INSTRUCTIONS
Post-conferences are an integral part of the evaluation process. Collecting evidence during an observation is key when providing specific examples for the teacher’s continued growth. For this assignment, read “Case Study: Mr. Roth.” Based on this scenario, write a 500–750 word summary answering the following questions: Observation Reflection Questions: *Which overt activities by Mr. Roth established a positive rapport with his students? *How would you describe the classroom environment and climate? *What instructional strategies were utilized during this lesson? *Describe the student engagement strategies utilized by Mr. Roth and discuss their effectiveness. *What strategies, if any, were used to differentiate instruction during this lesson? *Identify the elements of this lesson that required students to use higher-order thinking skills. *How did Mr. Roth use technology? Was it effective? Post-Conference Preparation Questions: *What questions might you ask Mr. Roth to determine his evaluation of the lesson? *What positive feedback would you give Mr. Roth regarding this lesson? Why did you select to share this feedback? *What constructive feedback would you give Mr. Roth for this lesson? Why did you select to share this feedback? *In addition to the constructive feedback that you gave Mr. Roth, how might you suggest incorporating technology to enhance student engagement? *What additional questions or comments might be appropriate for this post-conference? Provide a minimum of three scholarly resources to support your feedback.
Case Study: Mr. Roth
Teacher: Mr. Roth
Teacher Experience: 4 Years
Grade: 11
Subject: U.S. History
You arrive at Mr. Roth’s classroom 3 minutes before the bell rings. You observe Mr. Roth in the doorway of the classroom greeting students by name as they come in. You hear him talking with students about non-curricular topics such as how the game went last night and asking about their weekend plans. Students spoke freely with Mr. Roth and seemed genuinely engaged in their short conversations with him. While waiting for the bell to ring you noticed posters on the wall regarding historical figures and events as well as a small area with student created political cartoons depicting the different freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights.
When the bell rang, most students were seated at their desks. Mr. Roth put up a bell ringer question of the day that asked students to summarize the power of the Judicial Branch in their own words and to react to the following statement: “The Judicial Branch is the most powerful branch of government.” Most students took out a blank sheet of paper and began to work. Two students were slow to get started. Mr. Roth moved over to each student individually and softly reminded them of the expectations. After being addressed by Mr. Roth, both students immediately got their materials out and began working. As the students were working, Mr. Roth took attendance, and met with a student that was absent the day before regarding make-up assignments. He then moved throughout the room and looked over students’ shoulders as they were responding. After approximately seven minutes, he asked the class for volunteers that wanted to share what they had written. Several students raised their hands and shared their responses. Mr. Roth commented briefly on each response and called on two students randomly as well to share what they had written. He then asked students to clear their desks and take out a pen.
Mr. Roth announced to the students that although they had already learned that the Judicial Branch interprets the Constitution, it is important to know where and how the Supreme Court actually acquired this power. He then distributed a summary and guiding questions on the case, Marbury vs. Madison (1789). Mr. Roth shared the day’s objective: Students will be able to explain the concept of Judicial Review and how the case of Marbury v. Madison established this power of the Supreme Court. Prior to reading, he asked students to skim the summary and look for key words, titles, etc. that would give them an indication of what the case was about. This activity lasted 3 minutes. He then asked them to share their predictions with their neighbor. As the students did this, Mr. Roth moved through the class and listened in on the conversations. Next, he chose a few vocabulary words from the summary that he thought many of the students would need clarified and were essential to fully understanding the reading. He briefly went over those with the class and checked for understanding by asking students to provide synonyms for the words, first individually and then sharing their words with the class.
Next, he broke the class into small groups of 3-4 students per group based on their proximity to each other. Students moved quickly into their groups with little loss of instructional time. When the groups were formed, he told the students they had 10 minutes to read the summary and answer the guiding questions. During the independent reading portion, he moved around the room to answer any questions about the reading and check to see how students were progressing through the questions. Two of the groups started to get off-task and chatty, but when redirected by Mr. Roth they returned to their work quickly. After all of the students had completed the reading and were working on the questions, Mr. Roth told the class they could now talk about the questions in their small groups. Students could either choose to write down the answers that were discussed in the group, or their own answers if they were not in agreement with their group’s answers.
After the students had answered the questions collaboratively, Mr. Roth got the students attention at the front of the room, by stating, “let’s come together and discuss your answers.” He assigned each group one or two questions they would need to share with the class. As each group shared their answers, he asked if the entire group agreed with the answer and called on other groups randomly to share whether they agreed or disagreed and how the answer given differed from their group’s answer. During this activity, Mr. Roth also reinforced key concepts.
