My current goals are to try to find ways to maintain engagement and reduce behavior issues during a lesson. I find that the students tend to start chatting when they lose interest as well as during transitions and I want to make myself more aware of their behaviors as well as be organized enough that my transitions go more quickly and smoothly.
With these goals in mind, I analyzed the transcript of my lesson by highlighting mine and my CT's language and then comparing the 2 for similarities and differences. Since my main focus was engagement and behavior, I looked at this from a management lens and tried to identify instances when we corrected and/or praised certain behaviors.
The link at the bottom, titled Sparkie's Light Kit, is the transcription and notes from my PRT regarding this lesson. It has been coded so that I could easily analyze the data within the transcription. The first step to coding the data was clearly separating mine and my CT's language throughout the lesson. Instances in which I'm speaking are highlighted in yellow. Instances in which my CT is speaking are highlighted in blue. The next step was to identify, from a classroom management perspective, what the purpose of our language was at the time. A green + means we praised positive or desired behavior. A black - means that we corrected an undesired or negative behavior. The word EXPECTATIONS in red indicates that we either explicitly stated an expectation or we posed a question to make students think about whether or not they were behaving appropriately based on previously established expectations. The words ATTENTION GETTER in green indicates that we had to use a strategy to get the attention of the class. After coding the transcription in this way, I went through and tallied the number of times that each one of these things was done.
Me CT
Stated expectations IIIII I (6) IIIII II (7)
Praised Desired Behaviors I (1) III (3)
Corrected Unwanted Behaviors IIIII (5) IIIII IIIII IIIII (15)
Attention Getter I (1) II (2)
Expectations Stated as Questions I (1) II (2)
Explicit/Direct Expectations IIIII (5) IIIII (5)
Correct Undesired Behavior w/ Q's III (3)
Correct Behavior as a Statement IIIII (5) IIIII IIIII II (12)
(Directly or Indirectly)
From this information, my CT and I identified some similarities and differences in our language with the student. First of all, we noticed that I did not correct any behaviors in the form of a question, my behavior corrections were all statements. I also spent less time praising desired behavior than my CT did. We also noticed that most of our documented language was used correcting behavior. In the six pages of notes on our lesson, we had to correct a negative or undesired behavior, a total of 20 times.
When discussing how we each approached some of these situations, I mentioned that I noticed the both of us using judging statements to praise or correct behavior. This is the exact opposite of what I intended to do in the classroom after reading Choice Words this Summer. I want to use language that does not judge, but that motivates students intrinsically.
My CT discussed with me that she feels it's important, and more effective, to praise desired behavior than it is to correct negative behavior. We both agreed to try harder to praise good behavior, but to remove judgement from our statements. So instead of saying "I love that quiet hand over there", I might say "Thank you, I notice that you raised you hand very quietly."
There was also an incident, that is marked in the transcript as a key point in management, where a student takes off the safety goggles and refuses to put them back on. When I asked her to put them on, she rolled her eyes and refused. This appeared to be an instance where the student was displaying power seeking behavior. According to Linda Albert's Cooperative Discipline, "teachers can prevent much power seeking behavior by giving students options from which to choose (you may do this or that), delegating responsibilities to them, and granting them legitimate power when appropriate." I gave the student 2 choices. She could either give up her materials, or she could put the goggles on. This gave her the power to choose which to do and I thought it would force her to consider her behavior, instead of me just walking over and taking her materials, or yelling, as I so often see done in the classroom. My CT has made it clear in every investigation prior to this, that any student not wearing their goggles would not be allowed to participate. I was just trying to follow through with my CTs expectations, without yelling at or embarrassing the student. My CT walked over to the student after I gave her the choices, whispered to her, thanked her, and moved on. My CT mentioned to me in conversation that she had this student the previous year, and had finally figured out how she works, which is why she had a private conversation with her. This is an advantage for my CT, because she taught 4th grade last year, and now has most of those same students in this years class. She knows them very well. This is obviously a disadvantage for me, because I know the students less, and have to fully rely on research based strategies, and theories.
I also notice that I correct behavior less than my CT, and I feel that this is because she is so quick to respond to her students. She automatically corrects, without any time needed to think about it, and I rarely get a chance to address behavior before she does. This is amazing for me because I can concentrate on the content, rather than getting too caught up in behavior management.
I feel like the students were actively engaged during this lesson; all but maybe the last 5 minutes. I was able to also integrate a piece of mirroring technology that I beleive increased the level of engagement of the lesson. The number of times we had to get their attention was only 3, and each of these times was really result of them being excited about their investigation. Even though they were engaged, we still had to correct behaviors quite often. If I could make a claim from these observations, it would be that engagement helps, but is not directly improve classroom behavior.
For future lead opportunities, I will speak to my CT before hand and see if we can identify to potential behavior issues and develop plans to head those off before they become real issues. I will also be speaking with my CT regarding any behavior issues students may have had last year, so that I can be prepared to handle those appropriately.
Sparkie's Light Kit Some student's names were present in the original document. Those names have been blacked out for their safety and privacy.
This post reflects my progress toward achieving FEAP(s) goals:
(a)2.b.- manages individual and class behaviors through a well planned management system
(a)2.c.- conveys high expectations to all students
(a)2.g.- integrates current information and communication technologies
(b)5.a.- designs purposeful professional goals to strengthen the effectiveness of instruction based on student needs
(b)5.b.- examines and uses data informed research to improve instruction and student achievement
(b)5.e.- engages in targeted professional growth opportunities and reflective practices.