Summative Videotape Analysis

7/29/2019 Summative Videotape Analysis

1/18

SUMMATIVE VIDEOTAPE ANALYSIS 1

George Mason University

EDUC 614

William Rodick

Summative Video Analysis


2/18


Classroom Description

The American School of Metropolitan Florianopolis (ASMF), located in

Florianopolis, Brazil, is an IB World School, with both the Primary Years Programme

and Middle Years Programme complementing standards compiled from Common

Core State Standards (CCSS), American Education Reaches Out (AERO), and

Brazilian national standards (PCNs). The philosophy of the International

Baccalaureate, its learner profile attributes, its emphasis on holistic learning, and its

aim to build globally-minded, well-rounded students, runs throughout the curricular

aims of the entire school, and into each classroom. Instruction at the school is given in

English for our American program, and in Portuguese for our Brazilian program, and

the school offers language courses in Spanish and Chinese. ASMF is a small, private

school of about 220 students providing curriculum and instruction from pre-school to

12th grade. Class sizes are increasingly smaller in middle and high school. The size of

ASMF allows for greater parental involvement than one might experience at a large

public school in the U.S. At the same time, the size of the school does limit the

availability of resources for students with special needs, although there is an on-hand

school psychologist, and because a large portion of the population is local, a full

English as an Additional Language (EAL) department.

The IB MYP Year 5 (10th grade) Language A English class, which I teach, is

made up of a group of 12 total students. This course meets three times per week

Mondays from 1:30 to 3:00 p.m., Tuesdays from 9:30 to 11:00 a.m., and Fridays from

2:15 to 3:00 p.m. Each of these class meetings is held in a different classroom, and

each of those classrooms regularly belong to another teacher, who is kind enough to

allow us its use. As a result of the inconsistency of our classroom environment,

students do not have assigned seats, and the location of desks within a classroom is


3/18


different depending on the room, and occasionally different depending on the way

that classrooms teacher had previously wanted his or her desks to be arranged.

However, depending on the learning activity, we do rearrange desks frequently to

accommodate pair work, discussion, and other groupings. For this videotaped lesson,

students were arranged in two groups on opposing sides of the room, so that they

could work with their teams, but address their opponents, who they were debating.

This classroom affords us the use of two whiteboards, a projector and screen, a

classroom computer, and about 16 easily moveable desks (desks are sometimes used

for other classrooms when there happens to be a need). Each student brings in his or

her own electronic device, and for many this means a personal notebook computer,

and for others this means an iPod or iPhone.

Of the 12 students in the course, 10 identify themselves as Brazilian, and of

those 10, 1 is a first-generation Brazilian with Italian ancestry, and 1 is a first-

generation Brazilian with Chinese ancestry. Of the remaining 2 students, 1 is French,

and 1 identifies himself as American, although he was born in Venezuela. There are 5

girls in the course, and 7 boys.

None of the students in this course have an official individual education plan

(IEP). The school does not have a program for special education students, and does

not have a system for identifying students with learning disabilities or emotional

disturbances.

All but one of the students in the class has a primary language other than

English (10 have Brazilian Portuguese as a first language, and 1 has French). Three of

the students had never studied English from the perspective of a language arts or

literature curricular framework before this school year, and only one student ever

studied English from that perspective before becoming a student at the school.


4/18


Lesson Description and Analysis

This videotaped lesson is the last of three debates held during a unit in which

students are reading non-fiction books, writing editorials, and completing steps for the

IB MYP personal project an independent work of research and creation that serves

as a culminating lesson for students in 10th

grade. The debates serve as a complement

to the skills of language analysis and development of argumentation that are required

for the writing of the editorial and in the reading of nonfiction. The debates afford

students an opportunity to engage with nonfiction through a unique format different

from their editorials, and in collaboration with peers. The debate is an opportunity for

students to use certain overarching skills for the course, and for me as the teacher to

help them in developing those skills. It is a formative lesson by which students can

understand aspects of performance that are directly applicable to the editorials, which

is a summative assessment for the unit.

