Integrating Theory
Running head: INTEGRATING THEORY
Integrating Theory, Research, and Field Experience:
Personal Goals in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Megan McFadden
The College of William and Mary
1
Integrating Theory
2
Abstract
This paper begins with an investigation of four main theoretical camps of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment. The four theoretical camps discussed are traditionalists,
conceptual empiricists, reconceptualists, and postmodernists. From each camp, influential
theorists are explored to give the reader a broad range of ideas and theories currently in
the field of education. Next, topics in educational research are explored. Ability grouping
and acceleration of at-risk students are examined in hopes of gaining a better
understanding of their costs, benefits, and effectiveness. Last, I will analyze three
different field experiences consisting of a summer school program, a gifted program, and
an ESL program. Throughout the paper, I will reflect on my personal goals for
curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Integrating Theory
3
Integrating Theory, Research, and Field Experience: Personal Goals in Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment
Theory, empirical research, and field experience all contribute to shaping
educators’ personal teaching goals. It is important to integrate all three in order to be a
well-rounded educator, with teaching styles and beliefs that are supported. Learning
theories on curriculum, instruction, and assessment will provide a base for teachers’
beliefs to build on. Considering empirical research allows for, among other things, a
better understanding of what is currently being investigated, a test of theories that have
been proposed and an awareness of the instructional strategies and programs that have
proved to be beneficial. Field experience provides the opportunity to observe experienced
educators in the field and see their individual style of teaching. While I do believe that
theory and research are essential in developing a well-rounded teacher, I believe that field
experiences are the most beneficial for novice teachers. This paper first discusses six
different theorists and how their theories address contemporary issues in elementary
schools. After gaining a base knowledge on multiple educational theories, five empirical
studies are analyzed and related specifically to my personal classroom organizational
goals. Finally, the paper explores three different field experiences, in three distinct
populations, discussing similarities and differences found between each site.
Theory
Throughout history there have been a vast number of educators that have been
influential on K-6 curriculum. There are a variety of theories on curriculum, instruction
and assessment. This section focuses on four main theoretical camps that categorize
theorists and their ideas. The first theoretical camp explored is the traditionalists wherein
Integrating Theory
4
the concepts of Ralph Tyler and Franklin Bobbitt are evaluated. The next section will
focus on conceptual empiricists that have influenced education, especially delving into
theoretical concepts of David Berliner. Thirdly, the theories of Michael Apple and Paulo
Freire, both of which are reconceptualists, or critical theorists, are presented. Last, is a
concentration on the postmodernists, researching the theories of William Doll. In
researching all theoretical camps, the paper presents a broad overview of each field
allowing for all types of theories to be introduced and investigated.
Theoretical Camps
Traditionalists. The first traditional theorist that is focused on is Ralph Tyler.
Tyler plays a role in helping map out a system of developing curriculum. In Tyler (1949)
he proposes the idea that schools need to make sure they are asking themselves four
specific questions when developing curriculum and instruction methods. These questions
consist of (1) asking what the educational goals of the school are, (2) what are the
educational activities that can be provided to the students in order to obtain the goals, (3)
how can schools effectively organize educational activities and, (4) how can schools
assess whether or not the goals were met (Tyler, 1949). In asking these four questions,
the curriculum developers should be able to develop detailed curriculum for specific
subjects. Tyler (1949) highlights the importance of setting aims that are explicitly
described and the fact that in determining objectives, the curriculum maker must make
sure to use a multitude of sources for information. One source that he focuses on is using
the students themselves to help set goals.
Another influential traditionalist that is important to study is Franklin Bobbitt. He
was influential in the late 1800’s writing The Curriculum originally in 1876. Bobbitt’s
Integrating Theory
5
work centers on finding an effective way for teaching facts. Curriculum must not just be
about memorizing facts to use in the practical world, but also teaching our youth about
“the enriched mind, quickened appreciations, refined sensibilities, discipline, culture.”
(Bobbitt, 1971, p.3). Schools must give children experience at the play level and at the
work level. During play students receive an education in physical and social education,
allowing for nature to perform its role. Play encourages a child’s curiosity and the
opportunity of discovery. Bobbitt (1971) believed that children do not need to know at
the time that play is helping them grow and be educated but the teacher “must see the
serious ends in order to adjust conditions, to control motives, and to guide” (p.13). The
play-level, Bobbitt defines, is all about experiences for the children. It does not involve
direct instruction by the teacher by any means. The work-level on the other hand, is a
conscious act allowing students to have actual work experience. Students are given
activities that give them responsibility.
Bobbitt brought the scientific method to curriculum development. Bobbitt (1971)
defined curriculum as “the entire range of experiences, both indirected and directed,
concerned in unfolding the abilities of the individual” (p. 43) or “the series of consciously
directed training experiences that the schools use for completing and perfecting the
unfoldment.” (p.43). Bobbitt (1971) believes that one developing curriculum should first
“aim at those objectives that are not sufficiently attained as a result of the general
undirected experience.” (p.44) and then look at the shortcomings of the students “after
they have had all that can be given by the undirected training.” (p.45). Bobbitt (1971)
states the importance of making sure people developing the curriculum look at the scope
of “habits, skills abilities, forms of thought, valuations, ambitions, etc.” (p. 43) that are
Integrating Theory
6
essential for mastery of the subject: Establishing general goals first and then coming up
with objectives of education, stating the abilities hoped to master (Bobbitt, 1924). Before
any of this should occur the curriculum-maker should determine what results are to be
produced (Bobbitt, 1924).
Tyler and Bobbitt’s work have helped develop a method for making curriculum in
our K-6 classrooms. Having clear objectives will help students know what they are
supposed to be learning and will help teachers have direction in their teaching. Currently
our educational system is set up around standardized testing. This can be problematic for
teachers formulating their objectives because they are given the objectives that they must
teach their students to pass the tests, rather than developing them on their own based on
their given classes. Setting up clear objectives in the elementary school classroom, which
both Tyler and Bobbitt stress, is important because there are certain things we want the
children to learn by the end of the year and setting the objectives will help to achieve that
goal. Bobbitt’s idea of using play as part of education is especially important in grades K6. Children, through play, can explore, discover, and learn on their own. The social aspect
of play is extremely important. It allows students to interact with each other, learning
cooperative skills and social norms.
The development of objectives in formulating curriculum has benefits in today’s
classroom. Being clear on what should be learned and setting goals is essential due to
vast range of students in a given class. Inclusion programs give teachers such a range of
students that it is important to be able to set clear objectives for the class and individual
students. Many special education students have individualized educational programs
Integrating Theory
7
(IEPs), which show the significant impact traditional theorists have made in using the
scientific method for developing objectives and curriculum.
Conceptual Empiricists. Traditional theorists look at ways of developing
curriculum. Conceptual Empiricists engage in research. David Berliner finds the
importance of developing a general theory about the development of expertise that can be
translated into the teacher education community (Berliner, 1988). In one of his areas of
interest, Berliner looks at a theory of skill learning that is based on Hubert and Stuart
Dreyfus (Berliner, 1988). He takes this theory and engages in multiple research studies to
see if he can apply this theory to teacher education. This particular theory looks at the
different levels of skill development starting with novices and ending with experts. In
Berliner (1988) he looked at novice, postulant, and expert teachers concluding that the
three groups responded very differently to given classroom situations, having “qualitative
differences.” (p. 20). Based on his research and the developmental model he “inquired
whether interesting policy considerations can be formulated.” (Berliner, 1988, p. 20). He
suggests that postulant teachers should have support once they are in the classroom and
that maybe novice teachers should gain experience before they are taught pedagogical
theory. The focus, therefore, should be on giving them informative manuals and scripts to
help them with their lessons (Berliner, 1988). To Berliner, practicing routines is more
beneficial to novice teachers than theoretical knowledge, which he expresses is also
important.
Berliner’s point in his research is that there are differences between novice and
expert teachers and he discovered this by conducting research. Through his research he is
“suggesting that our extensive knowledge base about teaching and teachers be thought of
Integrating Theory
8
as more or less appropriate to people in different stages of their development.” (Berliner,
1988, p. 27). Berliner’s work shows the importance of conducting research to develop
theories and methods about education.
As a novice teacher about to go into the classroom I find this type of research
extremely important. Conducting research gives educators new knowledge and the more
we can learn, the more we will be prepared for the classroom. The research he conducted
provides information for teacher educators on what might be most beneficial to novice
teachers (e.g. practice in the classroom and providing scripts). In our current society we
have a focus on achievement in schools not only for students but also for teachers.
Novice teachers tend to be placed in more challenging classrooms their first year and if
there is such an emphasis on high achievement of students then it is necessary to equip
teachers with helpful training and practice (Graziano, 2005, p. 32). Conceptual
empiricist’s engaging in research will help us understand and develop theories on
contemporary challenges, such as violence. Studies have been conducted, revealing that,
“violent behavior occurs most often in the public places in the school that are ‘unowned’
and relatively unsupervised.” (Lemlech, 2006, p. 14). Research is useful for today’s
schools because it allows for a better understanding issues that schools are facing.
Reconceptualists. Reconceptualists find it important to critique present curriculum
and instruction methods. Michael Apple, a contemporary theorist, believes that education
is not a neutral act but a political one. Apple believes that we must critically examine our
school system and how certain aspects of our culture are taught in schools. He explains
that schools should be seen as institutions and that there is a cycle of schools recreating
inequalities among certain groups (Apple, 1979). As Apple (1979) states in his book
Integrating Theory
9
Ideology and Curriculum in talking about commitments of educators and school
institutions as a whole, he states that, “it requires the progressive articulation of and
commitment to a social order that has at its very foundation not the accumulation of
goods, profits, and credentials, but the maximization of economic, social, and educational
equality.” (p. 11). The idea of equality and social justice is inherent to Paulo Freire’s
ideas on education. Our schools as institutions tend to promote certain dominating groups
(i.e. socioeconomic, ethnic, etc.) in our society to stay dominant. Apple argues that it is
critical for the education system to verge away from this idea of advancing the already
advanced and focus its attention on the least advantaged in our society (Apple, 1979).
Apple (1979) thinks that we should look at the “hidden curriculum” (values, beliefs, etc.)
in education critically but also why this particular “hidden curriculum” exists. Apple
(1979) takes an active approach to evaluating the institutions of schools and believes that
the definition of educators should be “one which is rooted…in the definition of an
organic intellectual whose understanding and action are joined by active involvement
against hegemony.” (p. 25).
Along with Apple, Freire centers his work on social injustice. People should
always critically reflect on our educational programs and what they mean. In our society
we have the right to criticize constructively and accept criticism but we must never lie in
our critiques (Freire, 1998). Freire (1998) stresses that “…a neutral, uncommitted, and
apolitical educational practice does not exist.” (p. 39). We, as educators, must
acknowledge education’s political nature and respect that our students may not have our
same viewpoints. Teachers also have the right to be respected (Freire, 1998). Classrooms
should be places where students and teacher respect each other’s thoughts and fears.
Integrating Theory
10
Freire suggests that there are some obstacles that go along with the classroom and
education in general. One obstacle that can occur is when the educator never acts as the
facilitator and does not challenge the students. Another challenge is when educators are
unaware of the “popular” language of their students because they will be less effective
and have trouble communicating with them (Freire, 1998). Educators must make
themselves aware of the students they are teaching and the backgrounds that these
students are coming from.
This idea of critiquing curriculum that is already being used is essential in the
development of good teachers. Educators should always be trying to improve and
develop new skills, and through reflective and critical thought, they can achieve this. In
the United States, there are people from a wide range of backgrounds and with this vast
diversity in many areas of our country educators must embrace and respect the
differences of our students. Along with this though, is our duty to try and help our
students coming from less affluent areas so each one of our students has an equal
opportunity to succeed. Poverty is a serious issue in today’s schools and it is growing
(Lemlech, 2006). Lemlech (2006) states, “Poor children lack resource tools in their
homes and parental involvement…and suffer from hunger and disease. All of these
conditions affect achievement.” (p. 13). Reconceptualists believe it is the teacher’s
responsibility to help these students. In looking at Apple’s thoughts on “hidden
curriculum” it is also important to remember that in our society different groups have
“hidden rules” [i.e. “unspoken cueing system that individuals use to indicate membership
in a group.” (Payne, 1996, p. 71)] that shape the way they learn in classrooms. At the
elementary school level it is essential for teachers to recognize this and help their students
Integrating Theory
11
learn the hidden rules of the school environment so they can have an equal chance of
success (Payne, 1996).
