​In my sabbatical professional life this week, I have finished a rough draft on the academic questioning article that I was writing. I read through the draft last night, and I found that in my results section I wrote the findings and discussion paired together; this will work with some journals or even in a white paper, but will not work with all journals. I have to find where I want this article to live in order to edit effectively. This is something I know many colleagues and other writers look for and know from the start, but this has never been my way.
 
Writing with an end journal in mind is like using rubrics to me—people love rubrics because it gives them a road map for what is expected. I, however, have always found rubrics to distract me from the writing and discovery process giving me a formula to follow rather than letting discovery organically come about. This probably sounds crazy to many but I have always written a piece how I have wanted to write it and then I try to fit it into what the rubric (in schooling) or the journal article (professionally) has asked for. It works for me, as I did well in school and do have publications, but it makes the editing process a little more difficult. I guess that is a sacrifice I have been willing to endure because I enjoy the initial draft writing process more. Is it effective, time-wise, though and does this matter more? I would have to adapt my ways—and maybe in the next paper I write I do this—to figure that out.
 
So, my editing task, once I find the journal that I want to submit this paper to, will most likely be to separate out the results and the discussion section. Here is an example of how a paragraph in the results section of the paper is written thus far:
 
“Most academic questioning asked by teacher preparation instructors observed in programs that were rated as needs improvement did not progress from basic to complex higher order thinking. Instead questioning remained at a low-level where candidates were often disengaged from the course and were not asked to deepen their own thinking or understanding or provide discourse on topics covered.  University faculty need to explicitly model and make connections for candidates to see the desired instructional behavior, high level questioning, in action. This needs to be consistently done in all university course-work. University teachers needs to encourage higher order thinking and push learning to a higher level for both the teacher candidates and the students they teach. Modeling and labeling this skill provide candidates a foundational knowledge of how to use academic questioning in their own classrooms.”
 
The first two sentences here are objective data gleaned from codes from the final reports, but the rest of the paragraph becomes a discussion on these first two sentences. When I read the paper last night, I noticed I carried this pattern throughout the results section. The eight pages of results could easily be cut down to two pages if I change this. This will be where I will now have to focus my efforts.
 
In reading through the entirety of the paper last night, I started to wonder if I were to look at teaching videos submitted to the National Board for Professional Teachers would fit the stated problem I found. Are 80% of the questions used in the classroom asking students to do something other than think—with 60 percent require simple recall, and the other 20 percent procedural? I wonder if I could classify the question types of those seeking board certification and find something different. Maybe this is my next study, once I finish analyzing all of the report data that I have right now. 

It’s Monday, President’s Day, and usually this is a unicorn day for me. A unicorn day is a day that I have a holiday but my two girls still have daycare. This only happens like once a year—hence the unicorn day. I usually end up working anyways, but I don’t have meetings to attend and I am not required (per my communication policy with students) to answer emails. During this sabbatical, I am realizing how these two things (meetings and emails) can actually interrupt the flow of work. I know that I read about this in Cal Newport’s “Deep Work”, but to see how much time was spent dedicate to these two tasks on a daily basis has been interesting.
 
Before this sabbatical, I would spend the first hour and half of my day answering any emails that I received from 5 p.m. onwards each night. This hour, from 4-5:30 a.m., however, I am finding is probably the best time for me to free write and get my initial ideas out on the page. My mind is not clouded with other tasks or things yet. Once I open the email server that all changes. My mind is dedicated to other people’s worries and problems and I am task rather than creatively- focused.
 
The next hour of my day typically was going to the gym and here if I had an email that I needed to respond to, rather than react to, I would ruminate over the way I would approach this when I got back to my house. If I didn’t have an email that required this amount of thought, I would be in task-mode and be thinking about the topics of meetings for the day or the teaching topics of the day. There was really no time to think about creating anything new.
 
This pattern of response continued, as I went to meetings and added items to my to-do list that surfaced at these meeting, or as I checked emails at my noon and 5 p.m. designated checking times each day. I would finish responding or performing and then go right back to another set of requests and tasks. This cycle was amplified during COVID and this is the pattern I have been in since COVID began in March of 2020. A pattern of task-response and a to-do list filled with meeting others needs.
 
I am just seeing the noise that this caused now, as I don’t have to open emails three times a day or attend multiple Monday faculty meetings and schedule student meetings on all the other days of the week. Not having to do this has actually given me some time to work on research, look into new opportunities for learning, and be creative in how I want to grow as a scholar and in my profession. Now seeing this, how to do I take this forward is the next question.
 