The IB is guided by ten learner profile attributes, and of the five focused on

within the unit, the debate examines the practice and development of two of those

attributes: reflective and thinker. The debate had students become reflective of their

knowledge and of their work as individuals and as a team, and during the debate,

students considered previous responses along with the responses of their opponents

before each turn. Students also relied heavily on their skills as thinkers, synthesizing

multiple sources of information, including unexpected information as it was

introduced in a back-and-forth debate format, consistently attempting to be persuasive

and supportive of one larger argument. The MYP is also driven by skills that are

considered transdisciplinary and essential for ensuring that students have good all-

around working skills, and these are called the approaches to learning. Of the four

approaches to learning skills planned for this unit, students practiced each in the


5/18


debate. Skills of reflection and thinking overlap from the learner profile, but

additionally, students had to exercise organizational skills and information literacy

skills. Much like students will use organization to impact audience in writing

editorials, they needed to organize the teams arguments in order to be persuasive in

the debate a task designed more purposefully in this second videotape analysis.

Before the debate, students were provided a topic, but needed to conduct research to

find support for the arguments they were making, and in the search for such

information, they needed to determine which sources were beneficial and credible a

similar skill to what is required of them in writing their editorials.

This third debate expanded upon the learning aims of previous debates, and as

such, was designed to accommodate a progression of student learning. There were

two major design flaws for the second debate that had to be addressed. The first flaw

was a lack of student engagement. Although students were active and participative,

they were not invested in the topic for discussion. This led to my own frustration,

which was visible in my reaction to student passivity. The second flaw was student

motivation. With my encouragement, students worked collaboratively, but the ideal

would be for such work to be self-driven.

Both of these flaws could be corrected by altering lesson design to account for

student interest. Before the second debate, I had posted a discussion board thread

asking students to suggest interesting topics for debate. There was no response, so

when we began class, students felt forced to decide on a topic, and they had to choose

between topics that they felt were pushed on them. I decided to alter the design for the

third debate to find out about student interest early enough that disinterest could be

addressed and the plan could be changed.


6/18


During the class before the third debate, I provided opinion sources that

students could look through to get ideas, and we explored topics together. Each

student then responded to the discussion board with three topics, and I shared my own

as an example (Debate Topics Appendix A). We discussed, provided reasons for

choosing a topic, and then voted. We decided on a debate about the use of military

drones. After a brief period for allowing students the opportunity to conduct research

that would inform them of a stance, we broke up into for and against groups. New

discussion prompts were posted for students where each student needed to post an

argument connected to a persuasive appeal, along with a found resource (Group

Shared Arguments Appendix B). This would ensure that the group had a collective

trove of information that could be used efficiently as they worked in groups during

pre-debate preparation time.

Carol Ann Tomlinson (2008) emphasizes how empowering students as

learners, who are able to gauge their work based on criteria for success, is an

important part of differentiation (p. 30). It is for this reason that the rubric is a central

point for self-evaluation and that I make reflection an integral aspect of the course.

On the day of the debate, the class began with a reflection that was deliberate and

focused: What happened in the last debate for you as an individual and as a team?

What went well, and what didnt go as well? Once students had time to reflect, and

discuss their reflections briefly with neighbors, we went to the board to discuss the

types of skills related to our rubrics and the writing of our editorials that overlapped

with success in the debate.

Another guideline for the design of this lesson was purposeful inclusion of

wait time. Classroom dynamics can lead students to be riddled with anxiety, and

thinking on the spot is only one method in which our brain responds to information.


7/18


8/18


rechecking of their ideas against the ideas of peers and experts, students are

consistently engaging in progressions of learning. This is expounded once students

share their ideas with the oppositional team, and hear designed feedback that is

inherently negative, pushing students back into the learning so that they can craft

statements again based on new feedback. In an article on teaching models and their

effectiveness, Joyce, Showers, and Rolheiser-Bennett (1987) found that the more

complex the outcomes (higher-order processing of information, problem solving,

social skills and attitudes), the greater are the effects, and the design of this debate

created situations for complex interaction with information and outcomes (p. 17).