Postmodernists. Lastly I would like to focus my attention to the postmodernists.
Postmodernists suggest that there are multiple ways in thinking about curriculum.
William Doll suggests that having an open system in curriculum creates transformative
curriculum (Doll, 1993). He believes that intellectual vision in the postmodern world is
based on practical doubt. This doubt forces us to communicate with others and learn from
them, which in turn can lead us to having a new social vision (Doll, 1993). The idea of
open thought allows for a variety of perspectives and a want for “eclectic yet local
integration of subject/object, mind/body, curriculum/person, teacher/student, us/others.”
(Doll, 1993, p.61). Doll (1993) believes that integration relies on who educators and
students are and their actions. Polyfocal curriculum goes along with the idea of
integration. Instead of using multiple subjects in a lesson this is suggesting the allowance
of multiple perspectives (Doll, 1993). This type of teaching “does not alternate between
perspectives but rather allows perspectives to interact” (Doll, 1993, p. 68). Doll’s work
help educators reflect on their own curricular thoughts.
I believe that the idea of open thought is important to the future of our teaching.
With standards being raised, education has started to turn into teaching students to
regurgitate facts (as young as first grade) in order to perform well on tests. It might be
important for teachers to take the postmodernist approach and integrate subjects together
and allow for different perspectives. This will help students not just achieve well in
academics but will enrich the students education and development. Postmodernists’ idea
of curriculum meaning more than one thing is important in today’s classroom. With
Integrating Theory
12
special education, gifted students and English language learners (Lemlech, 2006) all
coming together in the general education classes, educators should to look at curriculum
from various angles in order to meet the needs of every student.
Theorists’ Discussion
In looking at all of the theorists I have chosen to research it is interesting to see
how I will be able to use their theories in my teaching at the elementary school level.
Through my research I can see how each one of the theoretical camps have helped shape
methods that are being used in the school system today. The traditionalist theorists have
helped curriculum development by formulating objectives. Conceptual empiricists use
research in developing theories on education. The reconstructionists focus their work on
the idea of social justice and critique. And last, the postmodernist theorists believe
curriculum to be multiple things. Each theorist discussed in this paper has been helpful to
the field of teaching. Both Ralph Tyler and Franklin Bobbitt have helped in current
educators’ methods for writing curriculum and developing objectives. David Berliner has
helped expand educators’ knowledge through his theoretical research. Michael Apple and
Paulo Freire remind educators of the importance of being aware of students’ backgrounds
and William Doll brings the idea of an open classroom where students and teachers are
sharing ideas. As a K-6 teacher my goal should be to not choose one theory to shape my
individual philosophy of teaching but pull from all theoretical camps. All have their
points and it is important to be cognizant of what each theory suggests. I chose to
construct and organize my paper in this way because I wanted to get an idea of all of the
theoretical camps. Until this class I knew very little about curriculum theorists. For the
most part I tried to choose names that I did not recognize so I could gain knowledge and
Integrating Theory
13
insight in the topic of theories in curriculum. All of the educators I have discussed in this
section have played a role in helping education be what it is today and I hope that in my
future as an educator I will pull from many of these theorists’ ideas. Parallel to theory,
knowledge of current empirical research is also valuable in providing a better
understanding of education and in shaping education’s future.
Empirical Research
The organization and instruction in a classroom has an important impact on
students’ learning. It is important for educators to think critically and thoughtfully about
the process of learning and the different instructional methods. This section concentrates
on the educational research on differentiating instruction, through ability grouping, and
the acceleration of at-risk students. Each article provides more insight on the effects
grouping and instruction can have on students. The articles have allowed me to formulate
my opinion on best practices when instructing elementary aged students and how I will
employ grouping in my classroom. Through my research I have come to the conclusion
that educational research on grouping and acceleration are topics that need more
extensive current research in order for educators to make definitive decisions.
Differentiation
Ability Grouping. Research on the effects of ability grouping on achievement has
mixed reviews. Rowan and Miracle (1983) examined the differential peers hypothesis,
looking at how ability grouping stratifies different peer contexts and affects achievement.
They also investigated the differential instruction hypothesis, which states that teachers
have higher expectations for students in high-ranking groups than in low-ranking groups,
affecting achievement differentials. Rowan and Miracle (1983) studied a large, urban
Integrating Theory
14
school district in Texas. The sample included 148 students, fourth grade students, from
ten different classrooms. The study consisted of 30 hours of observation to consider
teacher-student interaction and peer friendship patterns. Socioeconomic status and
ethnicity were described as exogenous variables. Rowan and Miracle (1983) looked at the
extent to which students received free or reduced lunch and grouped students as either
Black and Spanish-surnamed or Anglo but no statistics were provided on specific group
variation. Students were grouped in cross-classroom and within-classroom groups (e.g.
reading groups). In the cross-classroom groups, students were assigned a “dummy
variable” of either, low-ability class, or high-ability class. The within-class groups were
assigned based on student’s reading ability at the beginning of the year, measured by
third grade reading scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Rowan & Miracle, 1983). In
response to the differential peers hypothesis analysis, Ordinary Least Squares regression
testing found that ability grouping in cross-classroom groups stratified friendship ability
but the within-classroom groups did not. The results give weak support for the
differential instruction hypothesis. Rowan and Miracle (1983) state, “Students in lower
ability classrooms were paced more slowly than students in higher ability
classrooms…this form of grouping apparently leads to instruction that reinforces initial
achievement differentials” but “Students in lower level reading groups were involved in
more direct interaction with teachers and were paced faster than students in higher level
groups.” (p. 141).
Rowan and Miracle (1983) report that both cross-classroom and within-classroom
ability groups effect achievement. These findings suggest that teachers should investigate
different types of grouping (i.e. cross-classroom or within-classroom) because they do
Integrating Theory
15
not yield the same results. For practical purposes to teachers, it is important to remember
that pacing affects reading achievement and expectations must remain high for both high
and low ability groups in order for full potential to be reached.
While this article suggests positive results for within-classroom groups for
reading and explores the difference between types of groups, it was conducted over 20
years ago and may not be relevant today. It is important for more research to be
conducted on types of grouping in order for the results to be generalized to current
elementary school classrooms. Another limitation to this study is that it only focuses on
two processes that affect student achievement, showing “very little of the direct effects of
group assignment on achievement” (Rowan & Miracle, 1983, p. 142). Future researchers
may want to focus on contextual features of the learning environment, in order to see
direct effects of group status on achievement.
Ability Grouping and Race. Similar to Rowan and Miracle (1983), Haller (1985)
examined ability grouping but focuses his attention on race. Haller (1985) analyzed
elementary school teachers’ expectations of students’ abilities based on race. The
research examined the process and criteria used in teachers’ decision making and any
racial bias that might occur. It also examined the effects of the decisions teachers make.
Forty-nine self-contained classrooms in the Eastern United States were studied,
containing grades four, five and six. The sample included 934 students. Haller (1985)
employed the “reading section of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS)” (p.
467) to assess the students’ ability level. The teachers were not aware of students’ scores.
Teachers were then interviewed where they were asked to create reading groups, based
on ability, for the next year’s teacher. They were also asked to rate students based on six
Integrating Theory
16
perception scales (general academic competence, reading ability, work habits, classroom
behavior, creativity, and home background). Haller (1985) refers to these six scales as
four-item teacher perception scales, each having an alpha reliability of .85 or higher.
Results found that whites were twice as likely to be placed in the higher groups and
blacks were three times as likely as whites to be placed in the lower groups. The
researcher used a t-test to compare mean scores on the CTBS and six perception
variables. Blacks were rated lower in all six-perception scales. This demonstrates that
race influences teacher perceptions, with teachers having lower expectations for Blacks in
comparison to Whites.
This study encourages teachers to think about the possible implications of the
different race perceptions, along with how this can apply to other settings other than
grouping. Haller (1985) suggests that the problem is not that the majority of teachers are
biased in creating ability groups but in “understanding how the association between
children’s race and their reading achievement comes about in the first place…” (p. 481).
Like Rowan and Miracle (1983), a major limitation to this study is the fact that it was
conducted quite long ago. More research on the topic of race and ability grouping in
elementary schools is needed in order to really understand the relationship between
teachers’ perceptions of race and ability group placements.
Heterogeneous vs. Homogenous Grouping. So far the articles discussed have
concentrated on ability grouping. Within the topic of ability grouping is the idea
heterogeneous groups compared to homogenous groups. Leonard (2001) investigated the
different types of grouping and the influences each group had on achievement. An
elementary school in suburban Maryland was used in the study. One hundred and ninety
Integrating Theory
17
six-grade students participated over a two-year period, each year including ninety-five
students. The first year six-grade students were assigned to heterogeneous math groups
based on ability and the second year six-grade students were placed in homogeneous
groups. Leonard (2001) used the Maryland Functional Mathematics Test, Level 1
(MFMT-1) to assess students at the beginning and the end of data collection. The
classification consistency of the MFMT-1 is in the excellent range at .90 and the internal
consistency is satisfactory, ranging from .59 to .86. The data was analyzed quantitatively
using the MFMT-1 and qualitatively (i.e. twelve students were selected randomly and
their interaction during group activity was videotaped). Results of the study showed that
“low-achieving students in the homogeneous setting scored significantly lower than their
counterparts in the heterogeneous group setting.” (Leonard, 2001, p. 185).
Leonard (2001) findings suggest that group composition effects student
achievement. Leonard (2001) reported that working in heterogeneous groups yielded
higher posttest scores in middle and lower ability students. The fact that heterogeneous
and homogenous groups are significantly different in achievement scores is important
knowledge for elementary teachers grouping students. Leonard goes on to show that the
lack of interaction between high, middle and low ability students in homogeneous groups
causes for limitations in amount and quality of overall student interactions. The findings
on the benefits of heterogeneous math groups imply that educators should consider using
heterogeneous grouping when teaching mathematics to elementary students. More
research needs to be conducted to be able to generalize the results to other subject areas.
Leonard (2001) proposes that future researchers investigate, not grouping, but motivation
in teaching mathematics to elementary aged students.
Integrating Theory
18
Acceleration
At-Risk Students. Acceleration of students may be attributed to grouping or other
instructional methods. Harn, Linan-Thompson, and Roberts (2008) examined extra
instructional time and acceleration of at-risk first-graders. In this study, content, group
size and instructional delivery remained constant while instructional time was increased.
The sample consisted of 54 first-grade at-risk students. The Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency (PSF) and Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) were used to measure reading ability
level. Students placed in the less intense intervention (amount of instructional time) were
homogeneously grouped based on reading skills. In the more intense intervention group
students were also homogeneously grouped but instructional time was greater. The results
for the study suggest that students receiving more intense intervention (i.e. more
instructional time) have greater achievement scores than the less intense intervention.
In contrast to Leonard (2001), Harn et al. (2008) focus not on group composition
but in actual instruction time. It is proposed that there should be school-wide models of
instruction for students at-risk for reading problems (Harn et. al., 2008). The results of the
study suggest that teachers should consider the amount of instructional time they use
when thinking about increasing reading ability in at-risk elementary students. While this
study showed a positive correlation between instruction time and accelerated
achievement, it was only looking at 54 first-graders. A larger sample size would help
increase the significance of the results. Harn et. al. (2008) “was a post hoc study, limiting
direct comparisons and generalization” (p. 123). In addition, the more intensive
intervention group was more in tune to each individual child’s need, adjusting amount of
Integrating Theory
19
time spent, whereas the less intense intervention was not. The authors also suggest the
possibility of more qualitative group differences not being measured in the study.
