalized learning. Thomson, Georgia: Creative Learning Connection, Inc. Goldston, J. & Shroyer, Gail. (2000, Summer). Teachers as researchers: Promoting effective science and mathematics teaching. Teaching and Change, 7(4), 327-346. Jacobs, E. (1999). Cultural Inquiry Process (Online). Available: http://classweb.gmu.edu/classweb/cip/ Jones, S. & Tanner, H. (2002). Teachers’ interpretations of effective whole-class interactive teaching in secondary mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies, 28(3)265-274. McQuarrie, N. & Zarry, L. (1999, Winter). Examining the actual duties of resource teachers. Education, 120(2), 378-387. McCombs, B.L. & Whisler, J.S. (1997). The learner–centered classroom and school. San Francisco: Jossey, Bass. Phelan, P., Davidson, A.L., & Yu, H.C. (1998) Adolescents’ worlds: Negotiating family, peers, and school. New York: Teachers College Press. Roberts, A. & Koller, M. (2001, August). “Reach to Teach” Differentiation Institute. Flexible grouping workshop. Training conducted for Fairfax County Public Schools, Fairfax, VA. Rozycki, E. & Goldfarb, M. (2000). The educational theory of Lev Semenovich Vygotsky (1896-1934). Retrieved Dec. 5, 2002, from http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Vygotsky.html Santman, D. (2002, January). Teaching to the test?: Test Preparation in the reading workshop. Language Arts, 79(3), p. 203-211. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
