Novice proficiency level: 6th Grade Social Studies

In the earlier part of her co-investigation session Christina and Mike, her co-investigator, have identified the following prioritized results:

Students are performing poorly on higher order objectives, specifically objectives where students are asked to analyze content or material.

Students demonstrate varying degrees of comprehension on end-of-day and end-of-week assessments; they aren't participating; some students can't sufficiently answer questions; and some are off-task or confused because they don't understand the connections being made.

There is a P-1 issue because Christina does not know what it would look like for her students to show mastery of an analytical objective. This affects her lesson plans (P-3) because she does not have the vision for analytical objectives; her ability to check for understanding (E-3) because she does not know what she should be checking for; and her ability to collect accurate data (E-6) because she is not scoring her assessments effectively since she does not know what a right answer would look like. Her inability to recognize or anticipate a correct student analytical answer keeps her from having a sense of what her students know or should know at the analytical level or what it would look like for them to master those objectives.

P-1 is the root issue. She simply does not know what it would look like for her students to master an analytical objective, so she has a knowledge gap.

Next Steps: Together they determine that Christina will undertake the following learning experience:

1. Contact Carol, learning team leader (and a fellow history teacher), to set up a working session with her to:
* review effective questions that measure analytical objectives
* identify successful student responses to analytical questions
* create student responses to analytical questions

2. OPTIONAL: read chapter from book (provided by program director)

Support materials:


Video clip C5-N

Email Exchange between Christina and Mike, her co-investigator

Overall rating & analysis

Overall rating: Three N strands equal an overall N rating.

Novice

Beginning

Advanced

In action…
Demonstrates attempt to engage in learning experiences aligned with the root cause

In reflection…
Accurately describes a process for determining and accessing a resource or learning experience aligned with a root cause

Explains in a compelling way the importance of engaging in learning experiences aligned with a root cause

In action…
Demonstrates attempt to gauge progress and notable gaps between student achievement and big goals

In reflection…
Accurately describes a process for gauging progress and identifying gaps between student achievement and big goals

Explains in a compelling way the importance of gauging progress and identifying gaps in this way

Strand 1: The quality of the resources the teacher selects and their alignment to the teacher’s needs.

Pursues resources or learning experiences that technically align with the underlying factor

Pursues credible and meaningful resources and learning experiences that align to the underlying factor

Strand 2: The teacher’s frequency of and level of independent engagement in learning opportunities.

Performs action when asked to do so

Performs action on regular occasions beyond staff-initiated formal interactions

Strand 3: The teacher’s level of engagement in the learning experience s/he pursues and his/her commitment to getting the most out of the experience.

Completes a learning experience that improves the teacher’s knowledge, skill, or mindset to some degree

Maximizes a productive learning experience and masters the pursued knowledge, skill, or mindset


Analysis: Why did the teacher receive these ratings?

Rating: N Strand 1: The quality of the resources the teacher selects and their alignment to the teacher’s needs.

Why N?

The teacher attempts to pursue “resources or learning experiences that technically align with the underlying factor” by meeting with Carol, her learning team leader. However, the teacher does not focus on the knowledge gap that she and her program director identified, namely assessing and crafting student responses to analytical assessment questions (i.e., “She simply does not know what it would look like for her students to master an analytical objective, so she has a knowledge gap.”). Instead, she and Carol looked at analytical questions and brainstormed ways to craft them (i.e., “Carol showed me a few of her own assessments and together we evaluated those questions that assessed analytical objectives. Then we kind of brainstormed effective ways to phrase analytical questions for informal and formal assessments, and I practiced writing questions.”). The first component of the meeting was aligned with the learning experience, but then the teacher and her learning team leader veered away from the essential requirements of the learning experience. Instead of talking about what successful student responses should look like and how to assess them, they spent their time brainstorming the phrasing of analytical questions and then writing the actual questions.

Why not BP?

To achieve BP, the teacher would need to more closely align the learning experience with the identified underlying factor.

Rating: N Strand 2: The teacher’s frequency of and level of independent engagement in learning opportunities.

Why N?

The teacher attempts to perform the “action when asked to do so;” Further, she shows very little personal initiative in engaging in the agreed upon learning activities. For example, she does not schedule the initial meeting until she is prodded, and it takes her almost three weeks to set up the appointment, which suggests that the learning opportunity is a low priority for her. Additionally, she does not read the book chapter that was strongly recommended (i.e., “I didn’t get a chance to read the book chapter yet.”). Furthermore, her comment, “I’ll keep it in mind as something you think that will help me”—regarding her program director’s repeated suggestion that she craft sample student responses—reveals an underlying mindset that resists engaging the learning experience because she thinks it will help her in any meaningful way.

Why not BP?

The teacher performs only the barest minimum of what is asked of her. To reach the BP bar she would need to perform the action after being "asked to do so," without additional prodding.

Rating: N Strand 3: The teacher’s level of engagement in the learning experience s/he pursues and his/her commitment to getting the most out of the experience.

Why N?

The teacher attempts to complete “a learning experience that improves the teacher’s knowledge, skill, or mindset to some degree,” by meeting with her learning team leader, but she neither successfully completes the learning experience nor improves the identified knowledge gap. For example, she does not work with her learning team leader to “identify successful student responses to analytical questions” or “practice creating successful student responses to analytical questions to gain familiarity with student demonstration of mastery for analysis objectives” (i.e., “I guess Carol and I didn’t really get to everything we were supposed to.”). Further, she does not read the book chapter that was strongly recommended (i.e., “I didn’t get a chance to read the book chapter yet.”).

Why not BP?

To achieve a BP rank, the teacher would have needed to "complete" the entire recommended learning experience.