during observations posed additional problems for teachers serving language learners (Danielson, 2000; Marzano, 2013). Schools began exchanging checklists for rubrics and providing more parameters around what to do during observations—instructional rounds, classroom walkthroughs, lesson scripting, and so on. Teachers needed these parameters. Some proved to be more conducive to language learning contexts, like the walkthrough protocols that allowed observers to make more open-ended observations around specific focus areas (for example, environment, classroom management, and even engagement and discussion).
Others, however, proved to be detrimental to most bilingual and dual-language contexts. I still hear from bilingual and dual-language educators across the United States about observation “horror stories.” In one of the buildings I supported, a teacher begged me to talk with her principal about the following situation: The principal had asked her to teach the lesson in English even though that wasn’t reflective of the program and her students were not used to learning content in English. Not only did she have to spend long hours translating the lesson and resources into English, but the students kept responding to her in Spanish. The worst part of the observation for the teacher was when the principal chose one of her new students to talk to, not realizing that the student didn’t speak any English. This concluded with the principal reprimanding the teacher before leaving the room for not teaching her class any English, and a teary-eyed new student asking the teacher if it was her fault that her teacher got in trouble.
These sad realities are the result of a data-gathering process that refuses to acknowledge the two observational elephants in the room: (1) the lesson is in a language the observer doesn’t speak, and (2) the effectiveness of the lesson has just as much to do with how students improve their language development as with how they master the content. Data-gathering processes must be honest and objective for all classrooms. Many states have tried to accomplish objectivity by standardizing data-gathering protocols, such as the following, that champion limited and controlled practices during all observations.
• Scripting (or recording copious notes that aim to transcribe) what the teacher is saying and doing
• Scripting what the student is saying and doing
• Anchoring data with qualitative markers (for example, time during the lesson, number of students, quantity of instances, and so on)
• Noting and duplicating aspects of the environment (for example, anchor charts, classroom appearance, objectives, and directions on the board)
The designers of these protocols aimed for observational objectivity, unbiased data gathering, and models for what to do next. They meant to establish a judgment-free process for improving teacher quality. But by prioritizing the scripting of language interactions and language use (especially that of the teacher) as the only objective way to collect evidence, they ended any possibility of objectivity for bilingual and dual-language classrooms. And without the written account that scripting offers, qualitative markers lack enough substance to effectively coach.
Without full proficiency in the language, it is difficult for observers to log what the teacher says, what the students say, or any of the word-for-word print environment. Any attempt to do so would be unfair. Coaches and educational advocates must have the sense and courage to refuse a teacher evaluation process that leaves coaches without a clearly defined approach for how to document teaching and learning without understanding the words, visible print, and cultural nuances of bilingual and dual-language classrooms. Both the implementation of specific protocols and the use of common sense to recognize when a protocol will not be effective are attempts to engage in a process with bilingual and dual-language teachers that is highly objective, collaborative, and constructive, but the process cannot be so in the existing context.
What to Expect From the Observation and Feedback Cycle
The observation and feedback cycle is a four-stage process consisting of: (1) an essential mindset shift that frames the foundation for a fair, honest, and collaborative process; (2) the pre-observation conference; (3) the observation; and (4) the post-observation conference.
Essential Mindset Shift That Frames the Foundation
A mindset shift is essential for those who seek to be effective in coaching dual-language and bilingual teachers. This shift includes seven elements: (1) establish trust and confidence; (2) avoid hidden agendas; (3) lead by learning; (4) become an insider, not an outsider; (5) know the right things; (6) ensure confidentiality; and (7) know when to use spotlights and supports. These elements help coaches get in the right frame of mind to lay the foundation for the observation and feedback cycle.
The Pre-Observation Conference
The pre-observation conference allows coaches to closely analyze how the teacher has designed learning to meet the many goals unique to their classroom. The guiding questions provided for coaches offer a set of considerations that must be included in this pre-observation conference for any feedback offered at this stage of the process to be effective.
The Observation
In stage 3 of the observation and feedback cycle, coaches observe instructional delivery using six tasks of notice (see chapter 6, page 77). These tasks of notice are supported by four essential questions (see chapter 6, page 72) that help coaches know how to prioritize their observational notes and identify the area of feedback most likely to accelerate the learning curve for teachers and, by extension, students’ learning outcomes. We call these areas of feedback high leverage because they can accelerate the growth process for everyone served.
The Post-Observation Conference
Next, sharing observational notes with bilingual and dual-language teachers gives teachers the opportunity to both self-reflect on what the coach noticed during the observation and answer any clarifying questions that the coach may have regarding something the teacher or students said or wrote that the coach could not fully understand. This time to self-reflect and contextualize language use prepares the coach and teacher to come back together during the final stage of the observation and feedback cycle—the post-observation conference. During the post-observation conference, both educators compare their analysis of the lesson and how effective it was for students. The crucial outcome of this post-observation conference is to accurately identify the decisions made during the observation that were effective as well as moments during the lesson that could have led to greater success had the teacher made a different decision.
This conversation should operate as though the teacher is driving a car with no precise directions for his or her destination. The coach is there to help that teacher think through whether turning left at an intersection is the best route to take or if turning right at the intersection would have helped him or her arrive at the destination more efficiently.
In bilingual and dual-language classrooms, there are multitudes of teaching intersections that teachers face every day. We call these intersections turning points. Just like the person in the car who could turn left or right, potential turning points in a lesson can range from incorporating scaffolds that match the language proficiency to not addressing smaller misbehaviors that escalated into an argument between students. Analyzing these turning points and looking for patterns in student learning create a trustworthy and reliable framework coaches can use to plan steps for teacher improvement, including a system of actions and supports to ensure their success.
Conclusion
This chapter discussed the challenges in defining a fair observation and feedback cycle. Coaches must strive to provide every
