Talk:Instructional rounds

Hello Dauren!!!

I can see that you have done a great job with your wiki project on instructional rounds. I did enjoy the very first part of your page. It is written clearly and easy to read. I believe that a person who is unfamiliar with the topic will have a good idea. I liked your content, it could possibly open up the closest mean to open the idea about instructional rounds. However, when it comes to actual pieces there is not enough information. Paragraphs seem too short. For instance, instead of having Origin and How to do parts you could just include them into the opening part, this way it wouldn't take so much attention from readers. Having a sentence in a single chapter is not good both, visually and content-wise. Another problem that article might struggle is the amount of resources. Having only two authors cited seems not enough to consider your page not bias. That is what I think about your page. Let me know if have more questions. Let me know if you make any changes too, I'd love to review your page again. Bauyrzhan Abuov. 04/15/2015Bauyrzhanabuov (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dauren! I really like your topic and article about instructional rounds! Thank you for sharing this! In the first sentence of your opening part, I am just wondering instructional rounds is only collaborative work of "teachers".. or does it also include other school staff..? And you may need more information in origin part or you can include them in opening part. Most of all, I think you can add some other sources to make your article unbiased and other links to give some examples. Yeseul Ychoi93 (talk)

Instructional Rounds
Hi Dauren, This is a good start. I like the overall structure of the paper. Your understanding of instructional rounds is clearly visible. Here are my suggestions:
 * In the second line, There are three main components of this improvement strategy: classroom observation, an improvement strategy, and a network of educators. this is circular. Can you rephrase this sentence?
 * You can add links to educator evaluation in the second paragraph, where you talk about how instructional rounds are different from educator effectiveness model.
 * Can you go through the article again, there are some grammatical errors that can be corrected.
 * You still need to add a reference section, and add references under that. Also, aternatives section does not have any alternatives under it yet.

Thanks, Trawat (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft comments
Hi. I've made some edits to your draft and I have some comments: Please let me know if you have any questions about the above. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia article should describe a practice or framework, not provide a guide on how to implement it. Remember that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. The best practices described here are probably best remanded to sources which can be authoritative and much more specific and prescriptive than our article can. We should seek to provide a general reference for a reader who wants to know about instructional rounds. A reader who wants to learn how to implement them should be able to follow references or external links to do so.
 * What might a reader be searching for? I'd say the following:
 * What are instructional rounds? This may seem really prosaic, but think about landing on a page like total derivative. We may want to know how to compute one but we're certainly going to want to know what the total derivative is. Try to imagine a reader who knows very little about the subject. How much of the article do they have to read to answer the question above?
 * Is their use common? Rare? What research exists on their effectiveness or their adoption in schools (preferably inside and outside the US, but sourcing is tough to find for non-US use cases)?
 * Are there criticisms of the practice or alternatives?
 * I think you're off to a good start and you've chosen good sources on which to base this article. With a few changes you should be able to reframe the procedure section as a broader description of common practice, not a guide for use. Once you do that I think this will be a good addition to the encyclopedia.