To conclude the lesson, Mr. Roth asked students to go back to their bell ringer question and see if they still felt the same about their answer regarding whether the Judicial Branch, specifically the Supreme Court was the most powerful branch of government. As a ticket out the door, he asked each student to predict what our government or the U.S. as a whole might look like if Marbury v. Madison was decided the other way and if Judicial Review did not exist. Mr. Roth collected these responses as the students exited the classroom.
| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points | ||||||
| EAD-530 | EAD-530-O500 | Case Study: Mr. Roth | 60.0 | ||||||
| Criteria | Percentage | No Submission (0.00%) | Insufficient (69.00%) | Approaching (74.00%) | Acceptable (87.00%) | Target (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned | |
| Criteria | 100.0% | ||||||||
| Observation Reflection Questions: Overt Activities, Classroom Environment, Instructional Strategies, and Engagement Strategies | 20.0% | Not addressed. | Summary unfittingly addresses the overt activities used to establish positive rapport, the classroom environment and climate, instructional strategies, and the effectiveness of student engagement strategies. | Summary unclearly addresses the overt activities used to establish positive rapport, the classroom environment and climate, instructional strategies, and the effectiveness of student engagement strategies. | Summary aptly addresses the overt activities used to establish positive rapport, the classroom environment and climate, instructional strategies, and the effectiveness of student engagement strategies. | Summary substantially addresses the overt activities used to establish positive rapport, the classroom environment and climate, instructional strategies, and the effectiveness of student engagement strategies. | 0.00/0.00 | ||
| Observation Reflection: Differentiation Strategies, Higher-Order Thinking, Technology | 20.0% | Not addressed. | Summary poorly addresses the differentiation strategies used, elements of high-order thinking, and the use of technology. | Summary weakly addresses the differentiation strategies used, elements of high-order thinking, and the use of technology. | Summary properly addresses the differentiation strategies used, elements of high-order thinking, and the use of technology. | Summary extensively addresses the differentiation strategies used, elements of high-order thinking, and the use of technology. | 0.00/0.00 | ||
| Post-Conference Preparation: Questions and Providing Feedback | 20.0% | Not addressed. | Summary implausibly addresses the questions to ask following the lesson, positive feedback, and constructive feedback. | Summary partially addresses the questions to ask following the lesson, positive feedback, and constructive feedback. | Summary credibly addresses the questions to ask following the lesson, positive feedback, and constructive feedback. | Summary realistically addresses the questions to ask following the lesson, positive feedback, and constructive feedback. | 0.00/0.00 | ||
| Post-Conference Preparation: Technology and Additional Comments | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Summary irrelevantly suggests technology to enhance student engagement and additional questions or comments. | Summary inconsistently suggests technology to enhance student engagement and additional questions or comments. | Summary effectively suggests technology to enhance student engagement and additional questions or comments. | Summary insightfully suggests technology to enhance student engagement and additional questions or comments. | 0.00/0.00 | ||
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | Not addressed. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some key formatting and citation errors are present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style. Format is free of error. | 0.00/0.00 | ||
| Organization | 10.0% | Not addressed. | An attempt is made to organize the content, but the sequence is indiscernible. The ideas presented are compartmentalized and may not relate to each other; or the summary is widely outside of the required word count. | The content is not adequately organized even though it provides the audience with a sense of the main idea. The summary may not be within a reasonable range of the required word count. | The content is logically organized. The ideas presented relate to each other. The content provides the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary is within a reasonable range of the required word count. | The content is well-organized and logical. There is a sequential progression of ideas that relate to each other. The content is presented as a cohesive unit and provides the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary is within the required word count. | 0.00/0.00 | ||
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistent language or word choice is present. Sentence structure is lacking. | Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension. Variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some practice and content-related language. | Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related language. Sentence structures are varied and engaging. | 0.00/0.00 | ||
| Total Weightage | 100% | 0.00/60.0 |
For a custom paper on the above or a related topic/instructions, place your order with us.
Why choose us:
• Affordable Rates – (15 – 30% Discount on all orders above $50)-
• 100% Free from Plagiarism
• Masters & PhD. Level Writers
• Money Back Guarantee
• 100% Privacy and Confidentiality
• Unlimited Revisions at no Extra Charges
• Guaranteed High-Quality Content
For a custom paper on the above or a related topic or instructions, place your order now!
What We Offer:
• Affordable Rates – (15 – 30% Discount on all orders above $50)
• 100% Free from Plagiarism
• Masters & Ph.D. Level Writers
• Money Back Guarantee
• 100% Privacy and Confidentiality
• Unlimited Revisions at no Extra Charges
• Guaranteed High-Quality Content
