1

EDL 278
Observation Cycle Summary
Andrew Wade
4/5/2013
Introduction
In the role of being an observer in the observation cycle I found what an observation
should be. In the thirteen years that I have been teaching; in two different school buildings, I
have never experienced an observation with all four phases. The missing phase in my experience
was the data analysis phase, or at least I never had any documentation of information from a
wide or narrow lens. I found through this experience that this was the most rewarding for the
growth of both Mr. Cox and Mr. Bonte. They both stated how valuable the feedback from the
data was in their growth as educators. Since doing these observation cycles with Mr. Cox and
Mr. Bonte I have become closer to them in the work setting. They both have invited me back to
observe their classrooms again later this school year to observe any similarities or differences. I
believe I am more of a resource for them through this process, than I ever have been. That to me
is what we as building staffs need to have in order to fulfill the maximum teaching and learning
for all students.
Pre Observation Conference
The pre-observation conferences were quite different from each other. I conferenced
with a more veteran teacher in Mr. Cox who has taught for 27 years, and Mr. Bonte who has less
experience in teaching. I feel that I was more nervous with Mr. Cox because he has so much
experience in teaching, and also has been through a Masters program for administration. He
was very familiar with this process and knew the type of things we were going to be doing. In
2

Mr. Bontes case, I felt a little more comfortable because he has never went through this
observation cycle process, so I felt we were learning together of what need to take place.
I did both pre-observations within the classroom that I was going to be observing the
lesson. I felt that it would put them more at ease with me and the process. Time is valuable to
teachers and this would help save that for each of them. It also gave me a chance to figure out
the set-up of the classroom and where the best placement for me during the observation. I felt
this decision was a good one, and made the conferences run smoothly for all of us.
The difference in the conferences was the preparation from the teachers. Mr. Cox had his
pre-observation questions filled out, a seating chart, and his lesson materials ready for the pre-
observation. This made the conference run smooth and quickly. As for, Mr. Bonte, he had only
his lesson materials, so we had to fill-out the pre-observation questions together. I also asked for
a seating chart, but the students were not required to sit in a particular seat. He said he would try
to have a seating chart for me when I come to do the observation. I find that the differences
came from the amount of experience these teachers have with the process itself.
I made it a point to state that I was taking classes at Drake University and what my
objectives were, and thanked them for their willingness to take the time to help me with this
process. Once I explained the four phases that I would perform, we started to talk about the
lesson I would be observing. I asked each of them to briefly describe the lesson, its objective(s),
and how they would know the students were learning. In Mr. Coxs case, this was not a new
lesson that the students had done before. The students were going to hang their drawings and
critique each others work based on three criteria; composition, contrast, and styles. His
objective was for students to see these three criteria in their own drawings, or examples of what
3

should be in their drawings. Then they may go back and make their final adjustments to their
still life drawings in order to fit into the rubric set for the students drawings. Mr. Bonte was
different in he was going to do a new activity he had never done before. This lesson covered
Relative Dating of rock layers. He was going to start his lesson by doing a warm-up, introduce
the activity of Relative Dating, and give students time to work with check points of the
students thinking. Mr. Bonte knew exactly what objectives he wanted the students to be able to
do, and said that he and the other 7
th
grade science teacher met to agree on this activity. His
objectives were for the students to be able to sequence information using items which overlap
specific sets, relate sequencing to the Law of Superposition, and show how fossils can be used
together to form rock layers. His assessment for this lesson was if the students had the sequences
correct on the cards of letters and fossils, and then the students will fill out interpretation
questions of their activities.
Once I had an idea and understanding of the lesson. I asked each of them, What do you
want me to check for while I am observing your classroom? Mr. Cox new exactly what he
wanted out of the observation? He wanted to know who was participating in the critique and his
questioning of the students. I let him know I would record his questions by doing a wide lens
documentation of this lesson. This is my weakest type of tool to do, so I asked if it would be
alright for me to record the lesson, so I could have the ability to go back and make sure I catch
every question he asked the students and to which students. He said that would be okay to
record the lesson. I briefly told him I would keep track of his verbal flow and put a chart
together where his questions were going, and where the replies were coming from.
When I asked Mr. Bonte, he replied back with, What are you looking for in the other
observation with Mr. Cox. I let him know that Mr. Cox wanted me to look at his questioning
4