Bringing Students Up To Grade Level. Slavin, Madden, Karweit, Livermon, and
Dolan (1990) report on a program established to bring all students to grade level by thirdgrade. The program is called Success for All and focuses on grades pre-kindergarten
through third. Success for All is designed for prevention and immediate, intensive
intervention. It uses specific instructional methods including, reading tutors,
heterogeneous grouping, homogeneous grouping, assessments every eight weeks,
inclusion of special education students and parent support. The sample included a
Baltimore inner-city school consisting of 440 students. Results were taken for this study
after the first year of implementation but Success for All will remain in the school for five
years. Students from the sample were compared to a similar school not included in the
Success for All program. The Test of Language Development (TOLD), Merrill Language
Screening Test, Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery, Durrell Analysis of Reading
Difficulty, and the California Achievement Test (CAT) were all used to assess the
students. Results concerning the majority of measures showed the students receiving
Success for All scored higher than the students from the compared school.
In looking at the Success for All program, Slavin et al. (1990) found promising
data supporting the effectiveness of the program. This study suggests that it is essential to
start intervention early in urban environments. It gives a promising answer to the
question, can all children learn? While this study is positive and gives hope to teachers
working with disadvantaged children, it is important for educators to find practical
intervention methods with their students. Success for All may show potential and
Integrating Theory
20
improvement but it has the limitation of being fairly expensive, adding about $1000 to
the cost per student. More studies focusing on more cost effective intervention programs
are necessary for more practical use in elementary schools. The fact that this program has
only been looked at in its first year is also a limitation. It is important for the researchers
to evaluate Success for All in the following years of its implementation. Extraneous
factors could have been affecting the students’ academic growth and development in the
first year. Research looking at the remaining years of the program is needed in order to
see if the success of the program continued. Success for All was also only implemented in
one Baltimore city elementary school. Further research is needed in other areas of the
country to see if the results can be generalized to schools across the United States.
Personal Goals
Through reading the literature research on ability grouping and acceleration, I
have come to some conclusions. It is my belief that every child, no matter what level they
are on, needs a teacher who is willing to do anything to help him or her succeed. The
positive effects of the acceleration programs discussed earlier in the paper help sharpen
this belief. Every child can learn and it is our responsibility as teachers to make sure that
happens. The research on instruction time by Harn et. al. (2008) makes sense. The more
time spent with students going over instruction, the more practice they will get with the
material. It seems important for teachers to be willing to put in the extra time needed for
the students who need it. The problem is, is that it is not always feasible. The Success for
All program evaluated by Slavin et al. (1990) is an extreme intervention program, which
is not necessarily possible in every school. I believe I can adapt some of the ideas from
this program though (e.g. using homogeneous reading groups but heterogeneous groups
Integrating Theory
21
for other subjects, and conducting frequent assessments.) Unfortunately, the problem
with intervention programs is that there is so much to teach, especially with standardized
tests, that there may not be enough time in the school day for them. I believe
modifications of these time consuming intense intervention programs would make them
more manageable, for time constraint reasons, in my classroom.
Ability grouping (homogeneous groups) is a method I think would work for
reading groups but I am hesitant to use them for other subjects. For reading groups based
on ability, research has shown that lower ability groups are paced faster and receive more
direct teacher instruction, which, in my opinion, is essential to students’ achievement
(Rowan & Miracle, 1983). The research suggests that for subjects such as math,
heterogeneous groups are more effective (Leonard, 2001). As a teacher I plan on
regularly reading current research in order to see what best practices are supported, to
complement the knowledge I gain from being in the classroom.
The idea of grouping within my classroom has lead me to consider how I would
like to organize my room. Figure 1 provides a visual. I believe it is important for students
to interact with one another, so I would place the students’ desks in groups of four or
five. I understand that this may cause some management problems but I think that the
benefit of having them in groups outweighs any problem that could occur. One way to
solve the problem of talking that may happen with the way I have organized the desks
would be to have students turn their chairs to face me when providing direct instruction.
One benefit of already having the students sitting in groups is it will lessen the traffic that
may develop when I do want group interaction. I think it is important to have the desks in
the middle of the room so the students are able to easily see the board. As for the
Integrating Theory
22
teacher’s desk, I think the best spot for it would be across from the door. That way I will
be able to see who is coming in and out of the classroom. I have placed my desk up near
the front of the room, by the white board, so the students can have an easy time getting to
me if they are working individually and have a question. In reading the articles on
acceleration, I can see the significance of being available to my students. On my floor
plan, I have added centers for computer, science, music, and social studies along the wall
so the students have access to them but they will not be an obstruction of the walkway. I
placed the reading corner further away from the other centers so the students will have a
quiet area to go. Last, I have decided to add a work-table in the back of the room. This is
a place where I will be able to give the students more individual/group instruction time
when the class is doing independent assignments.
There are many connections between various theorists’ views on education and
the studies being conducted today. Traditionalist Ralph Tyler’s idea of setting explicit
goals to develop curriculum (Tyler, 1949) is evident in research conducted on the
program Success for All (Slavin et al., 1990). Success for All has detailed objectives to
meet the goal of bringing every single child up to grade level. The influence of both
Michael Apple and Paulo Freire is clear in Haller (1985). Apple and Freire’s belief in
working against social injustice and changing inequalities (Apple, 1979, Freire, 1998) is
seen in Haller’s work in looking at teachers’ perceptions of race. The findings of Leonard
(2001) that students achieve higher in mathematics when placed in heterogeneous groups
ties in nicely with William Doll’s viewpoint of the benefits of multiple perspective
teaching (Doll, 1993). Leonard (2001) stated “preventing low-achieving students from
Integrating Theory
23
working with high-achieving students…limits the amount of quality of student
interactions.” (p. 195).
The articles reviewed in this section studied important topics that need to be
considered by every teacher in the field. As educators, we must look at the research
available to increase our knowledge and develop our teaching methodology. There are
pros and cons to most methods and it is our responsibility to be aware of these
comparisons so we can make an informed decision about what approach to use.
Field Experience
While being knowledgeable in educational theory and empirical research is
fundamental in developing into a well-formed teacher, I believe that field experiences
provide the best opportunity to become an effective, skillful teacher. For the purposes of
this paper I will discuss three different field experiences provided in three unique
settings. The field experiences consisted of the William and Mary Summer Enrichment
Program for Gifted Students (W & M SEP), Williamsburg James City County Summer
School Program (WJCC), and Henrico County Public Schools ESL Summer Academy
(HCPS), in Richmond, Virginia. Each program has a distinct population which I will
overview. For a more detailed description refer to Appendix A.
W & M SEP
The goal of W & M SEP is to focus on specialized content areas and promote
qualities such as self-directed learning. The program has approximately 700 children
coming from all over the country to participate. The majority of children are from
Virginia and other East Coast states. Eighty-five to ninety-five percent of the children are
White, with approximately four percent African American and less than one percent
Integrating Theory
24
Asian. The program costs $220 per class, which affects students’ ability to participate.
The students range from ages four to tenth grade with more than half of the students
coming from private or home schools. In order to be accepted into the program, students
must have a recommendation, score in the 95th percentile on a nationally recognized
exam and register for a class in their strength subject. In this environment parents are
encouraged to attend a presentation, communicate with teachers, and complete a program
assessment form.
WJCC
In contrast to W & M SEP, WJCC is comprised of around 300 rising first through
fifth-graders in which 78 percent are on free or reduced lunch. The primary objective of
the summer school program is to provide extra help to students that are below grade level
or students who need additional support to remain close to grade level in reading and
math. The population includes 56 percent males and 44 percent females. Sixty-two
percent are African American, thirty-five percent of the students are White, and there is a
small Asian population. On average, the students attending WJCC are below grade level
with students having either failed the SOL (i.e. a score of 400 or below) or were
recommended for extra help in an area such as reading. The parents are asked to be
committed to the program, assuring that their children get to school.
HCPS
HCPS is free to students registered in Henrico County Public Schools and is
attended by 400 elementary English-as-a-second-language students. The students must
have an ESL level of either one or two, which is determined by the Stanford English
Language Proficiency (SELP). The goal is to improve English proficiency and
Integrating Theory
25
knowledge and skills in English, Math, and Science. In the Henrico County elementary
school system there are 130 different languages spoken with Spanish, Vietnamese,
Arabic, Chinese, and Bosnian being the most common. Parents receive ESL progress
reports, phone calls, and newsletters from the program to help them to remain involved.
Each field experience site had observable data collected on various topics. Given
the amount of data collected, I have chosen to focus on areas related to grouping and
acceleration. Specifically I will look at evidence of small groups, problem solving,
student-teacher engagement, and independent work. Appendix A supplies a more indepth look at each program.
Evidence of Small Groups
Evidence of small groups was observed in one aspect or another in all three field
experience settings. Students in the HCPS program were placed in groups to work in
stations throughout the entire day. In some classes the teacher had grouped the students
heterogeneously but in two of the classes the students were placed homogeneously
according to their reading level. This was actually the only program where homogeneous
groups were observed. Considering that the research states that homogeneous reading
groups can be beneficial to student achievement (Rowan & Miracle, 1983), this surprised
me. At W & M SEP only one class, consisting of seven students was observed which may
account for the lack of small groups observed. Students were paired together to review
each other’s stories but that was the extent of student interactions in small groups. WJCC
provided somewhat more variety in grouping. Students worked in small reading groups,
helping each other when someone got stuck on a word. This follows the empirical
evidence suggesting that students at various levels, working together is beneficial for all
Integrating Theory
26
students involved (Leonard, 2001). Similar to the students at W & M SEP, they
participated in peer editing of writing samples. It would have been nice to see examples
of heterogeneous math groups and more homogeneous reading groups to observe the
research topics of Rowan and Miracle (1983) and Leonard (2001) first-hand.
Evidence of Problem Solving
Next, I would like to examine the evidence of problem solving in all three school
programs. I believe that problem solving provides a wonderful opportunity for students to
work together in small groups. Many of the classes observed had a roster of ten children
or less, which made the opportunity for small group interaction difficult. WJCC and
HCPS both had students solving simple problems such as figuring out words they had
never seen before based on vowel placement and make proper classifications of animals
and their habitats. All of this was done independently. It would have been interesting to
see how the students proceeded with solving these problems if they had been working
with their peers. The W& M SEP students were involved in more complex problem
solving. This may be due to the fact that this is an enrichment program. While
proofreading their own stories, students were asked to identify problems within their
writing. They were also asked to identify problems in their peers stories and formulate a
recommended solution for the problem. This allowed students to learn from each other
which is one of the benefits of working together in groups (Leonard, 2001).
Evidence of Student-Teacher Engagement
The empirical data provided above focuses on acceleration of students in terms of
instructional time (Harn et. al., 2008). At all three field experience sites, examples of
student-teacher engagement were observed. The students at WJCC were given detailed
Integrating Theory
27
feedback and overall the teachers asked the students engaging questions. In many classes,
while the students were individually reading, the teacher would go around to each of
student, having them read out loud. WJCC teachers were also willing to help the students
when they seemed to be struggling (e.g. when students had trouble during a fraction
review, the teacher picked up blocks showing a concrete example of the problem, to help
the students better understand). Similar to WJCC, the W & M SEP teacher was observed
giving additional support to a student who needed extra help on her story. Both programs
provided additional instruction to students when necessary, which is comparable (to a
lesser degree) to the research by Harn et al. (2008) on acceleration and instruction time.
The teachers at HCPS were also observed assisting students when they required extra
attention. At all three sites the teachers were seen questioning the students to assess what
the students had understood and to get all of the students involved. Research shows that
instruction time increases acceleration and student achievement (Harn et al., 2008 and
Slavin et. al., 1990) and from the observations it appears that the programs have similar
beliefs.
Evidence of Independent Work
Finally, in all of the classrooms, students were observed performing independent
work. When students are working independently the teacher is free to observe the
students and see the children who are struggling. From my observation of WJCC I have
come to the conclusion that individual work allows for teachers to increase instructional
time for students who need the extra help. The students at WJCC mostly engaged in
independent work. In the various classes observed students were partaking in journal and
writing, reading either out loud or silently to themselves, completing worksheets and
Integrating Theory
28
working on the computers. In HCPS students were also observed working independently,
performing similar tasks such as working alone at different stations, writing stories and
reading. Due to the fact that all of the students participating in HCPS were either on a
level one or two ESL level, the teachers were more explicit in the instructions the
students received as opposed to WJCC. As mentioned above, the W & M SEP students
were only observed taking one class (i.e. a writing class). The students in this program
were working individually on short stories they had started earlier in the week. They also,
independently, proofread their papers and the papers of their peers. All three sites had
students practicing their writing skills. It appears that the students at W & M SEP were
given more freedom in their writing while the students at WJCC and HCPS were
provided with more prompts and more detailed instructions. W & M SEP, WJCC, and
HCPS, during at least part of the day, focused on independent work, giving the teachers
the opportunity to walk around the room, giving instruction when needed.
