edTPA Task 2: Video Analysis and Evidence
Task 2: Instruction Commentary
1. Which lesson or lessons are shown in the video clip(s)? Identify the lesson(s) by lesson plan number.
Lesson 1 day 3 is being shown in video clip #1. Here the students are learning the dynamics of speech types in comics through a teacher demonstration and guided practice. Lesson 3 day 8 is being shown in video clip #2. Here the students’ final work and artist statement are being presented to the class for group critique and then submitted to the teacher for formal summative assessment. *Please note that throughout the featured video footage, there is a district mandated support staff present for a student with an IEP in my class. Her presence in no way impeded my instruction.
2. Promoting a Positive Learning Environment
Refer to scenes in the video clip(s) where you provided a positive learning environment.
a. How did you demonstrate mutual respect for, rapport with, and responsiveness to students with varied needs and backgrounds, and challenge students to engage in learning?
Video clip #1 begins with me pausing from demonstration to check in with each station and specifically student who require learning supports, such as focus student 2 (video clip #1 1:37-1:46). It is at this time she tells me “I’m not very good at this.” I show responsiveness to her needs by letting her know that that the kind of speech bubble she is pointing to takes a lot of practice, but that they are looking good. The discussion that takes place in video clip #1 (5:03 to end) was not specifically part of the lesson design. Rather, it was a spontaneous moment led by student inquiry as it related to the learning objective of how comic artists design speech types, specifically as discussed here, telepathic bubbles. Responsiveness to students with various needs is demonstrated (video clip #1 5:11-5:17) as I repeated the students question back to her and acknowledged that it was a good question to ask. Then a student immediately raises his hand to offer a solution to the question posed by the student and I ask him what he would do (video clip #1 5:24-5:46). Because this student has an IEP and struggles with anxiety, I wanted to make cognizant eye contact with him throughout the duration of his response to assure him that his comments are valid and that I was being responsive to his comments. To further acknowledge his suggestion, I then demonstrate (video clip #1 5:52-6:06) visually for the whole class what I perceived him to be referring to. The first student then offers another inquiry relating to telepathic bubbles. I respond with “Sure, that’s a really good question. I’m trying to think of a time where I have seen that. Have you seen that before?” (video clip #1 6:23-6:42). At this point another student attempts to respond, but the class is being too loud for her response to be heard above everyone else. To model a culture of mutual respect for everyone’s contributions to discussion, I request that the class holds their thoughts for a moment and listen so everyone can hear what she has to say. She then proceeds with her comment (video clip #1 6:46-7:07). I then acknowledge her response by stating that what she referenced as a good solution (video clip #1 7:07-7:15). In video clip #2, focus student 3 is presenting her final comic interpretation to the class. Every student was scheduled to present for 5 minutes including critique at the end. She was nearly exceeding her 5-minute limit, and there were still other students who still had to present after her. A students raised his hand for another comment, to which I acknowledged him and stated “Ok, 5 second comment” (5:00-5:05). I wanted him to feel that his comments were valued and appreciated, but also that there needed to be a time limit in order for other students to feel that their time was equally as valuable, specifically in this case those who still needed to present.
3. Engaging Students in Learning
Refer to examples from the video clip(s) in your responses to the prompts.
a. Explain how your instruction engaged students to create meaning through interpreting art, developing works of art/design, AND/OR relating art to context as they applied their knowledge and skills to create, present, or respond to visual art.
Video clip #2 features two of my focus students presenting their final comic interpretation project along with their artist statement. My instruction, in particular the artist statement prompts (See Task 1 Part D Lesson 3), was designed to engage students in creating/ articulating meaning through written reflection of their process- that is discussing the application of their knowledge and skills as they created a comic interpretation in response to the famous work of art they chose. For example, focus student 3 states, “The reason why I did this is because in the piece the lady looks kind of annoyed she looks kind of angry so I decided to take this further to the point to where she’s about to kill someone” (1:46-2:00). She continues to discuss, “Oh, for the emanata (academic language required in artist statement prompt), I made it really hard to see there’s little hearts by his face” (2:50-3:00). In both of these points of discussion she is providing evidence of how she created meaning out of the famous work of art through her personal interpretation. Focus student 1 states in the introduction of his presentation, “So when I saw this I was thinking of a scenario in my life that was funny” (6:00-6:10). This exemplifies how he was able to create meaning and relate what already existed in the famous piece to a personal context. He continues to justify his personal response/interpretation of the work by explaining, “Then I was thinking maybe the wind was too crazy so then I made hites (reference to emanata term and requisite for artist statement) all over the place (6:28-6:35). Here the student is discussing his process of developing works of art.
b. Describe how your instruction linked students’ prior academic learning and personal, cultural, and community assets with new learning.
