Boston University

SED CT575: General Methods of Instruction for English Educators

Fall, 2011

Mondays and Wednesdays, 4-5:30 PM

Room TBA

Instructor

Professor Scott Seider

SED Room 240

(617) 353-3223

Office Hours: By appointment

Course Objective

Welcome! The objective of CT575 is for English Education MAT students to develop proficiency in lesson design, unit planning, classroom management and effective research-based instructional delivery.

Course Essential Question

What does good instruction consist of?

Required Texts

Jones, F. (2002). Tools for Teaching. Santa Cruz, CA: Fredric Jones Inc.

Lemov, D. (2009). Teach like a Champion. New York: Jossey Bass.

Attendance & Make-up Work

We have fewer than 40 hours of class time. Only a genuine emergency or highly contagious diseaseshould prevent you from attending class. In such cases, please contact me ASAP and in advance of the class you will miss.

Power point presentations for each class will be available on the CT575Blackboard site. If you miss a class, choose the 20 slides from the class presentation that you believe to be the most interesting, engaging or provocative and reflect upon each in a well thought out paragraph (i.e. 20 paragraphs in total). These paragraphs should be emailed as an attachment to the CT575 instructor prior to the next class meeting. If you are tardy to class (or need to leave early), please follow this same procedure using several of the slides presented in your absence.

Assignments (in chronological order)

Assignment / % of Final Grade
Participation/Attendance/Make-Up Work / 20%
Lesson Plan (plus drafts) / 10%
Micro-Teaching I & Reflection / 10%
Classroom Expectations Handout / 5%
Limit Setting Simulation / 5%
Classroom Management Paper / 10%
Micro-Teaching II & Reflection / 10%
Unit Plan (rough draft, final draft) / 30%

Syllabus at a Glance

Part I: Lesson Design

Class / Topic / Reading Due / Assignment Due
1 / Objectives vs. Activities
2 / I/We/You / Wiggins Chap 1
Lemov 152-157 / Lesson Draft 1
3 / E-A-S / Lemov Chap 2, pp. 104-109, 131-133 / Lesson Draft 2
4 / Explanation I / Lemov pp. 71-84 / Lesson Draft 3
5 / Micro-Teaching I / Lemov Chap 8 / Micro-teaching
6 / Explanation II / Micro-teaching reflection
7 / Micro-Teaching II / Jones Chaps 5-8
8 / Unit Planning / Boudett Chap 1

Part II: Classroom Management

Class / Topic / Reading Due / Assignment Due
9 / Intro to Classroom Management / Marzano Chaps 1, 5
Jones Chaps 1, 2 / Lesson plan final draft
10 / Classroom Structure I / Kanter Chaps 2, 10, 14
Jones Chaps 3-4
11 / Classroom Structure II / Lemov Chaps 6 + pp. 84-87, 145-152, 159-159
Jones Chaps 11-12
Marzano EL
12 / Limit Setting I / Simonson / Classroom Expectations Handout
13 / Limit Setting II / Wentzel, Walker
14 / Limit Setting III / Lemov, pp. 203-220,
Noguera, Kohl, Shakespear / Limit Setting Simulation
15 / Responsibility Training / Kraft
Lemov pp. 159-163
Jones Chaps 13-19
16 / Back-Up System / Jones Chaps 20-23
17 / Wrapping Up / Jones PCD Chap 16
Kanter Chaps 15-16

Part III: Instructional Delivery

Class / Topic / Reading Due / Assignment Due
18 / Questioning Practices / Lemov Chap 1, 9, pp. 88-104, 111-141, 220-221 / Classroom management paper
19 / Ratio
20 / Student-to-Student Interactions
21 / TBA
22 / TBA
23 / TBA
24 / TBA
25 / TBA
26 / TBA / Unit Plan Rough Draft
Unit Plan Final Draft

Supplementary Readings (Posted on Blackboard Site)

Boudett, K., City, E., & Murnane, R. (2005). Data-wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Canter, L. (2011). Assertive discipline: Positive behavior management for today’s classroom. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Jones, F. (1987). Positive Classroom Discipline. New York: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 16.

