The standard this artifact best exemplifies is Standard #1: Learner Development: The teacher

understands how learners grow and develop, recognizing that patterns of learning and
development vary individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social,
emotional, and physical areas, and designs and implements developmentally appropriate
and challenging learning experiences.
Briefly describe the artifact, including when it was created, the purpose and process of its
creation.
This artifact is evidence of a three hour observation in Mrs. Edwards 4th block Honors
English class. During this surveillance, I was to take notice of the verbal flow and classroom
traffic. Teachers interactions with her students, and their interaction with her is tallied. I took
notice of the seating arrangement, conversation, movement, and relationship of the members in
this classroom. The observation took place in October, 2014. The purpose of this observation
was to analyze verbal interaction and teacher movement and engagement in the classroom.
Using seating charts to draw directional arrows showing verbal communication and the teachers
movement around the room, data is produced and analyzed to determine effectiveness upon
student growth and development.
Explain how your artifact demonstrates achievement of the selected standard.
My artifact for Standard #1 demonstrates achievement of the selected standard in an
unusual, and probably undesirable, way. Mrs. Edwards is a veteran teacher that runs a wellorganized classroom. Her students are successful and score high grades. However, after the
strategies I have been taught in UMUCs graduate program, Mrs. Edwards seems to be the
perfect example of what not to do in the classroom. The standard asks one to understand how
learners develop, to vary instruction to reach each individual learner, tapping into students
cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas. Unfortunately, Mrs. Edwardss
classroom is teacher-centered with little variance to her lessons. She does not implement
differentiation techniques, nor does she use multicultural or individual strategies. I was left
disappointed with what I saw here. This observation did not demonstrate achievement of the
selected standard. Rather, it showed me what was lacking in this classroom instruction and what
I need to do to make learning more interesting, differentiated, and more individualized to reach
every student through diverse teaching strategies.
Describe how your creation of this artifact has affected your understanding of the
standard, and/or how it may contribute to your effective teaching/learning in the future
related to the InTASC standard.
The creation of this artifact has affected my understanding of the standard because it has
shown me what not to do in the classroom if I want to positively represent this standard. Even
though what I saw was the opposite of what I had hoped to see, this observation was actually a
good lesson for me. I felt very disappointed that I did not see the strategies in Mrs. Edwardss
classroom representative of what I have learned at UMUC. The kids in her class were almost
robotic. They were not permitted to stray outside of the strict box she has created. There was no
deviance from predetermined lessons, no individualized instructions, and no allowance for the

students to direct their course of education whatsoever. The displeasure I saw in the students
those days have inspired me to apply diverse techniques to my lessons, allowing students to
become motivated and excited about education. I will allow my students to help me direct their
line of inquiry. This negative observation of Standard #1 has also shown me that individuals are
important and different, both qualities that I did not witness during this scrutiny.
Given what your artifact demonstrates of your current abilities in comparison with the
selected standard, explain: What do you perceive to be your current strengths related to the
standard? What will you need to improve/learn in order to better embody the selected
standard? If you have ideas on how you may do so, describe them. Note that this reflection
should be on your strengths and weaknesses in relation to the standard, not your strengths
and weaknesses related to the artifact in particular.
My current abilities in relation to the selected standard is the aptitude to notice what is
being done in the classroom that both represents and does not represent Standard #1. My
strengths related to the standard is recognizing that students should not be taught as if they are
sheep merely following the shepherd. They are individuals. They are different from one another
and not every lesson is a one-size fits all. Not only do students need to experience differentiation
of lessons to reach as many students as possible, but also to motivate them. I do not want my
students to meekly sit at their desks and simply intake information. I want them to talk, move
around, share with each other, and direct their own line of inquiry. To embody the selected
standard, I need to learn more about diversity and differing learning styles, and how to reach as
many students as possible. First and foremost, I will try to vary my instruction as much as
possible. I need to learn more in depth information on students different strengths and learning
abilities so that I may help more students make education relevant to their lives. More
investigation into learning about these multiple intelligences will help me in the classroom.
Field Experience #1
Observation is a great way to learn how things should, and should not, work. Simply
watching an event while it is happening can teach many things if the viewer is paying attention.
Student observations are an instrumental tool towards seeing what it is really like in a classroom.
Monitoring verbal flow and class traffic really tells one what kind of a teacher one is watching.
In Ms. Edwardss class, there are thirty-two honor level students. They are seated six to a
row by five rows, with 2 single students sitting on either side of the teachers desk. The teachers
desk sits at the top, center of the class, and faces the students. Observation begins with a whole
class review of yesterdays lesson. Ms. Edwards directs the discussion by asking pointed
questions and calling on different students with raised hands. All the while, she is making tally

