Читать книгу Coaching Teachers in Bilingual and Dual-Language Classrooms - Alexandra Guilamo - Страница 10

CHAPTER 1

Fair Observations in Bilingual and Dual-Language Classrooms

Many coaches have asked me about the need for a new set of tools that ensures a fair observation and feedback cycle for bilingual and dual-language classrooms. They want to trust the efficacy of the tools at their immediate disposal. Their questions usually sound something like this: “Aren’t the district-adopted observation and evaluation frameworks designed for just that? Don’t they ensure quality of instruction that leads to student achievement? If so, how could using anything else be considered fairer?” When it comes to language learners, the answer is both yes and no. It is not a question of what these frameworks were designed to do. Teacher evaluation frameworks are used by every school to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of teachers against a common definition of good teaching. These frameworks are used by building administrators and coaches not only for evaluating teacher quality, but to guide coaches in the capacity-building efforts with teachers, as well.

Instead, it is more a question of how to get the right evidence during an observation. The important point to understand is that if we are to have fair observations in bilingual and dual-language classrooms, we must have clear practices in place for observing effectively and accurately, regardless of the school- or districtwide adopted teacher evaluation framework.

However, after reviewing the statewide evaluation frameworks and teacher evaluation rubrics adopted by districts across the United States, it became abundantly clear that these frameworks lack clarity in how to gather data when observing, especially when the observation is in another language, despite the vast number of programs that exist (Danielson, 2011, 2013; Marshall, 2013; Marzano, 2001b).

The failure to acknowledge the uniqueness of bilingual and dual-language classrooms creates huge challenges for the observing coach and the teachers they observe alike (Higher Educators in Linguistically Diverse Education, 2015). Without processes for the accurate identification of best practice in bilingual and dual-language settings and for collection of evidence from lessons delivered in a language that the coach does not speak, observations will struggle to be fair and effective at improving student outcomes. Let’s begin by defining what fair means in the observation and feedback cycle.

A Definition of Fair

In order to establish best practices, we need to establish a shared definition of fair observation and what it means for our practice. Fair means honest and bias-free. Fair means embracing actions and systems that ensure justice for everyone affected. Most important, to be fair requires a legitimate approach with clearly defined rules or conditions. Observations must credibly put student learning across language, culture, and content at the center of the process.

This may or may not be the definition many think of for fair, but any definition that fails to reach the level of social justice, equity, and access is simply not good enough. So, what does this mean for the process of observing in the language learning classroom? It means that we need more useful tools to minimize biases that stem from what we expect to see in monolingual classrooms. Unfortunately, most of the current observation and evaluation frameworks don’t contain these tools, which make them only fairish.

The Challenges of Current Teacher Evaluation Frameworks

Many teacher observation and evaluation frameworks are valuable tools in defining the ingredients of effective teaching, but they do not recognize the strengths and challenges of English learners (ELs) (Fenner, Kozik, & Cooper, 2014). None require teachers to have high levels of proficiency in a language other than English. None require teachers to demonstrate how they use their knowledge or skills to analyze academic language proficiency so they can differentiate and adapt their instruction to ensure that their students access grade-level learning. In fact, none identify the evidence-based practices that embody the most effective bilingual and dual-language classrooms.

More concerning is the number of assumptions about highly effective content, curriculum, and tools that are apparent in most of the observation protocols—assumptions that often conflict with language learner needs. Assumptions may include but are not limited to the following.

• Word walls that are organized by the alphabet are beneficial.

• Unit tests accurately assess content learning rather than language proficiency even for emergent bilinguals.

• Only one language will be used by students at all times during the lesson.

Take, for example, one assumption that frustrates primary teachers who leverage Spanish literacy as part of their programs. No framework defines what early Spanish literacy content, instruction, outcomes, and resources highly effective teachers should use to develop early literacy, but many educators assume the best resources to use are those based on research that supports systematic, synthetic phonics instruction (Slavin, Lake, Chambers, Cheung, & Davis, 2009). Naturally, these teachers expect to see content that includes phonics, effective phonics methods, assessments that measure students’ progress with phonics skills, and lots of phonics-based resources that they should use with fidelity.

