# data[].attributes.body
It is always a pleasure seeing effective teachers modeling their craft.  I liked both Mrs. Warburton's and Mrs. Jones' group strategies and saw benefits to both - I also have questions about both.  I really liked the strategy of gears that Mrs. Warburton used.  I would like to know what Gear 1 active listening looks like - if there are opportunities for questioning and clarification.  If it includes modeling of solving similar problems.  I would hate if I child went into Gear 2 completely confused and lost!  I do like this time for students to have productive struggle with the concepts.  I also wonder how long Gear 2 lasts and if she would shorten the period if it looked like students were struggling.  Gear 2 also allows students to get a handle on what they don't know so that they can better be ready to discuss in Gear 3.  I would also like to have seen what Gear 4 looks like - she said the group works on a novel problem as a group and I wonder how she structures this time to ensure participation by all students.
Mrs. Jones' model of assigning roles to students helps to ensure that all students participate.  Her groups seemed to be very engaged in their work and I like how she supported students within the context of their work.  I wonder how she ensures that all students are rotating through all the roles.
In both classrooms one could see students interacting with each other and the content.   Student talk dominated over teacher talk.  Both teacher's seemed like they would be open to alternative strategies.  I like how in Mrs. Jones group the lead writer's had to be sure that answers were recorded properly, making them synthesize the information their peers presented.
Even though I typically work in small groups I like to create opportunities in my lessons to work in triads or pairs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Analyzing Four Gears of Learning and Ownership Roles in Group Work Kathleen Gallagher

# data[].attributes.subject
Analyzing Four Gears of Learning and Ownership Roles in Group Work Kathleen Gallagher

# data[].attributes.body
After viewing both videos of the Math lessons and group configurations by Mrs. Warburton and Ms. Jones, I could see that they are both exceptional teachers with their own style.  I found pros and cons to each approach. Mrs. Warburton's approach allowed the students to engage in a preparation period of solitary work after active listening which would help them transition into their study group and team work.  Whereas, Ms. Jones's approach allowed the students to gain leadership roles in team work.  While I found benefits to both of these approaches, I began to wonder if perhaps BOTH of their group configurations could be combined?  I say this because I agree with our textbook chapter on interactions that discussion of the learning process with others, and daily discussion of content is very valuable, I also think that there should be a silent period after active listening that allows students to absorb the intake of knowledge, in order to transition to team work.  For my SIOP lesson, I believe I will work with the ideas of small group, independent work, and partnering ideas.

# data[].attributes.body
In viewing the video is very apparent that both teachers are very good at what they do and I love how they have different ways of doing it.  Each teacher used their personalities to their strength and have developed styles that fit.

I believe that ELs of different proficiency levels would benefit from both Ms. Jones and Ms. Warburton.  Classroom but a little more in Ms. Jones class.  Ms. Jones has groups working majority of class and within those groups jobs are given to members.  Ms. Jones clearly modeled the jobs for students to show them the expectations of each job.  Ms. Jones did a great job monitoring groups, pushing and guiding as needed.  Ms. Jones classed allowed for more interaction among students of all levels which is why it would be a little better for ELs.  The amble opportunities in her class for students to respond and elaborate their responses is a a major part of chapter 6.  She provided a variety of rich, structured discussions as part of whole class, small group, and with a partner.  I think that ELs students in her class would be more likely to take risk and open up because they can see they everyone is participating whether they are correct or incorrect.  I love the wait time Ms. Jones had with the one female student who had trouble at first verbally expressing why the answer was wrong.  I think she does a better job of gradually increasing her students responsibility.

Ms. Warburton did some great things too.  I loved how she held up the sign as students walked into the room to clearly state her expectations.  However, ELs might need more descriptive picture to go along with the direction.  I feel ELs might be more hesitant to participate in her class as result of doing the independent work first then later on completing group work if needed.  This could be frustrating for ELs.

Both teachers technique of providing student opportunities to interact within the lesson was different but beneficial to students to work on content and language skills.  .

For my SIOP lesson I plan on using instructional grouping techniques like whole group, think pair share, and small group learning stations.  Student also will have independent work.

# data[].attributes.body
I enjoyed both teachers take on group work. They both found ways to keep students accountable when working. Mrs. Warburton's take on group work with "gears" was creative. It is important for students to try to solve a problem independently at first to see what they know and then share out. I feel there are pros and cons to that strategy. Pro: students work independently to show what they know. Con: Students may not know what they are doing and then get embarrassed when it is time to share out. That or they only rely on their partner to do the work for them.

