0.6 Gresham, g. (october 2011). a university/school partnership  (Page 7/10)

Day three. The teacher opened day three with instruction that purposefully activated knowledge acquired in day one and day two explicitly filling in needed content or clearing up any misconceptions. PowerPoint presentations, demonstrations, and/or video clips are examples of what was utilized for instructional input as well as reinforcement. On day three, the intent was to shift the cognitive responsibility from teacher to students (Pearson&Gallagher, 1983). First, students worked in teams to construct knowledge through inquiry-based group activities. One such activity was learning the difference between inherited and learned behaviors through a scenario concerning horse behaviors and physical traits. Next, to continue the process of releasing more cognitive responsibility, students were paired and engaged in other application activities to rehearse content. The class ended with the teacher asking students to individually reflect upon what was learned, thus providing formative assessment. As a result of these activities, students rehearsed content through whole group, small group, partner format, and finally individual reflection, thereby following the process of gradually releasing cognitive responsibility from whole group instruction by the teacher to individual student reflection.

Day four. The cognitive shift of responsibility continued on day four. After activating students’ knowledge of the previous day’s content, students responded orally to questions that required closed (one-answer) and open-ended responses (more than one answer). Individually, students engaged with text passages that were previously read on day two and supported answers with evidence from the text. The intent was to provide students with rehearsal so they would have additional opportunities to retain content (Sousa, 2006). The role of the teacher was to guide and to support. Next, students engaged in a writing activity that provided connection to content. One of the following was assigned: summary, gist, main idea, or three facts learned. This reflection provided the teacher with an additional means of formative assessment prior to the next day’s formal, summative assessment. The class concluded with students reviewing the day’s learning and the teacher previewing the events of the next day.

Day five. The final step in the planning model cycle was a formal, summative assessment involving two types of assessment items: application-level, multiple-choice questions, and a written assessment (Khatri, Reeve,&Kane, 1998). The short, multi-choice questions were developed to mirror the format of the state standardized, fifth grade science exam (TAKS). The written assessment consisted of a scenario that required students to think critically and to synthesize what they had learned during the week.

Coaching. Teacher coaching in the study served three purposes: (1) curriculum development; (2) teacher training; and (3) support during implementation. After the pre-test was administered, the researchers began supporting the teacher in training and in implementation. The teacher was uncomfortable in implementing the vocabulary and content reading strategies. So for, four weeks, the researchers taught the students on day two of the cycle. Vocabulary instruction, shared reading, echo reading, choral reading, and paired reading were modeled. The teacher and researchers discussed the modeling, and questions were answered.