As evidence of meeting standard 2, I am including a discussion post from week 2 of EDA 620.

 

Three Observation Tools

 

As a principal in a Catholic school, our observation and evaluation protocols aren’t as structured as they are in today’s public school systems.  As a Catholic school teacher, over an eleven year career, I was formally observed only a handful of times.  My principals did informal walkthroughs, and I was formally evaluated twice annually for my first five years and once a year thereafter.  The evaluation process used was a questionnaire which I filled out about myself and submitted to my principal at set times.  She or he then also rated my performance on the same form.  At that point a meeting was scheduled to discuss the areas upon which we agreed and disagreed, to discuss my progress on goals that we had set at previous evaluation meetings, and to set new goals. 

I am required to follow this same procedure with my faculty, however I have been looking for a more formal observation tool to use with them in conjunction with the evaluation questionnaire.  I want this for my teachers because I would have appreciated more observation and guidance in my own practice.  First evaluations for my five teachers with under five years must be completed in the next six weeks.  I have observed two of them, and I quite simply took notes, writing down everything “notable” that I saw and heard from teacher and students during the lessons I sat in on.  This wasn’t as efficient as I had hoped, because there was a period of time between the observations and my opportunity to sit down and process what I wrote.  In the interim, I find I cannot recall specific details of the lesson that I referred to in my notes.  I realized there had to be a better way.  That is the reason I am so excited to be taking this particular class at this point. 

When I looked over my notes from those two observations, I recalled an assistant superintendent who observed me a couple of years ago and provided me with some feedback on a rubric.  I have a copy of the tool he used.  This tool gave me a point of reference.  I don’t know what the tool is called, so I cannot do perfect APA citation for it, but I found it online on the NYSTCE website, and I am including a copy of it here:

​

Lesson Observation

 

Date:                          Click here to enter text.

Teacher Name:       Click here to enter text.

Grade Level:            Click here to enter text.

Subject Area:          Click here to enter text.

Lesson:                     Click here to enter text.

Observer:                 Click here to enter text.

 

Domain 1: Engaging Students in Learning

 

Component 1: Engages students in learning tasks that develop understandings and/or skills relevant to the learning objective.

 

☐Level 1: Students are passive or inattentive.

OR

Students are participating in tasks that are vaguely or superficially related to the lesson objective.

 

☐Level 2:  Students are participating in learning tasks focused primarily on basic facts or procedures relevant to the lesson objective with little or no attention to deeper understandings and/or more complex skills applications.

 

☐Level 3: Students are engaged in learning tasks that address understandings and/or skills relevant to the lesson objective.

 

☐Level 4:  Students are engaged in learning tasks that develop deep understandings and/or complex skills relevant to the lesson objective.

 

☐Level 5: Students are engaged in differentiated learning tasks that deepen and extend understandings and/or skills relevant to the lesson objective by addressing their individual learning needs.

 

Component 1 Observations and Comments: 
 

Domain II: Deepening Student Learning

Component 2: Elicits and builds on students' responses to promote conceptual and/or skills development.

 

☐Level 1: Teacher does most of the talking and students provide few responses.

OR

Teacher responses lead to significant student confusion and/or misunderstandings.

 

☐Level 2: Teacher primarily asks surface-level questions and evaluates student responses as correct or incorrect.

 

☐Level 3: Teacher elicits student responses that require and promote conceptual and/or skills development.

 

☐Level 4: Teacher elicits and builds on students' responses to promote conceptual and/or skills development.

 

☐Level 5: Teacher designs learning experiences that allow students to evaluate their own abilities to understand and apply relevant concepts and/or skills.

 

Component 2 Observations and Comments:      

 

Domain II Continued: Deepening Student Learning

 

Component 3:  Uses instructional strategies in ways that deepen students' understanding of and/or ability to apply relevant concepts or skills.

 

☐Level I: Teacher focuses on acts with no opportunities for student application or practice.

OR

There is a clear mismatch between instructional strategies, skills, and students' readiness to learn.