I personally liked Mrs. Jones' strategy the best. It held each student accountable and required each student to participate. Students were able to teach and learn from each other. It allows students to shine with their strengths and give students voice.

For my SIOP lesson, I am going to begin with a whole group lesson, move to group /partner work, check back in during whole group, and assess independently.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that both grouping strategies could be effective in teaching English Learners. The aspect of Mrs. Warburton’s class that I thought was the most effective was the structure and consistency. A big part of learning and classroom management, especially with young children, is structure and routine. In her classroom, she used a consistent structure and specific language which allowed for whole group explicit instruction, group discussion, and an integrated group task. While it may be frustrating for some students to work individually on a problem first, the opportunity to discuss their struggles later allows students to gain an understanding of their own knowledge and self-assess what they don’t understand, before pursuing help. To make this system even more effective, Mrs. Warburton could change the order of her gears on certain days for certain problems. For example, she could allow students to collaborate first, then provide whole group instruction, followed by a collaborative project and individual work. This order has a better resemblance to the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model, and might work better for some students. However, I think that her original sequence could also be effective for English Learners.

I think that Mrs. Jones’ grouping structure is also effective, especially for algebra. She assigned very specific roles which aligned with the skills required to complete the task.  It may be more difficult to adapt this procedure to other subjects, and I’m not sure that it is as easily applied to early childhood classrooms. However, I think her attitude toward trying multiple ways to solve a problem and not being afraid of failure is applicable to any grade.

For my SIOP lesson, I plan to include two types of interaction. Initially, we will use a whole group interaction to introduce the concept, and then students will have the opportunity to explore the concepts in groups of three. If the students are engaged in the activity, I may also try to incorporate a Think Pair Share, so they have the opportunity to share with a partner as well.

# data[].attributes.body
After watching the videos, I feel there are elements from both classroom that could be beneficial.  in Mrs. Warburton's classroom, she refers to 4 gears the students could be working in.  In gear 1, students are participating in active listening.  Students are independently working in gear 2, get to collaborate with a partner in gear 3, and complete one task as a group in gear 4.  She pointed out that she felt that having students work in a study group gave them the chance to feel more comfortable with their answers before getting called on in front of the whole class.  ON page 155 in our book, one of the benefits to having students interact is that it reduces the risk of feeling unprepared, and allows ideas to flow more easily.  While Ms. Jones had students engaged for longer, Ms. Warburton did allow for student interaction and collaboration.  The use of pairs or teams can heighten attention levels, and allow students to compare/contrast material being learned.
Ms. Jones had her classroom set up for group interaction.  I appreciated how she made sure that each person in the group was assigned a task.  This ensured that everyone participated, checked each other's work, and had a grasp on the material.  The teacher has explicitly taught the students the rules for engaging in high-quality discussion.  This helps to make sure that students are taking turns, stay on topic, actively listen, and are respectful.  The teacher made sure she was going around to the different groups and assist as needed.

For my lesson, students will be gathered as a whole group to hear instructions. I will use another student to model the activity they should be completing. Students will then get to work with a partner to create a venn diagram. They will be discussing where they should be placed in the venn diagram, and come to an unanimous decision. At the end of the lesson, we will reconvene and discuss the activity. The students will be using this activity as a jumping board for the next day's lesson.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tammy Catanza- Ms Warburton and Ms Jones

# data[].attributes.subject
Tammy Catanza- Ms Warburton and Ms Jones

# data[].attributes.body
I felt both teachers were very clear about their instruction.  Ms W had clear expectations of what was expected with her "GEARS" routine that the students were obviously used to.  Gears is new to me but the expectations were to be i the 4th area of Team work.  The other areas were to be an active listener, do independent work and be part of a study group where you do your own work but yet it is collaborative. I like this idea because you still get help without giving the answers. I also felt Ms W did not modeling which would help our ELL's. Ms. J did a great job clarifying roles that were expected by the students. She also provided modeling and manipulative's which are better for ELL's. it will help build confidence as learners, especially where they learn for themselves and it positively encourages independent learning teams.

