EDUC 613 and 614-Reflection
This semester has led me to a deeper understanding of who I am as a teacher, and researcher. I also explored my creativity as a designer of curriculum and interventions for my students. Our projects in both classes challenged me to think about the fundamentals of my practice and the importance of delving into the minutiae of each moment, each gesture, each clue to the meaning and effect of my practice on the lives of the learners that I interact with.
Specifically, I was able to immerse myself in the American Psychological Association’s learning factors paradigm.
It was reinvigorating to learn a new means of defining and analyzing the learners in my midst. With these
new tools I was able to hone my observational skills in such a way where I could not only better define the learners I interact with but also define their needs for better differentiation.
For example, the learner that I observed this semester was a perfect candidate for further exploration of the motivational/affective factor. This child was recommended to me due to low motivation. I have known this
child since she was three. Her uneven social skills, lack of self-efficacy, rebellion, low motivation, avoidance, and poor functioning in competition are all characteristics of gifted underachievers (Davis, Rimm,& Siegle, 2012; Rimm, 2005). This is a research area that I have spent several years researching and so I was intrigued.
Further observation and research into emotional intelligence illuminated the influence of the developmental and social factor with this case. It became my belief that this factor underlay some of the motivation issues that this child’s teacher was struggling with. Current studies surrounding the cognitive and metacognitive factor showed
me connections between lagging development and social skills that were concomitant with classroom deficiencies and a lack of motivation. Finally, I was able to distill all of these factors through the lens of the individual learning factor and this learner’s background.
My final analysis concluded that this learner was a seemingly bright student with lagging self-regulation and self-efficacy. This appeared to be impeding her academic and social progress. Her social skills have been strained for some time and may be due to underachievement or immaturity in relation to her peers. Specifically, this has caused her to rebel against academic pressure. Further, her personal motivation seemed continuously focused on a “miseducative” learning environment where her constant disequilibrium due to social immaturity was keeping her
substantial abilities at bay. I concluded that she might lack emotional intelligence and so was and is unable to
work within her ZPD due to these underlying issues.
Exploring the learning factors enabled me to refine my learning outcomes in three main areas. One, I was
able to hyper-focus on the learning of one student. My commitment to this student and her learning enabled me to globalize the methods I was employing in a way where I have developed tools to continue and deepen my qualitative practice. Two, I was able to monitor this student’s learning closely. I was unfortunately not able to manage this student’s learning due to the fact that she is no longer my student. However, I became attuned to her learning deficiencies and strengths, and those of her environment, and so I was able to assess and ponder her learning on
a deeper level. Third, this was due in many ways, to technology. I utilized self-made movies and photo studies to review this learner’s metacognitive strategies and means of organizing her own learning environment. This allowed further study away from the moment where I could then look deeper at the circumstances. This made a substantial impact on my research gathering and professional development.
My summative videotape analysis allowed me the opportunity to further research the implications of the models discussed in class. It became apparent through independent research that not only could I utilize various models for specific content, but I could also use them simultaneously as my class would work through a unit.
For example, I realized that concept attainment could be used at the beginning of a lesson or unit as the students worked in a “flipped classroom” or to find their own exemplars as part of the Science curriculum. This would demonstrate factual knowledge among the students and allow the teacher to begin formative assessment. The inductive model could then be utilized in order for the students to work together through the assignment. Synectics was used through the lesson to continuously draw out conclusions from the students as they explored not only the content but also their procedural and metacognitive skills. The jigsaw method could then be used as learners wrapped up their unit and group presentations. All of these methods would be employed in an inquiry based classroom with meaningful, year-long or semester long exploration.
This deeper look into Bloom’s Taxonomy utilizing many of the new strategies and methods discussed by my fellow students and myself allowed for meaningful lesson and unit development. This influenced my learning outcomes in three ways. One, collaboration with my colleagues taught me several meaningful ways to change lesson presentation. Together we were able to work as change agents within each other’s
classrooms. Two, we were able to systematically ponder our own practice within our classrooms as we taught and
showed each other the means to use new models. Three, we established a learning community within our classes to better scaffold each other through collaborative teaching and research.
