Page 40 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 40 of 126 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
35
using some form of peer inclusive classroom walk-through process. Corvine & Martinez-Miller (2008) have established a walk-through protocol linking student learning and professional practice that is founded on three core beliefs: all students have the ability to master a rigorous, standards-based curriculum; classroom teachers want to grow as professionals and constantly improve their craft; and the greatest leverage point for transformational growth in student achievement exists in the classroom, in the interaction between the student, the teacher, and the content (p. 14). The walk-through protocol is a ―content-neutral‖ process. It is designed to assist teachers to gain a deeper understanding of the results of their current practice and implement the types of changes that improve the teaching practice which results in improved student learning. This protocol is about providing opportunities for teachers to identify what they need to improve their practice, rather than acting on a directive from outside the classroom as to what they need. The walk-through team begins by selecting an area of inquiry and uses this question as a guide when visiting classrooms in their own schools or sometimes in other schools to collect evidence of what students are doing or saying in the classroom. The team then uses this non-evaluative information to share with one another during a debriefing of the individual observations maintaining anonymity of participants. The team looks for patterns or themes within the evidence to raise questions about what they have observed. This reflective discussion leads to identifying a ―better result‖ that sets the stage for the next steps that may lead to improvement in student understanding. Although the walk-through in itself does not lead to change, placing it in the cycle of continuous improvement establishes a process where teachers are challenged to do something
Object Description
| Title | Comprehensive school reform: Effective implementation |
| Author | Hasson, Monalisa |
| Author email | hasson62@sbcglobal.net; monalish@usc.edu |
| Degree | Doctor of Education |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Education (Leadership) |
| School | Rossier School of Education |
| Date defended/completed | 2011-01-19 |
| Date submitted | 2011 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2011-04-19 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Rueda, Robert S. |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Marsh, David D. Escalante, Michael F. |
| Abstract | Over the last decade, districts throughout the nation have been challenged with the goal of improving student achievement with the ultimate target of attaining 100% proficiency in the core subject areas across all student subgroups. This is an ambitious endeavor that most would agree should be the ultimate goal regardless of socioeconomic status, primary language, or ethnicity of the students which a district serves. The dilemma schools face is in the implementation of comprehensive school reforms that will move districts toward this goal.; This inquiry-based project investigated the Rowland Unified School District through a collaborative model of research using the gap analysis method developed by Clark and Estes (2002) to identify possible barriers to full and effective implementation of comprehensive reform efforts in the District. The body of literature identified components or elements of effective implementation. The research team used this literature research to inform the study of the District, the research team’s findings, conclusions, and possible solutions. |
| Keyword | comprehensive school reform; program improvement; goal alignment; decentralization; gap analysis |
| Geographic subject | school districts: Rowland Unified School District |
| Geographic subject (county) | Los Angeles |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Geographic subject (country) | USA |
| Coverage date | 2000/2010 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m3758 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Hasson, Monalisa |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Hasson-4529 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume62/etd-Hasson-4529.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 40 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 35 using some form of peer inclusive classroom walk-through process. Corvine & Martinez-Miller (2008) have established a walk-through protocol linking student learning and professional practice that is founded on three core beliefs: all students have the ability to master a rigorous, standards-based curriculum; classroom teachers want to grow as professionals and constantly improve their craft; and the greatest leverage point for transformational growth in student achievement exists in the classroom, in the interaction between the student, the teacher, and the content (p. 14). The walk-through protocol is a ―content-neutral‖ process. It is designed to assist teachers to gain a deeper understanding of the results of their current practice and implement the types of changes that improve the teaching practice which results in improved student learning. This protocol is about providing opportunities for teachers to identify what they need to improve their practice, rather than acting on a directive from outside the classroom as to what they need. The walk-through team begins by selecting an area of inquiry and uses this question as a guide when visiting classrooms in their own schools or sometimes in other schools to collect evidence of what students are doing or saying in the classroom. The team then uses this non-evaluative information to share with one another during a debriefing of the individual observations maintaining anonymity of participants. The team looks for patterns or themes within the evidence to raise questions about what they have observed. This reflective discussion leads to identifying a ―better result‖ that sets the stage for the next steps that may lead to improvement in student understanding. Although the walk-through in itself does not lead to change, placing it in the cycle of continuous improvement establishes a process where teachers are challenged to do something |
