When reading for this module, I could easily identify with the different coaching situations mentioned. Coaching can be mandated by districts or administration or it can be requested by the teacher or an accepted part of the school culture. Coaching relationships arise from many different situations and for different reasons, but as Marzano and Simms (2013, p. 211) point out, “in teacher-initiated coaching, the teacher is self-motivated and invested in the change”. I myself, have found this to be true as well, in my training, I was able to offer the training to the entire faculty and allow them to sign up if they were interested. Our first grade teachers had already expressed interest in Google Docs because of standards based report cards. The majority of the faculty signed up for the training, at least one member from each grade level and several grade levels had 100% participation. The fact that everyone who was in the training chose to be there made a huge difference in the participation and motivation during the training. I have included in my follow up survey additional topics the faculty may find relevant so that we may begin to offer this type of training on a monthly or bi-monthly basis. I also found that the fact the training was something the teachers chose to attend, the motivation level was high, even if the skill was low for some of the teachers. From Marzano and Simms (2013) “the motivation level of a teacher is one of the most important elements in determining the success of a coaching relationship”. I found this to be true in that even though I had a wide variety of skillsets in my training, all of the teachers wanted to learn and be able to use what I was showing them, so their motivation was high and they were all successful in being able to complete the activities that I had them to do. I believe overall, coaching can be successful in any situation whether it’s required or requested but I believe the optimal setting is when a teacher, like a player (in sports) wants to be coached almost always achieves a better outcome.
Works Cited:
Instructional Coaching. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2015, from https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/instructional-coaching
Marzano, R., & Simms, J. (2013). Coaching classroom instruction. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research.
Thought Partners. (2014, October 6). Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://thoughtpartners.blogspot.com/
When I started the “coaching” process for this class, I thought it was a “new” experience, but as I have discovered, it is something I have been doing in my school for some time. Like Marzano and Simms point out, “the term coaching can be used in a variety of ways” (2013, p.7). I thought about classroom coaching as what our instructional coach does or what formal mentors do for their mentees, but I have discovered it is something that goes on informally quite often in schools everywhere. In my school, it happens for me in the area of technology on a regular basis. I was the first person in my building to get a SMART board. I applied for a grant and got the money to purchase it and loved using it interactively with my students. Naturally, several years later, when our school received the money to install them school-wide, I was the go-to person for basic how-to information and getting everyone started. Thus, my technology coaching experience began simply because I had experience with something nobody else had worked with before. This continued as I was chosen to pilot Chromebooks for our district before we started making large purchases of them. Now I am the assistant principal, but before that change, I moved from unofficially being the tech-helper to the tech go-to person for administration and teachers to the official technology coordinator for our building. There were many teachers who had never seen a SMART board who are now using them everyday for their morning calendar routines. Some teachers had never used any of the SMART notebook software and now many can hardly function without it if we lose Internet and I was part of that. I realized that during all of these transitions there had to be certain things in place in order for me to help others learn and become confident in using technology. First, I had to have the knowledge. I had to be interested in new technology and not be afraid to try new things and get my students involved. I had to learn the ins and outs of any new technology before I could help others learn. I also had to learn to troubleshoot it so that I could help others do the same. I also had to become trustworthy. According to Marzano and Simms (2013) “trust is an important aspect of effective coaching relationships and effective schools”(p. 10). I had to be someone that the other teachers knew they could depend on to be able to help them when they needed it. I had to be someone they could trust to be vulnerable in front of and someone that they could trust to help them find answers or express their frustrations to. I learned early on in these “coaching” relationships that trust was a huge factor and that if I did not know the answer it was okay to say so, but that I would have to be able to find it. So, if by definition coaching is helping teachers become better at what they do, then an informal coaching relationship was what I was beginning with these teachers.
Sources:
Bates, Mark. "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Teachers Who Use Educational Technology Infographic - E-Learning Infographics." ELearning Infographics. Alwaysprepped.com, 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
Marzano, Robert J., and Julia A. Simms. Coaching Classroom Instruction. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research, 2013. Print.
When I started reading the chapters for this module, my first thoughts were of our instructional coach in our building. She is very helpful, good with data and very uplifting and encouraging. But then I also thought about how I started out my first year teaching without one. I started out in a 7-12 high school setting, no formal mentor relationship and no instructional coach. I realized, while reminiscing, that on my own, I sought out exactly that type of person. She was a veteran teacher, well respected by both students and coworkers as well as someone I knew would know the right advice to give, and she did. I also, looking back, entered into an informal mentor relationship with another person in that school that I still seek advice from to this day. I never thought of either of those relationships as a “coaching” relationship, but now, looking back, I think that’s exactly what they were. According to Marzano and Simms (2013, p. 4) “the term coach generally means helping someone move from where he or she is to where he or she needs or wants to be.” That is exactly what those people helped me to do. That is what coaches do, whether in the professional, athletic, or academic arena, that is what they do, they make us better at what we do.