I think the easiest change I can make is not opening email first thing in the morning. If I use this time to write, read research, and produce then I don’t become a slave to others needs first thing in the morning. Not many people are even up at 4 a.m. so are not awaiting that reply at that early hour. Just doing this would give me essentially 3 hours of research in the morning—90 minutes of writing and reading, and 90 minutes of reflection and ruminating on this (the ride to/from the gym and the workout). Then I can jot ideas done, and turn my thoughts to being responsive to others at this time.
 
I know in academia, as in other professions, there is always talk about work-life balance, and I don’t know that it’s this balance that I seek—but instead I think I seek a balance of creativity and growth vs. task and delivery. I think I have a good sense of work-life balance with my family as I can shut off all work items from 5/6 p.m. onward each night and on weekends (with the exception of the rare emergency). Even during COVID, I have been able to have work-life balance, but the work part was, again, task and delivery focused and the learning and exposure to new ideas was the part that suffered. To continue to grow during COVID I took on new tasks, but this was not creative growth—it was skill-set growth and I think there is a difference; one fuels you and the other provides for others. 

​This week in the land of sabbatical I continued to write a journal article and white paper on academic questioning and teacher prep. My hope is to have the article finished in the next week and a half. The superintendent search in my home district continued and concluded this past week with recommendations sent to the joint board. I also was able to get all of the paperwork in to serve as an educational surrogate and will now wait to hear about training. The other opportunities I looked into sent me down a rabbit hole of learning; both of these looked at vetting high quality instruction materials (HQIM).
 
In some of the states I have been fortunate enough to be working with/in there are state department of education resources and vetting procedures for HQIM. These states include: Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, and Arkansas. Other states are part of this Instructional Material and Professional Development (IMPD), but I have not worked directly in or with these other states. The pandemic has really pushed the coalition of states to find HQIM’s that would provide acceleration rather than just remediation of learning.
 
In Massachusetts, the Curate Project focuses on rating English Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science/Technology products (textbooks, learning tools, etc.) on how they align to the state standards, and components of classroom application. The state standard alignment looks at text quality and organization, and the tasks students are asked to do while instruction takes place. Classroom application has a Universal Design for Learning component as far as accessibility for students, a usability component for teachers, and an impact on student learning. The impact on student learning is not yet captured because of the “newness” of this project and not having the data to report on yet.
 
All of the states in the IMPD coalition seem to be, in a sense, contextually validating the work that is done by through EdReports. The thought behind both is to provide teachers with high quality instructional materials that will have an impact on student learning. Currently, I have an outside view looking at these reports and hearing about individual state’s processes for using these reports. If you know anything about me, however, an outside view and just a passing stamp of good work without a deeper dive into learning how these curriculum products are vetted is not enough. So, all this to say the rabbit hole I went down this week was applying to be a reviewer that sits on the Curate Project and for EdReports on the national level. I want to see how the rubrics they use are similar and the discussions that takes place as collaborative teams evaluate material. I also want to see if this vetting of materials is something that pre-service teachers could be taught before they enter the classroom so that they are “knowledgeable” consumers of instructional material and know how to supplement it for its short-comings.
 
The part of the rubrics that interests me, as a special educator, the most is the accessibility in classroom application. The data, from another study which is under-construction on my end, shows that 87% of teacher preparation programs were inadequate or needed improvement in how they prepared pre-service teachers to differentiate to meet all students needs in the classroom. Could knowledge and use of HQIMs that account for accessibility start to change the levels of rigor and opportunities for all students in today’s classroom? 

​Today, I don’t really know what to write about. I could write about the Superbowl, the half-time show, and the commercials because that’s what most people will be talking about today—but the truth is I didn’t watch it. I haven’t really watched a football game, the Superbowl included, since my dad passed away. On Sundays growing up we used to watch some football, and would always watch the Superbowl. Since the I have not really been that interested in it. I really couldn’t tell you many of the players in the game so why give the sport my time.  
 
I could write about Valentine’s Day, but I have never been one to celebrate this commercialized holiday so that doesn’t seem worth a post either. Johnny and I agreed to exchange cards so we will do that this morning. The girls will bring cards to their classes today. We worked on fill out their cards together for 15 minutes yesterday before they abandoned ship and I was left to finish writing these.
 
Maybe, I could write about the Olympics—because I at least watched a few events from that on my plane ride home from Arkansas. I watched some speed skating and some snowboard cross—both sports I have never participated in and do not have any breadth or depth of knowledge of.
 
I arrived home from Arkansas at one on Saturday morning, and Izzy was still awake when I got home (nobody else was, just my three-year-old). I pulled her iPad from her and she was probably not excited to have me back as I instantly had her go to bed. I went to bed quickly after that and then Zoey was up by 6:00 a.m. that day. She, at least, was excited to have me back home as she snuggled up with me instantly pressing her head into my head. Izzy was more excited, than she was at 1:00 a.m., when she woke up around 8:00 a.m.  
 
