M4U4A1 Applying Classroom Rules and Procedures

Introduction

Since I do not currently have access to a classroom, I watched episodes 1 and 2 of BBC’s Tough Young Teachers series.  The series follows the professional lives of five first-year and one second-year teachers who have only had a six-week training course prior to entering some of London, U.K.’s toughest public secondary schools where they are placed for two years.  These new teachers were chosen for the program because they are exceptional graduates with top grades and want to be teachers.  The program allows them to immediately start teaching and learn, earn and be evaluated on the job (rather than studying first and then teaching – therefore saving them time).  If the candidates are successful they will earn their Teaching Certificate at the end of the two years.  The novice teachers are:

  1. Charles, aged 22, first-year teacher, of upper class white English origin, placed at Archbishop Lanfranc School, teaching Religious Education
  2. Chloe, aged 23, second-year teacher, of upper class white English origin, placed at Archbishop Lanfranc School, teaching geography
  3. Claudenia, aged 22, first-year teacher, of middle class Jamaican black parental origin, placed at Crown Woods College, teaching Science
  4. Oliver, aged 23, first-year teacher, of upper class white Jewish and Scottish origin, placed at Crown Woods College, teaching Business Studies and Information Technology
  5. Meryl, aged 24, first-year teacher, of middle class Indian origin, placed at Harefield Academy, teaching English
  6. Nicholas, aged 23, first-year teacher, of upper class white English origin, placed at Harefield Academy, teaching Math

Posted Rules and Procedures

The first thing I observed in the videos is that only one teacher, Charles, appeared to have rules posted in his classroom – although it was difficult to verify this from the video.  From what I could decipher Charles’ rules consisted in something similar to the following.  Since I could not accurately decipher everything I have used poetic license to fill in the remaining rules indicated with an asterisk:

A = Ask questions by raising your hand*

P = Put away your phone in your backpack*

P = Pen, pencil and planner

L = Listen carefully to instructions*

Y = Yes I can, try for every task

(Episode 2, time reference 48:58)

One thing I like about Charles’ rules is that he uses an acronym as a mnemonic “APPLY”.  In this way he can ask his class “Are we applying ourselves?” and point to the rules on the wall.  However, although these rules were up on the wall beside the board, I did not observe Charles refer to them at any point during the lessons recorded in the videos.  An opportune time to refer to these rules would be when a student is misbehaving in class.  Had he done this, it would have served as a reinforcement to the students about what is expected of them in terms of behavior and effort and a reminder of their part of the contract or agreement they undertake when they enter his class to learn.  Referring to posted rules and procedures also helps diffuse a conflict by moving the focus of the issue from being between the teacher’s opinion and the student’s opinion (which are personal and likely to be in opposition), to being a more arbitrary thing, viz. simply a question of adherence to a set of guidelines of conduct.

It was difficult to assess whether the rules were being adhered to consistently in Charles’ class, but I would tend to say that this did seem to be the case for the majority of students in his classes.  The impact on student behavior of the few rules I observed posted in Charles’ classroom appeared to be that the students who are usually compliant and take an active interest in schooling complied with them.  In my opinion, it would have helped if Charles had more rules and procedures (simple, complex, abstract and concrete) displayed in his classroom and referred to them frequently.  E.g.:

Rules

  1. Respect yourself, the teacher and others [abstract]
  2. Preserve a positive learning environment [abstract and complex]
  3. We do not engage in actions that interfere with teaching or learning in the classroom. [concrete]
  4. We use class time to learn. [abstract] (Not to engage in grooming, sleeping, talking, playing, listening to music, text-messaging friends, or doing work for other classes).  [simple and concrete]
  5. We minimize classroom interruptions by arriving to class on time and remaining in the classroom for the duration of the class. [simple and concrete]
  6. Take responsibility for your actions [simple and abstract]

