Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Swivl Presentation
Amy Piotrowski, Ph.D. Utah State University
Katie Rybakova, Ph.D. Thomas College
Coding Based on Teacher Noticing
Framework
● Behavior
● Classroom Management
● Learning
● Teacher Pedagogy
● Specific Even...
Phase I
Four participants: Emily, Kerry, Jamie, and Darlene
Context, Setting, Data Set:
● All pre-service teachers at a so...
Phase I Results
● Focused mostly on self and on student engagement. None
explicitly spoke to objectives in lesson or speci...
Phase II
Eight participants
Almost all first-generation
college students
Seniors completing student
teaching experience
Di...
I noticed that my projection is great. I
spoke loud enough for the students to
hear me clearly. When I read, my pace
was s...
Results
● Focused on “good” and “bad” teaching
practices
● Continued focus on teacher behavior
(self) and less on student ...
Any Questions?
● Amy Piotrowski: amy.piotrowski@usu.edu
● Katie Rybakova : Rybakovae@thomas.edu
Swivl presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Swivl presentation

123 views

Published on

Swivl

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Swivl presentation

  1. 1. Swivl Presentation Amy Piotrowski, Ph.D. Utah State University Katie Rybakova, Ph.D. Thomas College
  2. 2. Coding Based on Teacher Noticing Framework ● Behavior ● Classroom Management ● Learning ● Teacher Pedagogy ● Specific Event ○ Self ○ Student(s)
  3. 3. Phase I Four participants: Emily, Kerry, Jamie, and Darlene Context, Setting, Data Set: ● All pre-service teachers at a southeastern university taking a pre- internship and methods course with the researchers. ● Videos of lessons, lesson plans, written reflections, and focus groups and/or interviews after video reflection. ● ELA teachers within 6-12 grade level
  4. 4. Phase I Results ● Focused mostly on self and on student engagement. None explicitly spoke to objectives in lesson or specific learning material. References to learning were basic, such as “they analyzed” or “comprehended.” ● Did not attend to the connections between engagement, motivation, and learning. ● We need to teach how to reflect, and the Teacher Noticing Framework could be a guide in doing so. “I do know, however, that every group got some solid analysis in, based on my discussions with them.” “They were really engaged in the group discussions” “Although I do not expect every lesson to be “funny,” the students are used to beginning each of Mr. Potter’s* classes with a joke”
  5. 5. Phase II Eight participants Almost all first-generation college students Seniors completing student teaching experience Different location, all females, 7 elementary/MS, 1 HS, all subject areas
  6. 6. I noticed that my projection is great. I spoke loud enough for the students to hear me clearly. When I read, my pace was slow enough for the students to follow and clear enough for them to understand the words.
  7. 7. Results ● Focused on “good” and “bad” teaching practices ● Continued focus on teacher behavior (self) and less on student learning ● Less emphasis on student engagement ● Pedagogical applications were identified by not applied to student learning I need to look up more as I read. There was a student towards the back I noticed when I watched the video that wasn’t following along with the reading. I need to make it a point to look up more while reading anything aloud. I think I stretched out some of the explaining a little too much. I picked up on the fact that I use my hand A LOT to explain things—this is one of those habits that I’m not sure is good, or if it is bad.
  8. 8. Any Questions? ● Amy Piotrowski: amy.piotrowski@usu.edu ● Katie Rybakova : Rybakovae@thomas.edu

×