Conversation with Evaluator
Evaluator: Your students’ mastery levels have really made a significant jump this quarter. We identified incorporating literacy into your science classroom as a specific next step when we met last. Tell me about how that has influenced your students’ performance this semester.
P-4(2): The teacher uses multiple sources of data to plan, including a content diagnostic. (E)
Teacher: It definitely has. In September I diagnosed my students on their foundational biological knowledge, and for the most part they did extremely poorly. I found that they were missing the skills they really needed to even begin studying bio. I also found that their literacy skills ranged widely, from students who could only read at a 3rd grade benchmark to others who are above grade-level in their fluency and comprehension. I needed to make sure that I am developing their reading/writing skills while not forgetting that I’m a science teacher.
Evaluator: That’s definitely a challenge, and I’m glad to hear that you recognize it as within your realm of responsibility. How have you been addressing it?
Teacher: Well, I kind of have a two-pronged approach. The first thing I try to remember is that our biology objectives can be met in a variety of different ways: in other words, students don’t necessarily have to be able to read and write on grade-level in order to master them. So I’ve been trying to plan my instruction to allow students access to the content, regardless of their literacy skills.
Evaluator: How exactly have you been doing that?
P-4(2): The teacher uses multiple sources of data to plan, including the English teacher’s diagnostic. (E)
Teacher: Well, I asked my students’ English teachers to share the literacy diagnostic information with me so that I could create homogeneous reading groups. (For a couple of kids, the information I received seemed like it might be a little “off” so I gave those kids a test myself. It was definitely helpful to do that – a few kids scored significantly differently, and I think my data is pretty valid.)
P-4(1): The teacher regularly designs content, process, and products applicable to subgroups through different texts. Here, the teacher differentiates based on literacy skill that has been assessed through a diagnostic. The teacher employs different texts focused on the same material, which aim to address students’ literacy needs. (AP)
Now, I try very hard to find texts that match each of my three groups’ levels: it’s easy to find the right material for on- and above- grade level groups, but for the below-level groups I’ve had to scrounge around and sometimes even create stuff myself.
Evaluator: So how do your students demonstrate mastery of the content?
P-4(2): The teacher uses multiple sources of data to plan, including ongoing assessments. (E)
Teacher: Sometimes they all demonstrate mastery in the same way – they need to be ready for the traditional assessment that is our end-of-course test. But I also want to give them options when they do projects so I usually create a menu of options (one that is a writing activity, one that is a presentation, one that may incorporate more visual methods of showing mastery) and allow students to choose.
P-4(2): The teacher uses multiple sources of data to plan, including students’ IEPs. (E)
P-4(1): The teacher regularly designs content, process, and products applicable to subgroups through project choice and “groundwork”. The teacher also adjusts/modifies as necessary to meet IEP requirements. Here, the teacher differentiates science skills based on a diagnostic with a menu of project options and remediation assignments. (AP)
P-4(3): Accountability systems are in place for projects and groundwork. Additionally, the teacher’s plans are efficient enough to allow structured differentiation by assigning different projects for different students. (AP)
Sometimes I push them towards a particular one, usually to ensure they’re getting challenged in the right area… Here’s an example of a “menu.” I’m also requiring different students to do different “groundwork” assignments, based on that first diagnostic – even though a lot of them were missing the same foundational skills, I’m trying to tailor some of what they do to their individual needs. That way, they’re all working on the same ideas around genetics, for example, but they’re also working on some of the more basic skills they need. I think that, if they work on these, I should see an improvement in their overall knowledge, but I’m also going to retest them on their foundational skills later on in the semester. (See accompanying document.) Doing all of this is also really helpful in ensuring that I meet the IEP requirements for my students with special needs. I mean, obviously I also have to adjust content for them sometimes but for the most part they need more accommodations than modifications.
Evaluator: Thanks for showing me this. How do you let your students know which “groundwork” assignments they should be working on?
Teacher: I have folders at each table with a couple of assignments that are best for that group of kids.
Evaluator: Got it. So what’s your second prong?
Teacher: Oh. Right. I also really want to develop my students’ literacy skills – not just to compensate for weak ones by providing easier texts and varied assignments. So, we have “Reading and Writing in the Sciences” groups twice a week for 20 minutes.
Evaluator: And how do you spend that time?
P-4(1): The teacher regularly designs content, process, and products applicable to subgroups through “Reading and Writing in the Sciences” groups. (AP)
P-4(3): Accountability systems are in place for “Reading and Writing in the Sciences” groups. Additionally, the teacher’s plans are efficient enough for the teacher to allow structured differentiation by working with lowest group. (AP)
Teacher: Basically, I do a mini-lesson on a particular comprehension skill, and then my stronger readers/writers work independently on a related task (normally using a non-fiction newspaper or magazine article). I use that time to meet with my lowest students – usually on the same skill but with a much more basic text. Often I have to build in some word study – sometimes even decoding! – as well, otherwise they literally can’t read the words. The “Reading and Writing in the Sciences” texts aren’t always 100% related to our current unit, but they do try to engage and invest students in science more broadly. I want them to know all of the ways that science has impacted our lives…