Classroom Observation Report

English Department
Pre-visit conference date:
12-1-2014
Post-visit date:
Date of observation: 12-1-2014
Teacher:
Sarah Hobson
Course:
Observer:
Andrea R. Harbin
1. Classroom context:
a. Provide a sense of the context for this particular class meeting.
This class took place in OM G17, a computer classroom. For this class, the
students were gathered around the central table for discussion of the shared
assignments.
i. What point of the semester did the observation take place?
The class that I observed came at the end of the term, Fall 2014.
ii. How many students were present?
There were 11 students in attendance.
iii. What sort of preparation were the students expected to have done?
The students were to have completed unit plans on argumentative writing
and were to include a grading rubric.
2. Intellectual topics:
a. From your pre-visit conference, what are the teachers objectives for this class?
Hobson had two objectives for this class. First, to perfect their grading rubrics so
that their students know what learning looks like. Second, to review grammar
and go over the unit plans.
1. Hobsons main objectives for the class were for students to be able to improve
their own rubric criteria for each category and for students to be able to use the
model students rubric criteria for one or two categories to formulate long-term
learning objectives and the short-term learning objectives that would help his
students access those long-term objectives one skill at a time. Students should be
able to improve upon the rubrics they had brought to class by examining one or
more categories of the rubrics of a peer and together deciding on how to
strengthen his/her categories with more detail.
2. By working with one students rubric and unpacking the criteria he had
designed for one or more categories, Hobsons goal was for students to be able to
unpack his language choices, his articulated scaffolding of each criteria, and his
theories of how language acquisition occurs in regard to argumentative writing.

3. In response to this class, Hobsons objectives were for students to be able to

design their own long-term objectives and some of the short-term objectives
that would help adolescents in their site access those long-term objectives.
b. How do these objectives relate to the course as a whole?
In relation to the course as a whole, the students have been learning about
different literacy frameworks and practices and the theories of language
acquisition that guide teacher decision-making in regard to how they scaffold
their grammar and writing instruction. This class was a chance for students to
identify sample learning objectives such that they could see how short-term
objectives could help them scaffold adolescent learning so that adolescents can
reach the long-term objective. This class was also a precursor to them
strengthening their lesson planning in regard to grammar and writing instruction.
The class was designed to better prepare them for their final case study reflection
on the design of grammar and writing instruction as they have observed it in their
field observations. In this reflection, they will be assessing the literacy
frameworks and theories of language acquisition of their host teachers as well as
the language learning opportunities and identity construction processes of
adolescents. These reflections will be in the service of strengthening their own
articulations of their emerging theories of practice.
This class focused on the writing process part of the curriculum rather than on
grammar. This particular writing assignment was the most complex of those
covered in the course.
3. Pedagogical methods:
a. What were the teaching strategies employed in the class?
This class was primarily a paper workshop and guided discussion. Hobson began
the class with a discussion of the assignment and what challenges they were
facing in completing it. The students had questions about the number and types
of model texts that would be appropriate for this type of assignment
(argumentative writing). One student stated that s/he would be giving the
students the choice of three possible topics and asked if s/he needed to provide
models for all three. Hobson explained that s/he should not provide models that
too closely matched the topics so that the models would not unduly influence the
students own arguments. Hobson also stressed the importance of giving the
students a sense of real audience with the assignment. Hobson wrapped up this
portion of the class by asking if the students were in a good place with the
assignment and whether they needed more time to complete it. The students all
asserted that they needed additional time. Hobson did not specify a new due date
at this time but did tell the students to post their drafts online for her review.
Hobson then explained that she had read their argumentative papers over the

weekend and asserted that she had written them all letters regarding their work.
She praised the progress the students had made on the papers, noting that their
sentences were much tighter and were clearer. The students were to revise again
with a particular journal in mind for possible submission. She informed them that
this would not be a big round, but that she wanted to be sure they understood
the grammatical principles. The students revisions were to include a reflective
memo regarding what challenges they faced in revising.
The class then began to workshop the unit plans and rubrics of three students who
had agreed to share their work for that purpose. Hobson distributed copies of the
work to the class. The purpose of the first part of the workshop was to revise the
rubrics and develop long-term and short-term objectives from them. The first
student/author began with explaining his assignment and discussing what he sees
in student writing in his observation classroom. The students discussed what sorts
of literacies might be relevant to the assignment and what sorts of research might
be included. Students also discussed model texts for the assignment. Hobson
noted that the student had written that he would decide what credible research
was, and suggested that he instead enlist the students in the decision regarding
what constituted credible research so that the students saw themselves as having
agency.
The group then began to go over the rubric. Students noted that the rubric was
very long and suggested that this might be overwhelming. Hobson emphasized
the need to include enough detail that the students know what is expected of them
without overwhelming them. She reminded students that these longer
assignments could be assessed in smaller chunks as well (topic sentences, prezi,
etc. rather than as a whole argument).
Hobson had the students work for ten minutes making specific comments on the
draft for the author. The students worked quietly and appeared to be on task. The
class then reconvened to discuss the suggestions. This led to a conversation
regarding what level of language is appropriate to this level of class. Some
students suggested that the language of the rubric was too complex. Hobson
noted that when she uses words like ethnography or methodology the
students felt respected. The discussion of the authors work was constructive and
detailed.
Hobson asked the students to use the authors work to create long-term objectives.
The students worked in pairs for 10 minutes with Hobson working with the
author. After about 10 minutes, the students were losing focus. Hobson