 

☐Level 2: Teacher uses instructional strategies that address concepts and/or skills in vague or superficial ways or that give students very limited opportunity to apply new concepts and/or skills.

 

☐Level 3: Teacher uses instructional strategies in ways that help students understand and/or apply relevant concept skills.

 

☐Level 4: Teacher uses instructional strategies in ways that deepen students' understanding of and/or ability to apply relevant concepts or skills.

 

☐Level 5: Teacher uses instructional strategies in ways that deepen students' understanding of and/or ability to apply relevant concepts or skills and facilitates interactions among students to promote conceptual and/or skills development.

 

Component 3 Observations and Comments:      

 

Domain III: Maintaining a Positive and Challenging Learning Environment

 

Component 4: Demonstrates rapport with and respect for students in a positive and challenging learning environment.

 

☐Level 1: There is evidence of disrespectful and/or disruptive behavior that interferes with student learning.

 

☐Level 2: Teacher provides a learning environment that serves primarily to control student behavior and does not challenge students academically.

 

☐Level 3: Teacher demonstrates rapport with and respect for students in a positive learning environment.

 

☐Level 4: Teacher demonstrates rapport with and respect for students in a positive and challenging learning environment.

 

☐Level 5: Teacher demonstrates rapport with and respect for students in a positive and challenging learning environment where students demonstrate willingness to take risks and support each other to achieve.

 

Component 4 Observations and Comments: 
 

Sample video observation and analysis assignment. Retrieved from

           http://www.nystce.nesinc.com/STUDYGUIDE/NY_SG_Vid_107_subtest2.htm

​

PRO:  I like this instrument because it is easy to use with its check boxes, succinct descriptions of what the rubric levels indicate, and space to add a written comment specifically tailored to the teacher, lesson, and student cohort being observed.  I also like that it is immediately accessible to share with the teacher in print or electronically.

 

PRO:  I want to create professional learning communities in my building and get teachers into one another’s classrooms to observe.  This is the kind of simple tool I would like to be able to provide them with to help each other learn and grow. 

 

CON:  I don’t feel that the tool is nearly comprehensive enough for the kind of feedback I would like to provide to my teachers after my formal observations to encourage them in areas where they are performing well and help them improve their practice in areas where they need growth. 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The second tool I looked at was the Danielson Framework. 

 

The Danielson Group (2013 Edition). Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument. Retrieved from                                   http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/teachers-leaders/practicerubrics/Docs/danielson-teacher-rubric.pdf

​

PRO: I found this instrument to be extremely comprehensive, encompassing all aspects of teaching that one could possibly want to formally evaluate. 

 

PRO: Each of the domains and components was very well articulated.  The examples given were useful to become familiar with what each level would look like in the classroom.

 

CON: The instrument is very unwieldy.  It would be very difficult to practically apply in my principalship due to time constraints.  In a building my size, the principal wears ALL the hats.  I don’t have assistant principals, guidance counselors, or even an ISS teacher.  I need an instrument I can use in the course of one class period or two at most to observe/evaluate my 15 teachers formally.

 

CON: For my purposes, several of the criteria are not directly related to classroom observation, and in my practice I will be using the Diocesan questionnaire to evaluate many of those areas.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Because I really was unsure of my first tool being acceptable for the assignment, I decided to look at the Marzano Art and Science of Teaching Framework that I accessed from the NYSED website as well. 

​

Marzano, R. (2011). Marzano Art and Science of Teaching Framework. Retrieved from

            http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/teachers-leaders/practicerubrics/Docs/LSI_Domains1234.pdf

 

PRO: I like the graphic summary at the very top – it succinctly describes each Design Question in Domain 1.

 

PRO: Has a strong focus on what, in my view, makes for an effective teacher – the way the teacher interacts with students. 

 

PRO: While still being very comprehensive, this tool seems somewhat more manageable to implement in a classroom observation.  User friendly.

 

CON: Being older, I wonder how well aligned to CCSS the tool is, and this will take a much deeper analysis to determine.