and participation of the class. Mr. Bonte decided that he would like information on engagement
and participation of his students. I was pleased that I could do something different for this
observation. I told him that I would do a verbal flow chart and an on task/off task chart. I
explained how both charts would be set-up with where the students were sitting, and I would
need to know the names of each student and where they were sitting. We also agreed on the key
code for the engagement of the students; A = At Task, O = Off Task, Q = Hand up, H =
Receiving Help, and P = Partner Help. Once we decided on these, I briefly explained how I was
going to scan a pass on each student for about five seconds in order to key in on the students
engagement.
When I left each pre conference I knew exactly what was going to take place during the
lesson. I knew where I would place myself in order to collect the best data possible for each
lesson. I will continue to do my pre conferences in the teachers rooms because it gave me a
sense of the climate of the room, and it also helped put the teachers at ease. This also saved time
for the teachers, which I believe is important for the teachers.
I felt the pre conferences went well and we had very good discussions. I spent less time
with Mr. Cox; about 15 minutes, because he had everything prepared ahead of time. I spent
about 30 minutes with Mr. Bonte, as we had to go through the Planning Conference Form
together. I enjoyed both experiences as it gave me the different realities of doing pre
conferences during an observation cycle and how to adapt to changes that might occur.
Observations
I went to each classroom when they were finishing up the period before. I wanted to get
there early so I would not be a distraction to the students. It also gave me a chance to prepare
5

myself with my charts and recorder for the lesson. I believe there was excellent teaching
happening in these lessons and that seemed to come from the excitement Mr. Cox and Mr. Bonte
showed for the content that they teach.
As I waited for the class to begin, I reflected on the materials and the outline that was
given to me at the pre-conference. I knew going in that the Mr. Coxs art class would only be 33
minutes because of it being on an early-out Wednesday. I did not know it could be a possible
problem with the lesson, but it was something that was brought up in the post conference (will
talk about later). In both classrooms, I was impressed when the students came in; they knew
where to look for instructions and knew exactly what they had to do to prepare for the class.
Once the bell rang, both classes had students sitting down and ready to begin.
I was most impressed with Mr. Bontes warm-up because it was a picture that tied to
what the student previously learned and it was feeding into their lesson for the day. The picture
was an example of rock layers found in Des Moines that he took the day before and this showed
me he wanted to make this lesson real for the students by talking about the students
surroundings. He also brought in actual rocks from the picture that the students were looking at.
This helped support what he was teaching.
In both observations, the teachers had a high expectations for student behavior, this was
apparent when they had 100 percent of the time would stop and redirect the class. I really liked
how Mr. Cox explained how it takes courage for students to speak about their own opinions
about their peer drawings. He also did a great job letting students know that he wanted their
opinions because that would build into the conversation. He was there to guide the students in
their thinking, and help see the three criterias he wanted the students to understand by the end of
6

the lesson. In Mr. Bontes class, he would say; 7
th
graders, as a cue to be quite and listen for
the next instruction. He used this method four times. Twice he had to continue to a countdown
of 3-2-1, and 100 percent of the time it worked to get the 7
th
graders to be ready to listen. This
showed me that the students had the respect of the teacher.
During both observations I used a recorder to help me keep track of the wide lens
of the class. I wanted to do this because it is my weakest element of what I know how to do right
now, and wanted to make sure I had the verbatim correct. This is something I need to practice
more and refine for how I do this in the future. While I was recording, I would write down the
times of any transitions that occurred, and also keep track of the narrow lens charts I said I would
create.
Since my narrow lens was focused on verbal flow, I wanted to start that at the beginning
of the lessons and continue through-out the classroom observation. This was easier in Mr. Coxs
class because I had a seating chart and knew the names of the students. In Mr. Bontes class, I
did the same thing but had to figure out the names of the students as the conversations happened.
It was good that Mr. Bonte used their names when calling on them, other than pointing at the
student or saying you.
The questioning that Mr. Cox used with the students I pulled off of the recorder because
it was easier for me to keep up with the conversations. This took me more time in the long run,
and I hope to become better at doing the wide lens tool. If I did this again, I would focus my
attention on just the questions being asked and not the answers that were given because that was
the element he wanted me to focus on.
7