reconvened to discuss. The students contributed willingly and had sound

suggestions.
Hobson illustrated how they might get a short-term objective from the long- term
objective. She demonstrated that one of the concerns with the introduction was
that the students didnt know how to hook the reader, and that that would be a
short-term objective. She explained that they would have to decide how many
days to spend on writing the introduction and how many short-term objectives
make up the part of that long term objective.
Hobson ended the class with the statement that drafts were due Friday.
b. Assess the effectiveness of the strategies.
Overall, I would say the strategies used by Hobson were effective. The students
seemed engaged in the process and, for the most part, were willing participants in
the evaluation and discussion of the authors work. The student questions and
suggestions for revision were above average in my estimation, which implies that
they saw value in the process. As a workshop, the intense focus on one students
work should have served as a model to the other students as they work on their
own projects. This format, however, did mean that one student received much
more feedback than the other students in the course.
4. Students:
a. Describe the form and extent of the student participation.
Student participation was strong. Of the 11 students present, only one did not
speak over the course of the class. Four very vocal students led the discussion,
but all of the students seemed engaged in the process.
5. Summary:
a. As an outsider to the class, what did you notice that was particularly well done?
The students willingness to engage in the review process and their active
discussion both point to Hobsons skill in fostering their intellectual
independence. The discussion was very well run, with Hobson guiding it as
necessary without overwhelming the students.
b. What did you notice that could have been more effective?
Of the three unit plans and rubrics presented, only one was discussed. This was
discussed in detail, and the benefits of this intensive review are clear. It seems
more class time devoted to this exercise would be helpful.
c. What recommendations do you have for the teacher?
This was one of the best class workshops that I have seen. Because it focused
only on one student, I would recommend Hobson follow this model workshop

with one in which smaller groups review each others lesson plans and rubrics so
that the benefits of the review could be applied specifically to each students
work.
Please request that the teacher responds to this form. Submit both your observation and (if
provided) the teachers response.
I appreciate this detailed observation report and especially Andreas suggestion that with
more time students take up this activity in smaller groups with their own rubrics. I will definitely
employ that strategy as I go forward. What I was struck by in this class was the degree of
ownership students had of the frameworks for literacy and language acquisition they had been
constructing all semester. They were working out their theories of practice by dialoguing with
an example of practice (a written rubric assessment), and they were raising intelligent questions
about one anothers language choices vis a vis likely adolescent responses. They were drawing
from their classroom observations and from their synthesized knowledge from the various
teachers they had encountered in course readings, and they were comfortable with ambiguity.
There was no right or wrong answer. Instead, they could together problem-solve any issue
such as overwhelming students with too many expectations in an assessment or using academic
language that wasnt well defined and scaffolded into practical applications. To me, they felt
free to walk away from such discussions with more approaches to such challenges and with the
freedom to pick and choose and/or to invent their own for the students they had been following
in the field (this was the exercise-of course they werent actually teaching the students).
The collaborative and professional nature of student interactions also impressed me. I
had specifically positioned them as experts, accountable to students and to schools, working
together to help one another access more resources in thinking through their assessment
decisions. Pertinent to that conversation was how to position adolescents to be able to self-assess
their own writing. In the midst of taking up this question, I really enjoyed how students
unpacked the tensions inherent to rubric assessments, in particular the kind of power a teacher
exercises in pre-determining assessment criteria and the need to position students as real world
writers who have agency and ownership of composition processes and who can determine
assessment criteria with teachers.
I am delighted to have found a way for pre-service teachers to spell out their own
instructional scaffolding regarding both the bigger picture of engaging in meaningful writing
processes with students as well as in walking with students a step at a time through scaffolded
vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and semantics instruction. By asking students in rubric form to
specifically speak to the aspects of introductions, topic sentences, body paragraphs, conclusions,
sentence structure, style, etc. that make up a grammar and writing curriculum they will be
teaching, students can better formulate and articulate their specific long-term objectives vis a vis
the short-term scaffolding of their grammar instruction decisions.