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.

Characteristics of an Effective Educator

There are multiple factors that come together to create an effective educator. First and foremost, understanding and acknowledging the fact that classrooms are comprised of diverse populations of students depending on context is essential for a good educator to understand. I feel that my background in archaeology and more specifically anthropological theory has made this idea a constant in my mind that I will take with me into the field of teaching. Understanding, accepting, and working to use diversity allows for a positive classroom experience for all students.

Obviously, knowledge and skills are paramount too, but creating a positive classroom environment and experience for all learners must come first. Effective teachers must not only know their subject matter, but they NEED to be passionate about it as well. Children can pick up on a teacher's tone, feeling(s), and disposition(s) and will know if a teacher is enthusiastic about what they are preaching. If they are not, children are not likely to find passion either. Continual research in specific subjects is always changing and evolving, and thus educators must also be knowledgeable of changing ideas through time, always searching for the answers to the next big questions, and always staying up to date on current practice and theory in the field.

With regard to dispositions, the Seattle Pacific University (SPU) program expects candidates to exhibit professional dispositions according to the Four Commitments of service, competence, leadership, and character. In assessing my own dispositions currently, it occurs to me that regarding character, I may be too honest at times, which may come across as bluntness, and is certainly something that should be worked on in the presence of children, so that a collegial and friendly environment can be maintained (aspects of service).

As I continue with this program, I look forward to learning about and gaining more characteristics of effective educators.

EDU 6132: Reflection 2

The first of the eight Seattle Pacific University (SPU) program standards, expectations, is highly relevant in relation to the material that we have covered thus far in the course. The concept of nature v. nurture and various theories about biological and cognitive development all relate to the SPU standard of expectations. Most importantly, the overarching theme I gather regarding these topics is that it is often a combination of factors that actually has effect, not simply one versus another in a dichotomy, and these all must be taken into consideration when understanding the context of a classroom.

As discussed in my first reflection, discussed in module one, and cited by various researchers and educators including Pressley and McCormick (2007, p. 4), it is not just nature or nurture, but a harmonious combination of the two that shape individuals. As such, with individuals coming from diverse backgrounds (cultural, socioeconomic, linguistic, etc.) it is paramount for educators to first acknowledge this diversity exists; then they must incorporate a celebration of diversity in the classroom by including ties to student backgrounds, interests, and current knowledge/perceptions into lessons, curriculum, and standards.

In addition to a combination of nature and nurture affecting the development of individuals, there are various biological and cognitive development theories acknowledged, that often while presenting opposite information, actually work together/in conjunction with one another to create the individual. As discussed by Pressley and McCormick, for example, while the maturation deviance hypothesis (p. 42) details off-time development and possible correlation with greater adjustment difficulties in students, the early maturation hypothesis also correlates similar adjustment difficulties. Thus, again, we see a case where in reality, multiple theories come together to represent what is actuated in a classroom population, where different students are likely to have traversed along different paths. Therefore, I emphasize again, how it is important for teachers to acknowledge the diversity of their classroom so that they may plan and/or adjust accordingly.

Regarding cognitive development, while there are proscribed stages of development, such as those of Piaget, and they tend to hold true across populations, there is always the factor of individual variance. Despite developing along similar staged paths, male and female cognitive development has marked differences, for example, with regard to thinking based on rationality and justice, versus thinking strategies based on human, interpersonal consequences (Preslley and McCormick, 2007, p. 79). In his chapters on wiring, gender, exploration, and memory, Medina (2008) illustrates the diversity of humans despite such proscribed developmental processes. Understanding how individuals think and learn differently is essential for being able to adapt a teaching strategy to engage the diverse population, which is key to the first SPU program standard related to expectations.