# data[].attributes.body
Watching Ms. Warburton launched me straight back to the horrors of Geometry class my sophomore year of high school. I was frustrated for the students in her class as she gave the directives, "think on your own, struggle by yourself." This is exactly why I failed Geometry. I was left to my own devices (which were quite limited) to figure things out and the resentment and frustration festered and grew. It wasn't too long into the class, that I was labeled unmotivated and lazy. I realize now that my strength is in the narrative. Having grown up in a story-telling, musical household, I needed an approach that would speak to my learning style. Absolutely, I would have failed Ms. Warburton's class and I would have thrived with Ms. Jones. A stark difference separating the two, Ms. Jones' class represents the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model in action; whereas, Ms. Warburton's class is the opposite process--total independence is placed on the students first and eventually sharing takes place after solutions are attempted.
Because of my personal experiences, I am an advocate of the Gradual Release Model and I try my best to weave the Model into instructional routines throughout the learning day. Central to the success of the SIOP lesson, is the incorporation of explicit demonstrations, opportunities for interaction in the form of guided practice between teacher and students, group interaction among peers, and independent work with direct teacher feedback provided.

# data[].attributes.body
Mrs. Warburton’s strategy allows for students to see a concept being taught, then work on it alone, next you work with partner, finally work through as a whole class. Whereas, Ms. Jones’ strategy allows for students to be grouped and within their groups they are to pick different roles in order to learn the math concept.
I like both strategies but for Els for mixed proficiency levels to be most successful I would pick Ms. Jones’ strategy. I chose this strategy because it gives students a chance to talk through the learning process with meaningful conversation with their peers and teacher.
On pages 150-151 in the book it talks about how rich meaningful conversations help foster culturally responsive classrooms and are well suited for Els. This is often referred to as instructional conversations (ICs). Having students work together in groups where everyone has different roles will make students talk and learn from one another through conversation and sharing ideas. Students get to focus on one particular area then share their work with others to help them in the learning of the concept.

For my SIOP lesson, I plan to do whole group, small group/partners, and independent work for assessing.

# data[].attributes.body
From the perspective of a student, ELL and ESL tutor I would prefer to be in Ms. Jones's classroom. Her explicit instruction leads to effective  group interaction emphasizing active student involvement in the math tasks. She has scaffold her group structure by assigning specific roles that support and lead to the completion of the tasks. She mentioned she modeled the Lead Writer role several times to prepare students to check other students work. Allowing students to work together gives students the opportunities to explain their thinking, justify their problem-solving strategy they used, and troubleshooting and revising their work leading to meaningful experiences and increasing learning. Jones's group strategy gives the ELLs the possibility of discussion and clarification of the task in their native language before starting the task and the opportunity to practice language skills, academic and BICs. Research supports that ELLs are more engaged when working in small groups with partners than in whole class instruction or individual work.
Ms.Warburton's strategies for group work linked to the 4 Gears seems like a great procedural strategy on the surface but, I have reservations. Moving from Gear 1 active listening which I assume is explicit instruction to the 2nd Gear which is independent work or in her words "struggle for yourselves" does not fit the model of effective interaction. I believe this would lead to student disengagement not maintain student interest and increase student frustration. Yes, students do need challenges but I believe this strategy does not support a diverse classroom that promotes caring and support to all students. Classroom group interaction following instruction encourages success because it provides opportunities for all students, by asking and answering questions, clarification, scaffolding and assistances from peers. For ELLs Gear 2 interrupts the possibility of discussions and clarification from additional native learners in the class. Following The GRR model independent work should be the last Gear, not the 2nd.

Since I am a pull-out ESL tutor my SIOP lesson is with two of my emerging LEP fourth- grade students who will be working as turn and talk partners and in small group work, following explicit instruction.

# data[].attributes.body
Upon watching Ms. Jones and Ms. Warburton, I feel that Ms. Jones strategy would be most effective for ELs of mixed proficiency levels. I think that it would be too difficult for ELs to understand the concept without the initial support of the teacher modeling. I do think that having the opportunity to discuss with a partner before working together as a whole group might provide more confidence to ELs as they work to grasp the concepts.

I like how in Ms. Jones class that students were given roles for the groups that they were in so that all students have the opportunity to work in the group rather than not knowing what they should be working on. Ms. Jones also seems like she uses more direction and gestures so that students can know how they should be working. She also uses more manipulatives which can be a key component for ELs in understanding new concepts. She encourages them to talk and this would help ELs to use their academic English skills in the classroom. Encouraging confidence was something that Ms. Jones also seemed to espouse which is critical for ELs.

For my SIOP lesson, I am planning on having the students work as a whole class, in groups, and turn and talk partners. (3)

# data[].attributes.body
These videos showed two very different ways of encouraging student interaction.  As a believer in the idea that group interaction can and should differ throughout the day, I see a place for the way that both teachers run their classrooms.  I believe the EL students would most likely thrive better in Ms. Jones' classroom.  Many students would find the thought of working independently at first to be a daunting task, especially if language, vocabulary and content are unfamiliar. Having the opportunity to talk, think and learn alongside peers is very effective for ELs.  My question to Mrs. Jones’ would be regarding her group roles.  I would like to know if she changes the group roles every so often to ensure that students are exercising different parts of their brains.  I understand the idea of tapping into students’ strengths; however, students also need to be challenged to work in ways that are outside their comfort zones.  We want and need to help them stretch their brains!

