Sherlly Pierre

December 11, 2015

GSE TEP: Term III
Field Seminar

Story of the Question:

From the collective, a way emerges -Professor Fahrig-Pendse
Professor Fahrig-Pendse said the above in expounding on a key
element in Quakerism as it connected to our Social Studies method class
conversation on reimagining what debates can look like in our classrooms
informed by multiple perspectives and distilled into conclusions that are
agreed to and informed by both sides. A coming together of many ideas,
critically investigating various moving parts, application and, that key
element, the distillation of takeaways to inform next steps. Though the
conversation was focused on the art of debates beyond the scope of pro
and con I connected it to how I have worked with teams within different
industries and fieldsand a circle. In each field it was never about planning
and having a single successful outcome, but rather the organization
becoming more refined and intentionally aligned through debriefs and
reflections throughout the process and using takeaways to inform steps
moving forward. The goal wasnt perfection because we found we learned
more from our mistakes and oversights than the times things went off
without a hitch. It provided to everyone involved forays to better hone our

craft and avenues to use each other as resources in having multiple

perspectives informing our collective process.
In my first year of teaching my school provided a point of continuity by
also using this model, though at the time I didnt know that it was lesson
study model at the time. With an assigned grade team leader who acted as
facilitator we planned our scope and sequence, analyzed data and
brainstormed/aligned/finalized curriculums that would be differentiated by
each co-team; with push-ins from our assistant principal we further delved
into our findings after summative assessments given each semester (STEP
and ANET) and worked on how our findings could inform the trajectory for
each following semester; observations of lessons were done throughout the
semester and conducted with teams comprised of our principal, assistant
principal(s), fellow grade team teachers, consultants and subject-specific
experts in the field; as teaching teams we used the lesson study cycle to
plan for differentiation and scaffolding, as well as track observations for data
to inform our next steps as a grade team. The lesson study model used at
my previous school followed a year-long model, but condensed to four
lessons and with a small team (the kindergarten student teacher team
equaled two students) I was curious to see if the key elements could still be
replicated with similar results in creating space to have reflection be a key
factor in improving our practices, even within a short period of time.
The steps include: (1) defining and researching a problem, (2)
planning the lesson, (3) teaching and observing the lesson, (4)
evaluating the lesson and reflecting on its effect, (5) revising the
lesson, (6) teaching and observing the revised lesson, (7)

evaluating and reflecting a second time, and (8) sharing the

results (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999).
If the steps could be reimagined to suit the purposes of Term III, what could
be gained and what would be lost in the process?

Current Beliefs
The process for completing the eight steps requires a group of
teachers to collaborate and share their ideas, opinions, and
conclusions regarding the research lesson. This process requires
substantial time and commitment; however, it serves as a
catalyst that encourages teachers to become reflective
practitioners that use what they have learned from researchbased lessons to collegially revise and implement future lessons.
(Rock & Wilson, 2005)
From observations before our lessons and lesson planning of our
respective student teacher sites as a way to inform context, to thinking and
planning very much aligned to funnel thinking found in marketing (i.e.,
finding common ground between our classrooms through content and the
perspectives that inform our classroom mentors practices, our own growing
perspectives on inquiry and our approaches to content areas, as well as
knowledge of our students) and distilling, questioning and refining.
Feedback from our classroom mentors, Penn mentors and method professors
provided opportunities for additional at-bats and late night conversations
that surpassed hours on Skype and numerous coffees/teas at Saxbys and
Commons 1920 in our continuous reworking to never get perfect, but to get
better.
How can co-planning and collaboration help me to better
differentiate for my students?

Each at-bat aligned in allowing me to circumvent issues that posed as

a block between the content successfully reaching my students, which in my
case proved to be attempting work within time constraints and and fully
connecting to the foundation that my classroom mentor had established in
my students. But, through debriefs over time I was able to more
intentionally tackle those issues in meaningful ways that allowed for more of
what I wanted to take placemy students learning.

Final Takeaways
When I started Term III it seemed insurmountable. Many moving parts,
but even with the struggle in making this a bit less insurmountable was an
attempt to find a way to honor the strength that I find in teaching, which is
collaboration. A path to co-create and a space to carve out what better can
look likenot just for students, but for teachers, as well. Essentially, I found
that lesson study was a way for me to make real, to make tangible growth
mindset and what it could look like in informing my practice. In working with
Betty, and in moving forward from one lesson to next going through the
lesson study cycle, we saw the implementation of feedback correlating to
real change and improvement. But, if there was a challenge, the common
thread, it was the struggle for finding the just right for my students which
means fighting the need to hit everything in the lesson plan, but rather focus
on the essentials for my goals. Not the completion of graphic organizers
with tasks that did not capture and push the potential that my students
have, but rather lessons that provided space for [] inquiry-based, low-

floor/high-ceiling tasks, was visual and used mixed achievement groups.

(Not a Math Person: How to Remove Obstacles to Learning Math)
If Term III has shed light on is that, whether I wanted to or not, I had
taken a stance where teaching looked like teacher voice reigning dominant
in a space where student voice and thinking should be heard and seen
more. When time constraints presented themselves the push became to
get more content, but that was the total opposite of what I wanted.
Whether or not I had intended to do so I had entered the role of what
Scardamalia and Beriter may have called a knowledge transmitter, rather
than the facilitator of a space where students, that in a:
[] traditional educational practicewith its emphasis on
knowledge transmissionas well as the newer constructivist
methods both appear to limited in scope if not entirely missing
the point. Knowledge building [] represents an attempt to
refashion education in a fundamental way, so that it becomes
coherent effort to initiate students into a knowledge creating
culture.
My students are kindergarteners and, on some level, I thought that with a
time crunch I had to do the heavy lifting, but that was wrong. With proper
scaffolding and a space to engage with each others ideas, while intuitively
tying in what they had learned in class with my classroom mentor they were
more than capable there was still opportunity to have their thinking be made
visible (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000). I was not doing my students, or
myself, any favors by not fashioning tasks that completely provided access
points to where they were, but also provided challenge that could provide
valuable insight their thinking. In order to have that opportunity I had to

create the space to intentionally take that seriously. I had to risk a lesson
bombing if it meant that my students would have that opportunity.
Youve got to be willing to crash and burn. If youre afraid of
failing, you wont get very far. Steve Jobs
So, with each lesson I worked on just one thing that I would improve
one from my previous lesson. If it implementation worked, I connected it to
my next lesson and then chose another just one thing until I could start
tracking noticeable progress. This program is only a year, so with the time
remaining I am actively working on my strengths and locating my
weaknesses, so as to know the areas that need more attention, while
reflecting on my practice.
I am using what I have learned in Term III, the connections to my
previous experiences, mentors feedback, observations in the various
classrooms I have visited while in Philadelphia and my experience in class to
help inform more of what I want to see in my practice. There are readings
that I need to revisit and delve deeper into to better inform my pedagogy
and broaden, while deepening, my teacher toolkit. But, where I may have
felt that Term III was once insurmountable, I now a see a path opening up to
help shape who I can become.