There is lots of research out there on coaching, various stances on which style is best or how it should be done, but it is not a one size fits all item. In fact “effective coaching is not entirely dependent on the coach. Rather many assert that the person being coached is the most important determiner of the success or failure of a coaching relationship” (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 9). This statement emphasizes just how important and unique that relationship must be in order for it to be successful. I am from the south, where football is king. We all know what sport takes precedent in the fall, and we can all name famous coaches. All of these coaches are successful, but most would agree their styles vary greatly from one another. I think instructional coaching styles would be the same. There are going to be basic needs in any coaching relationship for it to be successful: trust, feedback, choice (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 10). There are a wide variety of personalities out there in education. I think there would have to be a wide variety of coaching styles ready to meet those needs as well. This, as in most aspects of education, is not a “one size fits all” situation.
Instructional Coaching With Technology. (2013, November 13). Retrieved September 28, 2015, from https://youtu.be/wA4ZHlBHvDc
Marzano, R., & Simms, J. (2013). Coaching classroom instruction. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research.
Waterman, R. (2013). Coach Graphic. Retrieved September 28, 2015, from http://www.richwaterman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/coach.jpg
While reading chapters nine and ten, I was thinking of blog topics and how I use technology in my classroom as a teacher for the most part. It wasn’t until I happened upon the part discussing distance learning versus e-learning that I began thinking of my own experiences as a student with using technology. I was intrigued by the debate over whether or not the term “e-learning” applies to both instruction delivered over the Internet and content delivered via CDs and DVDs, audio and video recordings, and via satellite broadcast, and interactive television and cable” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, p.193). If, indeed, we include cable and interactive television, my first e-learning course was many years ago when I first started my college career in a community college. Home computers were a rarity, most of my papers were typed on a word processor, and my e-learning class consisted of recorded (via VCR) lectures from the local public television station that I would watch after reading the text and then complete selected classwork to be turned in periodically on campus. We would visit campus a set number of times during the quarter to turn in work and complete tests and that was my first experience with “e-learning.” Basically, the lecture portion of the class was recorded for viewing outside the classroom. Thinking back on this experience, I was surprised when considering the technology at the time, how well it fit the iterative process illustrated by Larson and Lockee (2014, p.194).
Larson and Lockee 2014 p. 194
The instructional need (#1) at the time (early 90’s) was to make the class schedule more flexible and accessible, so the video lecture did that. The instructional strategy (#2) was exactly the same as the classroom setting would have been, primarily lecture. Consideration of media affordances (#3) there were very little to choose from at the time so the televised lectures to be recorded and watched at the student’s leisure (asynchronous format) was as flexible a format as was available at the time, so this was the selected technology (#4). While it was not as engaging as an actual classroom lecture setting might have been and there was no accompanying thoughts, remarks or group discussions, it did provide flexibility, which, I assume was the main goal. This was my only reference for e-learning which explains my hesitance when taking on an entire degree program based primarily in an online format. Being almost at the halfway point now though, I can truly say, times have changed! I can honestly say the technology being incorporated is “being used to meet a specific need” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, p.184). We have the synchronous chats to create the sense of group familiarity we would have in a face to face environment, we have the asynchronous blog communications to read and reflect on each other’s views and opinions at our convenience. The technology is used a little differently each time as well, so that it doesn’t become monotonous or repetitive. So, for me, in my experience instructional design in e-learning, “you’ve come a long way baby!”
How education has changed in past years?? Teaching and learning at Qpage www.qpagep.com. (2013, June 6). Retrieved July 29, 2015.
History of E-Learning: E is for Evolutionary. (2012, October 11). Retrieved July 28, 2015, from http://www.idealearninggroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TimelineBlogLarge-ILG.png
Larson, M., & Lockee, B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, New York: Routledge.
When starting the reading for this module, we were asked to come up with three considerations for technology selection, mine were cost, access, and engagement. Having been on more than one technology committee, and written more than my share of grants, cost had to be my number one, money is always an issue in education, but certainly when it comes to technology. “When possible, select technologies and media that can be used by other efforts in your organization and factor in the expected lifespan of the instruction when considering costly technology choices (Larson and Lockee, 2014, p.200) Secondly, I came up with access. All the technology in the world is great, but if you don’t have the infrastructure in place or equipment necessary to access it then it is useless. And finally, engagement, the one that is sometimes the most elusive. We have all planned that wonderful (or so we thought) lesson that would have the students hanging on our every word from bell to bell only to see it flop within the first five minutes. Luckily, while reading, I was reminded of some of the more inexpensive, easily accessed, and interesting technology based activities I use with my students and that is what I want to talk about.