Conclusion
This paper demonstrates the importance of learning about theory and empirical
research and participating in field experience. Much can be learned from all three of these
things but together they provide knowledge that will help teachers develop into wellrounded educators. Educational theory helps teachers formulate opinions on education by
suggesting the best methods and ways of thought. The empirical research conducted
allows for the theories to be tested and concrete conclusions to be made in some cases.
Taking what theory and research have taught me, I can go into a field experience
knowledgeable on various thoughts on education and best methods of teaching. Field
experience allows educators to employ methods that they agree with and discover what
Integrating Theory
29
actually works in practice. I believe teaching is an art, something that is constantly being
tweaked based on available evidence and experience.
Theory, research, and experience are all intertwined. This can be seen in Ralph
Tyler’s and Franklin Bobbitt’s beliefs in setting objectives for curriculum (Tyler, 1949
and Bobbitt, 1924) as well as the research conducted by Slavin et. al. (1990) on the
Success for All program. The sites observed, especially WJCC and HCPS, all had goals,
one of which was working with students on meeting specific Virginia Standards of
Learning (SOL) objectives. As mentioned earlier in the paper, William Doll’s belief in
allowing for multiple perspective in teaching (Doll, 1993) is seen in Leonard (2001),
which examined heterogeneous math groups. Students in one WJCC class worked
together in reading groups, reading words and helping each other when someone got
stuck on a word. Within this group, the students were on different levels academically
which allowed for students who may have been struggling to learn from their peers.
In learning about different theorists and current empirical research, I hope to
always stay well-informed because education is a constantly changing field and I want to
remain up to date with new theories and research. I believe that I can learn from each
theorist, even if what I learn is that I disagree. Being knowledgeable on current research
is something that is important to me. Education is my profession and research allows for
a better understanding of methods and practices being used. Based on the research
discussed in this paper, I think I will use ability grouping in my classrooms but not for
every subject. I like the idea of students on different ability levels learning and
developing from each other and research shows that heterogeneous grouping is especially
beneficial in math. What I am taking away the most from the research overviewed in this
Integrating Theory
30
paper is the importance of giving extra instructional time for the students who need it.
Every child can learn; it is just a matter of someone believing in them and motivating
them. Most importantly, I use the theory and research I have studied as a base for when I
enter my practicum and student teaching. The experience I gained in the short time I
spent in my field experience this summer makes me excited to enter the school system in
the fall. I feel knowledgeable on educational topics but I realize that I will learn most
through my field experiences. That is, I will be able to take what I have learned and apply
it, finding out what practices best fit my students and me.
Integrating Theory
31
References
Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Berliner, D. C. (1988, February 17). The development of expertise in pedagogy (Lecture).
New Orleans; Charles W. Hunt Memorial Lecture, American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education.
Bobbitt, F. (1924). How to make a curriculum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Bobbitt, F. (1971). The curriculum (Reprint). New York: Arno Press & The New York
Times.
Doll, W. E. Jr. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Freire, P. (1998). Politics and education. (P. L. Wong, Trans.) Los Angeles: UCLA Latin
American Center Publications. (Original work published 1921).
Graziano, C. (2005). School’s out. In K. Ryan & J. Cooper (Eds.), Kaleidoscope:
Readings in education. (11th ed.) (31-36). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Haller, E. J. (1985). Pupil race and elementary school ability grouping: Are teachers
biases against black children? American Educational Research Journal, 22 (4),
465-483.
Harn, B. A., Linan-Thompson, S., & Roberts, G. (2008). Intensifying instruction: Does
additional instructional time make a difference for the most at-risk first graders?
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41 (2), 115-125.
Lemlech, J. K. (2006). Curriculum and instructional methods for the elementary and
middle school. New Jersey: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.
Integrating Theory
32
Leonard, J. (2001). How group composition influenced the achievement of sixth-grade
mathematics students. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 3, (2 &3), 175-200.
Payne, P. K. (1996). Understanding and working with students and adults from poverty.
In K. Ryan & J. Cooper (Eds.), Kaleidoscope: Readings in education. (11th ed.)
(69-84). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Rowan, B., & Miracle, A. W. Jr. (1983). Systems of ability grouping and the stratification
of achievement in elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 56 (3), 133-144.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N. L., Livermon, B. J., & Dolan, L. (1990).
Success for All: First-year outcomes of a comprehensive plan for reforming urban
education. American Educational Research Journal, 27 (2), 255-278.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Integrating Theory
33
Appendix A
Observation Summaries for Three Virginia Field Experiences
William and Mary Summer Enrichment Program for Gifted Students (W&M SEP)
Pre-service Students: Grace Busse, Maggie Farmer, Emily Hite, Lindsay McPherson,
Vanessa Mullins, Krystal Rodney, Amy Sarkaria
Date of Observation: July 17, 2008
Classroom Teacher: Lillie Smith
Background Information
Demographics (ethnicity, SES, gender, race, religion, first language):
People come from all over the country and occasionally other countries. Majority of
students are from Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and New York. Tuition and travel costs affect ability to participate. The
program costs $220 per class so students with low socioeconomic status may be unable to
participate. 85 to 95 percent of students are white, about four percent of students are
African American, and less than one percent are Asian. There are more males in the
science and math classes. Religion is not asked.
Performance Data for Population:
The range of ages in the program is 4 year olds through tenth grade. Sixty percent of
students attend private school or are home schooled while forty percent of students attend
public school.
Criteria for Student Selection:
Students need to have a recommendation form to attest for their academic ability as well
as score in the 95th percentile on a nationally recognized test or screening test provided by
the College of William and Mary. Students must also be registered for a class, which is
their strength.
Nature of Parental Involvement:
The parents are invited to attend a presentation on Friday. Parents can communicate with
the teacher during drop off and pick up. Parents are also asked to fill out an evaluation of
the program on the last day of class.
Observation for Gifted Summer Enrichment Program
Evidence of Student Engagement with Curriculum and/or Materials:
All the students were very attentive and sat in the front row. The children were very
engaged in the material through asking questions and participation. There was a lot of
opportunity for the children to share their thoughts in class discussion. In discussion
about genres, students gave examples of books and movies they know in the genre. They
played telephone to demonstrate the genre, folktale.
Integrating Theory
34
Are there teacher aids in the classroom? Describe.
There is an aid in the classroom. She is the teacher’s daughter, Miss Jessica. She seems
to mostly take care of housekeeping details, communicate to parents, and take students to
the restroom. The aid acted as another set of hands in the classroom to turn off lights,
find things, pass out papers, and organize.
Evidence of Student/Teacher Engagement:
At the beginning of class, the teacher asked the students to share about their afternoons
the day before. She also laid out the schedule for the day for the students. The students
and teacher are very involved with questioning and answering during lecture. The
environment is very open and inviting. The teacher gave additional support to students
who needed it.
Evidence of Whole Group Instruction:
An overhead was used to lecture about literature genres. The teacher encouraged the
students to take notes on the lecture. Whole group discussion was also used in this
instruction. The children played “telephone” to demonstrate a folk tale. At the end of the
class, the children viewed a video presentation of a short story.
Evidence of Small Group Interaction:
The children were put in pairs to exchange their short stories for peer preview. They read
each other’s stories, filled out peer review sheets and discussed criticisms with their
partner. The teacher discussed etiquette in criticism with the class before they began.
She also encouraged students to help each other with illustrations of their books.
Evidence of Independent Work:
The children wrote their short stories independently and were asked to finish their stories
at home if they did not finish them in class. They also proofread their own papers in
class and completed a story map.
Evidence of Higher Level Thinking:
The questions asked of the students were open-ended and inviting. The teacher asked
questions such as “What happens when…” or how two things were similar or dissimilar.
Students were asked to revise and proofread their own stories. Then, they converted their
stories to a story map. Students were also asked to analyze stories written by their peers.
Evidence of Creativity or Original Thought:
The children were working on creating their own original short stories and illustrating
them. They are encouraged to answer questions.
Evidence of Problem-Solving:
The teacher encouraged the students to expand their thinking and to identify problems
within their stories and a solution to these. In completing the peer reviews, students
identified problems and how the student should fix these problems. They used the story
maps to ensure that the story flowed
Integrating Theory
35
Primary Lesson Objective and/or Standard:
The children learned about genres (drama, fable, folktale, historical fiction, legend,
mystery, myth, science fiction, short story, nonfiction, autobiography, biography, dairy,
narrative writing, poetry). The main focus of the class was creative writing of short
stories. The students wrote and illustrated their own short stories to present to their
parents at the end of the week.
Forms of Assessment:
Assessment was informal. Students completed a self assessment daily and revised their
own story using worksheets to guide them. They presented their stories at the end of the
week to parents, teachers, and peers. Parents received an overall report for their child at
the end of the week.
Discipline Plan:
How does the teacher maintain classroom order?
Because there were only seven children in the class, there were very few
discipline problems. The teacher raised her voice slightly to get students’
attention and asked them to listen. She also asked them to put down their pencils
and look at her in order to insure attention. When a child was doing an activity
that was not appropriate, she often said “Please don’t do that, baby.” She used pet
names for the children so as not to seem so harsh.
Is there a written discipline plan posted in the classroom?
No. There was nothing hung on any of the walls in the classroom.
Teacher Guided Discussion
Elaborate on the ways in which the teacher engaged the students? Key Questions.
The lesson was titled “What is a genre?” The teacher introduced a genre and asked the
students to define the genre first. She listened to the students responses and thanked them
for their participation. She appreciated their responses, whether correct or incorrect, and
was never negative. She defined the genres herself to clarify after student responses. She
made sure to call on students who rarely raised their hand when they did so. The teacher
related the topic to books, movies, and plays with which the children were already
familiar.
What did the students do? How did they respond?
The students raised their hands and answered the questions. Occasionally, the children
spoke without raising their hands and this was permitted by the teacher. All children
seemed engaged in the lesson and were not afraid to share their responses. They
responded with definitions of the genres or specific examples of a genre.
Read-Aloud or Other Activity
Describe how you interacted with students (if appropriate)? What you did; what
they did.
Integrating Theory
36
Each of us took one child to a place in the classroom. We introduced ourselves and the
read-aloud individually to the child we would be reading to. We read poems to the
students and asked questions about these poems. This lasted for the first 20 minutes of
the class. For the remainder of the class, we sat in the back and observed.
Reflections:
“The teacher does a great job interacting and is entertaining. She relates the students own
experiences to the subject matter. She is dramatic and keeps the attention of the students.
The children in the classroom are encouraged to be creative in their work.”
“I enjoyed this a lot, however, I wish it was with an entire class because working one on
one with a child is not ideal in a typical classroom setting. I did feel like working one on
one with Heather helped me to understand the characteristics of gifted children a little bit
more.”
“I felt that the child I was working with wasn’t that interested in reading the poems. He
seemed uncomfortable with the reading of the poems and he didn’t seem to be enjoying
it. He also said that he hadn’t had much experience with poetry, so I think he felt
uncomfortable discussing something he wasn’t familiar with.”
“I enjoyed the experience and discovered things I would like to transfer into my
teaching.”
“I greatly appreciated the teacher student interaction, the relating to real and personal life,
and the teacher enthusiasm.”
“I felt this was a very interesting experience. The children in the class were all gifted
students, however they were all very different. The child I was able to work with was
very shy and quiet. He kept to himself and did not want to answer questions. It took me
a few minutes, but I was able to figure out what he was interested in and how I could get
him to open up. It helped me see that different children need different things out of their
teachers.”
Questions for Classroom Teacher and/or Sharron Gatling:
How many of the children in this particular class were from a private school? Public
school? Home school?
How did the story presentation go? Were the children happy/proud/shy about presenting
their story to everyone?
How were the evaluations of this particular class? Were the parents happy with the
class? Did they feel that their children benefited from the class?
