Evident
Somewhat Evident
Not Evident
Not Applicable
Indicator A
Teachers utilize the Benchmark assessments to gather data on students' skills and place students in the appropriate microphase based on data.
9 responses
3 qualitative responses
N/A
It was not apparent that the appropriate microphase was selected. Consider having a binder within view that shows the microphase and assessments. Consider tracking your students on an assessment tracker. By doing this, you will be able to demonstrate and explain each student's microphase.
I could not tell that the students were grouped based on the Benchmark assessments because all of the students were given the same spelling assessment. Students should receive different words based on their microphase. Utilize the word list from the teacher materials, which can be found in Imagine Learning.
Indicator B
Students are grouped by skill-based microphase.
9 responses
9 qualitative responses
-Students were grouped into their microphase
-Consider posting your student groups around the room for students to know which center to go to and who is in their group
- Students took the cycle assessment whole group
- Cycle assessment was for the whole group: G1M3C17
- Student groups were listed on the board but there was no indication of microphases for these groups
It was evident that students were at different skill levels. It was apparent that different skills were practiced at the teacher's table. Way to Go!
-Students were grouped into their microphase by utilizing the benchmark assessments from the mid-year
- Students were grouped but it was not evident by microphase
- On the teacher table there was a chart where students were grouped by microphase (Early Pre Alphabetic, Early Middle Partial, Middle-Late Partial, and Early Full Alphabetic)
- The cycles were written on the back of this paper (Cycle 12, Cycle 13, Cycle 14)
- Students seemed to be grouped between two stations (Early/Middle Partial Alphabetic)
-Students took the grade level cycle assessment whole group
It is evident that the student groups have been implemented. There were a total of five groups, and the names of the students were written on the chalkboard. However, since all students were given the same on-level spelling assessment.
Students were grouped according to microphase. This was evident based on the teacher's chart, which had students grouped by microphase.
Indicator C
Students engage in instruction at the teacher-table that is differentiated for their microphase and skill level.
9 responses
9 qualitative responses
-Teacher differentiated the work the students were completing
- Students took the cycle assessment whole group
- Students did not take the differentiated assessment
- Suggestion: Develop a plan moving forward for how to administer differentiated cycle assessments
Students were engaged at the teacher's table.
-Students were working on spelling words with o sound in the teacher-led table
- Differentiated lessons were presented to students; however, the lessons were not from EL
- No imagine learning or EL materials were used during the teacher-table
-
Suggestion
-Students take their own microphase cycle assessment to show growth in the student's particular microphase
There was no work at the teacher's table.
Since we only saw one group at the teacher's table, it's not evident that differentiation is occurring with the teacher's table.
Indicator D
Students hold themselves accountable for learning while working independently or collaboratively.
9 responses
9 qualitative responses
-Some students were asking each other questions and showing their peers how to complete some of the activities
- Students were silent during the assessment
- Teacher narrated different assessment strategies students were using to complete the cycle assessment
Students had activities to complete at each station, but I did not see an accountability piece. Consider having students write the letters of the words they are creating. Consider establishing group leaders at each table. This will help with collaboration, organization, and management.
-Consider bringing the students back whole group to reexplain the expectations and procedures, then releasing the students back to the appropriate center.
- Students were on-task during i-Ready
- Students were somewhat on task during the letters and keys
- Students were not on task with the crayon activity
- In some groups students redirected each other
- Students were off task during the play-doh station
- Students finished early with the puzzle station and started switching puzzles to occupy their time
-Students were collaborating whole group to discuss the magic E and how the vowel says it's name
Students were working collaboratively while reviewing the whole-group lesson on the floor. However, there was no accountability piece. Students could have engaged in a turn and talk to review the content. Another accountability piece is to have them talk about what they did today in order to become better readers.
Students were given three hands-on tasks to complete at the different stations. All of the instructions for each station were given at the beginning of the center time. Students didn't have anything to do once they finished putting the puzzle together, they did not have anything to do to continue practicing with their words. Consider having students switch puzzles with their peers. Consider having students write the letters of the pictures that they made. In addition, consider having students match the word with a picture.
Indicator E
Students engage in rotations to practice skills that were previously taught.
9 responses
9 qualitative responses
-Consider having students practice skills that were previously taught in the cycle.
- Students took the assessment at the same time, so there were no rotations
Though students were working at their individual stations, it was not evident that they were working on skills that were previously taught based on their microphase.
-Consider placing review activities for students to recall previous taught knowledge
- The stations did not appear to review skills for students
- All students completed the same stations activities
- The stations appeared to be more advanced than students were capable of
Suggestion
-Students could be grouped by their microphase and be working on review work from that week's lesson to prepare them for cycle assessment
Because the cycle spelling assessment was given to the whole group, there were no rotations. An assignment labeled Cycle 17, Lesson 90 was seen on the teacher's table, but it's not evident that the cycle independent work from the previous week. Consider using the independent work suggestions found in the cycle planner, activity bank, small group differentiation.
It is not evident that students were working on skills that were previously taught. The focus letter on the board (F.I.G) and the focus letter at the student stations plus the teacher table were inconsistent. Consider having a schedule that shows the current cycle and the previous cycle.