Procedures

  1. We turn in homework to the proper bin
  2. Homework is due at the beginning of class when you first enter. It will not be accepted once class has begun.  Turn in your homework to your hour bin.  Absent or late work should be submitted in the “Absent / Late Work” bin.  I reserve the right to not accept late work without a coupon, but you should turn it in anyway.
  3. We pick up after ourselves before we leave
  4. This means we take all our belongings, pick up any scrap papers around ourselves, and put our desks back in line before we leave each day.
  5. We complete an absent form for our study buddy if they are absent
  6. Please complete and sign the form and get me to sign it before the end of class. Compile any worksheets given out that day with your study buddy form and put it in the “Absent Work Pick Up” bin.  We do not take the work home with you to give to your buddy.  Rather, he collects it in class the next day.
  7. We get missed work from the “Absent/ Late Work” bin
  8. If necessary, talk to your study buddy, then ask the teacher.
  9. Why do we attend class? Because attendance is essential for optimal learning.  Note that being on time and present and class physically and mentally will be part of your overall grade.  Also note that you may not be excused from my class by another teacher without first seeking my permission.
  10. We make arrangements with the teacher to take quizzes and tests immediately. Remember that it is your responsibility to make these arrangements.  I will not and cannot track you down.  If you do not make-up quizzes in a timely manner (before graded quizzes are returned to the students who were present), you will earn a “zero” on the quiz or test. 
  11. Furthermore, unexcused absences on the day of an assignment, test, quiz, project, presentation, paper, etc. will result in a zero.

(Adapted from “Mrs. Holowicki’s Classroom Expectations, Rules, Procedures and Consequences”)

I observed what appeared to be procedures in only one classroom – Chloe’s.  The procedures were made up of a combination of text, pictograms and a left-to-right flowing decision diagram and were located on the wall beside the board (Episode 1, reference time 23:16).  The decision diagram showed a picture of the face of a little girl and then branched into two options which then branched into a further two options each.  Although I could not decipher the words or the gist of the message, the following is an example of how such a poster looks.  I think a pictogram and decision diagram are excellent ideas.  It makes it crystal clear at a glance what is expected of students.  The only drawback I can think of is that some complex concepts may be more difficult to convert into such a format.  Generally, Chloe maintained excellent control of her class at all times, so I believe having this up on the wall may have helped her classroom and behavior management: (Please refer to Figure 1.)

Classroom Organization

Charles was the only apprentice teacher who organized his class in groups.  It was also obvious that all seating in his class was assigned.  (Please see seating charts below.)  Charles’ grouping arrangement encouraged more talking among students because they were all facing each other.  One positive aspect of the way he arranged the student tables is that he made sure no students’ backs were turned to him.  Rather, all students faced him side-on.  The camera did not zoom out sufficiently while Chloe was teaching and I was unable to ascertain the exact seating arrangement and organization of her classroom, but I believe it was similar to Nicholas’ which I describe below.

Oliver had a particular classroom setup in the shape of a “U” which was unavoidable due to him teaching Information Technology and all computers needing to be connected to the wall.  This meant all students’ backs were to him.  This arrangement also encouraged some talking and off-task behavior (such as listening to music or going into websites that were not part of the lesson).  I think the off-task behavior occurred because students did not perceive themselves a being closely monitored – or at least they could not see if the teacher was looking at them or listening to them.  The advantage of this arrangement was that Oliver could peer over a student’s shoulder and read their work to see how they progressed – as he did in at least one instance where he also offered praise to the girl.  Claudenia also had a particular setup.  She had a lab table at the front of the class and her students arranged in a sort of complicated maze.  (See seating charts below.)  The result of this arrangement was that students seated in the “U” part of her maze would talk with those seated in the two seats connected to the “U”.  However, a rather good impact on behavior was that all students had a straight line of sight to her and she could also easily identify who was not paying attention and quickly move to access any student she wished from the center of the maze.

Both Meryl and Nicholas had their classrooms organized in horizontal rows facing the board.  In the case of Meryl they were continuous rows and in the case of Nicholas they were grouped by twos.  I noticed that Meryl had groups of boys together and groups of girls together and that most of the trouble-makers sat in the back row.  I do not think she assigned seats, but instead let the students choose where they sat – a grave error on her part.  I am unsure as to the exact specifications of Nicholas’ seating plan, however I did notice that having desks grouped in twos (instead of in long rows) allowed him to pass in between students and get close to them to talk to them privately (e.g. and reduce any embarrassment that talking to them publicly could cause.  In that sense, Nicholas was very mobile, moving around the classroom as needed to improve his teaching, supervision and classroom management.  Meryl, on the hand, simply shouted commands (Episode 1, time reference 55:30) from her post at her desk – which, shockingly, she even did while being evaluated by the Head Teacher (Episode 2).  Meryl was the only teacher I observed sitting in her desk chair – which she did at least twice throughout the videos.

(Please refer to Figures 2. through 4.)

