Mary Jones: My Name Is Mary Jones, I Completed My Field Expe

Mary Jones My name is Mary Jones. I completed my field experience at Parkside Elementary School

Mary JonesMy Name Is Mary Jones I Completed My Field Experience At P

Mary Jones My name is Mary Jones. I completed my field experience at Parkside Elementary School. I observed a third and fourth grade self-contained class. This class was made up of a 10:1 student-teacher ratio. There were three girls (African American) and seven boys (African American).

Their disabilities ranged from autism to mild intellectual disabilities. There were also two students who are served for autism. Ms. Paramore, my supervising teacher, demonstrated many direct interactions with students and employed higher-order thinking strategies to challenge them beyond their ability levels.

She provided stimulating educational programs, such as Lexia and DreamBox, using iPads. This required high expectations academically and behaviorally. Ms. Paramore fostered emotional development and self-efficacy by consistently praising students. All students in this classroom are currently below grade level in reading and language arts.

To motivate students, Ms. Paramore set high expectations by encouraging them to read above their current grade level. Although students read at around a 1.0 reading level (first grade), she pushed them to read books at levels 1.5 to 2.0, fostering a positive attitude towards learning and broadening their conceptual understanding. Differentiation was emphasized through modified assignments and assessments tailored to each student's ability, including state and local assessments.

Ms. Paramore used modified grading, including online platform assessments on DreamBox and Lexia, where answer choices were limited—for example, eliminating two options out of four—to support student success. She analyzed data from these assessments to identify standards that students had not yet mastered, aiming to improve their skills and prepare them for the Georgia Milestones Tests.

Assessment data also informed the use of tools like Khan Academy, where she created customized assessments aligned with taught material to gauge mastery. Students were placed in flexible groups based on their needs, with one grouping strategy being high-low pairing—comprising a high-functioning and a low-functioning student—facilitating peer tutoring, which is often more effective than direct teacher instruction.

In addition, the classroom utilized the students’ Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs), which outlined their disabilities, goals, accommodations, behavior plans, and other pertinent information. Ms. Paramore effectively managed classroom behaviors through routines, which were developed for each activity, allowing students to stay focused and engaged. Students reviewed expectations daily, which promoted routine and independence, although some students, like one who was sensitive to change, struggled with disruptions.

To support emotional well-being, Ms. Paramore incorporated mindfulness and morning meditation, creating a positive classroom climate. Her training in supporting routines was evident, as she maintained consistency even when stepping out of the classroom. Her instructional approach was flexible, considering each student’s strengths, needs, and interests, ensuring no student was singled out based on disability.

The classroom environment featured designated spaces for different activities, including group work, independent work, and sensory or break areas. Active engagement strategies included manipulatives, hands-on activities, and call-and-response techniques for attention. Discipline was reinforced through a stoplight chart—red indicating a call home or loss of privileges and yellow indicating a warning—and behavior plans incorporated into IEPs, with alternative modifications if necessary.

Ms. Paramore celebrated student achievements via a ‘shout-out’ wall, recognizing both academic and behavioral successes. Certificates and praise were used to motivate students, fostering a supportive peer environment. During instruction in reading, she began with pre-teaching vocabulary related to the story, aiming to develop comprehension and vocabulary skills. Her questioning involved modeling comprehension techniques, such as using context clues, prefixes, and suffixes, encouraging active participation.

The students displayed high engagement, answering questions and participating in different activities. Visual aids and technology, such as projectors and digital assessments, supported diverse learning styles. In writing, students responded to prompts with paragraphs, demonstrating understanding of key details. In math, students worked in pairs on multiplication concepts, using manipulatives like counters and drawing to visualize problems like 3x3.

Overall, the observation of Ms. Paramore’s classroom revealed a well-structured, inclusive environment that addressed a wide spectrum of student needs through differentiated instruction, engaging activities, and positive reinforcement. Her practices aligned with theoretical principles of inclusive education, emphasizing student-centered learning, response to intervention, and trauma-informed methodologies.

