As per City, Elmore, Fiarman, and Teitel (2009), instructional rounds provide a structured approach for educators to collaborate and enhance their teaching. The practice combines three common elements of improvement: a network of educators, an improvement strategy, and classroom observation. The rounds aren’t focused on “fixing” individual teachers. Instead, they aim to comprehend what occurs in classrooms, how our system generates those outcomes, and how we can progress towards achieving the desired learning outcomes.

Below are some highlights and reflections from our experience.

Adam

I wanted to explain how we did things during the instructional rounds. The main point is to share what worked and what didn’t, and, most importantly, give feedback on how we can better set things up for future observations like these.

Initial Concept & Exploration: During the initial weeks of the 2024 academic year, our acquaintance with the pedagogical framework known as Instructional Rounds prompted our three-member educator cohort to undertake a deliberate examination of two prevalent issues: Teacher Talk Time and the taxonomy of questions posed to students.

Our investigation into Teacher Talk Time focused on discerning the delicate equilibrium between teacher-led discourse and student engagement, recognizing the consequential impact on instructional efficacy. Concurrently, our attention extended to the intricate analysis of question complexity, diverse student responses, and the proficiency of students in comprehending and articulating their answers.

In employing the Instructional Rounds methodology, our collective objective was to identify instructional shortcomings and commendable practices within these domains. This empirical and reflective inquiry aspires to contribute substantively to the cultivation of a culture of continual enhancement within our educational milieu, fostering an environment conducive to optimized learning experiences for educators and students alike.

The Observations: As we were instructing at the B1 level that semester, it was impractical for us to observe our own level during our investigation. Nevertheless, we successfully observed classes at different levels, including an A2 and two B2 classes.

Prior to the observations, we had determined that either the introductory lead-in segment or a speaking production component would be most relevant for our objectives. We opted to observe the initial or final 15/20 minutes of each lesson. Additionally, our team leader, Sultan Zeydan provided a table for us to document the teachers’ questions, student responses, and the contextual framework of each question.

Commencing with an A2 class, we subsequently observed the two B2 classes two days later. Our observations encompassed various facets and skills within the classes, such as the discussion stage of a reading task, instructional and feedback stages of a grammar task, and a speaking production task. These observations yielded valuable insights into the instructional dynamics.

The Debriefing: A week later we decided to come together with our team leader to discuss and debrief what we had learned and could take away from this experience. As this was a new and unknown territory the main issue at hand was discussing what did and didn’t work and how we might improve it for future Instructional Rounds.

Our Main Takeaways: While the observations yielded intriguing insights, the crux of our challenge stemmed from inadequate planning. It became evident that to effectively address our target issues, strategic precautions were essential. For instance, obtaining the teacher’s lesson plan beforehand would allow us to optimize our time allocation for maximum efficiency. Furthermore, receiving information either prior to or following the observation regarding the questions posed by the teacher to the students, along with the anticipated answers, proved crucial.

This pre-emptive knowledge is vital because while we can witness student responses during observations, it’s common knowledge that student answers may diverge significantly from the intended objectives. By understanding the teacher’s desired outcomes and comparing them to student responses, we gain the ability to analyse and pose critical questions. Was the question overly complex or overly broad? Did it fail to sufficiently engage the target students? Armed with this understanding, we can harness the unique and precise effectiveness of observational rounds to their fullest potential.

Sinem

In the fall module of the Academic year 2023, we observed three different classrooms with the guidance of our team leader, Sultan Zeydan. The problems of practice are written below:

*Do teachers do most of the talking and thinking in the classroom?

*What type of questions do teachers ask?

*Bloom’s taxonomy

*How do teachers elicit ideas?

Our action plan was to observe teachers from different levels for 15-20 minutes and then debrief our findings from the observation and how to use this data to build upon our own practices.

The first class that we observed was A2 level and the focus of the lesson was “the linkers”. The aim of the lesson according to Bloom’s taxonomy was remembering the information and explaining the meaning of the information, that is, comprehension. The teacher asked simple questions such as “Is it correct?” to raise awareness and wanted students to realize their mistakes. The teacher repeated the same question and gave the opportunity to elicit the answers as much as possible.

We observed another class, which was at the B2 level. The focus of the lesson was listening. According to Bloom’s taxonomy, the category of the questions can be considered as analysis and evaluation. The teacher let the students talk more and directed them with instructional questions. She did scaffolding and elicited ideas. She raised questions such as “What is the main idea? What do you think? What is your point?” Students also did a quick research about the topic and were asked to discuss the importance of their findings and the rationale behind this.

The final class which we observed was again B2 level and the context was Third Conditional. It was a guided speaking activity. Students were sitting facing each other and answering the speaking questions in pairs. To provide an example: “If you could be anyone in the world, who would you be?” They had two minutes to discuss their answers and then they had to change their partner and answer another question with a new partner. That is, students did most of the talk. According to Bloom’s taxonomy, it can be regarded as ‘apply’. The teacher further asked questions like “Are you surprised by your partner’s answers? Are there any other answers you want to share?” to give more opportunities for more production.

Overall, observing different teachers and seeing different student profiles and levels gave us great insight and contributed to our journey, leading to the enhancement of our teaching skills.

Tibet

Embarking on a profound journey of instructional round observations, our exploration takes us into the classrooms of A2 and B2 level instructors. In this experience, the central point revolves around teacher talk time and the types of questions asked by teachers. We focused on the relationship between the teacher talk time and questioning in three different classes.

Lesson One: Our instructional round observations started with an A2 level instructor guiding students through the nuances of linkers. The classroom thrived on collaborative learning, with the teacher adopting a guided discovery approach, allowing students to actively participate in the lesson.

Key Takeaways:

  • Memory-trigger questions reinforced previous knowledge.
  • The focus of some questions was on remembering and understanding linkers, aligning with instructional goals.
  • A student-centred approach led to enthusiastic participation, creating a vibrant learning atmosphere.

Lesson Two: Transitioning to a B2 level classroom, our journey continued with a focus on a listening activity about ‘Business Skills’. Students engaged in mini-discussions, exploring the significance of specific skills in the workplace. The teacher’s strategic questioning led students to articulate thoughts independently, fostering critical thinking in a professional discourse.

Key Takeaways:

  • The instructor’s intervention guided students without imposing answers, promoting critical thinking.
  • Students actively participated in the learning process. The instructor guided the class with questions while allowing them to speak more.

Lesson Three: Our final observation was again at the B2 level, where students explored the nuances of “If” clauses. Pair work and a series of hypothetical scenario questions turned the classroom into an effective language-learning environment. The teacher’s energetic approach also contributed to a lively and engaging class atmosphere.

Key Takeaways:

  • The use of pair work allowed students to actively practice and produce ‘If’ sentence structures.
  • Asking personalized questions caught the students’ attention. The teacher got involved in the process by giving feedback.
  • Despite challenges in certain questions, the teacher ensured students actively used the target language at the production stage.

A Grateful Note: The experience of observing fellow educators in action has been nothing short of enriching. It not only provided valuable insights into diverse instructional strategies but also created a unique opportunity for empathy. Witnessing the dedication and passion of these teachers was truly a pleasure and an eye-opening experience. We thoroughly enjoyed this collaborative learning experience, and we are sincerely thankful for the collaboration of these instructors.

Reference

City, E. A. (2011). Learning from instructional rounds. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 36-41.