The math talk that Mrs. Warburton practiced in classroom was exceptional.  The higher level thinking skills that students had to utilize to justify correct and/ or incorrect answers was beneficial to all students.  This may be a struggle for new language learners as their understanding of content vocabulary may be lacking.  Her activities also required students to work alone first.  This does not provide any time for students to activate schema and have real-life conversations with peers using content vocabulary and applying new concepts.

The ways in which both teachers delivered and facilitated instruction have a place in the classroom.  Each teacher and group of students must find a balance of encouraging student conversation, project based learning and requiring students to develop independence.

# data[].attributes.body
After watching both teachers teach the same math lesson, I felt that Mrs. Jone's personal style and grouping strategies would work best for ELL students more so than the rigid, quiet and structured routines of Mrs. Wharton. Although both teachers planned their lessons very well, Mrs. Jone's style incorporated more student engagement and interaction with the math problem by having students being active, using the white board to solve problems in pairs and team groupings. She talked out the math problem with the students, calling on various students and encouraging them to be involved in the learning process as a team. She also asked a lot of questions as she spoke which put all students at attention and focused on the lesson.  Mrs.Jone's also used more hand gestures, friendly facial expressions and close up personal interactions with the students. She appeared more passionate and displayed a concern for her students to be part of the learning process and success that I think ELL students would thrive having in such a welcoming environment. Mrs. Wharton, although very knowledgeable on her subject, her classroom environment was very predictable and structured with specific routines and students groupings including Active Listening /Independent Work/Study Group & Team Work where they are to solve a specific problem. There was very little moving around, no manipulatives or students out of their seats, and she had them score each other's work which as a poor math student I found frightening. Mrs. Wharton's style of teaching I found to be intimidating and might be to new ELL's as well that are not as confident in the language or subject. Mrs. Wharton's style is more suitable for older or English proficient students and Mrs. Jones for the new ELL students.
For my SIOP lesson, I plan on starting with a whole group discussion/warm-up, pair grouping then team work, then finalizing with whole group again (wrap- up discussion)

# data[].attributes.body
After viewing both strategies I felt they were effective but, very different. I noticed that Ms. Warburton used a different structure for her group work.  She began with active listening (teacher modeling), then independent work, then study group, which allowed for students to collaborate if needed, and lastly team time, where each group was working together to complete a task.
Ms. Jones group time looked very different. She had students working in groups the whole time and each group member was then given a job to do.  She modeled each job and monitored each group and pushed in when necessary to guide students thinking.
I feel both strategies were effective techniques. Ms. Warburton changed her grouping to maximize engagement throughout the class. She also explained her reasoning for beginning with independent work, which was to see if students could complete the work and where they were having trouble. However, I didn’t agree with her statement about struggling now and then you can work with someone later if you need it. As an educator if I see my student struggling I try to see what parts they are struggling with and remediate with prompting or scaffolding. I also didn’t see Ms. Warburton monitor the class as they worked. This part of the lesson I felt was not a successful technique. I also noticed Ms. Warburton used a variety of groupings such as independent, partner, and then team time.  This is an effective SIOP strategy like the GRR model.
I believe  Ms. Jones had stronger group interactions in her class and really pushed students to talk and engage with each other. She modeled each group job and then monitored groups as they discussed. She pushed in as needed and provided prompting.
One thing both teachers did well was to provide the time with in the lesson for students to interact.  Although they did it in different ways both teachers were successful at having their students using interactions to build in language practice while working with the content.

For my SIOP lesson I plan on using instructional grouping techniques from the GRR model. I will have students working as a whole class while I model, students will then partner up and use peer discussion to complete a partner activity.  Lastly, students will complete independent work.

# data[].attributes.body
I think both teachers do a nice job of getting their students talking and learning.  Both Ms. Warburton and Ms. Jones employ strategies for group work that have some great qualities.  Both strategies have students talking and working together to answer difficult and challenging problems.  Ms. Warburton structures her lessons into times of direct instruction, student application, academic conversations about their work and then group work where there is one task to complete as a group.  Then they are asked to respond as a class to the ideas of others.  I like the idea of students working independently (struggling on their own) for a designated time period, and then they get to have an academic conversation about what was learned or still need to learn with a partner.  This period of struggle is important and the follow up of an opportunity to talk is very important to furthering students’ understanding of complex mathematics concepts.  I also like how each there is time for students to work in groups together to complete a specific task.  The video was only a few minutes long so we don’t get to hear if Ms. Warburton has given specific instructions about how to have an academic conversation but it appears as if students know how to do this.  This structure of her class is supported by Chapter 6 in our SIOP textbook.  On page 165 it says “This concept of Moving from whole class to small group or partner work adds variety to the learning situation and increases student involvement in the learning process.”