Prior academic learning that students would be responsible for already knowing prior to the footage shown in video clip #1 would be basic elements of art and principles of design which they would have acquired in their pre-requisite Art 1 course. Specifically, to the lesson featured in video clip #1, students will need a foundational understanding of how to create a variety of lines (curvy, dashed, zig-zag, etc.) to create complex shapes. For example, in video clip #1 (0:44-0:55), I am demonstrating how to create a speech balloon used for when someone is whispering. They are required to draw dashed lines in the formation of a balloon tail as well as the rest of the top of the bubble. In addition, they are required to understand the foundational conventions of narrative and dialogue as it relates to English composition and literature. In terms of how they are relating their personal assets to the learning, video clip #1 (6:46-7:07) features a student connecting what she already knows about how telepathic speech bubbles have been used in comics she has read to the new content regarding telepathic bubbles from the demonstration.
4. Deepening Student Learning during Instruction
Refer to examples from the video clip(s) in your explanations.
a. Explain how you elicited student responses to promote thinking and develop their abilities to express or understand meaning through interpreting art, developing works of art/design, AND/OR relating art to context.
In video clip #1 (6:23-6:42), a student asks a question relating to telepathic bubbles. I elicited student response to promote thinking and relate art to context as I respond with “Sure, that’s a really good question. I’m trying to think of a time where I have seen that. Have you seen that before?” At this point another student attempts to respond, but the class is being too loud for her response to be heard above everyone else. I then request that the class holds their thoughts for a moment and listen so everyone can hear what she has to say as she then proceeds with her comment (video clip #1 6:46-7:07). This was a great opportunity for students to connect what they already know to finding solutions to new content. For lesson 3 day 8, which is shown in video clip #2, students are presenting their final comic interpretation project along with their artist statement. This clip reflects the culmination of instruction and lesson planning that was designed to elicit student responses through presentation of their work and discourse as they discussed their work, citing their artist statement for reference to content specific academic language.
At one point, I became nervous that focus student 3 would miss the opportunity to discuss her use of emanata, a requirement in the artist statement prompts. I asked her, “What about emanata?” to which she replies, “Oh, for the emanata (academic language required in artist statement prompt), I made it really hard to see but there’s little hearts by his face” (2:45-3:00). She later continues to say, “Oh, yeah, I guess there is a little emanate in here, cause it’s like she’s pulling out from under the table” (3:53-4:00) As a result of my prompting, she was able to quickly express an accurate understanding and application of the term as depicted in her comic interpretation.
b. Explain how you provided students with opportunities for student choice (e.g., of content, methods, or style) in ways that deepened their understanding of visual art concepts/contexts as students created, presented, or responded to visual art.
The discussion that takes place in video clip #1 (5:03 to end) was not specifically part of the lesson design. Rather, it was a spontaneous moment led by student inquiry as it related to the learning objective of how comic artists design speech types, specifically as discussed here, telepathic bubbles. Even though this took place in the middle of my demonstration, as long as the student led discussion pointed back to the learning objectives for the lesson, which it did, I was pleased to have students take charge of the content by leading discussions that would deepen their understanding of the concepts. In video clip #2, students are presenting their final comic interpretations to the class. There is a time at the end of each students’ presentation for questions and comments related to critique of their work (4:06-5:20, 8:56-11:37). The only formal structure to the critique portion was students were not allowed to use the phrases “I like it” or “Its good” without providing concrete rationale. Otherwise, the structure for their comments was their choice as they responded to the work through questions and critique.
5. Analyzing Teaching
Refer to examples from the video clip(s) in your responses to the prompts.
a. What changes would you make to your instruction—for the whole class and/or for students who need greater support or challenge—better support student learning of the central focus (e.g., missed opportunities)?
Consider the variety of learners in your class who may require different strategies/support (e.g., students with IEPs or 504 plans, English language learners, struggling readers, underperforming students or those with gaps in academic knowledge, and/or gifted students).