Salient Issues to Discuss with Peers to Report Back to CRIN 591 Class:
Varied levels of ability
Organizing classrooms
Keeping on topic
Using relevant examples for children
Integrating Theory
37
Williamsburg James City County Summer School Program (WJCC)
Pre-service Students: Cristin Kelsh, Megan McFadden, Danielle Quigley, Alice Real,
Laura Smalling, Amber Smith, Mary Vause
Date of Observation: July 17, 2008
Classroom Teachers: Susan Hyland (rising 2), Jenny Pritchard (rising 6), Cindy
Macomber (rising 1), Casey Norment (rising 1), Erin Poulter (rising 2), Wendy Miller
(rising 3), Ashley Stiebling (rising 5), June Hagee (rising 2)
I.
Background Information
a. Demographics
i. According to Lynda Heath, the overall summer school
demographics are 35% Caucasian, 62% African-American, and a
small Asian population; males 56%, females 44%; 78% on free or
reduced lunch
ii. About 300 students in summer school, rising first thru 5th graders
iii. Mary’s classroom: Susan Hyland’s 2nd-grade classroom was 5
Caucasian, 3 African-American, and 3 females, 5 males; she
described the population at Norge as more working class than most
of WJC Schools (many single parents, many families where both
parents worked, very few stay-at-home moms, many parents
without a college education); all students in Ms. Hyland’s class
seemed American-born (I didn’t detect any foreign accents)
iv. Kristen’s classroom: ranged from 7-9 students some classes with a
mixture of boys and girls and one class all boys and one girl.
Majority were African American and the rest were Caucasian.
v. Danielle’s classroom: 4 African-American, 9 white; low- to uppermiddle class; 6 boys, 7 girls
vi. Megan’s classroom: June Hagee’s rising 2nd-grade classroom was
6 African-American, and 2 females, 4 males; all students in Ms.
Hagee’s class seemed American-born (I didn’t detect any foreign
accents)
vii. Laura’s class: 6 boys, 2 girls
viii. Alice’s class: About half white, half African American. About an
equal mix of boys and girls.
ix. Meredith’s class: 6 boys, 4 girls, 4 Caucasian, 4 African American,
2 Hispanic, middle to low income families
x. Amber’s class: 6 African American, 2 Latino, 4 Caucasian
b. Performance data
i. Ms. Hyland described Norge Elementary as one of the more
challenging populations in WJC; she said that the school’s SOL
scores typically fall in the lower half of those in the county
ii. Students have either failed the SOL (400 or below) or received a
low proficient score (above, but close to, 400).
Integrating Theory
38
iii. Below-grade-level students
iv. Majority of files indicated needing help with reading
comprehension (although their reading level was
appropriate with grade level) and math, especially
fractions, multiplication, and division.
c. Criteria for students selection
i. According to Lynda Heath, selection is based on the PALS test
(Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening) scores and
benchmark scores; teachers make recommendations for summer
school at the end of April; 1st- through 3rd-grade parents may
decline the offer without penalty, but 4th- through 6th-grade parents
must have another school-approved intervention in place if they
decline
ii. Ms. Hyland said that different schools have different selection
criteria (this is the first summer that DJ Montague, Stonehouse and
Mataoka Elementary have attended Norge Elementary for some
school), and that she wouldn’t have recommended a couple of the
students in her class
iii. Reading below grade level; goals based on weaknesses on
benchmarks
iv. Ms. Hagee said that some of the students who really need summer
school are not placed there because of serious behavior problems.
v. Below benchmark math/reading tests
d. Nature of parental involvement
i. Ms. Hyland said that there is lower parental involvement at Norge
than at many other schools in Williamsburg, but that the quality of
the parent participation that does occur is very high
ii. In Ms. Hyland’s class, out of the 12 students on the roster, 2 never
showed up and 1 came only one day. There is usually one student
absent each day due to summer vacations or school-age program
field trips, and she said that she is understanding of these types of
absences since it is summer school.
iii. No parent volunteers during summer school; the main parent
influence is getting the children to come
iv. Low parent involvement
v. Lynda Heath said that parents are expected to commit to the
summer school program and get their children to school on time.
vi. In Ms. June’s class, out of the 10 students on the roster, only 6
showed up the day I observed.
vii. The parents make sure the students attend school, but from what
the teacher I worked with said, there is little parental involvement
otherwise (and judging by absences, not all the parents were doing
their job of making sure students got to school)
viii. For summer school, little to none. Mrs. Poulter reported that many
of the parents do not even check their child’s folder to see their
grades or class announcements.
Integrating Theory
39
ix. In one class, parents wrote a letter describing
child’s strengths and weaknesses and what needs to be
worked on in the program.
II.
Observation
a. Evidence of student engagement with curriculum and/or materials
i. Students enjoyed learning about telling time on the computer lab
and were eager to explore various programs after completing their
assigned work
ii. Students were very interested in the stories and eager to answer
questions during story time
iii. The students were rotated three different times to meet with the
different teachers, mine being a reading specialist. The main group
activities came from them participating as a group in the discussion
of writing out the letters and trying to create words and sentences.
iv. The teacher was constantly engaging the students with questions
based on her discussion. The students were comfortable calling out
their answers, which kept them engaged in the activity. She was
teaching a lesson on graphs and the students were able to graph
their class’s favorite colors, which were of much interest to them.
v. Students enjoyed practicing their reading fluency through reading
out loud to Ms. Hagee and myself.
vi. Students worked hard at a vowel practice game.
vii. For the beginning of the day, the students had a woman from the
library come in and read to them. They were very engaged in the
story, having appropriate reactions and remarkably paying very
good attention despite the length of the story time (30 minutes,
pretty long for 6 year olds). They didn’t really seem to be too
engaged with the math worksheets, though one child did get
excited because they had done the worksheet before in
kindergarten.
viii. Students were generally focused as they were writing, making use
of dictionaries to look up words, or asking questions to clarify the
prompt. In math, they were actively involved in rolling dice to do
an activity.
ix. The children were extremely focused on the story I read them and
participated when asked questions/opinions.
x. Learned fractions using white boards
xi. Students were especially engaged in the computer lab.
Playing math games, working at own skill level, and
own pace
b. Are there teacher aides in the classroom?
i. No, no teacher aides for second grade during summer school since
each class is no more than 12 students
ii. The kindergarten summer school teachers share two aides
iii. During the school year, each kindergarten class has an aide, and
each grade level shares an aide
Integrating Theory
40
iv. No, but there was a high school volunteer who assisted a couple
students
c. Evidence of student/teacher engagement
i. Math journals with detailed teacher feedback
ii. When one student struggled with fraction review in the abstract,
the teacher grabbed manipulative tiles and gave a more concrete
demonstration that he could understand
iii. The teacher got students involved in a fraction lesson by having
four students stand up and divvy up a “fair share” of four tiles to
demonstrate 1/4th
iv. The teacher was always involved in the classroom and held openended questions and discussions for the lessons given. The class
mainly concentrated on sounding out the letter sounds together.
v. The teacher was constantly walking around the classroom
observing the students’ work. She was constantly reinforcing
positive behavior. She was always asking questions that engaged in
the students in the activity and she was able to give them feedback.
vi. Ms. Hagee works with each child on their reading skills
vii. Ms. Hagee played a vowel game with the children to help them
practice their understanding of vowel placement. She had the
students take turns
viii. Ms. Hagee worked individually with students on a literacy
assessment
ix. I’m not quite sure that I saw much evidence of this. Ms. Norment
seemed to be friendly with her students, but she spent much of her
time outside in the hallway, testing students in the math
assessment. Other teachers came through the classroom for math.
During the lesson, the teacher would explain the math worksheet,
and then help students to complete it, so I suppose this could be
considered student/teacher engagement, as she was working side
by side with students as they completed their work.
x. The teacher was readily available to help individuals, whether they
asked questions or not. She continuously walked around the
classroom, editing students’ writing and encouraging them to look
up words in the dictionary.
xi. Mrs. Poulter had the children sit in a circle around a white board
and had one student at a time come up and demonstrate fractions
on the board.
xii. During writing time the teacher went around the room helping
students the whole time with their writing assignment, “How to
Deal with______.”
xiii. Teacher came around to each student
individually to check work. Students were not afraid
to approach the teacher and ask questions or seek
help. Teacher made them feel as if they were not
alone if they made a mistake.
d. Evidence of whole group instruction
Integrating Theory
41
i. Math lesson reviewing fractions was delivered to the whole group
ii. The class worked together on a writing technique of drawing the
letters to four different levels of lines. The sky line, plane line,
grass line, and worm line were created to help the children
visualize the process of writing the individual letters. The class
would say as a group and work together to draw the letter and say
the different lines that the letter would hit.
iii. The lesson on the graphs was taught as a whole group. The
students graphed their favorite colors and were able to see the
various answers that students gave. The class was small enough
that the whole group instruction was also very interactive as well.
iv. The vowel game was with the whole group, but most was
individual work.
v. This seemed to be the most prominent form of instruction. During
the library time, all students in rising 1st grade (from three classes)
came into one room to listen to the book. The teachers used whole
group instruction for math as well, at least to begin the lesson. She
explained the worksheet to the whole group at once. Then, students
completed the sheet independently.
vi. The teacher mostly used whole group instruction to introduce the
prompt and review steps for writing effective paragraphs. In math,
the teacher interacted with the whole class when she explained
how to round.
vii. When teaching fractions the teacher taught to the whole class.
Once in a circle around a white board and then later she taught on
the white board while the students were in their seat.
viii. Initial presentation used whole group to start lesson, then moved to
more individualized interaction
ix. Math, lesson on reducing fractions
e. Evidence of small group interaction
i. No small groups during summer school since the class is so small
already
ii. During the school year, students are ability grouped for reading
and math; heterogeneous groups are also used for some lessons,
which is beneficial for special needs students in an inclusion
classroom
iii. The children worked in small groups in working on sounding out
the words and pictures they did not know during their word sort.
The peers would help the other students who were stuck and
helped one another check if the students were correct.
iv. The sight word bingo game was played while one child took their
literacy test
v. The only time the students were divided into small groups was
when students had finished work at different rates – students who
had completed the worksheet could go play together with the
blocks, while the rest remained at the table completing their work.
Integrating Theory
42
It was especially interesting to see students playing together,
particularly the differences between males and females. When
small groups of males interacted, it was often role-playing shooting
or war games. When small groups of females interacted, it was to
play different roles in a game of “house” with small teddy bear
toys.
vi. In writing, when the students were done with their prompts, they
worked in small groups in the back of the room on grammar
worksheets. The teacher told me that at the beginning of the
summer, they did some peer editing as well.
vii. Once students finished work, could do activities in small groups or
individually; but not much instruction in small groups
viii. Students who grasped the concept were asked to help
those who were struggling.
f. Evidence of independent work
i. Students start journal work each morning after breakfast
ii. Students worked independently at the computer lab
iii. Free choice reading at the end of the day
iv. The students practiced their sounding out of letters and words
through word sorts. These were prepared and cut out so the
children could correlate the sounds with the correct picture and
word given.
v. Students were given morning work as soon as they came in. The
worksheet was a review from the lesson taught the say before.
vi. Students read silently or out loud to themselves
vii. Students worked independently on their literacy tests
viii. Students worked independently when finishing their math
worksheets, after the teacher had given whole-group instruction.
ix. Most of the class time was spent working independently on
writing.
x. Independent writing assignment
xi. Independent fraction work
xii. Morning came in and worked quietly at their desks. In
the computer lab they used earphones so they can
concentrate and work alone.
g. Evidence of higher-level thinking
i. Students made insightful predictions about what would happen
next in teacher-read stories
ii. The most of higher level thinking was a more difficult word sort
once they completed the one assigned for the day.
iii. For the read aloud and language arts, students were learning to tell
the similarities and differences of a story. They also had to make
connections from the book to their own life.
iv. During vowel practice, students explained the reason for the way
words sound based on the vowels (number and placement)
v. I didn’t see much evidence of higher level thinking, given that the
students were rising 1st grade, I was not surprised.
Integrating Theory
43
vi. In the math class, the students were rolling dice to come up with
numbers for a chart. Each number went in a different place value
(millions, thousands, hundreds, tens) and after creating several
larger numbers; the students decided which were higher and which
were lower. They had to apply their knowledge of number value
to the activity.
vii. In the writing class, the students had to synthesize their
understanding of the story I read to them with their own ideas to
respond to the writing prompt.
viii. Students were asked to questions while I read the story “How to
Deal with Monsters.” I asked questions such as, what do you think
could happen next, what would you do if you were the main
character, and how would you feel if you were the main character?
