ALVERNO COLLEGE

LTM 622 ASSESSMENT FORM

Candidate: Jamie Carmody

Assessor: Aubrey Vogel

Advisor: _______________________ Date: August 1, 2013

Grade/Subject: 11/12 Graphic Novel

Topic/Skill Taught: Review game
School: Greenfield High School
Completed by: (check one)
Observation: (check one)

___ Cooperating teacher

___ 1st observation

_X_ Education supervisor

_X__ 2nd observation

Planning (conceptualization/diagnosis/coordination)
1. Demonstrates content knowledge (1.4)
2. Designs instruction based on assessment of student strengths,
needs, learning styles, and learning differences (3.1, 4.1)

3. Coordinates resources to design effective instruction (9.4)

consults with cooperating teacher
uses print, audio-visual, and computer technology

___ Candidate
___ Other (specify) ________________

Comments
You demonstrated content knowledge through the questions you created
and through your judging of the correct answers.
You designed the lesson to accommodate some differences in learning
styles. Students worked collaboratively to come up with the correct
team answers during the game. The questions were projected onto the
SmartBoard, and most of the questions relied on both a word bank and
pieces of visual representations of graphic novels. Students also had an
opportunity to shoot wads of paper at point-value targets in the center of
the room. You went over the correct answers with students as a group as
your CT graded the written answers.
You worked with your cooperating teacher to develop a review lesson /
game in preparation for their final assessment tomorrow. During the
lesson, you had students record their teams answer on paper, and then
they earned opportunities to shoot for points at the target in the center of
the room. You used the SmartBoard to project pictures that were
labeled, and students used the word bank (also projected) to come up
with their answers.

4. Plans motivational instruction by relating lessons to student

interests, provides student choice, questioning, and
investigation, particularly through the planning of lesson
plans that relate to the research process, PBL, and/or
literary theory (when possible/as curriculum dictates) (1.1,
5.2)
Inviting (communication/integrative interaction)
1. Contributes to a welcoming learning community
(learns student names, talks with students before and after
the lesson) (3.8)
2. Recognizes the importance of verbal and nonverbal
communication in projecting a pleasant, professionally
engaging demeanor while interacting with the cooperating
teacher and students (effective use of inflection, volume, eye
contact, gestures, facial expression, body positioning,
movement in the classroom) (6.4)
3. Develops a learning community that promotes individual
and collective efficacy.

Questioning was built in as the foundation of the game; the task was to
correctly identify parts of a graphic novel, using terminology from the
course. Students had choice in what kind of device they created to shoot
for points. Competition was a motivating factor for some of the
students.

1. You seemed a bit disengaged from your student this time, perhaps
because you were trying to keep the game as low-key as possible so as
not to create any chaos in the classroom.
2. You projected a pleasant and professionally engaging demeanor while
interacting with your cooperating teacher and the students. Your volume
was appropriate, and you, at times, used the technique of staying quiet
as you wait for students to regain their focus and composure. You stayed
mostly rooted at the front of the room. Since you gave students 30
seconds for each question slide, you had that amount of time to circulate
around the room. Doing so would allow you to listen in on the
interaction between group members and would give you more
information about individuals and small groups progress toward the
objectives.
3. Going over the answers during the grading period is a way to build
collective efficacy, as it gives a chance for students to understand what
the correct answers are and why. How do you ensure the individual
efficacy of those in groups who are not contributing?

