Running Head: STANDARD 7

Teacher Work Sample Standard 7: Reflection and Self-Evaluation Jennifer Morris December 3, 2012 Corlie Weber

Running Head: STANDARD 7 Teacher Work Sample Standard 7: Reflection and Self-Evaluation Envisioning the Instruction (Taken from Standard 1) The instructional method, in place within the classroom, utilizes the model of a 21st century classroom. My CT [cooperating teacher] has incorporated proven skills learned from the book

Daily 5 (Daily Caf, the, 2012) into the routine. This style utilizes the mini-lesson with a release method. The accomplishment of this method allows the students the freedom of choice for activities within the learning parameter. In turn allowing the interest to keep flowing if you like what you are doing, you will keep doing it. My implementation will need to follow the same steps. I will need to model what I want the students to do, not tell them. I will need to allow them time to build up the stamina to complete an entire lesson on their own. Completing an I chart with the students enables them to come up with the reasons why they will be performing the WTW [Words Their Way (Leipzig, 2012)] activity and what they should be doing during the Word Work block. On the other side, the student will be able to voice what the teacher will be doing. Students do not know instinctively what to do, rather they need to be shown the correct way and practice it until it becomes a habit to them. Choice of Learning Goals My learning goals were not based on the outcomes of the pre-assessment results. Instead, I decided, with extensive research and observation of students classwork, that the following goals were not only appropriate, but in direct line with the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDea) English Language Arts Standards (Department of Defense Education Activity, 2012).

Running Head: STANDARD 7 Learning Goal 1: Students will be able to better identify words and patterns in spelling, reading, and example them in writing. Learning Goal 2: Students will begin to connect patterned sounds within words. Learning Goal 3: Students will be able to demonstrate the phonemic breakdown of works for contextual knowledge. Standard 2E1a: Word Recognition, fluency, and vocabulary development. Component: 2E2c8 and 2E2c9: Spelling. (DoDea, 2012). Charting Progress

The design for charting the progress of the students was a challenge from the beginning. I felt to best monitor the learning goals I chose I would need a collection of formative data showing that would be effective in monitoring of spelling patterns in daily writing (in a students Daily Journal). I created a simple +, , or system in a data collection form (Appendix A) to have a quick view of showing usage of sound patterns consistently, sometimes, or not at all. I also utilized this form for students completing word work (I required two word work entries a week) and the total correct on their spelling test. I was not pleased with the view of the data collection. Yes, the form gave me a quick view, but the form did not tell me what sound pattern the student had, was, or will be working on. Lacking this information made it difficult for me to know what sound patterns I was looking for in the journal writing and required me to consistently look back in files for information. It was during an informational meeting with my CTs that an idea was formed. Both of my CTs were confused as to the complexity of the WTW program in reference to the data analysis. We all agreed that there had to be a simpler way. It was at that time that I created a new data

Running Head: STANDARD 7 collection sheet (Appendix B). The new sheet allowed for the teacher to monitor as to what date the teacher was conducting a sound pattern study, if a student has mastered the sound pattern, was the sound pattern utilized in reading, and writing. The collection sheet also allows for the teacher to have an easy reference of sound patterns that had been, that is being, and that will be studied. Actual Instruction My actual instruction did vary from the vision in my mind. I did introduce the concept of

WTW to the students as a whole. Students (and parents) have been used to the traditional method of spelling which included the writing and memorization of words, all students being the same. The students and I talked about what word sorting would look like on a pocket chart. Once we did that, we began our I chart titled WTW you do / teacher does. My idea was to have the students, throughout the modeling, help fill in what is going on throughout the lessons. I did not follow through with this. I thought that completing this chart was more work than what was needed. Upon completion of the unit, the students could have used the chart as a reference of options and reminders of word work. I wanted to model to the students what word sorts were at an equal level was for all students. So I created word sort cards (enough that students could work in pairs). I first modeled what a word sort would look like using the ELMO. Student were able to quickly identify that cat went in the short /a/ column whereas bit was sorted into the group labeled short /i/. I modeled then released the students to work in pairs. What went wrong? 1. I was not ready for students to learn in their own way.