Kohl, H. (1994) “I Won’t Learn From You” in I Won’t Learn from You and Other Thoughts on Creative Maladjustment. New York: New Press. Pp. 1-33.

Kohn, A. (1997). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Chapter 2.

Kraft, M. (2010 April). From ringmaster to conductor. Phi Delta Kappan, 91 (7), 44-47.

Marzano, R. and Pickering, D. (2003). Classroom Management that Works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Chapters 1 and 5.

Marzano, R. (2011 March). Relating to students: It’s what you do that counts. Educational Leadership, 82-83.

Noguera, P. (2008). Joaquin’s dilemma. In M. Sadowski (Ed.), Adolescents at School: Perspectives on youth, identity, and education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Shakespear, E. (1999) “What I’d Tell A White Gal: What My Black Male Students Taught Me About Race and Schooling.” In S. Freedman & E. Simons (Eds), Inside City Schools:

Investigating Literacy in Multicultural Classrooms, pp. 76-88.

Simonson, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based

practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 351-380.

Walker, J. (2009). Authoritative classroom management: How control and nurturance work together. Theory Into Practice, 48: 122-129.

Wentzel, K. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287-301.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2001). Understanding by design. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Lesson Plan Template

Objectives for Lesson
What will students know, understand, or be able to do at the end of the lesson?
Evidence of Objectives Achieved
How will you assess whether or not your students have met your learning goals?
Warm Up (approx first 3-5 mins of lesson)
Explanation (approx first 10-15 mins of lesson)
What skills or contents do you need to teach your students?
Application (approx 20-40 mins)
What will your students do with this new content or skill in order to begin to master it?
Synthesis (approx 5-15 mins)
How can you make sure your students understand the connection between the Explanation to the Application?
Homework
What can your students work on independently to solidify their learning?

Rubric for Lesson Assignment

Components / 0 pt / 1 pts / 2 pts
Objective / No Objectives Offered / Vague description of what students should know or be able to do at lesson’s end / Clear, concrete descriptions of what students will know or be able to do at lesson’s end
Evidence / No Evidence Offered / Suggested assessment will provide somesenseof whether students have achieved learning goals / Assessment offers clear indication of whether students have achieved learning goals
Explanation / No Explanation described / Explanation provides vague or incomplete description of content that will be offered to students / Explanation clearly articulates the specific content that will be provided to students
Application / No Application described / Application provides vague or incomplete description of steps to be carried out by students / Application provides specific details regarding the actions/steps that students will be expected to carry out
Synthesis / No Synthesis described / Synthesis provides somewhat understandable connection between Explanation and Application / Synthesis provides clear, understandable bridge for students between the Explanation and Application
Bonus / Overall lesson offers students a particularly engaging, intellectual experience

Total Points = ______/10

Additional Comments

Micro-Teaching[1]

Micro-teaching typically runs 12-15 minutes. Each person takes his or her turn as teacher while everyone else plays the role of students. It is the job of these ‘pupils’ to ask and answer questions realistically. It is the job of the ‘teachers’ to involve the "class" actively in this way.

When finished, the student conducting the class has a moment or two to react to his/her own teaching. Then everyone else joins in to discuss what they saw that they especially liked. Finally, the group may mention just a few things that the practice teacher might try doing differently in the future.

