Sanding+the+Edges-+Tuning+a+Lesson

When a group of educators develop a Structured Lesson Review Group, they begin by spending time discussing and developing norms about how to give feedback and how to question in a sensitive manner so that everyone feels comfortable: Trust and confidentiality are established among participants.
 * Sanding the Edges - Tuning a Lesson **

In the first session, the Structured Lesson Review will be modeled for you by your content facilitator. In the second session, you will participate in a group amongst your peers with the lessons you have started creating. media type="custom" key="9846441" align="right"

Structured Lesson Review
Structured Lesson Review Groups are designed to establish a foundation based on a spirit of inquiry, provide a context to understand educators’ work with students, relationships with peers, and educators’ thoughts, assumptions, and beliefs about teaching and learning, while helping educators help each other turn theories into practice and standards into actual student learning.

ELA Structured Lesson Review Math Structured Lesson Review Science Structured Lesson Review Social Studies Structured Lesson Review

**What does this look like?** A group of 4-8 is an ideal size. The composition of a group is ultimately up to those interested in participating. From a curriculum standpoint, having a group that works across curricula and/or across different disciplines yields a unique and effective collaboration and critique. The whole process takes about 45 to 50 minutes total. It is important that you watch your time. A "coach" or mediator is suggested to be in charge of watching the clock and keeping the group within the Structured Lesson Review structure.

**[[image:http://www.iconeasy.com/icon/png/System/Red%20Orb%20Alphabet/Number%201.png width="47" height="47" align="left"]]PHASE ONE: Presentation** (10 minutes)

 * Peer Group ** remain silent. They are not allowed to ask clarifying or follow up questions. They should be taking notes (using Six A rubric, for example) to evaluate the lesson/unit.  **Educator or Presenting Group** describes their product, lesson/unit, standards, phases, etc. **Mediator** prompts Presenter through the discussion topics.

** Introduction **
 * Educator or Presenting Group briefly introduces protocol goals, norms, and agenda.


 * Discuss/present topics such as... **
 * What is the current title?
 * Describes the project (what will the students learn, what will students do, how long will it take?)
 * Describes the process of the project (what kind of support and feedback will the student receive, what are the criteria for success? How will the students exhibit & present their project?)
 * Provide any models or work samples (if available)

** Focus Questions **
 * Educator or Presenting Group poses question(s) to the participants they would like to be answered or discussed.



**PHASE TWO: Clarifying Questions** (5 minutes)
**Peer Group** can ask clarifying questions of the educator or presenting group in an effort to understand better the Educator or Presenting Groups' thinking, decisions, and purposes. **NOTE:** Probing questions should //not// be advice in disguise, such as “Have you considered…?” Examples: “How did each student demonstrate their understanding by the end of the class?” or “What evidence did you gather to determine if goals of your lesson were met?” **Educator or Presenting Group** will answer clarifying questions with brief, factual answers.



**PHASE THREE: Critique** (10-25 minutes)
**Peer Group** talk amongst themselves in an effort to understand better the Educator or Presenting Group s' thinking, decisions, and purposes. Then they will talk as if the presenters were not in the room and use the phrases below to start each topic. Start by focusing on strengths, then suggestions for improvement, and lastly ideas for “next steps”. **Educator or Presenting Group** remains silent and is not allowed to respond to the comments of the “Peer Group,” but are encouraged to take notes. **Mediator** prompts each step of the Structured Discussion.

** Discussion **
 * It is a good idea for the Educator or Presenting Group to physically move away from the group and just observe.
 * Try to begin with “warm” feedback (What is good about this project? " I like that...", or "I like the fact that...") **+**
 * Then move to “cool” feedback. (What could be improved? "I wonder if...", "A next step might be...") **ᐃ**

** Structure of Discussion (lead by mediator) : ** **I like the fact that…** **I wonder if…** **A next step might be…**

**PHASE FOUR: Response** (5 to 10 minutes)

**Mediator** prompts open discussion periods for the Educator or Presenting Group to respond to the comments of the Peer Group and to follow up on ideas or suggestions.

Group members will support each other and improve their teaching by giving and receiving feedback, by questioning each other and themselves, by reflecting on their work or their students' work, by addressing dilemmas, by collaborating across disciplines, by confronting assumptions, mindsets, and expectations, but never by blaming students or social conditions. Members might also maintain a reflective journal on a given prompt or around the more generic, "What am I thinking about now? What do I plan to do about it?" Furthermore, group members might request a peer observer to help them improve a specific aspect of their teaching. And, when a group setting is not feasible, you can objectively review your own work with the same structure above.

** Why do Structured Lesson Review participants say that the work is more satisfying when compared to other kinds of critical reviews? **
 * It is continual.
 * It is focused on their own teaching and their own students' learning.
 * It takes place in a small group of supportive and trusted colleagues within their own school.
 * Participants have control over their own professional learning needs.

**What changes happen as a result of an individual's participation?** Research indicates that classrooms move from being teacher-centered toward student-centered. Furthermore, teachers are more thoughtful about connecting curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Teachers in these groups believe that they can affect student achievement and these teachers have higher expectations for student learning, which, in turn, leads to greater student achievement.

**Bibliography** "Critical Friends Groups: Teachers Helping Teachers to Improve Student Learning" Faith Dunne, Bill Nave, Anne Lewis, Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research Research Bulletin, No. 28, December 2000. "Reflections of an NSRF Coach," Jon Appleby, June 1998 "Building Professional Community in Schools," Sharon Kruse, Karen Seashore Lewis, Anthony Bryk Issues in Restructuring Schools, Report from Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools Spring 1994 "Critical Friends," Deborah Bambino, Educational Leadership March 2002 pp. 25-27. "What if…" Peggy Silva, Connections: Journal of NSRF, Spring 2002 pp. 6, 14 "Documenting Decisions: Making Learning Explicit in our CFG," Betty Shockley Bisplinghoff, et al Connections: Journal of NSRF, Fall 2002 pp. 4, 15-18