facilitates discussions: student work analysis · student work, including extended explanations the...

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

1

Facilitates Discussions: Student Work Analysis The instructor effectively facilitates simultaneous small-group discussions Key Method The instructor facilitates simultaneous small-group conversations where participants examine classroom artifacts and brainstorm instructional changes necessary to maximize student learning.

Method Components The intention of this competency is to examine the degree to which instructors effectively facilitate simultaneous small-group conversations to aid participants in brainstorming pedagogical practices and classroom implementation strategies that will maximize student learning. A logical place to demonstrate this competency would be during the “student work review” segment, but that is not necessarily the only point where this competency can be demonstrated. Components of Effective Discussion Facilitation During Student Work Review

A. Facilitates small-group conversations - Poses questions - Communicates goals and expectations - Aligns interactive structures and engagement strategies with the objective - Redirects groups that stray from the task - Ensures all participants engage - Ensures conversations are productive - Stays within the 15-minute time frame

B. Facilitates whole-group summary conversation

- Asks purposeful questions that lead participants to share out the issues they uncovered in the student work

- Asks questions that lead to a synthesis of solutions to address the issues - Effectively engages the participants in generating a list of possible action steps and selecting

individual goals for next time - Stays within the 10-minute time frame

Supporting Research § Ball, D. L., Thames, M.H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching: What Makes It

Special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 387-407.

§ Borko, H. (2004). Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.)

§ Carpenter, T. P., et al. (1989). Using Knowledge of Children’s Mathematics Thinking in Classroom

Teaching: An Experimental Study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531.


2

§ Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. b. (1999). Children’s Mathematics: Cognitively Guided Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

§ Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. C., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). Designing Professional

Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Resources § National Governors Association for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010).

Common core state standards—Mathematics. Washington DC: Author.

§ Progressions Documents for the Common Core Math Standards (2011). http://math.arizona.edu/~ime/progressions/

§ The Common Core State Standards in mathematics were built on progressions: narrative documents

describing the progression of a topic across a number of grade levels, informed both by research on children’s cognitive development and by the logical structure of mathematics.

§ Rimbey, K. A. (2013). From the Common Core to the Classroom: A Professional Development Efficacy

Study for the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. http://hdl.handle.net/2286/R.I.18088

§ Standards for Mathematical Practice: Commentary and Elaborations for K–5 (2014).

http://commoncoretools.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Elaborations.pdf

§ Van de Walle, J. A., et al. (2014). Teaching Student-Centered Mathematics: Developmentally Appropriate Instruction for Grades Pre-K-2. Pearson.

§ Van de Walle, J. A., et al. (2014). Teaching Student-Centered Mathematics: Developmentally

Appropriate Instruction for Grades 3-5. Pearson.

§ Van de Walle, J. A., et al. (2014). Teaching Student-Centered Mathematics: Developmentally Appropriate Instruction for Grades 6-8. Pearson.

Submission Guidelines & Evaluation Criteria The items in this following section detail what must be submitted for evaluation. To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for each question in Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2. Part 1. Overview Questions (300-word limit): Part A

§ What grade level, mathematics domain, and task were discussed in the Student Work Discussion? - Passing: The instructor lists the grade level, domain, and task.

§ What was your objective for this Student Work Discussion, and what question(s) did you pose to

facilitate conversations that addressed this objective? - Passing: The instructor states the objective and describes how the posed questions addressed

the objective.

Part 2. Work Examples/Artifacts Instructor must submit photos of the action steps posters that demonstrate his/her competency in facilitating discussions. The rubric in this section will focus on the quality of the next-steps strategies listing the photo(s) and the written reflections about small-group engagement.


3

Part B

“Yes” “Almost” “Not Yet” “Not Observed”

Poses open-ended questions

The instructor poses relevant, open-ended questions that lead to deep discussion of student work

The instructor poses relevant questions, some of which were open-ended and led the discussion of student work

The instructor poses questions that either lack relevance or are not open-ended enough to lead the discussion of student work

The instructor does not pose questions to guide the discussion

Communicates goals and expectations

The instructor clearly communicates the learning goals and participation expectations for how to meet those goals AND convincingly demonstrates how the goals and expectations were evidenced in the Action Steps posters

The instructor clearly communicates the learning goals and the expectations for how to meet those goals but does not convincingly demonstrate how the goals and expectations were evidenced in the Action Steps posters

The instructor attempts to communicate the learning goals or the expectations for how to meet those goals, but the attempt is unclear; the instructor makes a weak or no connection to the Action Steps posters

