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.