First of all, I am a science person, through and through. I love science, completely, even outside the classroom, ask my husband. All things science hook my interest, so naturally a problem for me from day one in my science classroom has been the information in the textbooks. Due to the nature of textbook publication, by the time the books hit the classroom, the information is old.
I have always tried to integrate current science through magazine articles, video clips, and news stories as I see them, but this is very time consuming. I also love technology, so I have always tried to integrate videos, animations, and short clips to introduce, wrap up, and even reinforce or reteach lessons to my students. I have recently started using science magazines to integrate and address all of the above. The cost is minimal, usually covered by a classroom donation, instructional supply money, or my principal’s generosity, or a combination of all of these, and I use one classroom set for all my classes.
These magazines reinforce core science concepts through current science articles that kids are seeing in the news already. I have started converting many of the questions and data tables into google forms or socrative for the students to fill out so that I can grade them easily or compiling their data into google sheets and the students love working with the technology.
This actually raises the skill level the students are using, to using “technology as a partner, or mindtool” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, p. 185) I also like that with these magazines, I have the option of the online version or the print version as a backup if necessary, this addresses the access issue. Alternately, the online version is easily enlarged for students with visual disabilities, or students who have trouble navigating the online environment, can go to the print, so it works both ways. I can also have the students read the material and work and discuss in groups and enter data on only one computer if I am short on technology or I have students who need extra support. According to Larson and Lockee it is important to “consider producing a version of the main content via a low-tech medium, both to provide a backup in case of technology failure and to accommodate learners with special needs” (2014, p. 200). Lastly, engagement is something that these magazines do a really good job with, they start with some short videos to introduce some of the stories for the magazine to get the student interested, they also have some online games related that we play after the assignments are complete. Most of the students really like that the information is tying concepts we talk about in the classroom to things that are happening in the world right now, not 10-15 years ago. They like hearing about bedbug infestations and flesh eating bacteria and why these things are becoming more common and the science behind it. Overall, my experience with integrating technology in my classroom is that it has helped me bring my content to life and helped my students realize that science is not something that happens in a book or a classroom. It is something that is happening everyday, everywhere, we just have to look with our “science goggles” and know what to ask so we understand it.
Glasbergen, R. (2007). Randy Glasbergen – Today's Cartoon. Retrieved July 23, 2015, from http://www.glasbergen.com/?count=13&s=education
Larson, M., & Lockee, B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, New York: Routledge.
Science World Magazine Online Resources. (2011, December 8). Retrieved July 23, 2015, from https://youtu.be/tslcvzh4HxY?list=PL95385C6482FE3B21
In the reading assignment for this module, the chapter about assessment really stood out to me. As teachers or administrators so much of our decisions are based on data from assessments whether formal or informal. While reading the chapters discussing aligning your instruction with your outcomes and assessing your instruction accordingly, I was reminded of the cartoon I started with here. We have all seen this at some time or another used in some context. But it is so true of assessment if it is not aligned to our learning. If our assessment does not match our outcomes or objectives, it is useless. We cannot expect our students or participants to do something we have not prepared them for. This brought me back to the earlier principal Larson and Lockee (2014) pointed out regarding “beginning with the end in mind” when designing instruction. This simple concept will make sure that our assessment is appropriate as well. I also found myself nodding my head during the marshmallow illustration from chapter 6 when the instructor demonstrated that “it was necessary to have a target, that the target should remain constant and not move, and that the task required opportunities to practice prior to assessment” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, p.116) As a science teacher, I find students definitely tend to perform better on assessments when they have had the opportunity to interact with the material in some way. The following infographic I found called "the cone of learning" includes data that supports just that.
Cone of Learning
Interactions can be as simple as discussing with their group or partner, or as complex as a full lab experience, but it does seem to help them to comprehend the material. We also know there are different types of assessment, formative and summative, just to name a few and they all have their appropriate time and place. So, what makes for effective assessment? According to Larson and Lockee (2014) effective instruction must: “Align with the learning outcomes, be a learning experience for both the learner and the designer, and be known in advance by the learners” (p.139). I find that these three principles while simple, give us exactly what we need. We have to know what we want from our students before we start (begin with the end in mind, align with the outcomes), it has to be ongoing and guide our instruction (we have to reteach or support the learner if necessary), and we must let our students know what we are going to expect from them up front. So, the instructor who used the marshmallow demonstration was right “on target” with her “assessment of assessment.”
Larson, M., & Lockee, B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, New York: Routledge.
Lim, J. (2012, May 1). Finance and Listening to Nature. Retrieved July 16, 2015, from http://joycelim.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/cone_of_learning.png
Rao, S. (2014, June 26). Top 10 Traits of a Good Tester. Retrieved July 16, 2015, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140616032541-3446415-top-10-traits-of-a-good-tester
Zody, O. (2015, April 1). Summative VS. Formative Assessments. Retrieved July 16, 2015, from https://youtu.be/-DrFt_tqMSU