During the student led discourse in video clip #1 (5:03-end) one change I could have made would have been to have the students who are explaining what they have seen regarding telepathic bubbles actually come up to the projector and draw out the visual. This would have helped students promote stronger visual thinking and develop their abilities to envision and express (studio habits) their ideas more tangibly as it relates to the central focus concerning the development of dynamic and powerful aesthetic vocabularies. This also would have helped the students leading the discussion feel more empowered in the process of teaching their peers. In addition, this change would have specifically benefited focus student 2 who has a 504 plan (hearing impairment) feel more connected to the discourse as I unfortunately made no concerted effort to make sure that she was tracking with the conversation. While she does have preferential seating in proximity to the teacher, this change would have benefited her in following along when students who contributed to the discussion where speaking from across the room. Ultimately, this was not inclusive instruction for every student.
Another change in my instruction that I would make is in video clip #2 (2:51-2:52). During focus student 3’s final presentation, I became nervous that she would miss the opportunity to discuss her use of emanata and other specific indicators of her understanding and applying academic language- a requirement in the artist statement criteria. I asked her, “What about emanata?” To elicit a more authentic student response, and assessment, I should have asked her “Is there anything else from your artist statement you want to share about your piece?” This would have given her the opportunity to use the academic language more independently.
In video clip #2, as students were responding through critique and the end of each presentation, I could have asked more probing questions as students were offering their comments. For example, in video clip #2 (9:30-9:42) a student offers a comment to focus student 1’s work saying, “I really like that you also added shading and hites to the sound effect as well. Like, you didn’t just leave it plain.” At this point I just move on to the next question, rather than asking for the student to explain what effect that application has on the work as a whole. This change in instruction would have engaged the students in deeper observation and reflection (studio habits) and enhanced the quality of the overall critique.
Finally, one overall revision I would make to how the critique on video clip #2 was structured would be to have some guiding questions or critique prompts posted during the critique. As it stood, the only formal structure to the critique portion was students were not allowed to use the phrases “I like it” or “Its good” without providing concrete rationale. Otherwise, the structure for their comments was their choice as they responded to the work through questions and critique. While most students who contributed feedback, did well in pointing back to academic language and concepts from the learning segment, having guiding questions or critique prompts could have brought a wider range of students into the discussion, especially students who struggle with organizing their thoughts or have social anxiety, such as one of my students with a 504 plan, who coincidently did not contribute comments or feedback during the presentations.
b. Why do you think these changes would improve student learning? Support your explanation with evidence of student learning AND principles from theory and/or research.
The first change I mentioned I would have made was to have the students who are explaining what they have seen regarding telepathic bubbles actually come up to the projector and draw out a visual. This would have helped students promote stronger visual thinking and develop their abilities to envision and express (studio habits) their ideas more tangibly as it relates to the central focus concerning the development of dynamic and powerful aesthetic vocabularies. Instead, I only provided them the opportunity to verbally explain, rather than visually as well. Lois Hetland (2013) states that “artists work from mental images that are themselves derived from having observed in the world” (studio habit: envision). In other words, they are making new connections to complex tasks based on existing knowledge, either personal or academic. This is also a key concept in June King McFee’s book Preparation for Art, where she states, in support of her Perception Delineation Theory, “teachers can prepare students for more complex visual tasks by helping them to understand the nature of new things in terms of what they already know” (McFee, 1961, p.45). To do this successfully, the learning cannot end with only envisioning, which is what happened in video clip #2 (5:03-end). Granted I offered some visual aide in response, but it would have been more impactful if it were the students were the ones who were taking the envisioning process to the next level. While the Studio Habits of Mind, as defined by Hetland (2013) are not hierarchical, the next level would have been to allow the students to express visually what they are envisioning cognitively. In doing this, according to Hetland, students are then able to “recognize when one’s vision has been achieved” (Hetland, 1961, p.64).
In support of another change I would make, as referenced previously in video clip #2 (9:30-9:42), where students were responding through critique and the end of each presentation, I could have asked more probing questions as students were offering their comments. Rather than just moving on to the next question like I did, I should have asked the student to further explain his comment. This change in instruction would have engaged the students in deeper observation and reflection (studio habits) and enhanced the quality of the overall critique. Part of the studio habit “reflection” involves evaluation, which is what the students where aimed toward doing in the critique. Hetland (2013) defines the evaluation process as “always involving quality” Many students however, only described what they saw, without ever “evaluating elements of varying levels of effectiveness” (Hetland, 2013, p.81-82).