Activities Students Engaged In

Children exhibited the best behavior when they were observing an interesting science experiment (e.g. Claudenia popping the balloons filled with oxygen and hydrogen using fire) or being acknowledged as a class for high achievement (e.g. with Nicholas when he brought in the Head Teacher).  For the most part, pupils were silent and on task when: completing individual structured work such as worksheets (e.g. with Meryl initially), or listening to a lecture where the teacher referred to various props (e.g. with Chloe).  Pupils were slightly more noisy and unruly when assigned individual unstructured work such as essay writing (e.g. with Oliver and Meryl).  Students were the most noisy and talkative when involved in group work at their tables, but for the most part, still appeared to be on-task.  The students displayed similar behavior when sitting at computers in a lab – provided that they understood what they were doing (e.g. with Oliver).

Acumen

According to Your Dictionary .com, Google Dictionary and Merriam Webster Dictionary:

“Acumen” is defined as all or any of the following:

  • the ability to quickly and accurately understand and deal with a situation or choice;
  • keenness and alacrity in understanding and dealing with a situation;
  • accuracy and keenness of judgment or insight;
  • the ability to make good judgments and quick decisions, typically in a particular domain;
  • keenness and depth of perception, discernment, or discrimination especially in practical matters.
  • shrewdness;
  • cognizance;
  • mindfulness;
  • perspicacity;

These definitions basically describe all the qualities a teacher must have in order to demonstrate “with-it-ness” in the classroom.

Teacher Acumen or Teacher “With-it-ness” can be more precisely described using the following steps applied at each stage of escalating student misbehavior:

  1. Being proactive.
  2. Occupying or dominating the entire room.
  3. Noticing, observing or anticipating potential problems before they materialize into something worse.
  4. Performing a series of graduated actions:
  5. Looking at the students suspected of misbehavior.
  6. Proximity – moving closer to those students.
  7. Chatting privately – talk with students privately (and briefly) about their behavior.

OR

  1. Looking at the students suspected of misbehavior.
  2. Pausing class – and continuing to look at the students suspected of misbehavior and waiting for them to cease their activities.
  3. Confronting publicly – challenging the students’ behavior in a non-aggressive way.

If Teacher Acumen fails, then the following steps should be followed:

  1. Direct cost consequences: positive and negative direct, concrete and immediate consequences for the student’s behavior.
  2. Time-out – in the classroom or outside the classroom.
  3. Overcorrection – having the students fix whatever they destroyed by accomplishing the activity for the whole class.
  4. Group contingency: delayed or intangible positive and negative consequences (reward or punishment) for the students’ behavior.
  5. Interdependent – where the entire class receives the consequences of one or a few students’ behavior.
  6. Dependent – where only the group of students involved received castigation for their behavior.
  7. Home contingency: contacting the pupil’s parents about the behavior and asking them to lecture the student.
  8. Strategy for high intensity situations:
  9. Recognizing that the student is out of control.
  10. Understanding that you cannot reason with the student at this point.
  11. Stepping back and calming yourself.
  12. Actively listening to the student.
  13. Letting the student know you are actively listening to them – by repeating back to them what they are saying and telling them you understand how they are feeling and naming their feeling. This should help to calm the student down and diffuse the situation somewhat.
  14. Planning your actions.
  15. Single but repeated simple verbal request – when the student is calm, make a single simple verbal request (without making any physical contact with the student) and repeat this request several times until comprehension of the request is acknowledged by them.
  16. Design an overall plan for disciplinary problems and revise it several times, as necessary.
  17. List your typical reactions to student misbehavior.
  18. Analyze the list to determine which of your behaviors are effective and which are not.
  19. Make an attempt to improve your relationship with disruptive students.
  20. Meet with students to point out the specific behaviors that need to be curtailed.
  21. Make sure students understand and can describe the offending behavior.
  22. If the offending behavior persists, help the student to develop an explicit plan to curtail it and or isolate the student from class until the student renews their commitment to the plan.
  23. Keep refining the plans, as needed.
  24. In-school suspension.
  25. Out-of-school suspension.
  26. Removal from school and referral to another agency.

Sourced from Marzano, Robert J. (2007).  The Art and Science of Teaching.  Chapter 7.

Misbehavior by Students

Teachers applied varied strategies when confronted with student misbehavior.  It was obvious that the behavior students displayed correlated directly with the class management skills of the teacher.