The problem isn’t the strategic alignment that reflects highly effective teaching and learning. The problem is the assumption that phonics is necessary for all students. Systematic, synthetic phonics instruction is not necessary for early Spanish literacy. The sequence of letter sounds and emphasis of building on those sounds to create English words tend to confuse students and delay the most effective research-based methods for Spanish literacy. So, what happens to teachers who could accelerate early literacy in Spanish but are mandated to use English phonics, English phonics–based assessments, and phonics-based resources with fidelity? It’s like trying to be a vegetarian while eating pork; it’s counterproductive. It’s a struggle that usually ends with stressed teachers due to the pressure following the assumed definition of highly effective practice, and it ends with students not having their needs met.

Even coaches who do not carry these common assumptions, or who are able to see possibilities beyond them, are likely to make many faulty inferences during observations in bilingual and dual-language classrooms. Why are these faulty inferences so likely? When coaches are unable to recognize the unique ingredients of quality bilingual and dual-language instruction and the complex needs of bilingual and dual-language students, there’s a high probability that coaches will jump to conclusions about parts of the observation and add meanings to lessons that do not exist, ending with inaccurate understandings of the teaching and learning that occurred. These are hardly conditions for fairness.

A fair observation process should help observers look for the right ingredients across a range of program models:

The literature suggests the importance of the following variables: (a) which language of instruction is used, and for what content (Heras, 1994); (b) how the first and second languages may be used together (Heras, 1994); (c) how students are physically grouped for instruction (Strong, 1986), (d) what types of learning activities occur, and with what opportunity for student language use (Berducci, 1993), and (e) how listening, speaking, writing and reading communication modes are utilized for language learning (Krashen & Biber, 1988). (Bruce, et al., 1997, p. 24)

Even though these variables address essential ingredients in bilingual and dual-language classrooms, they are absent from traditional teacher evaluation frameworks. Teacher evaluation frameworks are even less helpful when coaches don’t fully understand the language of instruction (a reality for the majority of coaches in bilingual and dual-language programs). In these cases, the probability of coaches making inferences that lead to inaccurate judgments is even higher. The probability increases because listening to the words that teachers say, questions they ask and print and post around the room, and other instances of language use, is ingrained in what most coaches do every day. Even for the most experienced coaches, it is almost impossible to have an honest and fair observation and feedback cycle with so much room for error.

The preceding issues represent significant barriers to creating a fair system. Observation frameworks are supposed to improve student learning through clear, defined expectations and practices. Yet this formula rarely accounts for any of the ingredients that are defined as most effective for bilingual and dual-language students. According to Jennifer F. Samson and Brian A. Collins (2012), “It seems reasonable that when teachers receive clearly articulated, consistent expectations on how best to work with ELLs as part of their preparation, certification, and evaluation, the outcomes for their ELL students will reflect this increased emphasis” (p. 20).

That means that for these frameworks to work, coaches need a more explicit, defined, and legitimate process for how to support teachers’ capacity to best work with students, regardless of whether they fully know the language of instruction. It is a shift that is necessary for coaches to honestly and consistently identify and support expectations and variables that improve student learning. Only then can coaches help bilingual and dual-language teachers navigate their individual “competencies or confusions,” “strengths or weaknesses,” “strategies missed or used,” and “evidence of what … [students] … understand,” in service of student success (Andrade, Basurto, Clay, Ruiz, & Escamilla, 1996, p. 7). And when coaches are able to navigate the strengths and challenges of classroom teachers and match bilingual and dual-language teachers with the professional development necessary for success, we see amazing growth for students (Fenner et al., 2014).

The observation and feedback cycle and tools presented in this book provide clear guidance to coaches for how to fairly observe a lesson, especially when they don’t understand the language. I do not aim to replace adopted teacher evaluation frameworks. Instead, I present an observation and feedback cycle that is a fair and just means of using such frameworks to improve student learning. When schools use this observation and feedback cycle in concert with teacher evaluation frameworks, they provide a level of neutrality, consistency, and accuracy that supports effective teachers of ELs (Fenner et al., 2014).

