Peer Coaching Workshop, March 1st
Learning Outcomes for the Workshop
- Systematic process for peer coaching that I am comfortable with and will use at least twice a term.
- Improve my own skills at self-discovery when assessing others.
- How to do effective peer coaching from a distance or on-line courses through the various channels.
- Learn two methods of implementing peer coaching – SII model and the second is a set of inquiry questions.
- How to set realistic criteria for peer coaching (differentiating evaluation from assessment which means selecting appropriate criteria and not standards.
- How to obtain quality peer coaching from others.
- How to imbed peer coaching within the annual professional development process
- How to obtain strong assessment of my peer coaching performance – have the person assess your assessment.
- Gain insights about involving other faculty in the process of peer coaching to build community. Ideally begins with an invitation.
- How to provoke critical thinking through the questions that you pose
- How to address significant classroom issues and problems through peer coaching?
Steve’s Workshop Outcomes
- Quality of the feedback to address your issues – elevate everyone’s feedback to you.
- Giving the peer coaches feedback on their assessments
What is Peer Coaching?
- Peer Coaching is NOT evaluation. It tends to be more process
oriented, not product oriented. - Assessment is the process of analyzing the performance
to improve future performance - Key is to focus attention on a few criteria
(determined by person being peer coached) - SII Model is a way of structuring assessment feedback
(S-strengths, I-improvements, I-Insights) - Must yield insights that are applicable across contexts
Preparation for Steve’s Class (brainstorming possible focus areas)
AREA #1: facilitating small group discussion – Mallory & Fritz
AREA #2: critical thinking questions used during intervention– Mallory & Fritz
AREA #3: facilitating large group discussion
AREA #4: dynamics between small group and large group activity
(ideally should be seamless)
AREA #5:producing learning outcomes by lowest tier of performers – Michelle & Don
AREA #6: effectiveness of the learning in small groups – Judi & Bob
(esp. without facilitation)
AREA #7: accountability of learner for their learning – Michelle & Don
AREA #8: effectiveness of activity scripting – Judi & Bob
(especially set-up for follow-on sessions)
AREA #9: productive pacing of the activity
Notetaking tips (use separate pages)
- first page for strengths as they occur (within focus areas)
-may want to write down observation and then clarify it as a strength
-analyze strengths (elevate from platitudes)
- why is this important?
- how was this produced in the current context?
- how could this be generalized?
-stress quality of items over quantity of items
- second page for improvements as they occur (within focus areas)
-give guidance in current context
-give tips for future contexts
- third page for insights as they occur (within focus areas)
Discoveries about peer coaching:
MUCH was learned through watching someone else teach.
We need to take time to do this. Many opportunities to transfer
what was learned…
Renewed enthusiasm about teaching by being part of environment!
Focus areas generates specific feedback (very valuable); general feedback less useful
Made me wistful about not being in a “live” classroom. Distance education
doesn’t offer the real-time community that is offered by a “live” class.
Report by Dan
Strengths:
Clarifying script at start normalized class quickly despite noise
Efficient in moving from item to item even, if time is not elapsed
Keeps students feeling very productive
Input from teams was stimulated by small group discussion; many individuals contributed to open-ended discussion
Quick transition from large to small group because of prompts on activity sheet and conventions from previous class periods (less than 30 seconds)
Desire to have physical meaning before transitioning to math representation
Improvements:
Use one minute to have teams (rather than individuals) generate questions from previous classes/homework (or even before class); this will allow students who are not assertive to get their needs met
Discussion of assumptions may have meant more to instructor than students; don’t accept rhetorical ‘ah huh’. (develop 2 minute group validation model)
Use reporter role to help instructor monitor team progress, elminating need for inquiry
(illustrates progress and quality of thinking)
Designate spokesperson (rotating responsibility) to be focal point for instructor/team discussion –create expectation that anyone could be on the spot at any time
Insights: (often most effective part of SII in generating discussion)
Role of derivations? What is the purpose and relation to the reading assignment?
Learners are often not held accountable in ability to do derivation. Students need to know more about what they are supposed to do with the derivation. One reason might be to better appreciate assumptions along with common mathematical models. Another reason might be for stronger high-order problem solving.
Quality of discussion is higher in small groups than the large group. Differentiate types of learning that best support different types of outcomes.
Report by Don & Michelle
Strengths:
Began with physical examples and familiar terminology that are less threatening to lower level learners, building a bridge to higher level concepts
Making students comfortable by interacting with them before class (get their early), addressing them by name, and kneeling down to interact with tables
Holding students accountable by making sure teammates understand, checking homework against posted solutions validation strategies that are transferable to the modern workplace
Improvements:
Put structure in place that guides teams to important assumptions as well as key equations
Ask all teams to prepare solution for large group discussion and ready to present to class if asked
Insight:
Is it possible to get students to do member checking with good fidelity?
Report by Judi & Dan
Strengths: (thesis statement + evidence = good flow for strength statement)
Student teams are effective and efficient in producing intended activity outcomes, probably the result of prior scripting
One person brought physics notebook! Team felt more ownership because
they had this resource.
Effectiveness of students summarizing small group discussion
Improvements:
Put more accountability for the team exercise on the students by specifying the deliverable and the expected criteria for performance
View activities holistically as involving preparation, in-class activity, and follow-up to elevate expectations for performance
Make the student teams accountable for units compatibility
Insights:
The most difficult thing for learners to do is shift from macro to micro problems. Therefore we need to be sensitive to issues in this transition.
Report by Mallory and Fritz
Strengths:
You didn’t interrupt group activity if it wasn’t necessary. Often times after inquiring you chose not to intervene.
Effective intra-group communication was established because teams were not allowed to ask questions that they could answer themselves.
Improvements:
Treat each group equitably on the time you give them, visiting each group enough to leave them with the feeling that they had fair access to instructor resources
Provide more opportunities for students to develop their thoughts (especially about assumptions).
Insights:
Having multiple contexts available for learners is a valuable tool for building complex knowledge.