EDU 6150 Course Reflection

EDU 6150 Course Reflection                          Ian  Lewis                                August 20, 2016

At the beginning of the year when I completed the EDU 6150 General Inquiry Self-Assessment, I rated myself 2 (2.5 average) in the category 5. Selecting instructional practices to deepen knowledge and skill (Figure 1). I remember thinking, “Of course teachers should aim to ‘deepen knowledge and skill!’” But I admittedly needed to learn more about this pedagogical practice. Rating 6. Integrating academic language and student voice a 3 (2.5 average), I felt I could explain some of this, but still would need much practice and knowledge on the subject to feel comfortable employing and reflecting on the matter. Both of these practices align heavily with actively engaging students, an idea that was heavily discussed throughout the course.

Figure 1: EDU 6150 General Inquiry Self-Assessment.

Therefore, this reflection will highlight Seattle Pacific University (SPU) Program Standard 1.3 Engaging Students in Learning, which falls into the overall standard of Expectations. Along with effectively communicating high expectations for all students, teachers need to provide lessons with clear structure and organized activities. Additional reflection aligns with standards 2.2 Engaging Students in Learning and 6.3 Designing Student Assessments to Inform Planning. Teachers adept in the standards of Instruction and Assessment use research-based pedagogy in order to craft activities/assignments that cognitively engage students on a deeper level of understanding while using various forms of student assessment to guide the succession of lessons.

Much work in the course focused on the creation, critique, editing, and analysis of a lesson plan. As a main concept of the course was the necessity for active engagement of diverse populations of students, lesson plan construction focused on how to best construct learning activities and assessments that would engage students, especially with regard to engaging student voice, or expression of understanding of learning targets, which is an assessment tool that can be used to inform and scaffold reteaching or later lessons. Engaging students allows for student cognitive development on a deeper level. The taxonomy of learning developed by Bloom et al. (1956) describes how engaging students goes beyond the basic ability of them to know ideas/facts, rather, they should become involved in increasingly engaging levels of comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, which go beyond just knowing something. Marzano (2007) describes how breaking learning targets into specific activities based on a honed focus (p. 177-186) and involving students in problem-solving and hypothesis-generating activities serve to deeply engage students (p. 92-97). Thus, in creating and revising a lesson, focus was placed on creating specific learning targets with language functions that required students to engage in deeper levels of cognition, for example, analysis and compare/contrast. Figure 2 displays analysis of the lesson plan after revision to include active and engaging learning targets. Further, attention was placed on allowing for multiple times for expression of student voice and informal assessment that would help with guiding the segments of the lesson. Such emphasis displays an understanding of research-based pedagogical practices that are represented by the program standards chosen for reflection.

Figure 2: Portion of lesson plan analysis after revision highlighting attention to engaging students.

At the close of the course, a final self-assessment showed growth to the point of being confident in an ability to act as a resource for other educators with regard to selecting engaging instructional activities and integrating student voice. Throughout the course, the idea of engaging students was a major emphasis, and application of such a concept in the construction of a lesson plan, provided an area for much practice and growth. Additionally, it allowed for much practice in the assessment and use of student voice to drive lessons and student learning. Overall, I feel that this course has provided much in order to strengthen my own practice in the SPU Program Standards of Expectations, Instruction, and Assessment. Future courses, including internship, will further serve to enhance skill in these standards.

Reference List:

Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., and Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational

Objectives.

Marzano, Robert J. (2007). The Art and Science of Teaching. ASCD, Alexandria, VA.

EDU 6918 Course Reflection

EDU 6918 Course Reflection                                 Ian Lewis                                           August 19, 2016

Throughout the entirety of EDU 6918 a major goal, or learning target, was to practice and strengthen a sense of collegiality among our cohort (Figure 1). This collegiality was enhanced through multiple effective teaching and learning strategies/activities (pair/shares, group work/discussion, poster creation, online discussions, etc.). A major component of creating such situations focused on the exposure, understanding, and analysis of what it is to be culturally competent. This is an essential characteristic for an educator to be able to engage with their students on a deeper, cultural level, and also allows for positive relationships among peers, coworkers, and community through embracing and celebrating diversity (Cross et al., 1989; Kozleski, n.d.).

 Figure 1: First day of class learning targets, which were emphasized throughout the course (Denton, 2016)

The emphasis placed on creating an atmosphere of collegiality, in part through the incorporation of activities related to better understanding cultural competence, is directly related to the Seattle Pacific University (SPU) Program Standard 8. Professional Practice (SPU, 2016). Success in standard 8.1 Participating in a Professional Community is marked by peer relationships based on mutual support and cooperation; success in standard 8.2 Growing and Developing Professionally entails welcoming and using feedback and critique from peers and collaborative efforts. In order to effectively cooperate, it is important to understand the cultural background of group members so that various strengths may be incorporated and used in harmony.

As noted above, much class time was devoted to incorporating group collaboration in order to create positive cohort relationships, and many group activities related to increasing knowledge of cultural competence and cultural responsiveness. While the main idea of the articles and discussions related to culturally competent teaching was with notion to improving student engagement by incorporating unique, cultural learning experiences that is not to say that cultural competence is only important with our students. To the contrary, cultural competence relates to the entire education sphere (including students, teachers, administrators, parents, community, etc.). While we may, perhaps find it easy to engage with our individual students, student parents also deserve culturally responsive relationships, although these may be more difficult to cultivate, especially if language barriers are present. To that response, Kozleski (n.d.) notes how educators may visit student families and communities, explore personal or family histories, and acknowledge membership in various groups, showing that it is essential to craft positive parent relationships. Moll et al. (1992, p. 133-134) notes how various “funds of knowledge”, or historically accumulated and culturally developed skills, should be acknowledged as student and parent strengths, despite how they may be different from the norm. Because teachers, students, and parents are coming from diverse and different backgrounds, open communication is necessary, and such positive communication will aid in the establishment of successful rapport. Peer discussion via the Internship Performance Criteria Analysis (Figure 2) details how engagement in collaborative learning related to cultural competence has enabled us to strengthen cohort bonds and increase collegiality. The same discussion also allowed for colleague feedback and questioning, allowing for further professional development.

Figure 2: Acknowledgement of classroom benefits of establishing collegiality via peer discussion of Internship Performance Criteria Analysis, 8.1 Component 4d: Participating in a Professional Community.

With multiple class activities and discussions related to cultural competence, these experiences overall served to not only educate, but also reinforce positive cohort relationships. Through learning cultural competence, we could put it into practice in our own group settings, sharing our strengths for greater collaborative efforts, and also noting potential weaknesses for future improvement, such as aiming to not only culturally engage students, but also parents.

Reference List:

Cross, Terry L., Bazron, Barbara J., Dennis, Karl W., and Isaacs, Mareasa R. (1989). Towards a  Culturally

Competent System of Care. Georgetown University Child Development Center, Washington, D.C.

Denton, David (2016). Presentation for Session 1 of 6918 Summer 2016. Seattle Pacific 

University, Seattle, WA.

Kozleski, Elizabeth B. (n.d.). Culturally Responsive Teaching Matters! Equality Alliance.

Moll, Luis C., Amanti, Cathy, Neff, Deborah, and Gonzalez, Norma (1992). Funds of Knowledge for

Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2): p. 132-135.

Seattle Pacific University (SPU) (2016). 2016-2017 Residency Teacher Certification Handbook.

Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, WA.