Izzy was probably watching the iPad from 7:30 p.m. until 1:00 a.m. when I got home. That’s a lot of screen time! She watches some interesting Youtube shows: “Jannie”, “Steve and Maggie”, “The Tannerites”, “Blippi”, “Doll Time”, “The Engineering Family”, “Ellie Sparkles, and “Lizzy and Savannah”. None of these shows are the Sesame Street or Wiggles-like educational programming that are geared towards toddlers. Izzy has not watched a single Disney movie or episode of a Disney show—but needs to own all the Disney princess gear. She will talk like she knows these characters, but her knowledge is just from how they are portrayed and thought of in the above Youtube shows.
 
For someone that is not very commercialized myself, I can’t say my daughter, Izzy, is the same. She is all about the commercialization and the characters and toys that are advertised in each of the above Youtube shows. She would watch these programs from the moment she wakes up until bed, if we let her; we don’t, but that 5.5 hour stretch she got away with on Friday night into Saturday morning speaks to how addictive these programs are to her and her brain’s processing. I know the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends one hour or less of screen time for children age 2-5. I also know that Izzy used up all her weekly screen time in one night given this recommendation. We will be doing a lot of play in the next few days to reduce her unhealthy screen time habit. 

​It’s Friday and I am exhausted from a week away doing an external review of another university’s teacher preparation program. I enjoy this work because it lets me see how other institutions are preparing teachers. I have seen different ideas that I have instituted in the School of Education that I work and some other ideas that I love but would know would not work or translate well (due to context).
 
One of the amazing ideas I saw in action this past week is an apprenticeship program. This apprenticeship program is set up so that in a student’s final year of internship one mentor teacher is shared between two student interns. The mentor teacher, a paid teacher for the district, floats between two classrooms coaching the two student interns who have been hired as teachers of record by the district for the year splitting a teacher’s salary for the year. The mentor teacher is selected because the principal has identified this individual as the teacher in the school that he would like all new teachers to emulate. I think this practice is so- highly innovative! I know where I work we have students in their final year of our program take on a paraprofessional position in a school—but with the teacher shortages, especially in special education, I wonder if this apprenticeship model would be more powerful and would work better.
 
Another idea I really loved that this particular institution is doing is teaching their “hub” of classes for each particular cohort in one school—using one day to teach and the next day to apply what was taught under supervision in actual classrooms (with a mentor teacher there to support them and the university instructor circulating to watch students, as well.) Thinking of how this would translate where I work junior year spring semester would have a hub of classes (Literacy Development II, Principles of Universal Design for Learning, Lesson Planning, Junior Seminar) all taught in one school on one day and practice opportunities on another day in the same school. This is something that could be done but would take a lot of time to roll out to be done properly and to ensure that what students are learning in class they are seeing and able to put in action on that second day; it would require a really strong partnership between the university and the school with clearly set out expectations, planning, and a scope and sequence to ensure this experiences potential is maximized.
 
The third idea that I am really excited to dig into the research and learn more about is the DAP interview. This DAP interview is one of the multiple measures used for candidates’ entry into their teacher preparation program. Since this is really the first time that I have heard about this interview I really can not say much about it, other than I want to learn more about it and its predictive value for a teacher candidate’s effectiveness not only in a teacher preparation program but also within the classroom.
 
Being a reviewer, and going through the review process, I find keeps me accountable to my own practice. It also lets me see teacher preparation from a different lens. I love that this work ensures that I am always learning and thinking of how to best strengthen the work being done at my own university. 

​I recently finished reading the book Quiet by Susan Cain. Before starting the book, I knew that I was an introvert that could display situational extrovert tendencies when I need to. I, however, never thought that my daughter, Izzy, would be considered somewhat an introvert. The more I watch her and think about her first three years (she’s three now), however, I think she may be more similar to me than I thought.
 
My daughter, only three, openly does not want to go to school any day and it is a chore to get her ready and in the car each morning. She resists going in the tub, hair washing, putting clothes on, getting outdoor gear on every day. Each of these tasks is met with the verbal proclamation that she does not want to go to school, and she would rather be home sick for the day (even when she is clearly not sick). Once we can get her into school, she is fine, however it takes a lot to go through this morning routine.
 
One of the portions of the book discussed a study by Kagan and how he studied infants (0-3 months old) and at this early development could tell which individuals would be introverts and extroverts. The introverts were the babies who were highly reactive and they would squirm and wiggle because they were too overstimulated. While the extroverts, on the other hand, reacted calmly to new stimuli. This is the difference between my two daughters right here. Izzy, as a baby, was colicky and seemed agitated all the time. Zoey, on the other hand, has been and is as easy going as can be.
 