Ultimately, this semester allowed me to refocus my attention on the student and research. I understood that this
experience was where my strengths resided and so it was a welcome respite. I enjoyed the vigor and the challenge
and I look forward to further questions to be answered.
Specifically, I was able to immerse myself in the American Psychological Association’s learning factors paradigm.
It was reinvigorating to learn a new means of defining and analyzing the learners in my midst. With these
new tools I was able to hone my observational skills in such a way where I could not only better define the learners I interact with but also define their needs for better differentiation.
For example, the learner that I observed this semester was a perfect candidate for further exploration of the motivational/affective factor. This child was recommended to me due to low motivation. I have known this
child since she was three. Her uneven social skills, lack of self-efficacy, rebellion, low motivation, avoidance, and poor functioning in competition are all characteristics of gifted underachievers (Davis, Rimm,& Siegle, 2012; Rimm, 2005). This is a research area that I have spent several years researching and so I was intrigued.
Further observation and research into emotional intelligence illuminated the influence of the developmental and social factor with this case. It became my belief that this factor underlay some of the motivation issues that this child’s teacher was struggling with. Current studies surrounding the cognitive and metacognitive factor showed
me connections between lagging development and social skills that were concomitant with classroom deficiencies and a lack of motivation. Finally, I was able to distill all of these factors through the lens of the individual learning factor and this learner’s background.
My final analysis concluded that this learner was a seemingly bright student with lagging self-regulation and self-efficacy. This appeared to be impeding her academic and social progress. Her social skills have been strained for some time and may be due to underachievement or immaturity in relation to her peers. Specifically, this has caused her to rebel against academic pressure. Further, her personal motivation seemed continuously focused on a “miseducative” learning environment where her constant disequilibrium due to social immaturity was keeping her
substantial abilities at bay. I concluded that she might lack emotional intelligence and so was and is unable to
work within her ZPD due to these underlying issues.
Exploring the learning factors enabled me to refine my learning outcomes in three main areas. One, I was
able to hyper-focus on the learning of one student. My commitment to this student and her learning enabled me to globalize the methods I was employing in a way where I have developed tools to continue and deepen my qualitative practice. Two, I was able to monitor this student’s learning closely. I was unfortunately not able to manage this student’s learning due to the fact that she is no longer my student. However, I became attuned to her learning deficiencies and strengths, and those of her environment, and so I was able to assess and ponder her learning on
a deeper level. Third, this was due in many ways, to technology. I utilized self-made movies and photo studies to review this learner’s metacognitive strategies and means of organizing her own learning environment. This allowed further study away from the moment where I could then look deeper at the circumstances. This made a substantial impact on my research gathering and professional development.
My summative videotape analysis allowed me the opportunity to further research the implications of the models discussed in class. It became apparent through independent research that not only could I utilize various models for specific content, but I could also use them simultaneously as my class would work through a unit.
For example, I realized that concept attainment could be used at the beginning of a lesson or unit as the students worked in a “flipped classroom” or to find their own exemplars as part of the Science curriculum. This would demonstrate factual knowledge among the students and allow the teacher to begin formative assessment. The inductive model could then be utilized in order for the students to work together through the assignment. Synectics was used through the lesson to continuously draw out conclusions from the students as they explored not only the content but also their procedural and metacognitive skills. The jigsaw method could then be used as learners wrapped up their unit and group presentations. All of these methods would be employed in an inquiry based classroom with meaningful, year-long or semester long exploration.
This deeper look into Bloom’s Taxonomy utilizing many of the new strategies and methods discussed by my fellow students and myself allowed for meaningful lesson and unit development. This influenced my learning outcomes in three ways. One, collaboration with my colleagues taught me several meaningful ways to change lesson presentation. Together we were able to work as change agents within each other’s
classrooms. Two, we were able to systematically ponder our own practice within our classrooms as we taught and
showed each other the means to use new models. Three, we established a learning community within our classes to better scaffold each other through collaborative teaching and research.
Ultimately, this semester allowed me to refocus my attention on the student and research. I understood that this
experience was where my strengths resided and so it was a welcome respite. I enjoyed the vigor and the challenge
and I look forward to further questions to be answered.