Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

EngageNY.org Argument Writing: Going Deeper with Coaches Experiencing and Scaffolding the Cognitive Writing Demands in Module 9.4.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "EngageNY.org Argument Writing: Going Deeper with Coaches Experiencing and Scaffolding the Cognitive Writing Demands in Module 9.4."— Presentation transcript:

1 EngageNY.org Argument Writing: Going Deeper with Coaches Experiencing and Scaffolding the Cognitive Writing Demands in Module 9.4

2 Session Objectives By the end of this session, participants will be able to:  Describe the characteristics of student-centered coaching.  Explain how an inquiry as coaching stance influences teacher and student learning.  Identify possible bottlenecks in Module 9.4.  Design coaching practices to develop teacher ability to provide responsive writing instruction in Module 9.4. EngageNY.org2

3 Materials in this Session EngageNY.org3 9.4 Module Overview 9.4 Module Text Excerpts 9.4. Module Lessons (14-24) “Coaching Heavy/Coaching Light Reprised” (Killion, 2010) Coaching Cycle Template You can download all of the modules on EngageNY.org:

4 Student Centered Coaching (Wilder, 2014) 4 A Transparent Coaching Intention A Stubborn Focus on Meaningful Assessment Data Shifting Coaching Stances Responsive Disciplinary Teaching Inquiry as Coaching Stance EngageNY.org

5 You Are Here 5EngageNY.org Part 1: Identifying Characteristics of Student- Centered Instructional Coaching Part 2: Analyze How Module 9.4 Lessons Scaffold the Tools to Evaluate and Synthesize Arguments Part 3: Coaching Practices to Support Bridge Student “Bottlenecks” in Module 9.4

6 Student Centered Coaching (Wilder, 2014) 6 A Transparent Coaching Intention A Stubborn Focus on Meaningful Assessment Data Shifting Coaching Stances Responsive Disciplinary Teaching Inquiry as Coaching Stance EngageNY.org

7 Student Centered Coaching: Our Intention Matters 7 No set of coaching practices define “heavy coaching” and no coaching model is purely heavy. “Identifying coaching light (or heavy) is not easy since the key factor is the coach’s intentions and results” (Killion, 2008, p. 23.) (Killion, 2008, 2010) 7 EngageNY.org

8 Student Centered Coaching (Wilder, 2014) 8 A Transparent Coaching Intention A Stubborn Focus on Meaningful Assessment Data Shifting Coaching Stances Responsive Disciplinary Teaching Inquiry as Coaching Stance EngageNY.org

9 Student Centered Coaching: Coaching as Negotiation Pedagogy Discipline Students Culture Teaching Context Every teaching context includes varying beliefs about students, the discipline, pedagogy and norms of practice. Every collaborative context negotiates knowledge, beliefs, and practice. (Wilder, 2014) EngageNY.org9

10 Student Centered Coaching: Coaching as Negotiation EngageNY.org Carol (Literacy Coach)Sam (6 th Grade Teacher) “I know if the text isn’t meaningful the kids won’t be engaged. I also know if they don’t have clarity of where they’re going, they’re not going to read it--especially if he (Sam) doesn’t have a clear purpose for learning. We have to know what they know and what he wants them to know, understand, and be able to do.” “The reading strategy lady calls it flooding them with texts. A lot of people just use textbooks and we need to bring in more supplemental texts which is challenging to do especially if you don’t have a coach. I’m also starting to see them coming together. The predicting. The summarizing. The connecting. I’d like a clear understanding of it before you go in and teach it. What knowledge did Carol and Sam negotiate? (Wilder, 2014) 10

11 Coaching Stance From a socio-linguistic perspective, Du’Bois (2007) describes “stance-taking” as a dialogic and evaluative act done by social actors based on objects/values in a sociocultural field. Coaching stances have been described as  Responsive (Borman & Feger, 2006; Costa & Garmston, 2002)  Directive (Deussen et al., 2007; Steiner & Kowal, 2007)  Balanced within individual collaborative events (Ippolito, 2010)  On a continuum ranging from Consulting, Collaborating to Coaching depending on how information emerges and who identifies needs (Lipton & Wellman, 2010) EngageNY.org11

12 You Are Here 12 Part 1: Identifying Characteristics of Student- Centered Instructional Coaching Part 2: Analyze How Module 9.4 Lessons Scaffold the Tools to Evaluate and Synthesize Arguments Part 3: Coaching Practices to Support Bridge Student “Bottlenecks” in Module 9.4 EngageNY.org

13 “Bottlenecks” EngageNY.org Points where the learning of a significant number of students is interrupted (Anderson, 1996). The predictably complex phases of writing can be impediments to developing the desired close reading and argumentative writing skills. Can be seen as cognitive, affective, or motivational “obstacles” (Pace & Middendorf, 1994). Underscores the necessity of ongoing and authentic formative assessment. 13

14 Analyze the Scaffolding and Sequencing of Module 9.4 Lessons 1-14 Time: 10 minutes EngageNY.org Task #1: Annotate the Module/Unit at a Glance Calendar (p. 8-14). Use the following questions to guide your annotations and explore relationships between text excerpts, standards, tools, and the mid-unit assessment:  What text excerpts are used and how are they sequenced?  What writing and reading standards are addressed in lessons 1-13?  What tools are introduced and scaffolded for students in lessons 1-13?  How do the lessons build towards mid-unit and end-of- unit assessments?  What potential student bottlenecks could occur? 14