Since both teachers asked me to take data on participation, I only used the verbal flow
method. If I did this again I would ask what parts of the lesson they would want me to look at
for participation because I marked down any conversation that the student or teacher had. I was
comfortable doing this tool, but there were conversations that were not directly tied to the
content. My question to myself is, What is participation in the lesson and is the side
conversations part of it?
As I reflect back on the lessons, I am happy that I had the class recorded. This gave me
the opportunity to go back and see if I missed anything. The only problem was that it took a lot
of time to do this, also I wonder if it was needed to be done for both classes. I believe I needed it
for Mr. Cox so I could record the questioning being used accurately. For Mr. Bonte I think it
was unnecessary because he was only looking for engagement and participation. I feel this could
give more information for Mr. Bonte on how and when the students participated.
Data Analysis / Conference Planning
The data analysis phase of the observation cycle was the most time consuming for me.
This was because my plan to write out the verbatim of the class changed. I was only going to
right down the questions asked by the teacher, but I thought the responses to those questions
were just as important to have. So I ended up writing everything down that was said in the class.
The thirty-two minute lesson in art class took me two hours to write out. Once I got that
completed, it was very easy to go back and look for the questions that were asked. I could also
see the verbal flow, and how accurate that data was. I was very surprised how accurate I was in
using this tool. I then had to decide how to put this data into a readable graph for Mr. Cox. For
questioning, I decided to put how many questions were a Why, What, How, and an Inquiry type
8

question. Those inquiry questions were ones that the teacher was digging for more information;
an example was, Somebody vote for this?
I presented the data to Mr. Cox by using a pie chart of an overall class and then also a
stacked bar graph per student. I think the stacked bar graph was the most useful and showed the
most data. I believe it showed who participated in the critique discussion and also showed the
amount of times the students answered those questions. I added a pie graph to show overall
percentage of the class that participated because in the pre-conference, Mr. Cox had a goal of
85% participation. I also made a verbal flow chart so he could see the areas of the room that he
was questioning. I think he will see areas of the room he did not get participation from the
students. There were two definite areas he did not ask questions from, or get participation from.
I felt that he stayed away from students that were closest to him at the time of their discussions.
I created the same verbal flow for Mr. Bonte, but decided that I would not do it for the
whole class period. I decided to only do this for the warm-up and introduction of the new
activity which consisted for the first 24 minutes of the class. I did this because it was when the
most conversation was going to happen from the teacher to the student and back. I think Mr.
Bonte did a great job involving everyone, but I have a question about why a couple of students
were not called on for any input of understanding. I put this information into an overall class pie
chart that shows the percent of the class, and then also added a bar graph that shows the number
of responses from each student.
After analyzing the verbal flow I decided to record the on/off task that Mr. Bonte and I
decided to use. I did this narrow lens tool for 36 minutes. I ran ten passes in Mr. Bontes room
and was able to collect some good data on the students as they worked independently on their
9

activities. I created a stacked bar graph for each student according to where they were sitting in
the class. I wanted Mr. Bonte to see where in the room he was getting the most engagement
from his students, and where he needs to focus on when the students are off task. Also, I wanted
him to be able to see where students are receiving help from him, and if they are using their table
partner for help.
If I did this again, I would make sure to give times and locations as to where the teacher
was as I recorded the on/off task behavior. I believe this would paint a better picture for the
teacher to view. I think it would be helpful for the teacher to know if the students were on task if
the teacher was close in proximity or if the students were off task, but the teacher did nothing
about it. I believe I need to be more specific on the items I was looking for, and that will come
with more practice.
Feedback Conference
This was the toughest part of the four phases for me. I wish I would have had an
observation done like this for me, so I would some sort of idea how it would flow from the start
to the finish. I felt I was very prepared for the feedback conference and I had good data to
support what I observed in each observation. I was definitely more nervous in my first
conference with Mr. Cox than I was with Mr. Bonte. I think this was because it was my first
time experiencing this kind of feedback conference, and also trying to make it perfect because I
was recording myself. It was far from perfect, but it is something for me to build on, and learn
from.
I started the feedback conferences with thanking each of them for letting me come in and
observe their class. I then tried to comment on what I have seen before in a walk through and
10