The children had to think about each question knowing there was
no correct answer.
ix. In Amber’s class, wrote descriptions of own words while doing
fraction problems
x. Going through rules of math, talking through
theories, not just memorizing. She asked for them to
re-phrase the process “in their own words”.
h. Evidence of creativity or original thought
i. Students independently saw connections between a science article
on ducks and a fiction story on ducks, noting that the successive
pictures in the story were like the life-cycle they learned about
from the science article
ii. During my read aloud, we discussed the different activities one
could do on summer vacation since that was what my book was
about.
iii. Students took turns making up sentences for the words called out
at bingo
iv. During the reading, the students were asked a question about the
story the librarian was reading – about a wizard. At the end of the
story, the woman asked whether the wizard in the story was really
a wizard (the picture was of a little boy wearing a wizards cap) –
one little girl said, “no, he is just using his imagination!” I found
this a very creative response.
v. One of the writing prompts was to create a new ending to the story
I read.
vi. The writing prompt of “How to Deal with _____” allowed each of
the students to write about something they found interesting
instead of one standard writing assignment for the whole class.
vii. Game at end if everyone is done. Has to do with what
was taught.
i. Evidence of problem-solving
i. Teacher led class in crossing out options for which answer could
equal 1/4th by demonstrating with four students and four
manipulative
Integrating Theory
44
ii. If the students wanted to help one another on the word sort they
had to do so by not just giving the other students the answer, had to
explain in their own words
iii. For the read aloud and for language arts, the students were learning
to identify the problem in a story and tell how the characters solved
the problem. They also were able to share a problem that they once
had and how they solved it or how they could have solved it.
iv. Teacher had the students figure out words based on vowels
v. I didn’t see much of this either. Though students were doing math
much of the time, it was just counting, not anything higher-level.
(rising first-grade class)
vi. The students were working on their writing skills and so had to
learn the process of writing paragraphs in the correct form. The
teacher guided them in coming up with a topic sentence and
reminded them of the steps of writing three additional sentences
and a conclusion.
vii. Fraction problems where the students had to look at a pie divided
into 2 halves or 4 equal parts and then write down the fraction on
their individual white board.
viii. math-reducing fractions
j. Primary lesson objective and/or standard
i. Math SOL 2.4  The student will identify the part of a set and/or
region that represents fractions for one-half, one-third, one-fourth,
one-eighth, and one-tenth and write the corresponding fraction.
ii. The main objective of the teacher’s lesson was to work on the
child’s ability to sound out, spell, and write out the letters of the
alphabet and be able to identify where they appropriately belong in
a word or sentence.
iii. Review of contractions
iv. Introduction of graphing
v. Reading  The main objective was to increase students fluency
while reading to help with comprehension
vi. Primary objectives for Ms. Norment’s math lessons are to teach
addition, subtraction, and counting with money.
vii. The writing teacher was following the fourth grade writing SOLs,
especially 4.7: The student will write effective narratives, poems,
and explanations. She worked on helping the students stay on
topic and on developing a plan for writing.
viii. Math SOL-The student will identify the part of a set and/or region
that represents fractions for one-half, one-third, one-fourth, oneeighth, and one-tenth and write the corresponding fraction.  The
class did not complete this objective today because the children
had a hard time understanding the one-half and one-fourth
fractions so we did not move on to the other harder fractions.
k. Forms of assessment
Integrating Theory
45
i. Customized Flanagan standardized tests used to measure
performance in summer school
ii. During school year, PALS and SOL benchmarks used to measure
achievement
iii. There were reading assessments based on the child’s ability to read
and understand instructions. They had to identify the words, the
syllables, and how to read.
iv. The teacher primarily uses informal methods of assessment. She is
able to walk around and see how the students are doing on their
activities. Also, the students played a math game with flash cards
and the teacher was able to see who was struggling with their
subtraction and who knew it well.
v. Literacy test
vi. Teacher observation of reading
vii. The writing teacher would take the students’ writing home to edit
and gave feedback on finished projects.
viii. The summer school had a summer end assessment that all students
needed to take and the math teacher gave her students a review
guide at the end of her class.
ix. Standardized test used to determine a student’s progress during
summer school.
x. homework, in class problem solving
l. Discipline plan
i. How does the teacher maintain classroom order?
1. during the regular school year, Ms. Hyland spends two
weeks going over classroom and school rules in detail
2. frequent corrections followed by reminders of rules
3. student schedule for the day posted on the blackboard
4. to assess student understanding, teacher has students hold
up fingers to show what they think the answer is in order to
get everyone to participate and to avoid students calling
out; also, students write answers to problems on personal
whiteboards so that all can participate and the teacher can
quickly assess individual students’ understanding
5. in the younger grades, the teacher is there waiting when
students get off the bus, and the teacher also walks the
students to their buses in the afternoon
6. very simple, step-by-step instructions
7. two students who got in an argument were asked to step
into a quiet area and settle it themselves
8. revolving daily duties for the students: library manager,
math manager, cafeteria manager, bathroom manager,
classroom manager, hallway manager
9. The teacher gave them two opportunities to straighten up or
they would have to call their mother and explain why they
were misbehaving.
Integrating Theory
46
10. Ms. Hagee explained that there was not problem during
summer school but she tends to redirect if students are
having trouble
11. I noticed the teacher using non-verbal signals, such as a
twirl of the finger to say “turn around” and a look to say
“be quiet”. Ms. Norment said the main discipline she used
was time out.
12. The teacher had a routine to her class. The students came
in and immediately sat down and began working on
worksheets. A prompt was written on the board with
instructions on what they were to write that day. This
particular day, the teacher greeted the students as they
entered and immediately told them to sit on the rug in the
corner because Ms. Real was going to read them a story. I
read, and then the students were told to go back to their
seats to begin the writing prompt. Clear transitions were
important in maintaining order.
13. In the writing class, students received candy on occasion
for remember to indent paragraphs, or following other
instructions.
14. Students were always told how they could improve their
behavior. The teacher never asked the students to stop
doing something instead she told them what they should be
doing. Mrs. Poulter tried to be positive when discipline the
students.
15. Seating chart provided order in the classroom.
16. Students were sent back to their seats after completing a
group activity by having their name called instead of all
students going back to their seat at once.
17. Seating arrangement was spread out as much as possible so
students were not too close together.
18. going over school rules in detail early in the program
19. positive feedback for good behavior
20. teachers subtly corrected students, “I don’t think we’re
connecting how we should be.”
21. she tells them how they need to act before they
encounter a
situation. She explains why they need to act a
certain way. She repeatedly praised them for
doing the right thing. She gave very detailed
instructions on the board.
ii. Is there a written discipline plan posted in the classroom?
1. “I Care Rules” poster (not hand-made), including “We
listen to each other,” “Hands are for helping not hurting,”
etc.
2. discipline plan not posted in all classrooms
Integrating Theory
47
3. She speaks individually to students when they are acting
inappropriately. She does not call them out in front of the
whole group if it is not appropriate. She uses verbal,
positive reinforcement. She compliments students on their
good behavior, sometimes gives them a form of treats of
rewards. She also compliments students in a way that other
students will want to model their peer’s good behavior.
4. In the teacher’s home school she has a written plan posted;
however, she does not have it posted during summer school
because it is not her own classroom.
5. There were voice volume rules but nothing else.
6. Yes, both classrooms I observed in had posters on the walls
with classroom rules, or instructions about proper voice
levels. There was nothing posted about consequences.
III.
Read-Aloud
a. How did pre-service student introduce read-aloud or other activity?
i. The teacher asked me to design a read-aloud that would help teach
students about the different purposes of reading (ex: to inform, to
entertain, etc.), so I selected a science article on the life-cycle of a
duck, as well as a fiction story about ducklings, both at grade 1.5
reading level. Before I started the read-aloud, I asked the students
to define “purpose” in reading for me and wrote the definition on
the giant writing easel. I told them to think about “purpose” as I
read the two selections.
ii. We talked about me being a student at William and Mary and I
was going to read a story about summer vacation and had they ever
experienced a fun trip or time during the summer time that they
might find in the book.
iii. I asked students questions relating to the title of the book. For
example, I read Arthur’s Family Vacation and I started off by
asking about their own summer vacations.
iv. I had picked a few books that I thought might be good and Ms.
Hagee suggested that out of the books I chose, I read The Rainbow
Fish. Before I started the read-aloud, I asked the students if they
had read the book before. I also told them that it has always been
one of my favorite books. Ms. Hagee wanted me to read to them
right after they had come back from the library and had about 5
books read to them so I asked them to continue being good
listeners. (They had started to get fidgety new the end of library
time)
v. How did pre-service student introduce read-aloud or other activity?
I introduced the book I read, Has anybody lost a glove?, by asking
students if they had ever lost something. Those who had raised
their hands, and I asked each one to share what they had lost. I then
asked how they had felt. After they responded, I asked them to
remember how they had felt while we read the story.
Integrating Theory
48
vi. I introduced myself as a William and Mary student who had come
to read the class a story. It was a chapter from The Magician’s
Nephew by C.S. Lewis, a book in the Narnia series. I asked if
anyone had seen the movie, “The Lion, the Witch, and the
Wardrobe” and got a general yes. So I asked who knew what
country or land the movie took place in. When they answered,
Narnia, I told them that my story came from a book that told the
story of how Narnia was created.
vii. I introduced the book by showing the children the front cover and
explaining that we would be reading a story about all different
types of monsters and how to deal with them in your home. I then
asked the students what kind of monsters they thought might be in
the book.
viii. Some teachers had specific goals for pre-service student to
accomplish
ix. Many students introduced themselves as W&M students
x. introduced author and why I chose that book
b. What questions were asked to engage students?
i. I asked one or two questions per page, with a focus on the different
purposes for reading the two selections as well as questions to
encourage comprehension.
ii. I asked them what activities were their favorites and how they
would react to such a situation as Arthur did in Arthur’s Summer
Vacation.
iii. Throughout the story I asked what they thought would happen
next, I asked if a situation had ever happened to them, and I
listened and responded to their comments.
iv. I stopped and discussed what was going on at each page. I asked
the students what they thought the rainbow fish was going to do
(e.g. was the rainbow fish going to share one of his scale?) and if
they would share.
v. Asked the students about what they saw in the pictures.
vi. Throughout the book, I periodically asked questions related to the
story. For instance, on the page where the main character, Jabari,
met Mr. Li and asked him if he had lost a glove, I asked “ look at
the picture. Do you think Mr. Li lost his glove?”. On another page,
Jabari met drummers who wore gloves with no fingers. I asked
“why do you think they wore gloves with no fingers?”
vii. I had the opportunity to read the story three times, once for each
writing class. The first time, the students did not seem engaged
and I was afraid the story was over their heads. The second time, I
began asking questions as I read, to gage their understanding. As I
read about Uncle Andrew’s magic box, I asked the students what
they thought was in it. When Diggory discovered that he had to go
into a strange world to find his friend Polly, I asked the students
what they would have done.
Integrating Theory
49
viii. I asked the students what they would do if they had a certain type
of monster in their home. I asked them which monster was their
favorite and why. I also asked what was going to happen next
about half way through the book and then closer towards the end of
the story. I asked the children to list as many of the monsters as
they could after the story to see if they were paying attention
during the read aloud.
ix. Using questions to gauge student understanding of what was read
x. has anyone read the book? Did you like it? Why?
c. How did pre-service student close the lesson?
i. The teacher had asked me to emphasize concepts like setting,
characters, problem, and resolution, so I closed with a few
questions about those.
ii. I closed by asking if what Arthur did was good or bad or funny and
what was their favorite part of the book.
iii. The teacher suggested I talk about the setting, characters, genre of
the story, problems, and similarities and differences because that is
what they were learning about for reading. I ended by asking the
students questions about these topics.
iv. I ended by talking about sharing and asked the students if they
liked sharing and how they share with their family and friends.