Another error mentioned as it related to the critique how the critique on video clip #2 was structured. As mentioned, I should have provided some guiding questions or critique prompts during the critique. Again, as it stood, the only formal structure to the critique portion was students were not allowed to use the phrases “I like it” or “Its good” without providing concrete rationale. Having guiding questions or critique prompts could have brought a wider range of students into the discussion, especially students who struggle with organizing their thoughts or have social anxiety, such as one of my students with a 504 plan, who coincidently did not contribute comments or feedback during the presentations. According to Donna Kay Beattie (1997), “the teacher provides direction for the critique and ensures that students address intended purposes and objectives.” With this now in mind, I can see how the intended purposes and objectives for the critique was not something explicitly discussed prior to the presentations and resulted in why there was low participation from approximately 75% of class. In addition, according to Kate Kensella E.D.D. and Kevin Feldman E.D.D. (2005), appropriate scaffolding in this sort of scenario would be to “require that all students write a brief response to the question using a sentence frame provided by the teacher, complemented by brief partner rehearsal prior to a unified class discussion.” This would be a good inclusive practice to better “activate and engage the full range of students served in mixed ability content area classrooms,” such as mine. (Feldman & Kensella, 2005, p.1).
References
Beattie, K. D., (1997) Assessment in Art Education. Worchester, Massachusetts. Davis Publications, Inc.
Feldman, K. & Kensella, K., (2005) Practical Strategies to Improve Academic Discussions in Mixed Ability Secondary Content Area
Classrooms. Retrieved from: http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/teachlearn/commoncore/structuring-acad-discuss-.pdf
Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., Sheridan, K.M. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real
benefits of visual arts education. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
McFee, J. K. (1961) Preparation for art. San Francisco. Wadsworth.
Appendix A.
(Above: Lesson 1- Day2: Teacher example used for demonstration and guided practice featured in Video Clip #1)
1. Which lesson or lessons are shown in the video clip(s)? Identify the lesson(s) by lesson plan number.
Lesson 1 day 3 is being shown in video clip #1. Here the students are learning the dynamics of speech types in comics through a teacher demonstration and guided practice. Lesson 3 day 8 is being shown in video clip #2. Here the students’ final work and artist statement are being presented to the class for group critique and then submitted to the teacher for formal summative assessment. *Please note that throughout the featured video footage, there is a district mandated support staff present for a student with an IEP in my class. Her presence in no way impeded my instruction.
2. Promoting a Positive Learning Environment
Refer to scenes in the video clip(s) where you provided a positive learning environment.
a. How did you demonstrate mutual respect for, rapport with, and responsiveness to students with varied needs and backgrounds, and challenge students to engage in learning?
Video clip #1 begins with me pausing from demonstration to check in with each station and specifically student who require learning supports, such as focus student 2 (video clip #1 1:37-1:46). It is at this time she tells me “I’m not very good at this.” I show responsiveness to her needs by letting her know that that the kind of speech bubble she is pointing to takes a lot of practice, but that they are looking good. The discussion that takes place in video clip #1 (5:03 to end) was not specifically part of the lesson design. Rather, it was a spontaneous moment led by student inquiry as it related to the learning objective of how comic artists design speech types, specifically as discussed here, telepathic bubbles. Responsiveness to students with various needs is demonstrated (video clip #1 5:11-5:17) as I repeated the students question back to her and acknowledged that it was a good question to ask. Then a student immediately raises his hand to offer a solution to the question posed by the student and I ask him what he would do (video clip #1 5:24-5:46). Because this student has an IEP and struggles with anxiety, I wanted to make cognizant eye contact with him throughout the duration of his response to assure him that his comments are valid and that I was being responsive to his comments. To further acknowledge his suggestion, I then demonstrate (video clip #1 5:52-6:06) visually for the whole class what I perceived him to be referring to. The first student then offers another inquiry relating to telepathic bubbles. I respond with “Sure, that’s a really good question. I’m trying to think of a time where I have seen that. Have you seen that before?” (video clip #1 6:23-6:42). At this point another student attempts to respond, but the class is being too loud for her response to be heard above everyone else. To model a culture of mutual respect for everyone’s contributions to discussion, I request that the class holds their thoughts for a moment and listen so everyone can hear what she has to say. She then proceeds with her comment (video clip #1 6:46-7:07). I then acknowledge her response by stating that what she referenced as a good solution (video clip #1 7:07-7:15). In video clip #2, focus student 3 is presenting her final comic interpretation to the class. Every student was scheduled to present for 5 minutes including critique at the end. She was nearly exceeding her 5-minute limit, and there were still other students who still had to present after her. A students raised his hand for another comment, to which I acknowledged him and stated “Ok, 5 second comment” (5:00-5:05). I wanted him to feel that his comments were valued and appreciated, but also that there needed to be a time limit in order for other students to feel that their time was equally as valuable, specifically in this case those who still needed to present.