Although one could argue that a debate alone might not be an example of

project-based learning, I designed the lesson to align with the descriptions of Lattimer

and Riordan (2011), so that our debate might reap similar benefits to those of project-

based learning:

Academic rigor: How do the projects address key learning concepts or standards, or

help students develop habits of mind and work associated with academic and

professional disciplines? (Lattimer & Riordan, 2011, p. 19). The design of the lesson

ensured that certain standards guided student learning, and these were related to

subject-specific as well as the transdisciplinary skills that will be useful to students in

their future professions. Some of these academic goals were explicit, and some were

implicit, and these implicit skills are ones that extend beyond this lesson to be

addressed through other activities in the unit.

Explicit Implicit

LA.WR.10.1. Write arguments to support claims

in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using

valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient

evidence

LA.WR.10.1.a. Introduce precise claim(s),

distinguish the claim(s) from alternate oropposing claims, and create an organization that

LA.WR.10.1.b. Develop claim(s) and

counterclaims fairly, supplying evidence for each

while pointing out the strengths and limitations of

both in a manner that anticipates the audiences

knowledge level and concerns.

LA.WR.10.1.d. Establish and maintain a formalstyle and objective tone while attending to the


9/18


establishes clear relationships among claim(s),

counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.

LA.WR.10.2. Write informative/explanatory texts

to examine and convey complex ideas, concepts,

and information clearly and accurately through

the effective selection, organization, and analysis

of content.LA.WR.10.2.b. Develop the topic with well-

chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended

definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other

information and examples appropriate to the

audiences knowledge of the topic

LA.WR.10.7. Conduct short as well as more

sustained research projects to answer a question

(including a self-generated question) or solve a

problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when

appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the

subject, demonstrating understanding of the

subject under investigation.

LA.WR.10.8. Gather relevant information frommultiple authoritative print and digital sources,

using advanced searches effectively; assess the

usefulness of each source in answering the

research question; integrate information into the

text selectively to maintain the flow of ideas,

avoiding plagiarism and following a standard

format for citation.

LA.WR.10.9. Draw evidence from literary or

informational texts to support analysis, reflection,

and research.

LA.SL.10.1. Initiate and participate effectively in

a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one,

in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partnerson grades 910 topics, texts, and issues, building

on others ideas and expressing their own clearly

and persuasively.

LA.SL.10.1.a. Come to discussions prepared,

having read and researched material under study;

explicitly draw on that preparation by referring to

evidence from texts and other research on the

topic or issue to stimulate a thoughtful, well-

reasoned exchange of ideas.

LA.SL.10.1.d. Respond thoughtfully to diverse

perspectives, summarize points of agreement and

disagreement, and, when warranted, qualify or

justify their own views and understanding andmake new connections in light of the evidence

and reasoning presented.

LA.LA.10.1. Demonstrate command of the

conventions of standard English grammar and

usage when writing or speaking.

norms and conventions of the discipline in which

they are writing.

LA.WR.10.2.d. Use precise language and

domain-specific vocabulary to manage the

complexity of the topic.

LA.WR.10.2.e. Establish and maintain a formal

style and objective tone while attending to thenorms and conventions of the discipline in which

they are writing.

LA.WR.10.5. Develop and strengthen writing as

needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting,

or trying a new approach, focusing on addressing

what is most significant for a specific purpose and

audience.

LA.WR.10.6. Use technology, including the

Internet, to produce, publish, and update

individual or shared writing products, taking

advantage of technologys capacity to link to

other information and to display information

flexibly and dynamically.LA.SL.10.1.b. Work with peers to set rules for

collegial discussions and decision-making (e.g.,

informal consensus, taking votes on key issues,

presentation of alternate views), clear goals and

deadlines, and individual roles as needed.

LA.SL.10.1.c. Propel conversations by posing and

responding to questions that relate the current

discussion to broader themes or larger ideas;

actively incorporate others into the discussion;

and clarify, verify, or challenge ideas and

conclusions.