The lesson plan for micro-teaching should always have a clearly stated objective and then focus on either ‘Explanation’ OR ‘Application’OR ‘Synthesis’

Rubric for Micro-Teaching

Components / 0 pt / 2.5 pts / 5 pts
Explanation / No Explanation described / Explanation provides vague or incomplete description of content to students / Explanation provides clear, articulate, and specific content to students
Application / No Application described / Application provides vague or incomplete description of steps to be carried out by students / Application provides specific details regarding the actions/steps that students will be expected to carry out
Synthesis / No Synthesis described / Synthesis provides somewhat understandable connection between Explanation and Application / Synthesis provides clear, understandable bridge for students between the Explanation and Application

Rubric for 2-3 page Micro-Teaching Reflection

Components / 0 pts / 2.5 pts / 5 pts
What went well / No description / Vague description of positive aspects of micro-teaching / Detailed description and analysis of positive aspects of micro-teaching
What was challenging / No description / Vague description of negative aspects of micro-teaching / Detailed description and analysis of negative aspects of micro-teaching
Implications for teaching / No description / Vague description of plans for ‘next time’ / Detailed and thoughtful analysis of takeaways for ‘next time’

______/ 20 pts

Classroom Management Paper

OPTION #1:

How have the classroom management methods presented over the last month influenced the way you will approach the first 2 weeks of the school year (or spring semester)? Please make reference to specific course themes and readings. What strategies that we have discussed in CT575 are you quite certain you will use? What strategies do you have concerns or are quite certain you will not use (and why)? The paper should have two parts:

A.Offer the general philosophy with which you will approach classroom management.

B. Outline your specific plan for succeeding from Day 1

0 Points / 2 Points / 4 Points
General Philosophy / Paper does not present a guiding philosophical approach to classroom management / Paper presents a clear philosophical approach to classroom management / Paper presents a detailed and compelling approach to classroom management that acknowledges the complexities of the enterprise
Strategies / Paper does not present specific strategies that will be utilized or avoided / Paper presents 1-2 specific strategies that will be utilized or avoided / Paper presents multiple strategies raised in course and readings that will be utilized or avoided
Succeeding from Day One / Paper does not offer a blueprint for the opening days of school / Paper offers plan for the opening days of the school year overly reliant on generalities / Paper offers detailed plan for succeeding from day one
Textual Evidence / Paper does not support claims with references to assigned readings / Paper offer minimal support of claims with references to assigned readings / Paper offers robust support of claims with references to assigned readings
Organization and Clarity / Paper is not logically structured
AND/OR
Writing is not clear and easy to understand / Paper contains distracting grammar, typographical, or mechanics errors / Paper is structured logically, written clearly, and error-free (or mostly free).

OPTION #2:

Read “Blaming the Kids” by Alfie Kohn. In this essay, Kohn offers several criticisms of other classroom management systems. Though he does not specifically reference Fred Jones, some might read this piece as critical of the system Fred Jones espouses in Tools for Teaching. Compare and contrast Jones and Kohn’s perspectives on classroom management and discuss where you fall now in your own classroom management philosophy.

0 Points / 2.5 Points / 5 Points
Comparison of the two systems / Paper fails to present clear differences or similarities between the two classroom management systems / Paper provides a clear comparison of the two classroom management systems / Paper presents a detailed and nuanced comparison of the two classroom management systems
Your own perspective / Paper does not present a philosophical approach to classroom management / Paper presents a clear philosophical approach to classroom management / Paper presents a detailed and compelling approach to classroom management that acknowledges the complexities of the enterprise
Textual Evidence / Paper does not support claims with references to assigned readings / Paper offer minimal support of claims with references to assigned readings / Paper offers robust support of claims with references to assigned readings
Organization and Clarity / Paper is not logically structured
AND/OR
Writing is not clear and easy to understand / Paper contains distracting grammar, typographical, or mechanics errors / Paper is structured logically, written clearly, and error-free (or mostly free).

Unit Plan Assignment[2]

Your most significant assignment for EN506 is to develop a 3-6 week unit on a topic that you are either teaching currently as a student-teacher or believe you may one day teach in the future. Please follow the guide below to aid your development of this Unit.