3. Engaging Students in Learning
Refer to examples from the video clip(s) in your responses to the prompts.
a. Explain how your instruction engaged students to create meaning through interpreting art, developing works of art/design, AND/OR relating art to context as they applied their knowledge and skills to create, present, or respond to visual art.
Video clip #2 features two of my focus students presenting their final comic interpretation project along with their artist statement. My instruction, in particular the artist statement prompts (See Task 1 Part D Lesson 3), was designed to engage students in creating/ articulating meaning through written reflection of their process- that is discussing the application of their knowledge and skills as they created a comic interpretation in response to the famous work of art they chose. For example, focus student 3 states, “The reason why I did this is because in the piece the lady looks kind of annoyed she looks kind of angry so I decided to take this further to the point to where she’s about to kill someone” (1:46-2:00). She continues to discuss, “Oh, for the emanata (academic language required in artist statement prompt), I made it really hard to see there’s little hearts by his face” (2:50-3:00). In both of these points of discussion she is providing evidence of how she created meaning out of the famous work of art through her personal interpretation. Focus student 1 states in the introduction of his presentation, “So when I saw this I was thinking of a scenario in my life that was funny” (6:00-6:10). This exemplifies how he was able to create meaning and relate what already existed in the famous piece to a personal context. He continues to justify his personal response/interpretation of the work by explaining, “Then I was thinking maybe the wind was too crazy so then I made hites (reference to emanata term and requisite for artist statement) all over the place (6:28-6:35). Here the student is discussing his process of developing works of art.
b. Describe how your instruction linked students’ prior academic learning and personal, cultural, and community assets with new learning.
Prior academic learning that students would be responsible for already knowing prior to the footage shown in video clip #1 would be basic elements of art and principles of design which they would have acquired in their pre-requisite Art 1 course. Specifically, to the lesson featured in video clip #1, students will need a foundational understanding of how to create a variety of lines (curvy, dashed, zig-zag, etc.) to create complex shapes. For example, in video clip #1 (0:44-0:55), I am demonstrating how to create a speech balloon used for when someone is whispering. They are required to draw dashed lines in the formation of a balloon tail as well as the rest of the top of the bubble. In addition, they are required to understand the foundational conventions of narrative and dialogue as it relates to English composition and literature. In terms of how they are relating their personal assets to the learning, video clip #1 (6:46-7:07) features a student connecting what she already knows about how telepathic speech bubbles have been used in comics she has read to the new content regarding telepathic bubbles from the demonstration.
4. Deepening Student Learning during Instruction
Refer to examples from the video clip(s) in your explanations.
a. Explain how you elicited student responses to promote thinking and develop their abilities to express or understand meaning through interpreting art, developing works of art/design, AND/OR relating art to context.
In video clip #1 (6:23-6:42), a student asks a question relating to telepathic bubbles. I elicited student response to promote thinking and relate art to context as I respond with “Sure, that’s a really good question. I’m trying to think of a time where I have seen that. Have you seen that before?” At this point another student attempts to respond, but the class is being too loud for her response to be heard above everyone else. I then request that the class holds their thoughts for a moment and listen so everyone can hear what she has to say as she then proceeds with her comment (video clip #1 6:46-7:07). This was a great opportunity for students to connect what they already know to finding solutions to new content. For lesson 3 day 8, which is shown in video clip #2, students are presenting their final comic interpretation project along with their artist statement. This clip reflects the culmination of instruction and lesson planning that was designed to elicit student responses through presentation of their work and discourse as they discussed their work, citing their artist statement for reference to content specific academic language.