Authenticity: How do the projects use a real-world context and address issues that

matter to the students? (Lattimer & Riordan, 2011, p. 19). This third debate was

more strategic in ensuring that the topic related to student interest. Students also had

autonomy in choosing each persons role in the overall argument and the information


10/18


that he or she wished to use. The question about drone use, which was a topic the

students chose, is relevant, current, and most importantly, addresses questions that do

not have direct answers. This follows David Thornburgs ideas about creating inquiry

that matches the technological influence and access for students who are thinking in a

new world: If people already know the answer, and it can be looked up on Google,

why ask the question? Let's ask them real questions [] It's messy. It's unclear. There

are differing points of view (Borovoy, 2012).

Applied Learning: How do the projects engage students in solving semi-structured

problems calling for competencies expected in high-performance work organizations

(e.g., teamwork, problem-solving, communication, etc.)? (Lattimer & Riordan, 2011,

p. 20). As indicated through the standards that shape the activity, students work

cooperatively to create the best argument possible, each working to contribute their

own evidence and research that fits within the larger context of the major collective

thesis either for or against the use of military drones. We discussed the skills that

drive successful debates before the debate began, and connected these skills to other

learning they practiced in planning their editorials. The structure of their work was

also solidified by the use of a rubric that gauges organization.

Active Exploration: How do the projects extend beyond the classroom and connect

to work internships, field-based investigations, and community explorations?

(Lattimer & Riordan, 2011, p. 21). The active exploration for this task relied on

interaction with the digital world. Students explored opinions through the use of

editorials and news articles, but they also relied on personal experience in one of the

more moving speeches, which relied on pathos, the emotional appeal of

argumentation, a student discussed his fathers death through military service, and


11/18


how the use of personnel in ground fighting, rather than the use of unmanned drones,

costs countries and families.

Adult Connections: How do the projects connect students with adult mentors and

coaches from the wider community? (Lattimer & Riordan, 2011, p. 21). Although

students were not connected to adults in physical communities, they did rely on me as

the teacher to help them in developing argumentation, although much of my coaching

had been ongoing through other debates and the editorial writing process. Students

also digitally connected to adults, through the use of their expertise to support

argumentation. Although this could be considered a stretch, this digital connection

with experts in the field is nearly as beneficial as physical guidance, particularly as it

models the type of mentorship that they are likely to face while working in career

fields in the future.

Assessment Practices: How do the projects involve students in regular exhibitions

and assessments of their work in light of personal, school, and real-world standards

of performance? (Lattimer & Riordan, 2011, p. 21). Students exhibited their skills

for each other, and as students interacted through debate, they learned with and from

each other. For this to extend into a true example of project-based learning, the

students could hold the debate in a public forum. I had considered an extension of the

project in this fashion, but until the students can develop full confidence in this

process, an exhibition might turn into preparation for the project, rather than a focus

on the learning that is gained through the project a narrow use of projects is

something that Lattimer and Riordan warn the reader about: PBL often fails when

the emphasis falls too heavily on the project element of the title rather than on the

learning (p. 18).


12/18


Reflection

I planned to keep the positive aspects of the last debate alive in this debate. I

made directions clear, reiterating positions and directions so that students understood

how to transition into group work. I reminded students of applicable knowledge from

the previous lesson, making it clear that the lessons build upon one another so that

students could use reflection to inform performance. I moved around the room,

making sure that I could provide adequate attention and assistance to each student. I

provided suggestions, differentiating guidance as necessary to reach student need

while remaining cautious against limiting opportunities for thinking. I posed

clarifying questions to formatively gauge preparedness, keeping teacher talk to a

minimum even when students needed guidance, primarily relying on group talk for

responding to questions.

The lesson was directly connected to building argumentation skills similar to

those that students will use when writing their editorials. The debate had an added

bonus of allowing students the chance to practice these skills formatively and in

groups, so that they could evaluate themselves during the process of practicing these

skills. They also practiced collaboration and speaking skills. I was concerned that in

the last debate, I had been the one who was most aware of the skills they were

developing, and to provide students with greater ownership of their development, the

review of associated skills before students prepared for the debate proved valuable.

