Teacher Learning with a Purpose

I am often caught by the incongruity when leaders (including myself) miss the opportunity to model the model….when we forget to “walk the talk” ….when our behavior with staff doesn’t mirror the behaviors we are recommending they use with students.
(The administrators who give a lecture on why lecturing is an ineffective instructional process.  The school that requires all 100 staff to complete the same course on the value of differentiating instruction.)
Staff development is an area where I often find an incongruity between what educators say is important with what they do.
Lots of districts promote teachers providing a clear understanding of what students are to learn as a valuable instructional strategy.
The Leander, Texas district’s student behaviors, discussed in earlier blogs, list this as their first behavior:
1. Learning Objective: Students articulate the learning objective/target and find meaning in their learning.
Robyn Jackson, writing in Never Work Harder Than Your Students & Other Principles of Great Teaching , states, ”By making goals concrete for both you and your students, you make it more likely that students will understand and ultimately achieve the learning goals, and you build in mechanisms that help you track their progress towards mastery “.
So, I am quite surprised when I am asked to present a workshop to teachers or administrators and no one from the school or district provides an introduction as to the learning expectations. Teachers are left to their own decision as to whether or not to focus or engage.
In a blog post called Learning with a Purpose, Raymond A. Talke, Jr., President of Minds in Action, Inc., states,  ”Many organizations have education or training functions whose purpose is to create facilitated learning activities, usually in the form of classes.  Yet, it is disheartening to note that many of these organizations do not adequately incorporate the purpose of the learning into their learning activities.  Unwittingly, these organizations are creating “Learning without a Purpose.”
Talke lists a set of symptoms that indicate a training department will miss the mark in providing “learning with a purpose”. One of the symptoms often appears in systems where I consult. (I’d encourage staff developers to check his entire list.)
 The training department’s success is measured by number of students, number of class days, student reactions, or anything other than the measurable contribution the training provides in meeting the goals of the business.
Recently I have worked with several district-wide and building leadership teams, planning professional development aligned with increasing student achievement. I have suggested that we share with teachers at the outset, the connection between the professional development and the desired student outcome.
We can communicate that by illustrating the change in teacher behaviors that the training is designed to initiate, the change in student behavior that would be generated by the teachers’ changes, and finally the learning outcome being sought. These changes may be simplistic in early stages and then grow in complexity.
As an example, a leadership team shared that they were offering “thinking map training” to their staff to increase students’ strategies for learning to improve achievement as measured by district assessments.
Here are some questions I explored as I facilitated their discussion:
What would teacher practice with thinking maps (TMs) look like in early stages? How would it change as teachers and students learned the strategies?
What would student behaviors with TMs look like in early and later implementation? Moving from teacher guided use, to teacher suggested use, to independent use?
When and with what assessments would we use to look for improvement in student achievement?
By what date should teachers invite an observer to provide feedback on their initial work with TMs? What dates would you be looking for more complex use to be demonstrated and student behaviors to be occurring? At what date would we predict that uninvited observations could appropriately be looking for teacher and student use of TMs?
I believe all of the above should be shared with staff before the professional development and coaching activities around TMs begin. Some staff already using their own version of TMs may request an observation with feedback before they attend the training.
Knowing the expectations (the accountability) before the learning activities begin can provide motivation and understanding for increased teacher learning.

 




It’s A Small World

TEXAS

Last February, I shared a blog about the Leander Independent School District in Texas where staff have focused their professional development, PLCs, and  classroom observations around seven critical student behaviors.

  1. Learning Objective: Students articulate the learning objective/target and find meaning in their learning.
  2. Assessment for Learning: Students assess their progress toward achieving the current learning objective/target.
  3. Plan for Intervention/Challenge: Students utilize classroom processes created for intervention and/or challenge.
  4. High–Yield Strategies: Students understand and use a variety of learning strategies and tools to help them learn.
  5. Student Collaboration & Learner Engagement: Students are interacting and engaged in their learning.
  6. Data Analysis & Goal Setting: Students set learning goals and track their progress on an ongoing basis.
  7. Assessment of Learning: Students produce evidence of their learning aligned with the learning objective/target.

This summer I returned to Leander to spend a day with the leadership teams from each school. These teacher and administrator teams worked to forge a plan for the coming year, selecting a few of the behaviors  that they thought most critical to advancing their continuous improvement of student achievement.

Teams then identified what these behaviors looked like and sounded like on a continuum from initial stages to increasing complex levels.

How should complexity of student self-assessment and goal setting grow in grade three from beginning to end of the year? How would it be expected to develop from grades 3 to 4 to 5? What would we expect at the start of middle school?

What would student engagement look like as grade 9 students take increasing responsibility for learning across the year? How would we want that to change as high school students move into grade 12 and onto graduation?

These continuums provide an initial measure of ”where we are” and “what the next steps” might be.

TURKEY
Last year while conducting an Instructional Coaching seminar in Istanbul, I met with a leadership team from Okullan,  a private preK-12 school. Plans were set for me to work with teachers this August and with school leadership throughout the year.

In preparation for my visit, the Hisar team informed me that they wanted to begin working with Learning Walks, focused first on administrators and then teachers observing student behaviors to identify ways to increase student success. The email they sent had an article attached that described an existing program they thought could provide a starting point.

I opened the attachment and found the article written by Bret Champion, the Leander ISD superintendent, listing the seven student behaviors. The Hisar team had no idea I had been working with the Leander district.


Hisar staff working with student behaviors

So the Hisar team is now building their continuums of progress for the same student behaviors. In our initial day of discussion and design we identified the desire for the behaviors to grow in complexity (across the year and from year to year) and for the students’ independent practice of the behaviors to similarly progress.

I’m excited to be returning to Leander and Hisar during this year and to continue sharing and learning from their work.

Also, I’m happy to announce that thanks to Lead Turkey, a Turkish company focused on professional development for educators, my book Instructional Coaching is now available in Turkish. It’s a smaller world.