Teaching Observation Given By Dr. Michael Day 

Teaching Observation Report – Rachel Kurasz – September 21, 2021

Observer: Dr. Michael Day, Professor of English and Director, First-Year Composition Program

Overview: PhD Candidate Rachel Kurasz requested that I observe her teaching for the purposes of her participation in the NIU Graduate School’s Future Professoriate program. The description and comments below are drawn from the notes I recorded while sitting in her classroom

Rachel’s English 103 class was a 12:30 PM Tuesday-Thursday 75 minute class in one of our newer “Bring Your Own Device” FYComp classrooms, Reavis Hall, room 309. At this point, NIU was only a month back in the classroom after more than a year of COVID-19 pandemic online teaching, so both teacher and students were excited to be meeting in person, despite masks and as much social distancing as could be managed with 25 students in a smallish classroom. All students were present, and all were masked, though there were some masks that slipped over student noses during the course of the class from time-to-time.

Rachel began the class promptly at 12:30, giving clear instructions for an in-class freewriting exercise both orally and on the computer projection screen. Students were prompted to write about the “chameleon effect”, a prompt clearly connected to the subject of educational inequity in the Common Reading Experience text, Born a Crime, that all students in First-Year Composition are required to read. Rachel’s purpose was to get students thinking about education and equity by writing about this subject, and the students spent a few minutes on the freewrite. Some wrote on paper, some were typing, and others appeared to be thinking. Rachel took attendance by calling their names while they were working.

Rachel next projected an article “Closing the Gap: Visualizing School Equity” on the screen and explained that she wanted the students to work in groups isolating main points from different sections of the article. Her instructions are clear, and her voice is authoritative, yet not harsh. After helping them form and name their groups, Rachel visited each group to show them how to find the articles online, and the groups seem on task, for the most part. They have about 10 minutes to work.

Rachel then explained more about the context for the article and asked students to share their thoughts.  There were a few responses.  Rachel stayed mainly behind the lectern for this section of the class and used her hands and voice expressively when speaking on a topic she was obviously passionate about. She projected a map illustrating income inequity in education to emphasize the problem, clearly demonstrating her ability to use appropriate multimedia technology in the classroom. At this point, in my notes, I wrote that I thought that by this point in the class, she might have signposted to let the students know how the current class activity contributes to their assignment sequence in English 103.

The next group assignment was similar to the first one; Rachel pulled up another article on the screen, showed students how to find it on their devices, then assigned a specific set of pages to each group. Groups were asked “If you were doing a research project, what would the takeaways be?” She gave groups 15 minutes and checked up on each group several times. A bit later she reinforced her instructions and encouraged them to talk to each other.  This invitation was successful, as the room began to buzz with students conversing on task, and there was even some laughter.

At 37 minutes into the class period, Rachel asked groups to report their findings. The groups report in as requested, but I had some trouble hearing their responses as some of the other groups had not quieted down.  Appropriately, Rachel said “Hey guys; quiet!” to get their attention. In discussing their findings, Rachel called their attention to aspects of research and research reporting such as methodology and respond to their reports with affirmation and summation. In my notes, I wrote “can you ask them to differentiate between claim and evidence?” and “As these outrageous facts come out, can you help them generate a sense of outrage that might lead to action?  Or at least a piece of writing that might make a difference?”

Rachel then showed the class a number of good resources for checking on school funding on the web, then appropriately asked them to look up their own school districts to discover the funding status in their hometowns. She stressed the enormity of the inequity problem as a matter of social injustice and implied that they should do something about this. What they should do, and how it related to their current writing projects, was less clear.

At 1:35, 65 minutes into the class, the groups were continuing their work and Rachel continued to check up on them. At 1:38, Rachel made an announcement, but many students were not listening and some began to pack up their bags to leave.  In my notes, I wrote that they were rude. Rachel said “Guys, don’t pack up yet!” and had one more group report, but it was hard to hear what they said. Rachel related this to her own research and asked students if any of them were in a research class, but no-one responded.  She reminded them what to prepare for next class and ended the class at 1:43.

Summary: Rachel is very well-prepared, energetic, and seems to care a great deal for both her subject and her students. She speaks with both kindness and authority, uses her hands well, and moves around the room appropriately.  Students appear to feel safe and welcome in her class; the also seem engaged and excited about writing. She uses appropriate technologies with ease, and changes activities at appropriate intervals. I think that she could remind students how class activities relate to the assignments and overall goals of the course, but this is a minor issue.  Rachel is well on her way to becoming an excellent faculty member.