They were very eager to share this with me.
v. I closed the book by asking students again to raise their hands if
they had ever lost something. Then I asked how the girl in the story
felt when she got her missing glove back. Then, I asked students
what they thought they should do if they found something
somebody else had lost. Finally, I shared with them that the author
had written the story based on a real-life occurrence.
vi. I ended the reading by asking the students what they thought
would happen next and gave them a short summary of what did
happen. I recommended they read the book on their own and then
told them they were going to now do a writing prompt. The
teacher took over from there.
vii. I closed the lesson by telling them that they could write their own
story about how they have/would deal with something, such as
how to deal with a shark in your pool or how to deal with crazy
kittens, etc. I told the children that know that we had read what the
author thought was the best way to deal with monsters, we could
be our authors and illustrators by writing and story and drawing an
illustration to go along with it.
viii. Summed up what was read
ix. Asked students’ thoughts
x. Some teachers able to tie read-aloud into the lesson
xi. explained why I liked it. Author is from my hometown.
I can relate to the book and the setting. Theme of
community.
IV.
Reflections
Integrating Theory
V.
50
a. Many of the rising second-grade students were at Kohlberg’s conventional
level of moral reasoning – they were very concerned with following rules
and would parrot the teachers’ rules to each other, and then they would
seek praise for themselves for following rules and punishment for their
peers who were not following the rules.
b. Many of the rising first-graders who I administered the Flanagan test to
were at Piaget’s preoperational stage – when asked to circle the same
shape as a pictured triangle, they did not recognize a tilted triangle as the
same shape.
c. Children lose focus quickly and I want to be more animated and work on
voices that change so that the children stay motivated and excited till the
end.
d. Many of the rising second-grade students were already at second-grade
reading level. This surprised me because I had expected to see students
who were struggling much more than I did.
e. The day went by very quickly. I was surprised that, although these were
the students who are often the “troublemakers” in regular school, they all
seemed relatively well mannered and for the most part competent in
completing the activities. However, they were very hyper, even at the
beginning of the day, and did act immaturely at times.
f. It was difficult to pick an appropriate selection to read without knowing
the dynamics of the class. I was genuinely afraid that what I had picked
was too dense in both vocabulary and concepts as I began reading the first
time. I appreciated having two more opportunities to read the chapter
because I improved a whole lot over the course of the morning. I found
that my efforts to read the story in an exciting manner had great impact on
the students’ attention. There were several who did not take their eyes off
of me and that was affirming. I have found that as a teacher, I need to be
the one to make my lessons engaging. Too often, I try to read the faces of
my audience and when they seem uninterested, I take it personally and
subconsciously lose my energy.
g. The children were extremely varied in their level of reading, writing, and
mathematics. Some children could not even make a sentence with a capital
letter and a period, while others were writing several sentences with fairly
correct spelling and punctuation. Some children grasped the fraction
material the teacher taught them and others did not understand very well.
h. I noticed that many of the students did not bring a snack to eat at 12:00 so
Mrs. Poulter brought crackers for the class because she said she felt sorry
for them that their parents would not pack them any food to eat at
lunchtime.
i. Many of the students would circle an answer on the standardized test
before the teacher finished reading the question. You could tell the
students was not even trying to pick the correct answer, instead they were
putting down an answer without even knowing the question.
Salient Issues to Discuss with CRIN 591 Class
Integrating Theory
51
a. Teachers say that unfortunately teaching to the test is necessary in their
day-to-day job since teachers are held accountable for students’ SOL
scores.
b. Teachers were very frustrated with the Flanagan kindergarten test, saying
that it was developmentally inappropriate (using language like “sum” that
kindergarteners do not understand, and asking students how much a nickel
and three pennies is worth, etc.).
c. When helping to test the kindergarteners, I was struck by how much they
struggled with the format of standardized testing. It is difficult for that
age-group to stay focused long enough to take the test, and students often
circled the question stem instead of the right answer, or they tried to circle
the answer to the next question down, and sometimes they would get the
question right on accident.
d. One classroom teacher complained that teacher preparation programs are
often not relevant to real-world teaching. For example, she thought
“research methods” classes should focus more on teaching how to analyze
test data.
e. Ms. Hagee stressed the fact that many of the students the really need
summer school are not placed there because of specific behavior
problems. This is unfortunate because students who may really need the
extra help are not given it, in certain circumstances.
f. Perhaps the issue of gender – males disproportionate to females. Why are
males overrepresented in the summer school? Another issue is that of
scheduling – do first grade students benefit from switching classes? It
seemed like a lot of time was lost in transitions. Would more work have
been completed if students had stayed in one classroom the entire time?
g. Teacher specialization versus teaching all three subjects.
h. Low level of parental involvement
i. Standardized tests which the teachers thought were too difficult for the
students levels
j. Low SOL scores, especially at Norge Elementary
k. Many children not prepared when they come to Kindergarten.
Parents/Guardians have not taught the children any skills.
l. Huge differences (academic, socioeconomic status, parental involvement,
etc.) between elementary schools throughout WJCC
Henrico County Public Schools ESL Summer Academy (HCPS)
Pre-service Students: Riley Andrews, Tara Brown, Kelly Dennison, Megan Finch,
Laurie Goode, Jennifer Litts, and Molly McNamara
Date of Observation: July 17, 2008
Classroom Teachers: Mrs. Starkweather, Mr. Hadd, Mrs. Brennan, Ms. Davis, Mrs.
Hadd, Mr. Delcorso, and Ms. Bartholomay
Student Population: English-as-a-Second Language (ESL), ESL Summer Program
Integrating Theory
52
Background Information
Demographics:
Henrico has over 3,000 students who are learning English as a Second Language.
These students are immigrants or refugees, as well as American-born. There are 1,800
ESL students in the elementary system, representing 105 different countries and 130
different languages. The top five most-spoken languages are Spanish, Vietnamese,
Arabic, Chinese and Bosnian. Students at Dumbarton Elementary have 15 instructional
days during the summer, running from June 30-July 24. There are 400 students,
representing 35 of the 46 elementary schools. Of students who are registered to attend,
there is a 77% membership. The summer academy has 21 teachers, for a student-teacher
ratio of 15:1.
We observed in a variety of grade and English levels. Common languages in our
classrooms were Spanish and Arabic.
Performance Data for Population:
Students must be of an ESL level 1 or 2, which is determined by the SELP
(Stanford English Language Proficiency). Registration forms are required, but they are
translated into the top five languages. There is a May 12 deadline. The teachers’ goals
are to improve students’ proficiency in English (listening, speaking, reading and writing)
and improve their knowledge and skills in the content areas (English, math, and science).
Additionally, there is a tie between instruction and assessment, with formal and informal
assessments for the students.
Criteria for Student Selection:
The program is free to students registered in Henrico County Public Schools; any
rising first through fifth-grader with an ESL level of 1 or 2 can attend. Additionally, Mr.
Delcorso mentioned that recommendations for the program are made by the students’
ESL teachers at their home schools.
Nature of Parental Involvement:
The parents receive an ESL progress report with students’ progress in reading,
writing, and oral language. The teachers initiate and engage in a variety of types of
communication with the parents, from making phone calls at the beginning of the session
and sending home newsletters to talking to parents who are picking their child up early.
Observation for Dumbarton Elementary ESL Summer Academy
Evidence of Student Engagement with Curriculum and/or Materials:
As can be expected, all the classrooms were very focused on literacy. One of the
main activities was the read aloud, which we all did. The children were engaged with the
stories by doing such activities as answering questions, explaining what they saw, and
Integrating Theory
53
discussing the message of the story and the characters. Writing was also a common
component, and students practiced this in various settings, whether it was table work or at
a distinct writing center in the classroom. Centers were also a consistent attribute of the
classrooms at which students could engage in use of computers, reading books
themselves, writing, or using puzzles. Students were also creatively engaged through
drawing and interactive projects including such materials as real money and videos.
Are there teacher assistants in the classroom? Describe.
None of us observed an official teaching assistant in the classrooms. However,
there were adolescent aides around in some of the classrooms. They did such things as
help a teacher at the center where the teacher was working, assist a teacher around the
class, or assist in snack-time needs. One teacher said that he normally had an aide assist
with a student who has trouble in the classroom and has a tendency to cause disruptions.
None of these individuals assisted in instructing the students.
Evidence of Student/Teacher Engagement:
The teachers displayed behaviors, which were engaging. The students’ names
were used frequently by the teachers, teachers treated the students with respect, which
was reciprocated, and there was a good amount of eye contact during communication
mentioned. Over-all, teachers traveled around the classroom assisting students in the
various centers. Some teachers were focused more on one center than others, but still
maintained the needs of the other centers. Students were described as feeling comfortable
asking teachers questions if they did not understand something. While leading small
groups or the whole group, teachers tried to elicit the students’ active participation and
asked questions to get students to respond. Praise was given when it was earned, and
when students needed help or were causing a disturbance, some teachers were observed
to move in closer to handle the situation. One particularly interesting form of engagement
was used by two teachers. If the group was losing focus, the teacher would make a
pattern of claps and snaps, which the children would attempt to repeat to get their
attention.
Evidence of Whole Group Instruction:
A few of us did not observe whole group instruction in the classroom other than
lining the students for snack. These classrooms worked in small groups the whole time
they were observed. The most prevalent form of whole group interaction was when
teachers gave the group information during a lesson, explained directions, and then
sought to make certain students comprehended what they were meant to do. Other
examples of teachers’ interactions with the whole group included the teacher calling on
each child in the group randomly to participate, having any student of the group call out
the parts of a story they knew, students answering questions about a video, and a teacher
presenting a demonstration for an activity.
Evidence of Small Group Interaction:
Most of the classes worked in stations. Many were broken into groups of five or
six; some were through pairs for word study, while others worked in groups of three to
Integrating Theory
54
four. One class seemed to have groups based on reading level. Many classes rotated
around stations, often spending 15 minutes in each one. Students participated in read
alouds, worked on writing, did work on computers, and read library books. One said that
groups of students who spoke the same language interacted more together.
Evidence of Independent Work:
Again, the stations were also used for independent work. Some students worked
independently on computers, on writing their own books/stories, reading silently to
themselves, handwriting sheets, or math lessons. Some noted that the students were given
such detailed instructions that they were able to work independently. There was one
group that was not allowed to work on computers because they could not work
independently at the writing station.
Evidence of Higher Level Thinking:
During the read aloud, students were asked the main theme, to remember different
characters, predict what might happen next, discussing nouns and verbs (what they are,
why they needed to be there...), students were asked to think of different adaptations
animals have that enable them to live in their habitat. Some students were even asked to
relate the story to their own lives.
Evidence of Creativity/Original Thought:
A lot of us saw this in our read alouds when we asked the students to predict what
would happen or to come up with solutions. One of us saw her students choose their own
words to write down on the backs of their handwriting sheets, as well as choosing color
patterns to make a bracelet. Another one of us asked about food and which foods the
students liked because it pertained to the books. A few of our classes had an art station
where the students were allowed to be as creative as they wanted.
Evidence of Problem-Solving:
Not all of the classrooms displayed evidence of problem-solving while we were
observing. The examples of problem-solving, which were observed, varied among our
experiences. In one classroom, students had to use the information they had learned to
make proper classifications of habitats for animals, in two classes, students guessed what
was going to happen in a book based on images, and in another class, students had to
generate example of nouns and verbs to display understanding.
Primary Lesson Objective and/or Standard:
There was a range of lesson objectives being taught in the ESL Summer
Academy. In many of the classrooms, there was a focus on animals, with topics ranging
anywhere from animal habitats to lifecycles. There was also a focus on reading and
writing in many of the classrooms, and art projects were a part of many of the classroom
rotations. Only two classrooms focused on math; one group was learning addition while
the other class was sorting objects by different characteristics.
Evidence of Content-based ESL instruction (i.e.: math, science, etc.):
Integrating Theory
55
Many classrooms focused on science, with reading and writing incorporated into
the science lessons. Another primary content focus was on reading and writing. As
mentioned previously, animals were the primary focus of science lessons. Also, reading
stories allowed for math concepts to be introduced in particular classrooms. Though the
objectives focused on a certain discipline, it was common to see an integrated curriculum
in order to pull in other disciplines (art, math, etc.) in a short time allotment.
Forms of Assessment:
A great deal of the assessment was done informally through questioning the
students to evaluate their understanding as well as making observations of the students.
