Professional Learning Opportunity

High-Leverage Practice 16

Use Explicit Instruction

Microteaching Professional Learning Opportunity—Explicit Instruction

Submitting Authors: Stephen D. Kroeger and Kate Doyle from the University of Cincinnati

Description of this activity: This microteaching Professional Learning Opportunity (PLO) helps candidates learn about explicit instruction early in the preparation program. The candidate uses explicit instruction to teach one to two peers at an instructional reading level that would be appropriate for the students they are playing. The microteaching process consists of three phases: Planning, Implementation (with video recording), and Reflection/Assessment. See Resource A for videos that describe the phases of this microteaching activity. See below for more information about the phases.

Phase 1—Planning Phase. The instructor describes microteaching, models a microteaching lesson that includes reflection/assessment lasting about 15 minutes, and provides in-class guided practice as candidates plan the lesson they will deliver.

Phase 2—Implementation Phase. Small groups of candidates work collaboratively as one candidate implements the planned lesson, another candidate video records the lesson, and the remaining one to two candidates play the students.

Phase 3—Reflection/Assessment Phase. The implementing candidate reviews the video recording to complete a running record of the lesson, completes meta-cognitive reflections[1]/comments on the running record (see Resource C), selects a five-to-seven minute segment of his or her micro-teaching video to share with a peer, and completes a collaborative assessment log (see Resource D). The candidate then submits the running record, meta-cognitive comments, and collaborative assessment log to the instructor for review and feedback.

This microteaching PLO primarily addresses the second and fourth components of McDonald and colleagues’ (2013) enactment cycle as candidates prepare for and rehearse the activity with peers (Component 2) and engage in reflection/assessment using the video of the lesson (Component 4). This practice would be appropriate for educator preparation providers supporting teacher candidates or for professional

Context: This PLO occurs early in the preparation program, after candidates have sufficient knowledge related to explicit instruction and lesson planning from previous coursework. The PLO is part of a course on reading instruction, and candidates use the knowledge they have gained about explicit instruction and combine it with what they are learning about planning and implementing instructional reading strategies (e.g., decoding, vocabulary, reciprocal teaching) to plan and implement the microteaching lesson.  


Implementation Guide

Steps in the PLO and prerequisite candidate knowledge

Implementation guidance needed to use practiceMaterials/
resources needed to implement
Questions other faculty/PD providers might have when implementing this practice
candidates will need explicit instruction on developing lesson plans/learning segments.
(Resources A and B. In this PLO, Task 1 of the edTPA was a national guide to consider what should be included in a lesson plan/learning segment; includes three to five specific objectives across a series of lessons.)
*Ensure candidates understand explicit instruction (See other PLOs in this series for resources to teach foundational knowledge about explicit instruction.)

*Ensure that lesson planning is taught explicitly (In this example, lesson planning was taught in a literacy methods course. See Kaltura planning video link in Resource A.)

*Provide sufficient instruction to help candidates understand how to establish a baseline of student performance and complete data collection (See Kaltura video planning video link; start at 6:12.)

*Emphasize common features of lesson plans if a standard template is not required (Emphasize via a crosswalk of multiple plans to identify common elements, including three to five objectives, data collection/baseline, and reference for the strategy/intervention.)

*Sample lesson plan and lesson plan template
(Resources A & B)

*A common list of resources to support candidates as they reference evidence base/research based strategies

*Does this practice have generalizability across content areas? This process is appropriate for instruction across various content areas.

*Where does instruction on lesson planning occur in the course sequence? Lesson planning occurs in the first semester method course. Lesson planning may vary across programs.

*How would you navigate differences in expectation between CTs and ST in regards to a “culture of planning”? Planning is an essential element of the microteaching process. The expectation to teach from lesson plans can be set as a program requirement.

Candidates will need to be ready with an appropriate lesson plan and materials that accompany the video.
(In this example, candidates developed their own lesson plans.)
*Record planned lesson on the device of the candidate (Recording reduces the need to transfer footage or manage where footage is housed.)

*For this example, the video component is done as a part of the methods course. (This component may be done as a part of a different class or PD experience.)

*Lesson Plan Template (Resource B)

*See Resource A (Kaltura link on Frayer Model Lesson for video example of lesson enactment)

*Instructional materials needed for lesson

*Data Collection Sheet (See Resource A)

(e.g., camera/phone
Swivl device)

*How much of this do the candidates record? Recordings can range from five to 20 minutes and may be completed using a smart phone and/or tablet, based on availability.
*If taking place in a PD situation or in a classroom, what would you need to do about consent? The edTPA consent form is available.
Reflective commentary candidates will need to have the following:
*an understanding of theories of learning
*a knowledge of evidence based practices
*a framework/protocol for reflection

*Candidate uses the tool to analyze instruction at each minute (Resource C, Reflection Commentary).

*The candidates should drive the process—shifts the ownership to them for greater autonomy (in-service).
*PD provider/instructor needs to be very specific and intentional in modeling this process.
*Facilitator needs to be skillful in asking probing questions to help students with reflection.
*May become a portion of formative assessment for instructor/prep provider.

*Content of the course

*Common list of references
(e.g., CEEDAR, CEC, HLP book, Hattie/Temperly)

*Reflection Commentary (Resource C and Resource A: Kaltura link of instructors modeling how to complete the reflection commentary)

*At what point do instructors/PD providers co-lead candidates who might not be as reflective or who struggle with drawing conclusions?
Levels of reflectivity may be determined through reviewing reflective commentary or assessment log. After initial instruction on the microteaching process, provide at any point that candidates demonstrate a needs.

Collaborative Assessment Log
Candidates should know how to do the following:

*Construct and/or implement data collection tools
*Interpret data for decision making
*Define instructional outcomes for the target lesson
*Analyze data to determine whether students reached
*Identify a note-taker who becomes the facilitator of the session so the teacher is free to reflect.

*Results in a portfolio for a single micro-teaching experience

*Establish a follow up learning goal and activity for candidate (e.g., self-directed learning, coaching).

*Collaborative Assessment Protocol (Resource D, Resource A: Kaltura link of instructors modeling how to complete the collaborative assessment log) *Used to determine the level of transfer of the skill (i.e., were the identified next steps evident in the subsequent instruction?)

OSEP LogoThis website was produced under U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Award No. H325A170003. David Guardino serves as the project officer. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or polices of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this website is intended or should be inferred.