The Role of Advocacy in Coaching

One of the most basic mindsets that coaches can transfer from their prior experience is the idea that they must work to improve teacher practice while also advocating to overcome challenges that may stand in the way of teacher effectiveness. Many challenges stand in the way of bilingual and dual-language teachers’ ability to be most effective. These challenges include:

• Being used as interpreters and translators rather than having time to plan high-quality instruction

• Receiving no curriculum materials in the language of instruction

• Teaching double the standards and learning targets while being expected to maintain the same pace as monolingual teachers

• Receiving no training in the pedagogy, practices, and strategies that meet the needs of language learners

• Having no process to distinguish struggling or honors-level language learners from the language-learning process

• Being required to use English-only data to determine student progress, needs, and teacher evaluation

Sadly, I could add many more items to this list. This status quo would seem appalling if we were discussing an international baccalaureate (IB) program or gifted classroom. Yet schools still expect EL, DL, and TBE teachers to reach the same level of growth and success with their students despite having fewer opportunities, fewer resources, and fewer tools for success. That’s why coaches must be powerful advocates and allies in helping to overcome these challenges and barriers.

This is where coaches from outside the EL, DL, and TBE program have the advantage. It’s easier to identify inequities when there’s a more equitable reference point. These coaches know the many systems, infrastructures, and supports their schools have to ensure access, equity, and dignity in other programs. Structures like professional development plans, cohesive and viable curricula, collaborative planning, feedback, and use of valid data to drive decision-making processes exist to strengthen the ability to achieve success. Coaches must take action to ensure that the lack of these tools doesn’t undermine this success for bilingual and dual-language teachers and students they work with. As coaches provide feedback to teachers, it is critical that they use their monolingual reference point as a sort of check and balance. They might ask themselves, “What would we do if this were happening outside of this program?”

For example, during post-observation conversations, coaches might find themselves discussing with teachers the lack of scaffolds to improve student engagement and learning. In digging deeper into the issue, a coach learns that the teacher didn’t have time to create those scaffolds because she spends about eight hours every week translating the curriculum she received into the language other than English (LOTE), even though she has been told that she must teach that content in English. The coach must address this challenge because students learning another language need scaffolds to access the curriculum. Fair and effective coaches will pause to check their monolingual reference point. Would we ask monolingual teachers to spend eight hours translating their districtwide curriculum? Clearly we would not. Therefore, teachers need coaches who see these issues as matters beyond a teacher’s control and who will work on teachers’ behalf to get rid of those obstacles (Kotter, 2012).

Data Gathering

In the 1980s, schools used open-ended visits and checklists as their methods for gathering observation data. These tools had various components from state to state and provided very little guidance for what to do during observation to objectively determine whether components were strengths or weaknesses. But with time, these tools changed. From the late 1990s to early 2000s, a number of approaches to gathering data during observations posed additional problems for teachers serving language learners (Danielson, 2000; Marzano, 2013). Schools began exchanging checklists for rubrics and providing more parameters around what to do during observations—instructional rounds, classroom walkthroughs, lesson scripting, and so on. Teachers needed these parameters. Some proved to be more conducive to language learning contexts, like the walkthrough protocols that allowed observers to make more open-ended observations around specific focus areas (for example, environment, classroom management, and even engagement and discussion).

Others, however, proved to be detrimental to most bilingual and dual-language contexts. I still hear from bilingual and dual-language educators across the United States about observation “horror stories.” In one of the buildings I supported, a teacher begged me to talk with her principal about the following situation: The principal had asked her to teach the lesson in English even though that wasn’t reflective of the program and her students were not used to learning content in English. Not only did she have to spend long hours translating the lesson and resources into English, but the students kept responding to her in Spanish. The worst part of the observation for the teacher was when the principal chose one of her new students to talk to, not realizing that the student didn’t speak any English. This concluded with the principal reprimanding the teacher before leaving the room for not teaching her class any English, and a teary-eyed new student asking the teacher if it was her fault that her teacher got in trouble.

These sad realities are the result of a data-gathering process that refuses to acknowledge the two observational elephants in the room: (1) the lesson is in a language the observer doesn’t speak, and (2) the effectiveness of the lesson has just as much to do with how students improve their language development as with how they master the content. Data-gathering processes must be honest and objective for all classrooms. Many states have tried to accomplish objectivity by standardizing data-gathering protocols, such as the following, that champion limited and controlled practices during all observations.

• Scripting (or recording copious notes that aim to transcribe) what the teacher is saying and doing

• Scripting what the student is saying and doing

• Anchoring data with qualitative markers (for example, time during the lesson, number of students, quantity of instances, and so on)

• Noting and duplicating aspects of the environment (for example, anchor charts, classroom appearance, objectives, and directions on the board)

The designers of these protocols aimed for observational objectivity, unbiased data gathering, and models for what to do next. They meant to establish a judgment-free process for improving teacher quality. But by prioritizing the scripting of language interactions and language use (especially that of the teacher) as the only objective way to collect evidence, they ended any possibility of objectivity for bilingual and dual-language classrooms. And without the written account that scripting offers, qualitative markers lack enough substance to effectively coach.

