Observing Skills R. Martin Reardon’s summary of Chapter 14. Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P. & Ross- Gordon, J. M. (2009),

Session 1: 7 slides2 Interpretation Trap S making statements which are interpretations without first describing the observational data  -ve: “Your colleagues lack respect for you.”  +ve: “Your students were interested.” Even describing the situation can be problematic  We commonly work from “mental models”  Associated with “ladder of inference” (Senge) Describing the observation gives a clue to solution  Teacher can’t do anything to change “colleagues lack of respect”  Can do something about e.g., curbing loud criticism of others Using description first creates instructional dialogue  “There were 3 students looking away & talking among themselves while you were giving directions.” Interpretations & evaluative statements first create resentment  “You are a poor classroom manager.”

Session 1: 7 slides3 Formative v Summative F: describe what is happening in terms of preconference agreements  Intended to provide information that S & s decide is of interest  Competence not the primary focus May well be the unavoidable subtext  Descriptive--focus on further goals & professional learning S: externally imposed & uniformly applied to judge all on similar criteria  Intended to summarize & judge competence  Competence is fundamental  Checklists, rating scales BOTH F & S have rightful place, but must not be confused

Session 1: 7 slides4 Quantitative Observation Instruments Categorical frequency (p. 184)  Isolate & count almost any aspect of classroom life  Bloom-ing questions; on/off task behavior Performance indicator (p. 184)  Whether or not target performances are observed  Hunter’s model; cooperative learning; constructivist learning; culturally sensitive teaching  Crucial to describe behavior  Absence of performance not automatically “bad” Visual diagramming (p. 186)  Verbal interactions (arrows); space utilization (time-labeled arrows); can get “messy”; use multiple sheets throughout lesson (e.g., every 5 mins)  Easier with small groups or not much student movement

Session 1: 7 slides5 Qualitative Observation Instruments S has general focus, or no focus at all  Emergent themes; grounded theory Verbatim [Scripting] (p. 192)  S records all verbal interaction  Provides specific examples of interactions  Arduous; use abbrev. & code  Selective Verbatim as alternative; predetermined focus Detached Open-Ended Narrative (p. 192)  Record everything that attracts S’s attention Participant Open-Ended Observation (p. 194)  S becomes part of classroom; assisting, helping, talking  S takes sketchy notes as reminders on clipboard Focused Questionnaire Observation (p. 194)  S seeks information to answer predetermined questions: “What does s do to…”  Qs can arise from particular model: direct instruction, coop learning, etc.  Can combine participant & detached comments

Session 1: 7 slides6 Videotaping Very effective tool  Debrief by S & s viewing together  Powerful effect of seeing oneself in action (for S too by videotaping debrief)  May not have to cover entire lesson; may be better if it doesn’t Presence of camera may affect behavior  Any measurement which involves “artificial” situations has same drawback (e.g., observer’s presence); like quantum effect  Participant Open-Ended Observation takes this to its limit Quant/Qual instruments can be validated against video

Session 1: 7 slides7 Tailored Observation Systems (p. 195) Respond to unique instructional concerns  Inventive; use appropriate coding  Largely single-use  For example, supervisee working with autistic children Bottom Line…  No one type of observation is superior  Avoid “If I had a hammer…”