At one point, I became nervous that focus student 3 would miss the opportunity to discuss her use of emanata, a requirement in the artist statement prompts. I asked her, “What about emanata?” to which she replies, “Oh, for the emanata (academic language required in artist statement prompt), I made it really hard to see but there’s little hearts by his face” (2:45-3:00). She later continues to say, “Oh, yeah, I guess there is a little emanate in here, cause it’s like she’s pulling out from under the table” (3:53-4:00) As a result of my prompting, she was able to quickly express an accurate understanding and application of the term as depicted in her comic interpretation.
b. Explain how you provided students with opportunities for student choice (e.g., of content, methods, or style) in ways that deepened their understanding of visual art concepts/contexts as students created, presented, or responded to visual art.
The discussion that takes place in video clip #1 (5:03 to end) was not specifically part of the lesson design. Rather, it was a spontaneous moment led by student inquiry as it related to the learning objective of how comic artists design speech types, specifically as discussed here, telepathic bubbles. Even though this took place in the middle of my demonstration, as long as the student led discussion pointed back to the learning objectives for the lesson, which it did, I was pleased to have students take charge of the content by leading discussions that would deepen their understanding of the concepts. In video clip #2, students are presenting their final comic interpretations to the class. There is a time at the end of each students’ presentation for questions and comments related to critique of their work (4:06-5:20, 8:56-11:37). The only formal structure to the critique portion was students were not allowed to use the phrases “I like it” or “Its good” without providing concrete rationale. Otherwise, the structure for their comments was their choice as they responded to the work through questions and critique.
5. Analyzing Teaching
Refer to examples from the video clip(s) in your responses to the prompts.
a. What changes would you make to your instruction—for the whole class and/or for students who need greater support or challenge—better support student learning of the central focus (e.g., missed opportunities)?
Consider the variety of learners in your class who may require different strategies/support (e.g., students with IEPs or 504 plans, English language learners, struggling readers, underperforming students or those with gaps in academic knowledge, and/or gifted students).
During the student led discourse in video clip #1 (5:03-end) one change I could have made would have been to have the students who are explaining what they have seen regarding telepathic bubbles actually come up to the projector and draw out the visual. This would have helped students promote stronger visual thinking and develop their abilities to envision and express (studio habits) their ideas more tangibly as it relates to the central focus concerning the development of dynamic and powerful aesthetic vocabularies. This also would have helped the students leading the discussion feel more empowered in the process of teaching their peers. In addition, this change would have specifically benefited focus student 2 who has a 504 plan (hearing impairment) feel more connected to the discourse as I unfortunately made no concerted effort to make sure that she was tracking with the conversation. While she does have preferential seating in proximity to the teacher, this change would have benefited her in following along when students who contributed to the discussion where speaking from across the room. Ultimately, this was not inclusive instruction for every student.
Another change in my instruction that I would make is in video clip #2 (2:51-2:52). During focus student 3’s final presentation, I became nervous that she would miss the opportunity to discuss her use of emanata and other specific indicators of her understanding and applying academic language- a requirement in the artist statement criteria. I asked her, “What about emanata?” To elicit a more authentic student response, and assessment, I should have asked her “Is there anything else from your artist statement you want to share about your piece?” This would have given her the opportunity to use the academic language more independently.
In video clip #2, as students were responding through critique and the end of each presentation, I could have asked more probing questions as students were offering their comments. For example, in video clip #2 (9:30-9:42) a student offers a comment to focus student 1’s work saying, “I really like that you also added shading and hites to the sound effect as well. Like, you didn’t just leave it plain.” At this point I just move on to the next question, rather than asking for the student to explain what effect that application has on the work as a whole. This change in instruction would have engaged the students in deeper observation and reflection (studio habits) and enhanced the quality of the overall critique.