Running Head: STANDARD 7 a. This was a learning process for me. In this classroom, students were free to move and talk within reason. The idea behind the concept is that students learn in different ways. Giving a student a choice where to sit or how to sit may allow the student to retain more interest in the lesson. 2. The students were not completely ready to work independently. a. I should have re-grouped the students more quickly. As soon as I saw students modeling the wrong work, the lesson should have been stopped, and the students re-grouped. 3. Students did not choose word work as part of their Daily 5 when given their personal word studies. a. I found that students did not complete spelling work unless in small group with me. Students did not have an interest in the spelling program. By the end of my student teaching 1. I was able to release.

a. I was able to release students to complete activities on their own. During their choices, I walked around to observe. I did not only watch the students for what they were doing, I listened to conversations. How were the students teaching each other? Often times it is these little conversations that can help guide my instruction for understanding. 2. I re-grouped. a. I re-grouped the students for a few reasons at the end of a lesson time. One reason being that I wanted input from the students, especially when they were being introduced to a new concept. What did they feel went well? What did they feel was difficult? Any successes? And I would talk about what I saw. I also re-grouped when I saw interest wane or if I saw the lesson being carried out differently than I anticipated. Both of these indicated I needed changing in my

Running Head: STANDARD 7 instructional method. I either did not engage the students or I missed a vital step of instruction for understanding. 3. Creation of additional manipulative. a. Students needed to have ownership of their learning; a want to learn. I created a manipulative of the word sorts around the room. By putting the word sorts on magnets, students

could manipulate the words into columns, alternate sorts, and quick groups. This was easily done on file cabinets and doors around the room. Students migrated to the hands-on activity (Picture of Evidence). Assessment Results in Relation to Instruction The WTW spelling program is an ongoing assessment program. As referenced in the beginning, I expected to see growth in all of the students not only in the area of spelling, but in reading and writing. When looking over the bi-weekly spelling tests, I was not seeing the results I was seeking; students should have been missing at most one word, not on the average of three. I then chose to consult a colleague who teaches small-groups on how to use the program. She talked me about how the students needed to own their words (the use of magnetic manipulative came from the conversation). My colleague and I also evaluate the pre-assessments and the postassessments. Many students did not grow in points as I expected. However, upon closer inspection of the test comparison, I was able to see the utilization of sound patterns in some, and in other students, the complete lack of the sound pattern usage. The comparison gave me guidance for furthering my instruction. First I needed to re-level the students for their needs. Some students progressed, and others were repeating sorts. Those, which were repeating, sorts showed evidence on the assessment of not carrying over the knowledge lacking sound-pattern connection.

Running Head: STANDARD 7 I also needed to re-engage the students into the program. I did this by re-modeling how the program works. The students understood the sort concept, what was needed was an interest pique. Following the program guide more closely, I made a game out of speed sorting. I put a

bomb timer on the smart board and the students spread themselves around the room (with their own sorts) and completed the sorting as fast as they could before the bomb went off. There were laughs, giggles, and wiggles happening. Students asked to do it again that is what a teacher wants to hear! Using games, making things fun, and shaking up the monotony brought the ownership needed. Before I left my student teaching position, I saw the excitement for the spelling program during the word work time. I was able to witness a spelling test where the sound patterns were carried over. Profession Goals for Performance Seeing how the end was a great success, I saw a change in myself. I became a teacher. I took my observations, I asked advice from colleagues, and sought knowledge from written methods that my CT was already using with success and applied then. When I enabled these tools, the classroom, students, and I flowed. My goal is to begin using all of my tools at one time. My performance with my unit implementation was not unsuccessful. It was not at the level I wished to leave the class at. By utilizing data to guide my instruction, I left the students in a position to be more-successful than thought. I know how to be the teacher and I can be the teacher to was striving to be at the beginning. Attending teacher development classes on subjects or teaching styles will help the unknown become known.

Running Head: STANDARD 7 Appendix A

Running Head: STANDARD 7 Appendix B

YELLOW BOOK SHORT AND LONG VOWEL SOUNDS PICTURE SORTS Picture sort for long and short A Picture sort for long and short I Picture sort for long and short O Picture sort for long and short U Picture sort for long and short E Review of long vowel with word matches Matching long vowel sounds with letters SORTS CONTRASTING SHORT AND LONG VOWEL PATTERNS Short A versus long A (CVCe) Short I versus long I (CVCe) Short O versus long O (CVCe) Short U versus long U (CVCe) Short versus long (CVC and CVCe) Final /k/ sound spelled CK, KE, or K Matching long and short vowel sounds with letters MASTERY JOURNAL READING SPELLING

W.Wall

SORT 1 2 3 4 5 6 Assess. Activities SORT 7 8 9 10 11 12 Assess.

Running Head: STANDARD 7 Picture of Evidence

10

Running Head: STANDARD 7 References: Daily CAF, the (2012). Retrieved from http://www.TheDailyCafe.com/public/department33.cfm Department of defense education activity, (2012). Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.dodea.edu Leipzig, D (2012). Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/80/

11