how I wanted to see more interesting things they do in their class. I also asked Mr. Bonte about
the State Science Fair and how the students at Callanan Middle school did. I believe this eased
them into the feedback conference.
I then talked through the process and structure of the conference with each of them. I let
them know that if they had any questions at any time that I would encourage them to ask. Each
of them understood the process I was going to take and that I wanted them to be reflective in
what they did in their lesson, and I would fill in any gaps in my thinking from what I was hearing
with follow-up questions. I wanted these feedback conferences to be a self-directed style
conference where the teacher was doing most of the talking and reflecting on their own teaching.
I felt I accomplished this task and that made me feel like I was just a facilitator and not an
authority figure.
The majority of the conversations during the feedback conferences were revolved around
the data collected. One outcome from Mr. Coxs conversation was that it may not have been a
good idea to have this type of lesson on an early out day. Having a shortened class period did
not give the students time to look carefully at each drawing for the criteria they were to look for.
Also, it eliminated time for Mr. Cox to have each student reflect on what they were seeing in
their peer drawings. He came to the conclusion that the next time they do a critique that he
would do that lesson on a normal schedule day. I agreed with him, so he is going to do it the
next time. I asked him to invite me back to observe the lesson and I will help look at the
difference between the two lessons.
We also talked about doing different methods of critiquing peers work so that each
student gets more involved in that process and can share their ideas. I thought a pair share would
11

work really well. This would allow the students to talk to someone else and report back to the
whole group about their conversation. Mr. Cox thought that would be a good idea, and would try
to incorporate that the next time and see how that would work.
Mr. Bontes feedback conference was one that I felt more comfortable because the lesson
flowed from the beginning to the end. He had a warm-up question and discussion, followed by
his lesson, and then an activity for the students to accomplish. I also wanted to continue a
conversation and learn more about how he works with his composition book. I think it is a great
idea and can be brought into more classrooms across the curriculums. We talked about the time
it takes the students to cut out everything so the students can glue their pieces into their books. I
suggested that maybe they should be precut and put into envelopes for each student. I think that
will eliminate the difference in time it takes each student in cutting, and keep the students close
to the same spot in the lesson. I also thought it would decrease the off task behavior. Mr. Bonte
thought about this before the lesson, but decided not to do this as he did not know how to
accomplish this.
We had a discussion in what future changes he would make in his lessons, and one that
he pointed out was to do an exit slip to check with every students understanding from that lesson.
He stated he did not do this because this was the first time doing this lesson and he did not know
how time he would have, but next time he will do an exit slip.
One difference in Mr. Bontes conference that did not happen in Mr. Coxs conference
was he had questions he wanted to ask me. He asked me if I felt the lesson adequately taught the
students the three objectives he set out to teach. I felt that he accomplished this goal because of
what the students were able to perform from the beginning of the lesson to the end. The students
12

were able to take their discussion in the warm-up and relate it to their sequencing activity. I
think the students were able to have a good conversation and know what they were able to
sequence when the activity became more challenging.
The second question from Mr. Bonte was if I thought that the students were on task. We
took a look again at the data and I said I believe most of the students were on task, but they were
at different points in the lesson because of the cutting and gluing into their composition book that
led some students to be off task. I thought it would be a good idea to have things pre-cut for the
students, and maybe that would be best for the students that it takes longer for them to cut the
pieces of paper. He then asked if I enjoyed the lesson. I told him that I thought the students got
a lot out of the lesson, and that I learned a lot about relative dating. I would have enjoyed
science a lot more in an environment that he had for his students. Science was not interesting to
me in school, but he made it interesting for me because he made it real with the warm-up picture
and bringing in rocks from the Des Moines area. He then asked what I would change after
watching the lesson. I replied that I agreed with him on the exit slip. I would also try to find a
way to eliminate the time for cutting and gluing. I think some students need to have the papers
already precut for them as they spend a lot of time focusing on that and not the activity.
I ended the feedback conferences offering to come back some other time and do another
observation to see if any changes to their lesson have helped, or if they want help in finding a
way to get students more engaged in the lesson and to participate in the classroom. They both
said they would take me up on my offer.


13

Conclusion
As a peer to the volunteer teachers, I feel this process has helped us become a team in the
development of the craft of teaching and learning. We had very good conversations, and those
conversations have continued into the days beyond just the day of the observation. We are
building a wonderful climate in our building through this process, and we feel that we are
helping each other become better at our ultimate goals in education. I wish I would have had this
type of observation as a beginning teacher. I believe this gives a person great information to
build from, and become a quality teacher.
TIME: 23 - 24 hours