Why Reflection?

Reflection is part of professional development. The learning is imbedded and personalized to the educator’s current instructional situation. This is a natural opportunity for teachers to learn from their instructional experiences. This a way for educators to naturally improve their craft, specialty, or expertise. Educators might focus on one piece of an instructional lesson that may be included in several or one instructional lesson to reflect on. Educators should be continually learning how to improve their development and delivery of an instructional lesson.

Each educator may have a different way of reflecting on an instructional lesson. Many individuals complete this task naturally in relation to their personal activities. Some need a routine to ensure that reflection takes place. Some need to write notes about their analysis. Some might use a positive, negative t-chart about a lesson. Some educators may have a journal dedicated to write their analysis—reflection of instructional lessons and possible options for future lessons. These notes may also be used as anecdotal data. Some will analyze and jot notes as we move through the lesson. Some will wait until the end of the lesson. Others need to wait for a quiet uninterrupted moment to analyze aspects of a lesson. The actual reflection may take place during a quiet walk or it might take place in quiet moment during the instructional day. There are no set rules to follow, only that you take a few minutes to ponder about an event that has taken place.

During reflection teachers might ask the following questions. Did the lesson bring the intended outcome? What did I notice about students throughout the lesson? How may I increase student agency during this type of lesson? Why did this student struggle? What were the hiccups or bumps during the lesson? How might I improve the lesson next time?

Through questioning your conclusion might reveal:

  • a new instructional method that went surprisingly smooth
  • a small or large piece that may need to be addressed, like altering how long students should read-to-self
  • this group of students struggles to work in small groups
  • this group of students needs more background knowledge or practice

Each group of students is unique and may have different needs to soak in the information being presented.

Each carefully planned instructional lesson will have some positive and negative outcomes. At times the positive outcomes may show through and at other times the negative aspects will shine brighter. The goal would be to create a lesson that will produce more positive vibes. Students tend to embrace and participate in an activity that they enjoy (intrinsic motivation). For example, an instructional lesson about how to properly use commas is often dry, laborious, boring. Maybe the lesson would be better embraced if students wrote the sentences that need commas? What if this lesson was taught within an interesting science lesson? What if students were allowed to develop those sentences in small groups? What if the students were allowed to present their findings? What if they were able to work in pairs?

Reflection is a vital component in the process of developing instructional lessons. Reflection is a “mini” analysis of a past event. Reflection helps teachers evaluate what took place during an instructional lesson. Reflection also helps educators to wonder about which direction they might take next in developing an instructional lesson. Reflection also assists educators to organize and bring clarity to their thoughts or evaluation of instruction. This is especially true when they choose to write about the reflection. The process of writing usually deepens their analysis of the topic.

 

The Essential Components and Teacher Education of RTI

A valid response to intervention (RTI) program provides the necessary support and instruction to students who are struggling to maintain appropriate grade-level expectations for reading and math. The program provides different layers of more intense, focus instruction based on individual student’s learning needs. The program was first mandated in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2002 by United States Congress. RTI was also mandated in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 2004. The mandate remained a part of the policy when NCLB was updated and renewed under the name of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2017. This act was put into place to provide students who lag behind their fellow classmates support earlier in their formal educational career, with the hope of alleviating special education services. It was also determined that the earlier students were supported the less emotional trauma students would endure and the less financial burden individuals would be to the educational process and society.

Essential Components of RTI

The major components of a valid response to intervention (RTI) program are rather simple. How the components are developed or formed and maintained to accommodate the students present increases the complexity of the program. Each program should include three major components: (a) systematic assessment measures-screenings, diagnostic, and progress-monitoring, (b) research-based instruction taught sequentially and at times taught explicitly to meet the educational needs of all present students-instruction in the regular classroom, supplemental and more intensive instruction, and (c) use of current student data to form student instructional lessons. Each program should also have a mode of communication within its infrastructure. Communication that flows between all entities of the RTI program. Each program will seem similar, but different.

Essential Teacher Knowledge

Teachers of a successful RTI program should have the following knowledge and skills: (a) literacy development and instruction, (b) how to use data to inform instruction, (c) how to differentiate instruction, (d) how to collaborate, (e) be a lifelong learner, (f) how to use interpersonal and communication skills, and (g) how to use necessary technology (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012). Teachers should also be knowledgeable about how to use various types of assessments, such as progress monitoring, curriculum-based, and universal screens.

The leadership team of an RTI program is responsible for the oversight and direction of professional develop opportunities related to RTI. The campus coordinator usually heads the leadership team and is often a reading specialist. This person is often the liaison between the district and school. The leadership team should be knowledgeable about teachers current instructional abilities and education. The leadership team should also know what types of on-going teacher professional develop that should take place in order to maintain an effective RTI program. Research suggests that on-going professional develop of a successful RTI program should include the following: (a) systemic curriculum, (b) effective instruction, (c) direct instruction, (d) specified instructional materials, (e) key instructional components, (f) CBM assessments, (g) videos and/or observations of classroom instruction, (h) data graphed against goals, (i) student progress monitored monthly, and (j) decisions regarding curriculum and instruction based on data (Kashima et al., 2009). Professional learning can take place in a variety of different venues, such as one-on-one with district personnel or in a seminar format (White et al., 2012). The leadership team of an RTI program should also be knowledgeable about current research and resources related to effective intervention curriculum and instruction. RTI is a living breathing model that must remain flexible to meet the learning needs of their current students.

References

Bean, R. & Lillenstein, J. (2012). Response to intervention and the changing roles of schoolwide personnel. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 491-501. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01073

Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of RTI: A closer look at leadership, parent involvement, and cultural responsivity. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, 1-11.

White, R., Polly, D. & Audette, R. (2012).  A case analysis of an elementary school’s implementation of response to intervention. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26, 73-90.  doi: 10.1080/02568543.2011.632067

 

 

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)