  • Talking, Laughing, and Socializing (In Seats or Out of Seats):
  1. Charles: Used the strategies of proximity, then questioning pupils about their behavior with an indirect (possibly rhetorical) question that communicated to them that they were not doing what they were supposed to be doing (e.g. Charles, addressing two boys talking by their desks after the end of class: “Alex and James, do you know where you’re going?”). The immediate result was that the boys left the class and when on to their next lesson.  Charles also used a strategy of ignoring low-level talking and continuing to teach the lesson, however that strategy was ineffective in curtailing the behavior.
  2. Chloe: This specific behavior was not observed in this class, or, no strategies were observed for this misbehavior.
  3. Claudenia: Pre-empted talking and laughing when students were about to exit by offering “If you’d like to leave quietly please…”.  This was an excellent strategy because the command was embedded in a suggestion and as such did not come across as harsh or as something to rebel against (as many teenagers might feel compelled to do).  Claudenia at times used the strategies of ignoring and talking over students, however this had no effect on altering the pupils’ talking.
  4. Oliver: This specific behavior was not observed in this class, or, no strategies were observed for this misbehavior.
  5. Meryl: Attempted to deal with this misbehavior by showing she wielded the authority in the class – she simply shouted at students ordering them to stop talking and to do their work. This strategy was summarily ineffective.
  6. Nicholas: This specific behavior was not observed in this class, or, no strategies were observed for this misbehavior.
  • Being Off-Task, Coloring, Doing Other Work, Looking Out the Window, Listening to Music, or Being Distracted in Some Way:
  1. Charles: Used the strategies of pausing the lesson, followed immediately by independent group contingency, followed immediately by home contingency. Although Charles seemed to have the correct order for the application of his behavior modulating strategies, he applied them in far too quick succession which resulted in the students perceiving his actions as disproportionately severe and as him personally targeting them (with Joel and Kaleb, the latter of whose home contingency was shown in the video (Episode 2, reference time 48:58)).  On most other occasions Charles used the direct cost consequence strategy of a time-out for the student but this was not effective.
  2. Chloe: Paused the lesson and to combat this behavior (at the start of her lesson, many students had not taken off their jacket and had not gotten their writing materials and books out to show preparedness for the lesson).
  3. Claudenia: Used individual detention which is an independent group contingency strategy to combat this behavior.  During the detention, Claudenia had the students reflect on their behavior and write about why their behavior was inappropriate and write about what behavior was expected of them in class.  This activity is similar to one of the steps used when designing an overall plan for disciplinary problems (viz. “make sure the students understand and can describe the offending behavior”).  This strategy seemed to be moderately effective.
  4. Oliver: For the most part, Oliver, did not appear to use any strategies or address this behavior in any way, with the exception of one instance where he told the student they should not be listening to music in class (during computer class). On that occasion the strategy used was confrontation, which did not appear to be very effective because it resulted in the student arguing (i.e. an aggressive response) and saying that they had not been listening to music.
  5. Meryl: In most instances this specific behavior was not addressed at all because Meryl either did not identify the behavior during class time (e.g. doing other work in class, viz., Math) or because she was otherwise occupied trying to control more extreme behavior in other students (e.g. when a student was coloring). Of course, not addressing the behavior did nothing to stop it.  In one instance, Meryl used the strategies of proximity, gestures and an almost threat to communicate that the behavior was unacceptable (e.g. walking to the student’s desk and knocking on it and then gesturing with her fingers for the student to direct their eyes to the board, followed by a muffled “fff” sound and threatening look).  The result of these combined strategies is uncertain as it was not viewed in the video.  In other instances, Meryl used direct commands to “stop” but these were also ineffective.
  6. Nicholas: Used individual detention which is an independent group contingency strategy to combat this behavior. During the detention, Nicholas used non-threatening proximity (sitting on a chair at the same level as the student), talking in a soft voice and reflection, recounting to the student his learning experience in school and what caused him to change his attitude and start working hard.  He used the detention time as an opportunity to build a relationship with the student.  During his conversation with the student he also used humor and then played a semi-educational game (chess) with the student to increase the building of a relationship.  The result was that the student reflected on his behavior and tried to change his behavior because in building a relationship with the student, sharing about himself personally and professionally, and drawing parallels between himself and the student (without glorifying himself), Nicholas, awakened the child’s natural desire to please.  It was obvious that the student did not feel like the teacher was targeting him and although the detention was not painful, it was not exactly fun either.  As such these strategies were very effective.
