Rosemont Elementary School
September 26th, 2018
Overall, Rosemont had a great teaching and learning environment. The school itself was very large, organized, and inviting. I observed that the students really enjoyed learning and were excited to be in class as I was greeted by many smiles. However, in my assigned class, I was not completely impressed by the teacher’s interactions with her students, classroom environment, nor her organization. The classroom was set up in a basic manner: students arranged in tables, teachers’ desk and the smart board in the front, and computer clusters against the windows on the side wall. The classroom was somewhat messy, with the tables unaligned, storage bins randomly placed, and papers scatted around tables. There were math posters displayed on the walls, however, no motivational quotes or sayings. The lighting was bland and the classroom was overall, not comforting.
During the first rotation of class, the teacher had the students in four groups. Each group was working on math relate topics in different forms; a group on computers, a group working on journals, a group on “data folders”, and a group working on “the number of the day.” All the groups were scatters around the room and on task. I thought this was an effective way for the students to enhance their skills while collaborating with other students. I also noticed that throughout these activities, the teacher walked around and check-on each group. I found this method to be beneficial to both teacher and students; it benefits the teacher as it provides a break from typical lesson planning and it benefits the students as it provides them a break from typical lectures.
I also observed a significant use of white boards throughout the second rotation of classes. The teacher placed a multiple-choice question on the document camera and had students write their answers on a board and then present their answers when time was up. In addition to their answer, the students had to provide the work they used to find the solution. I thought this was an interesting way to assess their learning. The teacher was able to easily see which students understood the material and which students needed extra help. After revealing the answer, the teacher explained why the correct answer was correct and how to get there.
With this particular teacher, I noticed an interesting means of interaction between her and her students as the teacher did not seem have developed a strong connection with her classes. She did not greet her class as they entered and was late to the second rotation. I often felt her words and remarks were somewhat snarky and rude. For example, one student asked how much time he had left to work with his group and her response began with, “Are you kidding me? Look at the timer.” I felt the students were used to these remarks as they did not seem bothered and continued to work, however, I believe her responses could have been less intimidating.
At the beginning of the second rotation, the students had to complete a “Minute to Win It” timed test. This was a timed test that assessed their basic ability to perform basic math skills, such as addition and subtraction. If the student had scored a perfect score on the skill set, they were to move on to the next level, which would be of higher difficulty. I found this was an interesting and effective way to help students enhance basic skills. The tests were quick, did not consume much class time, and since the tests were given at the beginning of class, allowed the kids to review past material prior to the new lesson. These “Minute to Win It” tests can be applied to two concepts discussed in class: summative assessment and the establishment of a beginning of class routine.
I noticed there was a strong presence of extrinsic motivation. For the class I observed, the students were required to complete a computer program called MobyMax. For each level they completed, they were awarded a small paper medal. They were then to cut out the medal and tape it onto a class chart. This class chart was presented in front of the classroom in the hallway, making each student’s level completion visible to visitors. These small paper awards are extrinsic motivators because they are tangible items that are achieved after the student has performed a good job.
After my experience at Rosemont, I have multiple questions: is it ethical to display each students level from MobyMax in the hallway? I noticed that each student was at a different level according to the chart. How similar are the lessons in MobyMax to the lessons in class? Are the students given the same amount of computer time? Is this fair to a student with limited access to technology? Do these types of comparison charts actually benefit students?