Ms. Jones also does a nice job of getting students to interact by giving students specific tasks to accomplish and discuss with the group. She gives each student a job to fulfill such as the multiplier, the combining of like terms checker and the recorder.  This keeps students accountable to each other since they all must record the proper way to do the work. This also helps students keep on task, and gives everyone a role to play when working in a team. This idea is also supported by chapter 6 in our SIOP book.  On page 161 it says “Effective SIOP teachers explicitly teach students rules for engaging in high-quality discussions to ensure that they take turns, stay on topic and actively listen, building on one another’s comments, and are respectful.”

I think an English Learner would do well in either class.  Ms. Warburton’s class seems more structured with the teacher giving more wait time to enable students time to listen, think, formulate a response and then talk.  However, in Ms. Jones’s class, students might have more chances for academic talk where they are sharing their ideas and taking risks about math.  Some EL students might need this setting while others might appreciate the quiet room to think, work and then share. So, I guess it depends on the need of the child.
For my SIOP lesson I plan to have whole group discussions where it is "student led learning" by having students share their thinking from the previous night's homework. This supports Language Learners because they are hearing the math thinking of their peers in a way that may make more sense to them. Next is an independent opportunity for students to struggle with a new task, followed by a turn and talk to a partner. We will return back to whole group to share answers and have an explicit lesson about a new math skill. During this time, the teacher should employ appropriate wait time to allow students to comprehend what is being presented. Students will then practice the new skills together with the teacher leading a few examples, then students leading examples. Next students will work independently for a short time, followed by another turn and talk to share ideas. Lastly students will work with a partner to complete more tasks that reinforces the new skill introduced as well as reviewing previously learned skills. During the last 20 minutes of class, I will pull a small group of students to do some interventions.

# data[].attributes.body
After watching the video, I felt that both teachers did a nice job of making sure students had opportunities to interact.  However, I feel Ms. Jones’ strategy would be most successful for English learners of mixed proficiency.  Ms. Jones started with group work which I believe would give EL students another chance to hear the vocabulary, allow other students to restate and repeat directions, give clarity on subject matter, and perhaps have other students make some connections to previous learning.   Whereas, Ms. Warburton’s schedule did not allow interaction until the middle/end.  If a student did not understand the vocabulary, instructions, or did not understand the instructions, they would have difficulty starting the work and could get frustrated.   I feel by starting with group work, students are given an additional chance to feel prepared before starting it on their own.  This group work also allows for ample opportunity to practice using academic language. This idea is also supported on page 154 in our SIOP.  It states that students should have daily opportunities to talk about content in pairs or groups.  Ms. Jones also made sure everyone had a role which made sure that there was interaction from every group participant.  There was a structure in place to make sure everybody had a say in the answer, ability to speak up in the group based on their role, and a chance for support to be given to each other.

For my SIOP lesson, I plan on having 3 groupings:  whole group, partner/turn-and talk, and small group.

# data[].attributes.body
These videos showed two very different ways of encouraging student interaction. As a believer in the idea that group interaction can and should differ throughout the day, I see a place for the way that both teachers run their classrooms. I believe the EL students would most likely thrive better in Ms. Jones' classroom. Many students would find the thought of working independently a

# data[].attributes.body
I believe both strategies of group work could be successful for ELLs. In Ms. Warburton's group work strategy, she has 4 parts: active listening, independent work, study group, and team work. I think it's important that Ells and all students in your class has time to listen to the question and begin to form a response instead of just calling out an answer. Afterwards, they do their work independently. Study group is where the students have their own work to do but they can collaborate with their peers if they need help or clarification on something. And then team work is working together as a team on one task. In Ms. Jones' group work strategy, she had team roles for each of the students.They were held accountable for their own work and for their team. Learning is more effective when students have an opportunity to participate fully -discussing ideas and information. Interaction accesses the thought processes of another and
solidifies one's own thinking. Talking with others, either in pairs or small groups, allows for oral rehearsal of learning.

For my SIOP lesson, I'm going to have at least 3 different grouping structures - whole class, flexible small groups, and partnering (turn and talk method).