Facilitates Discussions- Student Work Analysis

The instructor effectively facilitates simultaneous small-group discussions
Made by MCESA
APPLY
G
Earn Graduate Credit
Graduate-level credit is available for this micro-credential. You can apply for credit through one of our university partners after successfully completing the micro-credential.
Learn More About Graduate Credit

About this Micro-credential

Key Method

The instructor facilitates simultaneous small-group conversations where participants examine classroom artifacts and brainstorm instructional changes necessary to maximize student learning.

Method Components

The intention of this competency is to examine the degree to which instructors effectively facilitate simultaneous small-group conversations to aid participants in brainstorming pedagogical practices and classroom implementation strategies that will maximize student learning. A logical place to demonstrate this competency would be during the “student work review” segment, but that is not necessarily the only point where this competency can be demonstrated.

Components of Effective Discussion Facilitation During Student Work Review

  1. Facilitates small-group conversations
    • Poses questions
    • Communicates goals and expectations
    • Aligns interactive structures and engagement strategies with the objective
    • Redirects groups that stray from the task
    • Ensures all participants engage
    • Ensures conversations are productive
    • Stays within the 15-minute time frame
  1. Facilitates whole-group summary conversation
    • Asks purposeful questions that lead participants to share out the issues they uncovered in the student work
    • Asks questions that lead to a synthesis of solutions to address the issues
    • Effectively engages the participants in generating a list of possible action steps and selecting individual goals for next time
    • Stays within the 10-minute time frame

Research & Resources

Supporting Research

  • Ball, D. L., Thames, M.H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching: What Makes It Special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 387-407.
  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.)
  • Carpenter, T. P., et al. (1989). Using Knowledge of Children’s Mathematics Thinking in Classroom Teaching: An Experimental Study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531.
  • Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. b. (1999). Children’s Mathematics: Cognitively Guided Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. C., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Resources

  • National Governors Association for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards—Mathematics. Washington DC: Author.
  • The Common Core State Standards in mathematics were built on progressions: narrative documents describing the progression of a topic across a number of grade levels, informed both by research on children’s cognitive development and by the logical structure of mathematics.
  • Rimbey, K. A. (2013). From the Common Core to the Classroom: A Professional Development Efficacy Study for the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.
    http://hdl.handle.net/2286/R.I.18088
  • Van de Walle, J. A., et al. (2014). Teaching Student-Centered Mathematics: Developmentally Appropriate Instruction for Grades Pre-K-2. Pearson.
  • Van de Walle, J. A., et al. (2014). Teaching Student-Centered Mathematics: Developmentally Appropriate Instruction for Grades 3-5. Pearson.
  • Van de Walle, J. A., et al. (2014). Teaching Student-Centered Mathematics: Developmentally Appropriate Instruction for Grades 6-8. Pearson.

Submission Requirements

Submission Guidelines & Evaluation Criteria

The items in this following section detail what must be submitted for evaluation. To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for each question in Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

Part 1. Overview Questions

(300-word limit):

Part A

  • What grade level, mathematics domain, and task were discussed in the Student Work Discussion?
  • What was your objective for this Student Work Discussion, and what question(s) did you pose to facilitate conversations that addressed this objective?

Part 2. Work Examples/Artifacts

Instructor must submit photos of the action steps posters that demonstrate his/her competency in facilitating discussions. The rubric in this section will focus on the quality of the next-steps strategies listing the photo(s) and the written reflections about small-group engagement.

Part B
To view the rubric associated with this part, please download the requirements doc at the bottom of the page.

Part C
To view the rubric associated with this part, please download the requirements doc at the bottom of the page.

Part 3. Educator Reflection

(300-word limit for each response)

Part D.

  • How did you facilitate participant discussions during their small-group interactions (e.g., purposeful questions, etc.)?
  • How did you encourage participants to generate solutions to issues that arose in the student
  • How did the whole-group summary discussion synthesize the small-group discussions and lead to action steps for next time?

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under:
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Requirements

Download to access the requirements and scoring guide for this micro-credential.
How to prepare for and earn this micro-credential - in a downloadable PDF document

Ready to get started?

APPLY