15 Meet Ani Rosario 3rd year English teacher at Dansville High School Teaches both 9th grade Honors English and 9th grade regular English courses Piloted ten lessons of Module 9.4 during April-May Used Lessons: 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, leading to Mid- Unit Assessment Had previously taught the Odell Close Reading Unit with these same students Has met with fellow English teaching colleagues (cross- district) since September to unpack modules Dansville High School: 575 students, rural, 65% low income 83% of students at/above a “3” on State English Accountability EngageNY.org15

16 Analyze the Writing of Ani’s Students Time: 20 minutes EngageNY.org Task #2: You have been provided with writing samples for two of Ani’s students. Annotate the student writing samples using the following standards below. Then, determine potential instructional modifications for these students in Lesson 14 and 16.  CCRA.R.9  RI  RI  RI  W a-e 16

17 Discussion of Student Bottlenecks EngageNY.org What student strengths are evident in the student work? What student bottlenecks are evident in the student work? What are potential instructional modifications in lesson 14 or 16? 17

18 You Are Here 18 Part 1: Identifying Characteristics of Student- Centered Instructional Coaching Part 2: Analyze How Module 9.4 Lessons Scaffold the Tools to Evaluate and Synthesize Arguments Part 3: Coaching Practices to Support Bridge Student “Bottlenecks” in Module 9.4 EngageNY.org

19 Analyze Ani’s Teaching Reflections EngageNY.org Task #3: You have been provided with Ani’s teaching journal from her piloting of Module 9.4. Ani piloted 10 lessons leading up to the mid-unit assessment. Select one of Ani’s daily reflections and annotate Ani’s teaching practice using the following components:  Lesson objective  Student reading  Student discussion  Student writing  Ani’s observations of student thinking  Lesson modifications Time: 15 minutes 19

20 Discussion of Student Bottlenecks Time: 15 minutes EngageNY.org What strengths do you see in Ani’s teaching of Module 9.4? How has Ani attempted to respond to the unique writing needs of students in Module 9.4? What additional instructional responses might you bridge with Ani in lessons 14 and 16? 20

21 Coaching as Collaborative Inquiry 21 Developing a Collaborative Plan and Roles Collective Instructional Implementation Using Student Voices to Identify Impact and Needs Establishing Inquiry Around Student Needs Collaborative Inquiry EngageNY.org21

22 Try This: Reflecting on One Recent Collaboration Time: 30 minutes 22 Task #4: Using the Coaching Cycle Planning Tool, take 3-5 minutes to record notes about a recent collaboration with a group of teachers. Then, at your table, discuss your purpose, role, challenges, and coaching practices in a recent collaboration. When each member has finished writing, use the following discussion protocol:  Sharing: A “Spotlight Coach” shares about his/her collaboration while others record questions to ask.  Asking: Group members take turns sharing their “tough” questions about the collaboration, knowledge, and/or coaching practice. The “Spotlight Coach” records all questions.  Responding: The “Spotlight Coach” responds to any questions. EngageNY.org22

23 Student Centered Coaching EngageNY.org23 A Transparent Coaching Intention A Stubborn Focus on Meaningful Assessment Data Shifting Coaching Stances Responsive Disciplinary Teaching Inquiry as Coaching Stance How could these elements influence coaching with teachers in Module 9.4? (Wilder, 2014)

24 Try This: Collaborative Cycle Planning Tool Time: 20 minutes 24 Task #5: With a partner, use the Coaching Cycle Planning Tool to map out a collaborative plan for helping teachers bridge student bottlenecks in Module 9.4. EngageNY.org24 How should you modify upcoming Module 9.4 lessons based on student needs? How will you determine instructional roles? What will you use to observe and document student learning and writing needs in the lesson? What are student Bottlenecks in Module 9.4? Collaborative Inquiry

25 Eyes on Students Protocol 25 Eyes on Students Protocol provides a student-centered method of collecting formative assessment data and supporting student-centered collaborative discussions. EngageNY.org25

26 Adopting An Inquiry As Coaching Stance Each collaboration has a unique Collaborative Context (coach’s disciplinary knowledge, the teacher’s disciplinary knowledge, specific students, and the local curriculum). Coaches identify as both Teacher and Coach as they help teachers “deliberate problems of practice” and “uncover, articulate, and question assumptions about teaching, learning, and schooling” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 144). An Inquiry As Coaching Stance is a position we actively take with teachers and students (Wilder, 2014). A belief in the knowledge of teachers, the limits of our own knowledge, and the need for transparency are cornerstones of an Inquiry as Coaching Stance (Wilder, 2014). EngageNY.org26

27 Questions or Further Discussion Twitter: phillipmwilder EngageNY.org27

28 Online Parking Lot Please go to institute-materials-may and select “Online Parking Lot” for any NYSED related questions. institute-materials-may Thank You! EngageNY.org

29 Pulse Check Please go to institute-materials-may and fill out the Plus/Delta for today’s sessions. institute-materials-may Thank You! EngageNY.org


Download ppt "EngageNY.org Argument Writing: Going Deeper with Coaches Experiencing and Scaffolding the Cognitive Writing Demands in Module 9.4."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google