Without full proficiency in the language, it is difficult for observers to log what the teacher says, what the students say, or any of the word-for-word print environment. Any attempt to do so would be unfair. Coaches and educational advocates must have the sense and courage to refuse a teacher evaluation process that leaves coaches without a clearly defined approach for how to document teaching and learning without understanding the words, visible print, and cultural nuances of bilingual and dual-language classrooms. Both the implementation of specific protocols and the use of common sense to recognize when a protocol will not be effective are attempts to engage in a process with bilingual and dual-language teachers that is highly objective, collaborative, and constructive, but the process cannot be so in the existing context.

What to Expect From the Observation and Feedback Cycle

The observation and feedback cycle is a four-stage process consisting of: (1) an essential mindset shift that frames the foundation for a fair, honest, and collaborative process; (2) the pre-observation conference; (3) the observation; and (4) the post-observation conference.

Essential Mindset Shift That Frames the Foundation

A mindset shift is essential for those who seek to be effective in coaching dual-language and bilingual teachers. This shift includes seven elements: (1) establish trust and confidence; (2) avoid hidden agendas; (3) lead by learning; (4) become an insider, not an outsider; (5) know the right things; (6) ensure confidentiality; and (7) know when to use spotlights and supports. These elements help coaches get in the right frame of mind to lay the foundation for the observation and feedback cycle.

The Pre-Observation Conference

The pre-observation conference allows coaches to closely analyze how the teacher has designed learning to meet the many goals unique to their classroom. The guiding questions provided for coaches offer a set of considerations that must be included in this pre-observation conference for any feedback offered at this stage of the process to be effective.

The Observation

In stage 3 of the observation and feedback cycle, coaches observe instructional delivery using six tasks of notice (see chapter 6, page 77). These tasks of notice are supported by four essential questions (see chapter 6, page 72) that help coaches know how to prioritize their observational notes and identify the area of feedback most likely to accelerate the learning curve for teachers and, by extension, students’ learning outcomes. We call these areas of feedback high leverage because they can accelerate the growth process for everyone served.

The Post-Observation Conference

Next, sharing observational notes with bilingual and dual-language teachers gives teachers the opportunity to both self-reflect on what the coach noticed during the observation and answer any clarifying questions that the coach may have regarding something the teacher or students said or wrote that the coach could not fully understand. This time to self-reflect and contextualize language use prepares the coach and teacher to come back together during the final stage of the observation and feedback cycle—the post-observation conference. During the post-observation conference, both educators compare their analysis of the lesson and how effective it was for students. The crucial outcome of this post-observation conference is to accurately identify the decisions made during the observation that were effective as well as moments during the lesson that could have led to greater success had the teacher made a different decision.

This conversation should operate as though the teacher is driving a car with no precise directions for his or her destination. The coach is there to help that teacher think through whether turning left at an intersection is the best route to take or if turning right at the intersection would have helped him or her arrive at the destination more efficiently.

In bilingual and dual-language classrooms, there are multitudes of teaching intersections that teachers face every day. We call these intersections turning points. Just like the person in the car who could turn left or right, potential turning points in a lesson can range from incorporating scaffolds that match the language proficiency to not addressing smaller misbehaviors that escalated into an argument between students. Analyzing these turning points and looking for patterns in student learning create a trustworthy and reliable framework coaches can use to plan steps for teacher improvement, including a system of actions and supports to ensure their success.

Conclusion

This chapter discussed the challenges in defining a fair observation and feedback cycle. Coaches must strive to provide every teacher with a cycle that is honest and focused on closing the achievement gap of one of our most undereducated student groups. This requires a legitimate process for systematic observation that minimizes the amount of guesswork coaches will do as they use what they’ve observed throughout the cycle. Coaches don’t have to approach observation with a script or nothing approach. They must implement a process that is fair, systematic, and critical in establishing ways to minimize error and maximize the effectiveness of feedback (Pianta & Hamre, 2009). Once that process is in place, they can concentrate on how to give effective feedback. The next chapter discusses the eight goals of the observation and feedback cycle.