6. Submit a Log

What went well:
The students responded well to the FRAME- they said it organized the key details in a very linear and logical way. We posted the FRAME acronym right on the smart board so we could reference each part of the routine we were currently doing.

Challenges:
There really were no challenges; this is an easy tool to use, and the FRAME acronym is an easy way to remember how to use it effectively

Next time I will use it the same way I did this time; it was an effective tool for the students. 

What went well - Why?
I felt that participants began to understand the continuum of skills within this blending and segmenting skill and how they developed from easiest to most complex.  The frame organized the skills in a kind of ladder effect.
What was a challenge - Why?
Because I only had these participants for only one day, I felt it was difficult to fully explain the frame for them.  If I had these participants over a range of days, we could build more of an understanding of the frame, it's purpose, and their ability to help co-construct a little more slowly.
What you will do next time?
Next time, I will take more time to close and review, ask more questions regarding the content of the frame.
What adjustments you made?
I adjusted the frame after Diane's feedback from two main ideas that were related in this way (continuum of skills that they shared) to one main idea by labeling them as "sister skills."
Ideas generated for issues encountered?
I felt that having the first texts boxes pre-populated helped to move them into the meat of the content for the frame for a one-day presentation.  In my audience were other IU TaC who are going through SIM training for P2G and they were very kind about feedback as well as sharing their appreciation of seeing someone else, a colleague, try out this instructional strategy.

The implementation of the Frame went very well.  I utilized it during a PD I was delivering for a staff of 65 special education teachers on Breaking Down Barriers (SAS Toolkit, Collaborative Framework and the IEP Process).  I followed the Cue, Do, Review while implementing this routine.  Overall the frame worked very well.  It helped to create a clear visual for the teachers of the 3 tools we discussed throughout the PD.  When asked if the frame was helpful, the staff overall felt like it was very helpful in providing a visual of information discussed.   When I did the frame routine with the staff, I provided the title and the 3 tools (main ideas).  We created a meaning of the title together and they created essential details under each main idea in a collaborative model with colleagues.  When reviewed together, we came up with a "So what?" together.  The next time I use the routine, I would try not providing the main ideas, but allowing the staff to come up with them on their own.  The only challenge I felt was trying to make sure I hit each piece of the "do" in the implementation.  I think naturally I would do each of the steps when instructing a group, but because I was trying to make sure I hit each step, I found it a challenge to "stick to the script" if you will.

What went well - Why? Some students benefited from a partially completed frame so that they were able to fill in the blanks instead of writing all of the texts. The students really seemed to enjoy and understand the main idea of what we were doing. 
•What was a challenge - Why? Individual student pace made it hard for everyone to keep up. 
•What you will do next time- Instead of completing the whole Frame at one time, split it up between different days. 

My inclusion reading teacher and I pulled a frame shown above for cold reads.  We have a section for who, what, where, when, why and how; as well as main idea and summary.   It took a while for students to get used to pulling these items out of the reading, but now it works great.  Who and what give them main idea, all six give them summary.