Data meeting #2 aimed principally at triangulating the data. At first, I thought, triangulation?, How can we triangulate data that was not from authentic research? Impossible!
Boy, was I wrong!
Our team began this data meeting by doing a lot of work in reorganizing and refining our work for the course. After uploading additional artifacts, we took turns critiquing each other’s additional artifacts by completing the Artifact Tracking Sheet (ATS). By completing the ATS, we came to realize that our instruction was not without instructional gaps and that there exist learning gaps in our students’ learning process.
We held a 40 minutes data meeting, during which we discussed our respective rationales for the ATS ratings. We also shared our experiences through the process(i.e.our key takeaways) and discussed the way forward. Moving forward, we decided to go with math standards and pursue one exploratory question; viz.:
Should we continue to assign homework to our students and, if not, what other instructional strategies can we use to get students to meet and exceed curriculum benchmarks?
Below is our group’s data meeting presentation.
Below is my ATS presentation for data meeting #2:
I believe our PLC experience has improved significantly after data meeting #2. That notwithstanding, we have also seen improvement in collaboration skills as well as methods to effectively augment student learning in our classes.
Thank you for following through my story. It was our second step forward and it was successful.