marks of participation in her grade book next to each responding students name. After
approximately fifteen minutes, the task shifts to the central activity for the day and students get
out their textbooks, read, and write. During this endeavor, the students are working
independently while the teacher works at her desk and answers questions as needed. Every day
it is the same thing in Ms. Edwardss room: warm-up, independent activity, another whole-class
discussion, and then start working on the homework assignment.
The data collected during observations in Ms. Edwardss class showed the teacher
addressing the whole class over forty times in a single, ninety minute class. She holds
discussions by asking directed questions to review prior learning and to instruct on new
concepts. This teacher also demands participation and awards points for doing so. Each student
is expected to respond a minimum of three times each to get participation points for each day. In
other classes, it seems the same productive students are the ones to respond to all the teachers
prompts. But in Ms. Edwardss class, because of her participation requirements, all students
contribute in discussions. Some still answer more often than others, but at least all students
partake to at least the minimum degree. Therefore, the numbers reflecting student responses are
at least three per student, equaling 96 responses. Because some students respond more than the
necessary participation, student interactions with the teacher rise to over one hundred. Studentto-student interactions are limited as the teacher holds most activities as whole-class groups.
There was no group-work pursuits during these observations. Although there was occasional
chatter between students, it usually was not class related and was hushed almost immediately by
Ms. Edwards.
Traffic in the classroom was minimal. Ms. Edwards directed warm-up, which is usually
about a five question review of yesterdays lessons, from behind her desk. She stays stationary

so she can tally participation responses in her grade book while the discussion is going on.
About the only time Ms. Edwards moved from behind her desk was to go to the front of the room
and introduce that days lesson. At this point, she merely stood at the front of the class, or moved
back and forth in front of the classroom. I did not witness her moving amongst the students,
aisle to aisle. If there was communication between teacher and student where something had to
be handed to the teacher, the student rose and walked to Ms. Edwards. It was never the other
way around.
In analysis, Ms. Edwards is a veteran teacher who educates from an old-school
perspective. She definitely runs a teacher-centered classroom. She keeps control with a firm
hand and she directs all action in the room. As she has taught for over twenty years, she employs
precision-like routines. Her students know what is expected of them, and what to expect in the
way of activities each day. While she runs a tight classroom and the students do succeed under
her direction, they seem to perform under duress or out of fear. The students have no control
over their education. Sue Watson (2014) says students need to be active, not passive learners
(pg.1). They are unable to direct their own course of study, or vary what is being taught by any
degree. There is also no evidence of differentiation or group activity.
Several former students have made comments such as Ms. Edwards taught me more
than my college professors (personal communication, multiple dates). It is impressive that
students appreciate what she has done for them. However, education is changing. It is unclear if
she reaches all students or just the students who are naturally successful in school as she usually
teaches the upper-level kids. A mixture of Ms. Edwardss firmness and todays differentiation
instruction would lead to an even better way of teaching.

Reference
Watson, S. (2014). What Is the Inclusional Classroom? Retrieved November 4, 2014,
from
http://specialed.about.com/od/integration/a/inclusional.htm

Summative Reflection
With each class I take, I learn a little bit more about teaching and reaching as many
students as possible. The InTASC standards make more sense to me with each semester that
passes.
My current understanding of the standards is a progressive awareness of their purpose.
This assignment in particular materialized a perception for me that I hadnt paid attention to
earlier. Previously, my uneducated opinion of the InTASC standards was that it was just another
list of requirements to make teachers jobs even more difficult. However, as this class comes to a
close, I have started to pay more attention to what the Resource Guide to the standards actually
explains, rather than just finding examples to reflect the individual standards. Just as we are
being taught that the vision of teaching is changing from one of a teacher-centered transfer of
knowledge to a student-centered investigation of learning, my views regarding these standards
are changing.
It may still be a bunch of political jargon, but it is starting to make sense to me. The
InTASC standards guide is sharing a new vision of education. The importance of this new vision
is to stress the evolving perception of how students learn and then apply this new knowledge to
teach students in a way that will reach them in more developmentally appropriate ways. Another
important statement of the standards is the new imperative that every student can and must

achieve to high standards (2011, p. 7). I am now starting to believe in the theory of the
standards. I must believe in each and every one of my students and strive to vary my instruction
while acknowledging that my students have as much to teach me as I do them.
Reference
The Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). InTASC Model Core Teaching
Standards. Retrieved

from http://file:///C:/Users/Patty

%20Smith/Downloads/intasc_model_core_teaching_standards_201

1.pdf