  • Not Doing Work or Refusing to Do Work Assigned in Class or Homework:
  1. Charles: On one occasion, Charles argued with the child – a type of confrontational strategy (viz. with Kaleb to write the Religious Education homework in his notebook) and tried to show he wielded the authority in the classroom with the result that the student walked out and did not comply with the request. Another strategy Charles used for students refusing to do work was to change the seating plan.  He placed a problem student next to his best student in hope that she would influence him to work, however, this strategy was also unsuccessful with the problem student.
  2. Chloe: This specific behavior was not observed in this class, or, no strategies were observed for this misbehavior.
  3. Claudenia: Used individual detention which is an independent group contingency strategy to combat this behavior.  During the detention, Claudenia had the students reflect on their behavior and write about why their behavior was inappropriate and write about what behavior was expected of them in class.  This activity is similar to one of the steps used when designing an overall plan for disciplinary problems (viz. “make sure the students understand and can describe the offending behavior”).  This strategy seemed to be moderately effective.
  4. Oliver: For the most part, Oliver, did not appear to use any strategies or address this behavior in any way.
  5. Meryl: This specific behavior was not addressed at all and no strategies were observed for this misbehavior, resulting in no change to students’ behavior.
  6. Nicholas: Used individual detention which is an independent group contingency strategy to combat this behavior. During the detention, Nicholas used non-threatening proximity (sitting on a chair at the same level as the student), talking in a soft voice and reflection, recounting to the student his learning experience in school and what caused him to change his attitude and start working hard.  He used the detention time as an opportunity to build a relationship with the student.  During his conversation with the student he also used humor and then played a semi-educational game (chess) with the student to increase the building of a relationship.  The result was that the student reflected on his behavior and tried to change his behavior because in building a relationship with the student, sharing about himself personally and professionally, and drawing parallels between himself and the student (without glorifying himself), Nicholas, awakened the child’s natural desire to please.  It was obvious that the student did not feel like the teacher was targeting him and although the detention was not painful, it was not exactly fun either.  As such these strategies were very effective.
  • Tardiness or Absenteeism:
  1. Charles: Used public questioning as a strategy to address this behavior, however, it resulted in the students (Kaleb and Joel) becoming more confrontational and belligerent, perhaps because they were embarassed. As such the effect was worsened the behavior.
  2. Chloe: This specific behavior was not observed in this class, or, no strategies were observed for this misbehavior.
  3. Claudenia: This specific behavior was not observed in this class, or, no strategies were observed for this misbehavior.
  4. Oliver: This specific behavior was not observed in this class, or, no strategies were observed for this misbehavior.
  5. Meryl: In one instance of absenteeism, Meryl did not attempt to deal with this misbehavior at all. E.g. Only one student (Aaron) showed up to her detention.  In another instance of absenteeism (on the return to school after half-term) she attempted to deal with this behavior by thanking the students who showed up to the class for being there.  Of course, the absent students will probably never hear that this happened and it is not necessarily a reward that would be prized by her students, and is such can be classed as useless.
  6. Nicholas: This specific behavior was not observed in this class, or, no strategies were observed for this misbehavior.
  • Extreme Behavior: Arm Wrestling, Drinking or Eating, Throwing Things, Using Objects to Hit Others, Walking on Tables:
  1. Charles: This specific behavior was not observed in this class, or, no strategies were observed for this misbehavior.
  2. Chloe: This specific behavior was not observed in this class, or, no strategies were observed for this misbehavior.
  3. Claudenia: The video showed one instance where students were drinking in class and throwing objects. The strategy used (by the school administration) was to provide assistance in the form of an additional teacher present in the class to help manage it.  This strategy was somewhat effective in the moment, but also further eroded the children’s confidence in her capacity as a teacher.
  4. Oliver: This specific behavior was not observed in this class, or, no strategies were observed for this misbehavior.
  5. Meryl: Unfortunately, Meryl seemed completely out of her depth at this point. The behavior observed in her class was arm-wrestling, drinking and eating, throwing things, students using objects to hit each other and walking on tables.  The strategy used (by the school administration) was to provide assistance in the form of an additional teacher present in the class to help manage it.  This strategy was somewhat effective in the moment, but also further eroded the children’s confidence in her capacity as a teacher.
  6. Nicholas: This specific behavior was not observed in this class, or, no strategies were observed for this misbehavior.