Teaching (communication/diagnosis/integrative interaction)

1. Sets context for the lesson (5.1)
2. Demonstrates enthusiasm for teaching and learning (1.3)
3. Models and supports active listening, interactive discussion,
and thoughtful response in reading, writing, and other media
(2.3, 6.1, 6.2), using specific listening and speaking
strategies
acquired from coursework.
4. Implements accurate discipline-specific pedagogy.
5. Uses different types of explanation, levels of questioning, levels

1. I appreciated the way you set the rules for the game at the start of the
lesson. Your rules were nuanced and thoughtful and didnt leave room
for confusion or argument later in the game.
2. There were times when your enthusiasm emerged, but for the most
part, you didnt convey much of your enthusiasm. I think the challenge
with this group is the delicate balance between enthusiasm and getting
students too riled up. Even so, I think a few more smiles, at least, would
be appropriate.

of writing, and discussion to challenge and support student

thinking (3.2, 6.3)
6. Manages resources of time, space, activities, and attention to
engage students productively (5.3)

3. The challenge with group/team-based games is how you can keep all
members of the group focused / how you can maintain the interactive
nature of the activity. How do you work to balance who is contributing
to the problem-solving and how to get everyone to listen to each other?
Also, what type of active listening task could you give to students
during the whole group review of the answers?
4. I didnt notice any discipline-specific pedagogy at work in this lesson.
I wonder, though, if there is a place for writing or for meaningful talk in
a lesson like this one? What if the different rounds asked different kinds
of questions or elicited different types of answers?
5. While questioning was built into the foundation of this lesson (the
game), the levels of questioning didnt change much. I wonder if you
would be able to change the types of questions in the different rounds or
if you would be able to infuse some different levels of questions into
tasks that you would create to address the amount of downtime students
had (see below). I wonder, too, if you were able to infuse some of these
different levels of questions if you would be able to create more
opportunities for students to challenge and support each other (within or
between groups). Level 1 writing is built into the written responses to
the review questions; is there a place for students to write at levels 2 or
3?
6. There was a good deal of downtime while all of the teams were
shooting (15+ minutes). What type of task(s) could you integrate to keep
students meaningfully engaged during this time and to make the most of
the instructional time? Could students write a rationale for why they
answered the way they answered for incorrect answers? Could they
create sample questions? Could there be some additional test review
questions passed out in paper form for extra shots?

Assessing (diagnosis/integrative interaction)

1. Uses appropriate informal and formal assessment strategies
that link to lesson objectives (8.1)
2. Develops ELA criteria to provides specific feedback to

1. You used the groups written responses (corrected by your

cooperating teacher) and the group review of answers as your
assessment strategies linked to lesson objectives. I would encourage you

learners
and involves them in self assessment (8.3)
3. Reflects on the impact of the lesson on student learning,
modifying the plan and instruction when appropriate (8.5)
4. Reflects on own performance in relation to Alverno
education abilities and WI teacher standards (8.5, 9.2, 9.3)

to think about how you assess individuals progress toward objectives,

though. What happens if there is a student (and there were a few) who
didnt help the group come up with the answer? What happens if
students dont listen to the group review discussion? How do you know
those individuals are getting it?
2. There werent any criteria guiding the feedback you gave to students.
If you included a writing task or even want to assess students speaking
and listening / contributions to the group decision-making process, you
would want to have criteria guiding their work and the type of feedback
you gave to them. I also didnt notice any self assessment opportunities
built into the lesson plan.
3. You did not make (or need to make?) modifications to the lesson. As
part of your self assessment, you reflected on potential modifications
you could make to a lesson of this type in the future, if you were to
teach it again.
4. In your self assessment, you reflected on the connection between your
lesson and the Alverno Ability of Communication by explaining that
you used all three of the modes of communication in order to help the
learning process. You explained that you had the students help explain
to the other students the answers so that way they could hear it from my
view as well as one of their peers. You connected to the Alverno Ability
of Integrative Interaction as well by explaining that there was a point in
the class where you were trying to describe a certain GN term and you
couldnt get it across to the students. So you asked your co-op teacher to
help you out. In this reflection, you did not connect to the teacher
standards.

Analysis of Overall Performance, Including Dispositions:

Overall, I would encourage you to work on your self-confidence. In the first lesson, you relied quite a bit on your notes, and in both lessons,
you reflected on the ways you relied on your CT. It is ok to make mistakes, and you have to trust yourself in order to be free from the reliance
on others or on other resources.
Overall Performance

_____Inadequate

_____ Emerging

___X__ Proficient

_____ Distinctive