For the observations I chose four teachers with different experience levels. Ms. Prancer was selected because she is our school’s Teacher of the Year as well as being selected as a top five finalist for our county level Teacher of the Year. Ms. Prancer has 17 years of classroom teaching experience. Mr. Rudolph was selected because he is a first year teacher. Having been a first year teacher myself before, I know that I welcomed suggestions on becoming a better educator. Mr. Rudolph has suggested to me that he would appreciate any ideas which will help him become more effective in the classroom. Ms. Comet, the third teacher selected, is a teacher who has 23 years experience with 10 of those years serving as an Early Intervention (EIP) reading teacher. The final teacher I selected for observation was Ms. Cupid who has 5 years of teaching experience. Ms. Cupid also has integrated technology into classroom lessons effectively. It is the goal of all of these educators for students to achieve, excel and succeed in all areas of learning.
During the pre-conferences, it was easy to determine that individualized instruction was occurring in all classroom settings. All four teachers assess students using a standards-based report system. Therefore, individual student needs are addressed when lessons are planned. The performance standards for each grade-level are reviewed by the teachers before planning to determine areas of concern for each student. Although the classroom is heterogeneously grouped, small, homogenous groups are formed throughout the day which target standards of concern for individual students. By gathering this data teachers develop lessons which are tailored to the instructional needs of the classes.
As I observed Ms. Prancer, I took notes and often scripted some of the comments made by the teacher. I also reviewed the lesson plans during the observations. Ms. Prancer teaches in a kindergarten classroom. She had three small reading groups rotating during the observation. Each group was receiving instruction based on the needs of the group. The classroom was neat and the atmosphere was positive throughout the lesson. It is obvious that the students know the expectations of the teacher. Mr. Rudolph is a second grade teacher. While observing Mr. Rudolph, he also had small group instruction in progress. He had three small groups completing math activities. The atmosphere of the classroom was positive and the students responded successfully to the questions being asked during the lesson. Transition time for Mr. Rudolph did bring concerns. I plan to offer suggestions to him during the post-conference. The third observation of Ms. Comet was informative and also provided a “different” light on classroom instruction. Ms. Comet pulls students from their homerooms to complete tailored reading and math instruction. Ms. Comet works hard to meet the needs of her students. Her expertise in teaching strategies and classroom management is obvious! What a delight it was visiting in her classroom. The final observation was completed in Ms. Cupid’s classroom. Ms. Cupid incorporates technology whenever possible. Her students use IPODS for podcasting, the Smart Board and power points when learning concepts.
Through these observations, I learned that it is necessary to hold pre-conferences in order to help create an atmosphere of trust between the parties involved and to discuss the expectations of the observation. The post-conference is equally, if not more, important than the pre-conference. During the post conference, I discussed strengths and weaknesses observed during the observations. All four teachers were receptive and willing to implement the suggestions. I also shared successful strategies which I observed in each teacher’s classroom to others on staff at the school. There are 45 years of experience between the four teachers. It is obvious that teachers can learn from each other. We, as educators, must take advantage of our peers and their expertise in order to meet the needs of today’s students.