Teachers also collected written work such as work sheets or composition books. One
teacher also collected art for evaluation, but since this is a summer program, an emphasis
was placed on fun learning rather than strict assessments.
Discipline Plan:
How does the teacher maintain classroom order?
Techniques for maintaining classroom order included turning off the lights,
clapping/repeating rhythms to gain the students’ attention, verbalizing expectations to
students, modeling, and giving verbal reminders and cues. All observations reported the
use of positive, calm techniques and tones. Two commented on how summer classroom
management is different (more relaxed) than during the school year, but one teacher did
not seem to follow this more relaxed approach as he used a daily behavior chart. It was
important for teachers to verbalize what the problem was and offer a solution to the
problem to maintain order.
Is there a written discipline plan posted in the classroom?
Only one classroom had rules posted: 1) Keep hands and feet to yourself, 2. Raise
your hand to speak, 3) No running indoors, 4) No shouting indoors, 5) Be respectful to
everyone. Two classrooms had a visual indicator to track behavior. One classroom used
frogs: a frog on the log indicated good behavior and was accompanied by a happy face,
slipping indicated to be careful, and in the water was accompanied with a sad face. The
other classroom used clothespins that were moved if directions were not followed, and
there were four levels of consequences to accompany the clothespins.
Teacher Guided Discussion:
Elaborate on the ways in which the teacher engaged the students. Key Questions:
Teachers in the ESL Summer Academy engaged students through cognitive and
recall questioning. That is, teacher questioning drew not only on the students’ ability to
recall information, but also their ability to think and comprehend the curriculum. One
teacher also approached instruction through unique and creative methods that promoted
student interaction.
What did the students do? Their Responses?
Students in many of the classrooms responded by raising their hand to answer
questions. Some students, particularly in the lower grade levels, called out answers to the
Integrating Theory
56
teacher’s questions. One teacher did not require or want students to raise their hands.
Students in another classroom laughed and conversed with the teacher. Across the board,
most students were willing and eager to participate.
Pre-service Teacher Role
Describe how you interacted with students in small groups. What you did;
what they did:
Each of us promoted student engagement in our read-aloud by asking students questions
about the subject matter and their own intuitions and experiences. We asked students to
predict the outcome of the book and what certain concepts meant in order to make sure
they comprehended the story.
Reflections (The different colors reflects our individual experiences):
I really enjoyed working with this class of rising third-graders. Since I will be teaching
third grade next year, it was nice to see what they already know and what they are
struggling with. This will help me next year. I also really enjoyed talking to Ms. Davis.
She gave me a lot of great advice about teaching third grade. I am most excited about
how independently the students are able to work.
I was very surprised at the amount of English the majority of the students displayed. I
was told that these children were Level 2 rising first graders, so I feel that my
expectations were not consistent with reality. I was very happy to see how well the
children spoke, but even more, how excited many of them were to speak. I did find that I
need to improve my ability to keep the kids from all talking. I was torn between my
desire for them to talk and my desire for them to not call out. I did not want to discourage
their participation by redirecting their calling out behavior. I would definitely like to get
better at this. I would have also liked to have included song and even props to use during
my read aloud. I think a variety of stimuli are useful in engaging and teaching students.
I enjoyed doing this. I worked with a class of rising third and fourth graders. It was very
interesting to see the many different levels in that class. I also got to talk with some of the
students about where they are from and how many languages they speak. I had an interest
in ESL before I did this and I think it is a really cool field.
I was a little concerned when I got into the classroom and Mrs. Starkweather told me her
whole class was level one ESL. I was presently surprised when they were able to
understand my questions and respond during the read aloud. One other thing I noticed
was that there were only four girls in my class of 17 children. The main languages in that
classroom were Arabic and Spanish, so I was surprised about the Arabic. Some of the
questions I asked about nature they could not relate to because they live in the city, so
that was a challenge. I really enjoyed working with the students and Mrs. Starkweather
was a really great teacher. You could tell they really liked her and I was amazed at how
well they were behaved, both in and out of the classroom.
I was very surprised how well the students spoke and understood English since they were
considered the lower level students as far as comprehending English. I was tremendously
impressed by Ms Bartholomay’s teaching ability. She managed the classroom well and
she had a very creative approach to teaching the class.
Integrating Theory
57
I had no expectations walking into the classroom and was, in fact, a bit nervous since I
had never worked with ESL students. I was amazed at how well Mrs. Hadd instructed
the group of rising second graders. I realize it was not easy, but she made it look this
way. At one point, I did not know how to direct the discussion during one read aloud
group when it turned to the topic of “death.” However, the second read-aloud group went
much smoother than the first, and I think this was because I felt more relaxed, prepared,
and confident with my questions.
I really enjoyed working with this class of rising first graders. I was surprised by how
well they spoke English, the main two languages within the class were Spanish and
Arabic. They were very eager to ask and answer questions. Mrs. Brennan did a great job
guiding the class through the activities and making sure each student understood each
task and was working on their reading and writing. She was very positive and I could tell
all the students really liked her.
Questions
~How can I best support students learning English in our content reading? I know how to
differentiate for them, but how exactly will it work?
~Are students with special needs included in the program?
(I asked this of Mr. Delcorso, and he told me that he believed that it depends on how
severe the child’s needs are. If the special needs out-weigh the ESL need, then they
would likely be placed somewhere else. He did mention that one of his students (the one
for whom the assistant in normally in the classroom and who was also placed on the
“Slipping” classification) may have yet to be classified. It seemed to me that an
assessment of this particular student’s needs is necessary. He seemed to have trouble
learning, interacting in a healthy way with classmates, and participating in the lessons for
reasons other than a lack of English ability.)
~Is singing viewed as a useful activity with ESL students or does a singing melody
confuse oral language learning in ESL students?
~What is the best way to help students learn English? What can I do if I have a huge
difference in the levels of English spoken in one class?
~How do you get a student to talk that refuses?
~How do you teach students who have no understanding of the English language and you
have no knowledge of the language they speak? (Especially students who come to school
at 3rd, 4th, or 5th grade)
~What do you do when you cannot understand a student?
~How do you help students stay on task?
~How can I encourage all students to participate after reading a story?
Salient Issues to discuss with Peers:
1. Cultural sensitivity when working with students of different backgrounds
With students coming from several different countries and speaking 5 different
languages it is important to consider their backgrounds in doing different activities and
Integrating Theory
58
interacting with students. One student asked me what languages I spoke and wanted to
know why I couldn’t speak Arabic.
Cultural differences did not seem to be incorporated into the class activities- many
focused on animals and their habitats and something they all could understand. This may
help them share information about their cultural background and learn about each other.
The materials used were neutral and well understood across all cultural backgrounds.
The computer games that helped students to sound out words and form sentences did not
reflect any particular background. Teachers should also show cultural sensitivity when
working with parents. One teacher mentioned calling all parents to welcome their
children into the Academy, and said this was very difficult because she never knew how
to pronounce names.
2. Involving parents in the ESL/ELL classroom
The involvement of parents was minimal. The parents did not pick the students up at
the ESL program and did not have regular contact with the teachers. It does not seem like
there is much reinforcement from the parents' side and this may make some students
resistant to the ESL curriculum. Some students may view the ESL class as "unimportant"
and similar to a summer camp. One student mentioned her parents did not like to speak
English and only want to speak Arabic.
Involving parents in the program will reinforce what the teachers are trying to
accomplish. If students know their parents are not involved and will never communicate
with the teacher, some students will be more likely to misbehave and disobey the teacher.
3. Supporting ESL students in the general education classroom
The ESL teacher from the students “home” school recommended the students
attend the ESL Summer Program. The “home” school and the ESL Summer Program
seem to work cooperatively to ensure the students with the most need were receiving
this extra instruction. The program seemed to reinforce material already learned in the
general classroom and introduced concepts and objectives that will be covered in the
next grade level. One teacher was observed covering lifecycles and the reading,
writing and art activities centered around this SOL objective.
4. Questioning strategies
Several questioning strategies were used to gauge understanding and encourage
participation. Some teachers evaluated reading comprehension by asking lower-level
thinking such as facts about the story, characters and asking students to make predictions.
Another technique was providing an incorrect answer to allow students to provide the
right answer. Some students are more shy than others and have different levels of
reading, writing, and speaking English and may be hesitant to participate. Many teachers
Integrating Theory
59
questioned students who are less eager to participate and give them extra praise when
they do participate.
5. Supporting participation while maintaining order
To support participations, teachers paid close attention to students, involved all students,
maintained eye contact, walked around to different centers, encouraged students to ask as
many questions as they needed, called students by name, praised students when they
deserved it and corrected students that were misbehaving without getting angry. It was
important to create a structured environment where students also feel comfortable to
interact with the teacher and other students. Overall students seemed to enjoy working
together, were attentive, and followed the rules. Techniques to maintain order included:
phrases such as “Eyes on me” and the children would repeat “Eyes on you,” clapping
hands in a certain pattern and the students had to repeat the pattern back to her, and
turning off the lights.
6. Identifying special needs children among ESL students
One student observed the following:
Are students with special needs included in the program?
I asked this of Mr. Delcorso, and he told me that he believed that it depends on how
severe the child’s needs are. If the If the special needs out-weigh the ESL need, then they
would likely be placed somewhere else. He did mention that one of his students (the one
for whom the assistant in normally in the classroom and who was also placed on the
“Slipping” classification) may have yet to be classified. It seemed to me that an
assessment of this particular student’s needs is necessary. He seemed to have trouble
learning, interacting in a healthy way with classmates, and participating in the lessons for
reasons other than a lack of English ability.
Teachers should try hard to classify the students as "special needs" before summer
sessions because they may not be trained to work with special needs students, so it takes
away from the experience of the other children if all the attention is being given to the
student who has not been classified yet. It's not to say the special needs student should
not have an ESL program, but they should separate them out
7. Use of visual behavior ranking charts for behavior management
A few of us noticed that teachers had different approaches to managing classroom
behavior. Most teachers were more relaxed because of the summer session but one used
a daily behavior chart. It is important for teachers to identify and correct a problem but
the structure of classroom management can be determined by the teacher.
Integrating Theory
60
One of the important issues that was brought up after our group worked with the
ESL children was how to keep them motivated and encouraged. The teachers we
observed had different strategies, but Mr. Delcorso really seemed to praise and encourage
his students as a way to keep them motivated. His class was a young group, so it was
important for him to praise them when they did well. In Mrs. Starkweather’s class she
had a few students who refused to speak English. They were not incapable; they simply
refused to speak English. She did not really address the issue during class time, but she
said to Riley that she asks direct questions to those children to encourage a response.
Another issue we found was how to be creative when planning for SOL material, so that
ESL children can learn more effectively. Ms. Bartholomay had a very creative lesson
that involved students lay out on the floor looking up at the ceiling to view their math
problems. Students were encouraged to raise their feet instead of their hands. An issue
that Molly raised was the effectiveness of taking away recess time as a form of
punishment. None of the rooms we observed in had this form of punishment, but there
were other forms of punishment that existed.
Communication barriers were a struggle in each classroom because these were
ESL children at levels one and two, which means they have the lowest vocabulary. Mrs.
Starkweather addressed this issue by using hand gestures when telling students directions,
and Ms. Bartholomay spoke slowly so her students were able to understand her. Another
issue found during the observation was how to encourage students to interact beyond
their cluster group seating arrangement. Some of the teachers observed used small
groups for centers and some teachers did more whole group instruction. Mrs.
Starkweather did pairs for one activity and small groups for another, but the seating
arrangement was not cluster grouped. Encouraging critical thinking was another issue
that was brought up in our group. One of the most common ways of doing this was for
teachers to ask questions about the story they were reading. Following the questions
many teachers encouraged children to come up with examples of something they were
discussing. The last issue developed by our group was how to keep students engaged in
reading and writing. This was done through question and answer for reading, and
through journals and drawing for writing. The silent reading time in Mrs. Starkweather’s
room was a chance for students to read any book they chose.
Integrating Theory
Figure Caption
Figure 1. Classroom map: Placement of furniture in a first grade classroom in order to
have most conducive to learning environment for groups.
61
Integrating Theory
62
White Board
Teacher’s Desk
Door
Storage Closet
Students’ Desks
Cubbies
Science Center
Social Studies Center
Work Table
Music Center
Reading Corner
Computer Center