  1. Objectives for Unit
  1. Rationale
  2. Why is this unit worth studying?
  1. Goals
  2. What should students know at the end of this unit?
  3. What should students understand at the end of this unit?
  4. What should students be able to do at the end of this unit?
  1. Assessment
  2. How will you determine whether or not your students have achieved these learning goals?
  3. 4 assessments total, including 1-2 summative assessments and 2-3 formative assessments.
  4. The summative assessment(s) should be designed to enable students to demonstrate their mastery of the overall unit learning goals and be aligned in some way with the essential question(s).
  5. The formative assessments should be designed so that students and teachers can diagnose students’ strengths and weaknesses with respect to the daily and/or unit learning goals and to tailor future instruction in a way that helps students master the learning goals. These assessments should demonstrate a range of authentic approaches for assessing student understanding and enabling students to demonstrate their mastery of the material. No more than one of the formative assessments may be a quiz. Note that the formative assessments in particular may be indistinguishable from lesson “activities”: a discussion, for example, may simultaneously serve as an activity and as an assessment.
  6. Standards
  7. Which standards from the Massachusetts State Frameworks will this unit address?
  1. Pacing
  2. How long do you anticipate this unit lasting?
  1. Scope and Sequence
  1. Sub-Topics
  2. What will be the mini-units embedded within this larger unit?
  3. How will you arrange these mini-units to form a logical and powerful sequence?
  4. What are the learning goals for each of this sub-topics? How do they connect to the larger objectives for the unit?
  1. Readings, Instructional Activities, and Resources
  1. Realistic and worthwhile daily learning objectives and lesson plan sketches for each day of the unit. Each lesson plan sketch should specify 2-4 in-class activities/ formative assessments you anticipate doing so students can achieve the daily objectives, along with a list of the resources you would use. The daily objectives supported by the lesson plan activities should cumulatively enable students to master the unit goals and succeed on the summative assessments.
  1. Lesson Plans
  1. Detailed lesson plans for 2 days of instruction. These lesson plans must include all materials you would use with the students on those days: texts, exemplars, primary sources, worksheets, PowerPoints, homework assignments, maps, photos, hyperlinks to websites, etc. In the case of a video that is not on-line, please arrange to have the appropriate segment digitized so you can upload it with the rest of the lesson plan.

Rubric for Unit Plan

Objectives

0 pts / 2.5 pts / 5 pts
Goals / None / Vague and/or ambiguous goals for student learning / Clearly detailed and important objectives for student learning as a result of unit
Assessment / None / Assessment will provide some insight into students’ success at achieving goals / Detailed assessments that clearly link to specific Goals
Standards / None / Vague and/or ambiguous connection between unit goals and state frameworks / Link between Goals and Frameworks is clear and detailed
Pacing / None / Pacing appears to be either too slow or too hasty / Length of allocated time matches learning goals

Sub-Total: ____/20

Sub-Topics and Lesson Plans

0 pts / 2.5 pts / 5 pts
Embedded Mini-Units / None / Mini-units represent some of the key sub-topics within the larger unit / Mini-units represent the most essential sub-topics within the larger unit
Sequence of Mini-Units / None / Sequence generally makes sense as approach to topic / Sequence demonstrates logical rationale to maximized student learning
Learning Goals / None / Learning goals for mini-units demonstrate connection to many of the overarching goals / Learning goals for mini-units build powerfully towards overarching goals
Lesson Plans / None / Lesson plans follow template and depict clear learning opportunities / Lesson plans follow template and depict engaging, intellectual learning opportunities

Sub-Total: ______/20

TOTAL: ______/40

The School of Education at Boston University is committed to equal access for students with disabilities.If you have a specific disability and require accommodations in this class, please let me know early in the semester so that appropriate accommodations canbe made.You must provide me with a letter of needed accommodations prepared by the Office of Disability Services.Contact information for that office is as follows: (617)353-3658 V/TTY or.All discussions and written materials will be kept confidential.

1

[1] See Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning on “microteaching.” Retrieved from

[2] Many thanks to Dr. Vicki Jacobs and Dr. Meira Levinson from whom this assignment has been adapted