Izzy is not anti-social by any means, but I think the social aspect of school burns her out which is why she does not want to go. Izzy is content running around and doing solo activities or activities with one playmate, and if more enter her social sphere then she is reluctant. She has full conversation in her head and does a great job watching others play and then going on her own to practice and mimic these behaviors, and then extend upon them. She has the most vivid imagination and can say the most bizarre things—which I am hoping is an early spark to an innovative and creative life.
 
The book talked about how schools, with the emphasis on cooperative learning and social adjustment, are reflected of an idealized extrovert personality type. This is further reflective of most American work environments that are built to work in teams, and often reward people who promote themselves and sometimes come off as overconfident. Taking into account these extrovert ideals the book then questions leadership styles and found that extroverts are better at leading passive employees while introverts, due to their preference to listen, are better at taking into account multiple perspectives and leading a group of people actively looking to improve.
 
I bring the structuring of schools, the workplace, and leadership up because I think this is something we need to spend more time thinking about so that everyone feels like they belong and that they can succeed. It will also help us introverts not feel like outcasts as we tip-toe around a party while extroverts take center-stage.
 

This week I have done a few different work-related projects. I am involved in my town’s superintendent search and we had finalist interviews this past week. This past week I worked on a briefing with EarthJustice on a toxic exposure (DecaBDE) declaration to make sure that children’s toys are safe so that appropriate neurodevelopment can take place—this is a part of the Learning Disabilities Association’s Healthy Children’s Project Initiative. I also have been writing a literature review regarding academic questioning in classrooms. My post this week will focus on this literature review as I prepare to code 220 teacher preparation programs qualitative data on academic questioning.
 
The quantitative data completed by Teacher Preparation Inspection-United States (TPI-US) on preparing teacher candidates with effective academic questioning techniques shows that 67 % of teacher preparation programs receive a need improvement or inadequate rating; the teacher preparation programs need to strengthen how they teach this skill. The research that I am doing is looking at the qualitative data that TPI-US has and indicate patterns and trends that lead to certain ratings (there rating framework includes the categories: strong, good, needs improvement, and inadequate). In doing this, I am also looking at the fidelity of team inspector scoring.
 
To ground myself in preparing to do this research, however, I first need to start with the literature on academic questioning. Questioning is the most common communicative behavior used in teaching. Teachers ask as many as 300 to 400 questions in a day, which can be one-sixth to one-tenth of all classroom interactions (Levin & Long, 1981; Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). Questioning can be used for varied purposes including: checking learning, probing thought processes, posing problems, challenging thinking, and eliciting varied viewpoints and solutions. Some researchers argue it is the most important aspect of teaching that promotes learning in students.
 
I then paired different teaching philosophies with the types of questions that are asked. For example, with a behaviorist teaching philosophy, questioning is used as a way to check the transfer of knowledge from the teacher to the student. This puts the teacher as the giver of knowledge and the student as a passive learner. In the cognitivist model, the focus of questioning changes from a transfer of knowledge at a recall level to helping the students process learning and make meaning of new information and make sense of the world. While in a social constructivist’s model, questioning is used to help students build on prior learning and therefore requires teachers to know each individual student’s current developmental level to ask appropriate questions.
 
In just this abbreviated version of the literature review I started, I began to question if the questions I am asking in my university courses match my philosophy of teaching and leading. Since I am an over-planner, I could go back and look at all the PowerPoints that I created and see what types of questions I have embedded in them. To do this question justice, however, I would also want to have my class recorded to see how many questions I had to rephrase, how I rephrased them, and what types of questions that I ask to supplement my already planned material. This analysis of teaching would let me see how many questions I am asking of my students and how many are simple recall question vs. more convergent or divergent questions.
 
I know, as an instructor, I currently do not step outside of my teaching to call attention to the question types I am asking and why I am asking them. I need to do this to draw attention to the importance and purpose of questioning. This simple act would begin to improve pre-service teacher’s understanding of questioning. One easy way I know that I could do this is at the beginning of each class when I ask students prior knowledge questions. Instead of just asking these questions, I could explicitly state that I am asking these recall questions because these types of questions are a way to review material, assess comprehension, and determine if students are prepared to learn new content. Being explicit about the purpose of questioning and question types asked by instructors at the university level is the foundation needed to then help pre-service teacher build this skill. I will have another post on how to scaffold this skill (academic questioning) into the K-12 classroom in a meaningful way—so we, as a teaching profession in the United States, can move beyond asking procedural or recall questions (which 80% of questions in the U.S. are) to questions at different processing levels to help all learners advance their knowledge and get excited about learning.
 
Dunkin, M. J. & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
 
Levin, T. & Long, R. (1981). Effective instruction. Washington, D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.