1.2 Classroom Interractions

1.2 Classroom Interactions: Interactions reflected collegial working relationships among students. (e.g., students worked together productively and talked with each other about the lesson).

This indicator assesses the degree to which students have learned to be collegial, respectful, cooperative, and interactive when working in groups. In other words, this indicator captures how well the teacher has worked with the students on developing group-work ethics and skills that create and promote an environment of active collaboration. Evidence of collegial, productive working relationships among students includes collaborative discussions about topics relevant to the lesson and successful delegation of roles and responsibilities within each group. It’s also evidenced by whether all group members are participating and contributing, reflecting on their learning, and staying focused on the given task.

This indicator can be rated as Not Applicable (NA) if the lesson did not include group work and the rater has no opportunity to observe student interactions. Sometimes a lesson includes group work but the duration is extremely short; the benchmark used here is that if there were student–student interactions lasting greater than 3 minutes total over the entire lesson, this indicator must be rated. This indicator must also be rated even if the teacher did not specifically tell students to work in groups. It should also be rated if the teacher told students to work in groups, but they did not follow his directions (which would earn a rating of “1”).

General Rubric

1. This item should be rated a 1 if there was group work during the lesson, but the group work was highly unproductive. This could include behavior where the majority of the groups were socializing, off-task, arguing, or ignoring each other, as well as regular instances of students copying off their group members and/or certain group members doing all of the work.
   
    
2. This indicator should be rated a 2 if there was group work during the lesson, but some groups were unproductive, engaging in the off-task behaviors listed under the 1 rating. There could be occasional examples of productive group work for some groups but this was not consistent throughout the time allotted.
   
    
3. This indicator should be rated a 3 if there was group work during the lesson, and the groups were adequately productive throughout the group work time. There may be some examples of off-task conversation and group members not contributing.
   
    
4. This indicator should be rated a 4 if there was group work during the lesson and most of the groups worked together productively throughout this portion of the lesson. The groups were observed to discuss ideas and ask each other questions before seeking out the teacher, and the members themselves encouraged participation of all group members. There may still be an example of an unproductive group in the classroom, but the majority of students are working well together. 
   
    
5. This indicator should be rated a 5 if there was group work during the lesson, and all groups worked together productively and were meaningfully engaged in the content and concepts of the lesson. All group members clearly understood and accepted their roles and were able to actively participate; groups discussed and explored ideas together, coming to a common understanding of the content and concepts.

Specific Examples of Supporting Evidence

1. The teacher told the students who understood the lesson to help the other members of their group complete the worksheet of assigned problems. However, no one in the groups did this, and several groups were observed to be explicitly copying off of each other’s papers. In other cases, the student group members chose not to collaborate at all, silently completing the worksheet individually. In another instance, several groups simply socialized without attempting to complete any of the assignment.
   
    
2. Although there were occasional examples of a few student groups working together well, other groups simply socialized. In one situation, the teacher stated that he did not believe a particular group was working together effectively and announced to the whole class that he would have to separate them, which caused some objections from the members of the group. These group members sat apart and were unproductive for the remainder of the class.
   
    
3. The students were assigned debate groups and tasked with planning for one group to debate another group with the class as an audience the following day. The groups worked together productively for most of the time, choosing who was responsible for what part of the debate, coordinating their arguments to some degree, and splitting up the time slots as necessary. Although most students worked quietly on their portion of the task, there were several ongoing instances of off-task socializing throughout the period.
   
    
4. The majority of students were successfully working in groups to prepare for and carry out a debate as assigned. In one group, two members sat back and simply watched their colleagues working together on developing their group’s position paper and presentation. In all other groups, however, students were engaged discussing the content and asking each other questions to clarify their positions. All groups made sufficient progress, but the two non-participants never did engage.
   
    
5. Students talked eagerly about their team’s debate position, shared resources located in the literature they had researched, and collegially helped each other prepare for each portion of the debate presentation by explaining and discussing how to present their key points. Several groups decided to carry out impromptu mock debate practice sessions and members of the group were observed sharing notes during the counterpoint section, providing evidence for argumentation to each other to enhance their position. Students assigned clearly defined group roles to each member, and each member accepted responsibility for their role. The students were aware that they would collectively assign each member a collaboration grade for their work, and they took this seriously. There were no instances of off-task behavior.