Finally, one overall revision I would make to how the critique on video clip #2 was structured would be to have some guiding questions or critique prompts posted during the critique. As it stood, the only formal structure to the critique portion was students were not allowed to use the phrases “I like it” or “Its good” without providing concrete rationale. Otherwise, the structure for their comments was their choice as they responded to the work through questions and critique. While most students who contributed feedback, did well in pointing back to academic language and concepts from the learning segment, having guiding questions or critique prompts could have brought a wider range of students into the discussion, especially students who struggle with organizing their thoughts or have social anxiety, such as one of my students with a 504 plan, who coincidently did not contribute comments or feedback during the presentations.
b. Why do you think these changes would improve student learning? Support your explanation with evidence of student learning AND principles from theory and/or research.
The first change I mentioned I would have made was to have the students who are explaining what they have seen regarding telepathic bubbles actually come up to the projector and draw out a visual. This would have helped students promote stronger visual thinking and develop their abilities to envision and express (studio habits) their ideas more tangibly as it relates to the central focus concerning the development of dynamic and powerful aesthetic vocabularies. Instead, I only provided them the opportunity to verbally explain, rather than visually as well. Lois Hetland (2013) states that “artists work from mental images that are themselves derived from having observed in the world” (studio habit: envision). In other words, they are making new connections to complex tasks based on existing knowledge, either personal or academic. This is also a key concept in June King McFee’s book Preparation for Art, where she states, in support of her Perception Delineation Theory, “teachers can prepare students for more complex visual tasks by helping them to understand the nature of new things in terms of what they already know” (McFee, 1961, p.45). To do this successfully, the learning cannot end with only envisioning, which is what happened in video clip #2 (5:03-end). Granted I offered some visual aide in response, but it would have been more impactful if it were the students were the ones who were taking the envisioning process to the next level. While the Studio Habits of Mind, as defined by Hetland (2013) are not hierarchical, the next level would have been to allow the students to express visually what they are envisioning cognitively. In doing this, according to Hetland, students are then able to “recognize when one’s vision has been achieved” (Hetland, 1961, p.64).
In support of another change I would make, as referenced previously in video clip #2 (9:30-9:42), where students were responding through critique and the end of each presentation, I could have asked more probing questions as students were offering their comments. Rather than just moving on to the next question like I did, I should have asked the student to further explain his comment. This change in instruction would have engaged the students in deeper observation and reflection (studio habits) and enhanced the quality of the overall critique. Part of the studio habit “reflection” involves evaluation, which is what the students where aimed toward doing in the critique. Hetland (2013) defines the evaluation process as “always involving quality” Many students however, only described what they saw, without ever “evaluating elements of varying levels of effectiveness” (Hetland, 2013, p.81-82).
Another error mentioned as it related to the critique how the critique on video clip #2 was structured. As mentioned, I should have provided some guiding questions or critique prompts during the critique. Again, as it stood, the only formal structure to the critique portion was students were not allowed to use the phrases “I like it” or “Its good” without providing concrete rationale. Having guiding questions or critique prompts could have brought a wider range of students into the discussion, especially students who struggle with organizing their thoughts or have social anxiety, such as one of my students with a 504 plan, who coincidently did not contribute comments or feedback during the presentations. According to Donna Kay Beattie (1997), “the teacher provides direction for the critique and ensures that students address intended purposes and objectives.” With this now in mind, I can see how the intended purposes and objectives for the critique was not something explicitly discussed prior to the presentations and resulted in why there was low participation from approximately 75% of class. In addition, according to Kate Kensella E.D.D. and Kevin Feldman E.D.D. (2005), appropriate scaffolding in this sort of scenario would be to “require that all students write a brief response to the question using a sentence frame provided by the teacher, complemented by brief partner rehearsal prior to a unified class discussion.” This would be a good inclusive practice to better “activate and engage the full range of students served in mixed ability content area classrooms,” such as mine. (Feldman & Kensella, 2005, p.1).
References
Beattie, K. D., (1997) Assessment in Art Education. Worchester, Massachusetts. Davis Publications, Inc.
Feldman, K. & Kensella, K., (2005) Practical Strategies to Improve Academic Discussions in Mixed Ability Secondary Content Area
Classrooms. Retrieved from: http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/teachlearn/commoncore/structuring-acad-discuss-.pdf
Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., Sheridan, K.M. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real
benefits of visual arts education. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
McFee, J. K. (1961) Preparation for art. San Francisco. Wadsworth.
Appendix A.
(Above: Lesson 1- Day2: Teacher example used for demonstration and guided practice featured in Video Clip #1)
Video Clip #1 |
Video Clip #2 |