The instructor does not communicate the goals and expectations

Aligns interactive structures and engagement strategies with the objective

The instructor selects and implements interactive structures and/or engagement strategies that are aligned with the objective and contribute to participants fully meeting the objective

The instructor selects interactive structures and/or engagement strategies that are aligned with the objective, but the implementation of the structures/strategies did not contribute to participants fully meeting the objective

The instructor selected interactive structures and/or engagement strategies that were not aligned with the objective, nor did they contribute to meeting the objective

Neither instructor did not select or implement interactive structures and engagement strategies

Redirects groups that stray from the task

The instructor redirects groups that stray from the task OR no groups stray from the task

The instructor does not redirect groups that stray from the task

Ensures all participants engage

The instructor successfully uses at least two different strategies (e.g., accountability, interactive structures) that ensure the engagement of all participants

The instructor successfully uses one strategy (e.g., accountability, interactive structures) that ensures the engagement of all participants

The instructor attempts to use one or more strategies (e.g., accountability, interactive structures) that ensure the engagement of all participants, but the attempt is not effective

The instructor does not use or attempt to use strategies to ensure the engagement of all participants

Ensures conversations are

The instructor successfully uses at

The instructor successfully uses one strategy (e.g.,

The instructor attempts to use one or

The instructor does not use or


4

productive

least two different strategies (e.g., proximity, questioning, summarizing) that ensure participant conversations were productive

proximity, questioning, summarizing) that ensures participant conversations were productive

more strategies (e.g., proximity, questioning, summarizing) that ensure participant conversations were productive, but the attempt is not effective

attempt to use strategies to ensure participant conversations were productive

Stays within the 15-minute time frame

The small-group discussion lasts no longer than 15 minutes, including the introduction

The small-group discussion lasts longer than 15 minutes

Part C

“Yes” “Almost” “Not Yet” “Not Observed”

Asks purposeful questions that lead participants to share out the issues they uncovered in the student work

The instructor asks purposeful questions that lead to participants sharing three or more issues and insights they uncovered in the student work, including extended explanations

The instructor asks purposeful questions that lead to participants sharing three or more issues and insights they uncovered in the student work, including brief explanations

The instructor asks questions that lead to participants sharing issues they uncovered in the student work, though the questions lack depth; participants may share issues and insights, but not as a result of instructor questioning

The instructor does not ask questions that lead to participants sharing issues they uncovered in the student work OR the questions do not extend beyond a simple request for discussion

Asks questions that lead to a synthesis of solutions to address the issues

The instructor asks questions that lead the group to generate a list of appropriate solutions to address issues that arose in the student work, reflecting on how these solutions assist in meeting intended math goals; the instructor adds to the list as appropriate

The instructor asks questions that lead the group to generate a list of appropriate solutions to address issues that arose in the student work; the instructor adds to the list as appropriate

The instructor asks questions in an attempt to lead the group to generate a list of appropriate solutions to address issues that arose in the student work, but the questions lack clarity and/or do not elicit appropriate solutions

The instructor does not ask questions in an attempt to lead the group to generate a list of appropriate solutions to address issues that arose in the student work – participants may volunteer such solutions in the absence of questions and/or the instructor may simply provide solutions without participant input

Effectively engages the participants in generating a list of possible action steps and selecting

The instructor leads the group to generate a list of appropriate action steps AND in selecting appropriate individual goals, all of which reflect intended math

The instructor leads the group to generate a list of appropriate action steps OR in selecting appropriate individual goals

The instructor leads the group to generate a list of action steps OR in selecting individual goals, but the list and/or goals lack depth

The instructor does not lead the group to generate a list of action steps OR in selecting individual goals


5

individual goals for next time

goals

Stays within the 10-minute time frame

The whole-group discussion lasts no longer than 10 minutes

The whole-group discussion lasts longer than 10 minutes

Part 3. Educator Reflection (300-word limit for each response) Part D.

§ How did you facilitate participant discussions during their small-group interactions (e.g., purposeful questions, etc.)?

- Passing: The instructor describes ways in which s/he encouraged active participation and on-task conversation by all members of each group.

§ How did you encourage participants to generate solutions to issues that arose in the student - Passing: The instructor describes how participants used student work as a basis for generating

solutions to issues that arose.

§ How did the whole-group summary discussion synthesize the small-group discussions and lead to action steps for next time?

- Passing: The instructor describes ways in which the whole-group summary discussion synthesized the small-group discussions and led to the generation of action steps.