5. Describe Their Implementation

The class consisted of 60-70 participants and was presented by virtually in a zoom meeting.  The students had access to the Frame and were able to complete while the instructor guided and talked through the topic and key details.  The successes were the ability to engage through the chat feature and the instructor also utilized breakout rooms for participants to discuss in small groups and report back to the larger group.  This worked well.  The challenges were the pacing with the virtual format - there is a delay, so wait time seems longer than normal.  It was planned ahead of time to provide access to the materials prior to the training so people would be ready to engage with the Frame.  Breakout rooms were planned so people could talk with colleagues in smaller groups and all could be active with the frame.  The instructor could go into these breakout rooms while small groups worked.

What went well? Why?
The students were more open to using the frame than I had thought they would be going into the lessons. Most willingly engaged and participated in completing their frames as we worked through the Talking Together lessons with minimal prompting.
What was a challenge? Why?
The transient nature of the student population in the setting I implemented the Framing Routine was a challenge. The setting was a seventh and eighth grade Comprehensive Therapeutic Emotional Support classroom at one of our campus schools. The students in the classroom often differed from lesson to lesson, with some coming into the placement, some leaving to return to their home district schools, and others leaving to be placed in more restrictive settings. Throughout the implementation of the Framing Routine through the Talking Together strategy, I had between 3 and 7 students in the room per lesson. It often took a lot of reviewing previous lesson concepts to be able to move to the lesson we were scheduled to complete each day.
What you will do next time:
Next time, I would like to have a more student-led completion of the Frame for Talking Together. I would introduce the frame and the main idea for the lesson and then go through the lesson with the students. Then, I would revisit the frame and have the students take a more active role in completing the points under the main idea for the day with guided questioning to allow for more thoughtful responses.
What adjustments you made:
I ended up drawing the Frame parts on the dry erase board to fill in with the main idea items because there was not a projector screen that the students could easily see to be able to complete their frames. Using the dry erase board took a little more set up time, however was much more effective for the students.

The teacher I trained use SIM frames in his classroom after training. He had a hard time keeping his students engaged and we discussed ways he could address the issue with his classes.

Diane and I talked about her FRAME on the spheres of the Earth. Her extension would include students working in small groups to continue their learning of spheres.

We also spoke about an observation I made using the FRAME. Diane felt that the lesson went very well and was quite pleased with implementing the FRAME routine with her science class. She felt that the Cue- and Do- sequences went well and that she has down pat.  The Review- sequence is a challenge that she would like to work on this year. She does not feel that enough time is devoted to reviewing the device itself or the content of the device.

One way to help her overcome this barrier, is to include more small group time, in her words for students to come back to the device and use it to further their understanding.  I also offered that I could help hold her accountable by setting a future date to observe the Review- sequence in action. I will follow up with her after the observation.