To a degree, students were engaged in conceptual understanding. This debate

topic was more purposefully aligned to the conceptual goals of the unit than the last

debate topic, which had focused on Lance Armstrong and the loss of his titles. This

debate topic, about the use of military drones, certainly fit with our area of interaction

focus health and social education. The significant concept for this unit Culture


13/18


influences perception, and is a starting point for understanding others, and knowing

how to be understood by others, was not as connected to the topic, although students

did discuss their cultural and national bias regarding the use of military drones. They

also demonstrate the concept through their interactions during the debate, but this was

not overtly addressed. I could have guided them more towards a topic that would

directly connect to the significant concept, but I felt that using a topic that students

found interesting was more important following the second debate. Students did use

skills that were transdisciplinary and worked beyond subject-specific expectations.

The lesson did not ask students to engage in a variety of activities, but within

the large activity, students were asked to do many things, such as research,

collaborate, present information, defend information, and evaluate the course of

argumentation. Also, within the larger activity, students were able to take on varied

roles. Regarding variety to reach student differences in learning, this lesson allowed

students to do the things that they are good at (one student may have researched

information for others, written ideas out before speaking, or could have remained

completely by him or herself to contemplate the topic discussion) while also forcing

them to exercise the skills that they may not be good at (collaboration, speaking, etc.).

They were able to take advantage of self-assessment as a tool to guide individual

learning and individual demonstration of skills.

The previous debate had not been planned to take into consideration

demographics or background knowledge. Since this group is largely made up of

students who are still gaining proficiency in the use of the English language, I

increased the time students had for planning before the debate began. I also had

students seek related sources for homework before the class began so that they had

greater opportunities to find information that matched their own reading levels and


14/18


initial ideas. The dependence on technology for this assignment through the use of

newspaper editorials, for which I provided links, and the use of guided discussion

posts in the Schoology resource helped students interact with a variety of

information, much of which they could each shape to their individual abilities,

interests, and ideas.

Although it was intentional that I provide greater time in preparation for the

debates, I did not keep track of time well enough. Two arguments were actually

missed at the end, and students who were able to speak soon before the end of class

felt rushed to finish. I also think this lesson could have benefited from a prior lesson

that had been focused on teaching speaking and speaking skills. This is a group of

students that lacks confidence in speaking, which is one reason for the format that I

provided, but I could have enhanced confidence further if forethought in teaching

these skills could have shifted student focus on persuasion and argumentation during

the debate. I do plan to now use portions of the video recording and their

performances as practical examples for reflection to teach speaking skills. Although

students used the rubric to help guide their debates, the use of the rubric could have

been continuous through the debate, so that students could have easily checked back

to see how they were progressing as a team.

Students were far more motivated, involved, and cooperatively responsible

without the need for my reassurance. I am thrilled with how the exercise went, and

how the learning was improved through the use of particular models and strategies.


15/18


References

Borovoy, A. (2012). David Thornburg on the Evolving Classroom (Big Thinkers

Series). Edutopia.K-12 Education & Learning Innovations with Proven

Strategies that Work. Edutopia. Retrieved December 6, 2012, from

http://www.edutopia.org/david-thornburg-future-classroom-video.

Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Joyce,B.,Showers,B.,&Rolheiser-Bennett,C.(1987).Staffdevelopmentand

studentlearning:Asynthesisofresearchonmodelsofteaching.

EducationalLeadership,45(2),11-23.

Lattimer, H., & Riordan, R. (2011). Project-based learning engages students in

meaningful work.Middle School Journal, 43 (2), 18-23.

Tomlinson, C. (2008). The goals of differentiation.Educational Leadership, 66(3),

26-30.


16/18


Appendices


17/18


Debate Topics - Appendix A


18/18


Group Shared Arguments Appendix B

Documents

Summative Videotape Analysis