Conclusion: How the Novice Teachers Demonstrated Acumen or “With-it-ness”

Unfortunately, for the most part the novice teachers demonstrated a lack of acumen.  They did not identify potential problems (being proactive) to curtail them before they escalated (e.g. Claudenia letting students continue low-level talking).  They did not dominate the room and they did not look at students who were off-task or use proximity to misbehaving students while continuing to explain the lesson (e.g. Claudenia).  There were a few instances where Charles dominated the room, especially when his more troublesome students were removed.  The novice teacher that exhibited the most acumen and the best teacher skills in general was Nicholas.  Second in acumen was Chloe, the second-year teacher.  She did manage to dominate the room, and notice and curtail many potential problems (e.g. taking a book away from a student while teaching the class), but was still lacking in many non “with-it-ness” skills.

In my opinion, the apprentice teachers did not require “with-it-ness” so much as they needed more direct instruction on how to get students to respond to your teaching.  For example, we have learned that students do not learn if no relationship is established with the teacher.  Only Nicholas really tried to bond with the students and share things about himself with them (during detention and inviting students to go shooting with him).  Both Claudenia, Charles and Meryl either confused students’ names or mispronounced them several weeks into term.  This is unacceptable as it indicates to the student that they are not important to you.  Commendably, Claudenia realized her error and then handed out name tags to the students to improve her memorization of their names, but she should also have tried to learn more about their interests and personal lives.  In terms of the latter, the same may be said for Meryl – who did not even know she had a European Taekwondo Champion in her class (Aaron).  Poor Meryl used draconian techniques and practically tortured Aaron during detention by playing Justin Bieber music.  Worse yet, she showed that she was enjoying his pain – certainly not the best way to establish a relationship with a student or demonstrate that you care!  Charles, on the other hand, tried to justify his ignorance of a student’s name (by saying he teaches many just like him to Michael (who he called Tarron)) – negating the student’s individuality and importance – and when a student claimed “I am not “every other student”” when he had been asked to complete a task like every other student, Charles replied “yes you are”, further eroding the student’s sense that he might be important to Charles and reducing any incentive the child might have to try to please Charles.

In fact, the most useful skills these teachers should have applied were:

  • Building a Relationship – with the students (as described above). This would have helped the apprentice teachers to understand why their students were apathetic to school (which only Nicholas seemed to understand and explained to the camera).  From understanding, the teachers could then strategize on how to combat that apathy and increase the students’ motivation and self-esteem.
  • Active Listening – the camera person solicited far more useful information from the students on what they needed and what was lacking in the novice teachers’ teaching than the teachers because they did not ask or listen (e.g. Oliver’s students told the camera person that they needed simple explanations and steps),
  • Emotional Objectivity – not interpreting the students’ behavior as personal dislike (e.g. Meryl: “They hate me”; Charles: “He doesn’t even show any remorse” and “He has not respect”). As Chloe said “You need to distance yourself from the kids”.
  • Positive Reinforcement – the novice teachers missed many opportunities to commend students (e.g. Meryl could have complimented Aaron for being the only student to show up for detention and made it something he learned from). Claudenia was good at verbal praise, but did not use other methods of reward.  In one instance Oliver phoned home to praise a student to his parents, and I am sure Oliver reaped the rewards of that action in later classes.  Nicholas was the master in positive reinforcement.  He brought in the Head Teacher to recognize excellence in his class and the students were visibly thrilled.  He also applied an incremental reward system for each small achievement.
  • Projecting Confidence and Preparedness – both Meryl and Oliver appeared visibly deflated and unkempt much of the time. Meryl especially appeared unprepared and frazzled on most occasions.  Presenting oneself well and being prepared for lessons would help the teachers project to students an image of someone who is worthy of leading and that students will be inspired to follow.

Illustrations

m4u4a3-report-video-analysis-illustrations-2016-10-22_page_1

m4u4a3-report-video-analysis-illustrations-2016-10-22_page_2

m4u4a3-report-video-analysis-illustrations-2016-10-22_page_3

References

Marzano, Robert J. (2007).  The Art and Science of Teaching.  Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.  Virginia, U.S.A.

Mrs. Holowicki’s Classroom Website.  (2016).  Mrs. Holowicki’s Classroom Expectations, Rules, Procedures and Consequences.  Brighton Schools. Retrieved from http://www.brightonk12.com/webpages/mholowicki/index.cfm?subpage=581663

What Kid’s Can Do, Inc. (WKCD).  (2012)  How Youth Learn: Ned’s Gr8 8.  National Association of School Teachers of Youth.  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_BskcXTqpM

Tough Young Teachers.  (2015).  Season 1, Episodes 1 and 2.  BBC.  Teach First.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s