Paper For Above instruction

This reflective paper offers an in-depth analysis of the field experience observed at Parkside Elementary School under the supervision of Ms. Paramore. The classroom observed was a self-contained third and fourth grade with a diverse student body, including students with autism and mild intellectual disabilities. The environment was characterized by proactive classroom management, differentiated instruction, and a student-centered approach, all grounded in contemporary educational theories relevant to inclusive teaching practices.

The learning environment was thoughtfully arranged to foster engagement and independence. The classroom featured clearly defined areas for small group, independent work, and sensory activities, supporting differentiated instruction that caters to various learning styles and needs. Educational resources included digital platforms like Lexia and DreamBox, which provided personalized learning pathways, while manipulatives in math and visual aids enhanced comprehension and retention. The class routines and procedures prioritized consistency and predictability, which are essential for students with special needs to feel secure and confident in their learning environment. Ms. Paramore’s use of daily routines, visual schedules, and mindfulness practices created a positive atmosphere conducive to learning and emotional regulation.

Classroom management strategies employed by Ms. Paramore were based on positive behavioral supports, including a visual stoplight system and behavior plans embedded in students’ IEPs. This approach aligns with social-emotional learning theories that emphasize reinforcement, reinforcement of expected behaviors, and structured consequences to promote self-regulation. The classroom rules and expectations were explicitly taught and reinforced daily, fostering independence and purpose among students. The use of peer tutoring through flexible grouping, especially the high-low pairing strategy, facilitated peer-assisted learning, which is supported by Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory that advocates learning through social interaction.

Instructional practices observed demonstrated a balance between explicit teaching and student engagement. During reading lessons, Ms. Paramore employed pre-teaching of vocabulary, modeling comprehension strategies, and incorporating questioning techniques that foster higher-order thinking—aligning with Bloom's taxonomy. The integration of technology, such as the projector and digital assessments, created multimodal learning experiences that catered to diverse student needs, including visual and kinesthetic learners.

In mathematics, students worked collaboratively with manipulatives to understand multiplication, illustrating the application of hands-on learning theories. This approach supports constructivist principles by allowing students to build understanding through direct manipulation of concrete objects. Assessment practices were data-driven, utilizing online platform data, informal questioning, and student work to inform instruction and target specific standards for remediation or enrichment. This aligns with formative assessment strategies that emphasize continuous feedback for student growth.

From a reflective standpoint, Ms. Paramore’s practices encompass many strengths, including her use of differentiated instruction, positive reinforcement, and inclusive strategies that value each student’s abilities and backgrounds. Her emphasis on routines and predictable procedures supports behavioral stability and independence, critical for students with disabilities. The use of mindfulness and emotional support strategies further enhances the classroom climate by reducing anxiety and behavioral disruptions. These practices demonstrate a commitment to trauma-informed care, which is increasingly recognized as vital in today’s diverse classrooms.

However, opportunities for improvement include further integration of culturally responsive teaching practices, ensuring that classroom materials and interactions reflect students’ cultural backgrounds more explicitly. Additionally, incorporating more student voice in the planning process could foster greater student agency and motivation. From a personal perspective, the experience reinforced the importance of adaptable instruction, patience, and building positive rapport with students to foster a supportive learning environment.

In conclusion, Ms. Paramore’s classroom exemplifies a well-structured, inclusive, and engaging educational setting rooted in evidence-based practices. Her use of differentiation, positive behavior supports, and technological integration effectively address the needs of diverse learners. This observation deepened my understanding of how theoretical concepts translate into practical strategies that promote equitable access to learning and foster student success. As an aspiring educator, I recognize the importance of continuous reflection and adaptation to meet each student’s unique needs, creating an environment where all learners can thrive academically and emotionally.

References

• Banks, J. A. (2015). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (6th ed.). Pearson.
• Coffey, H. (2015). Differentiated instruction and inclusion: Making it work. Routledge.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
• Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2017). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (8th ed.). Pearson.
• Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
• McLeskey, J., & Proctor, M. (2017). Inclusive practices for students with disabilities: A comprehensive review. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 28(2), 94–102.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.
• Toomey, R. B., & Nelson, T. D. (2009). Promoting inclusive classroom practices: Strategies and challenges. Journal of Educational Strategies, 24(3), 45–59.