Leading Effective Learning Communities

Considerations when Leading Effective Learning Communities

Leading effective learning communities is a worthwhile and attainable goal for leaders of learning organizations. There are a number of different small adjustments that a leader can make to move their team along the continuum of learning. First and foremost for school leaders is focusing your organization on the goal of effective teaching practices. There are three resources which I would like to highlight that allow you to centre these conversations. Additionally, teachers must be given time to reflect on their teaching practice. How will they know if they are being effective? Hattie (2012) in Visible Learning for Teachers emphasizes the fact that teachers must make a significant impact on the learning outcomes of their students to be effective. What are some resources and ways to organize that can help us achieve our greatest potential?

Resources that Help Teachers Focus on the Learning of Students

The first resource is from Sharon Freisen (2009) at the Werklund School of Education from the University of Calgary. She has given us a window into effective teaching through the Teaching Effectiveness Framework. Found within this framework are five overarching principles: teachers as designers of learning, teachers designing worthwhile work, teachers weaving assessment throughout their designs, teachers designing in the company of their peers and teachers fostering the development of relationships between students and their work. To unpack these ideas a thoughtful and intentional design on the part of school leadership regarding professional learning is required. Leaders need to think carefully of how they can organize opportunities to dig deep into these principles such that teachers learn and reflect on their own practice. One such approach is the use of case studies. There is a wealth of these found at galileo.org in their classroom examples. Reviewing each these principles in action, provides insights that are much greater than simply discussing them.

The second resource is from Dylan Wiliam’s five principles of formative assessment found in his book, Embedded Formative Assessment. Friesen (2009) recognizes this as one of the five principles of teaching effectiveness and Wiliam contends, supported by extensive research, that this teaching practice is the one that has the most significant impact on student outcomes. His five principles include: clearly communicating learning intentions and success criteria, facilitating effective classroom discussions to gather information on what students understand, providing feedback that moves the learning forward, activating students as learning resources for one another and activating learners as owners of their own learning. Each one of these principles requires a deep of study and reflection, which is more successful in the company of others. They form the foundation of a common language for teachers about moving learning forward and most importantly are grounded in current research.

The final resource that I would like to highlight comes from the Galileo Educational Network at the University of Calgary. The DisciplineBased Inquiry Rubric contains 8 dimensions for consideration. Each one could be reframed into a question to promote teacher reflection on the design of a lesson or series of lessons that they have designed on a particular topic. For example: How does your design mirror the ways of knowing inherent in the discipline?, How does your lesson provide opportunities for students to develop competencies such as team work and perseverance?, What technologies could you use that would be junior versions of what is commonly used in the discipline?,  What forms of communications will they use that are inherent to the discipline? Have you considered having an expert help to inform your design or to move students learning forward? Each one of these questions highlights the core ideas of discipline based inquiry by design. Using questions like these can sponsor teacher reflection on the things that matter when it comes to designing worthwhile work.

Structures to Support Teacher Learning

Dylan Wiliam (2015) also gives us some insight through his work on leading teacher learning on how to promote these conversations from a structural view. Firstly, he highlights the importance of structuring time and space for what he refers to as the signature pedagogy of teacher learning. There must be an expectation on the part of school leadership that teachers will work collaboratively. Teachers must have a common understanding of what it means to be professional, to centre their work on student learning and how to work within a collaborative community. Having groups of teachers get together in an ongoing and thoughtful way, centering their conversations on artifacts of student learning or on the design of their lesson, where they can receive feedback on their designs and make sound decisions about their next steps is central to teacher learning.

He advocates for the formation of two learning communities with whom staff should connect. One of the groups will include members of staff who share a common content area. Discipline based inquiry that is designed by teachers must be ground in a sound understanding of the discipline and the content for which the teachers are expected to teach. Within this group, teachers can ask for clarification, and share in the expertise of the individuals who are teaching the same content information.

The second learning community would be composed of individuals who are of different faculties or grade level groupings. The conversations within these groups would be on sound pedagogy. Exploring and probing each other for big ideas in effective teaching like: What are your learning intentions?, How is this authentic to your discipline?, How are you planning to assess these students prior to their summative evaluations?, How could you make this task more rigorous? These types of probes, promoting teacher reflection on their designs for learning would help the individual teacher move their teaching practices along the continuum of effective teaching.  Additionally these groups could focus on student work. Using the looking at the work protocol (LAST) from visible thinking, teachers could uncover what students are able to do, where they need to go next and then plan for that.

Although time to meet is often offered as a barrier to undertaking this structural shift, leaders of learning organizations should consider how to find the time, giving the professional learning of their staff priority. As Vivian Robinson (2011) highlights, there is no greater impact a leader can have on the outcomes of students other than through the thoughtful and intentional design of professional learning within a building on the part of school leadership.

References

Friesen, S. (2009). What did you do in school today? Teaching Effectiveness: A Framework and Rubric. Toronto: Canadian Education Association.

Galileo Educational Network Association (2008). Discipline Based Rubric for Inquiry Studies. Retrieved from http://galileo.org/rubric.pdf on October 20, 2015

Harvard Project Zero. Visible Thinking (n.d.). Looking At Student Thinking (LAST) Protocol. Retrieved from: http://www.visiblethinkingpz.org/VisibleThinking_html_files/05_SchoolWideCultureOfThinking/05c_StudyGroupMaterials/02_LASTRoutine.html on October 20, 2015

Hattie, J.  (2012). Visible learning for Teachers. Routledge (New York & London).

Robinson, V.M.J. (2011). Student- Centred Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Wiliam, D. (2011b). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Wiliam, D. (2015). Sustaining classroom Formative Assessment with TLCs. Presentation at NCSM, Boston, MA, April. Retrieved from: http://www.dylanwiliam.org/Dylan_Wiliams_website/Presentations_files/2015-04-15%20NCSM.pptx on October 20, 2015.

Teaching Math- Back to the Basics

What does it mean to go Back to the Basics?

There has been a lot of conversation around the idea of teaching effectiveness and the choices that teachers make about how they teach, particularly teaching mathematics.  A recent editorial in the Calgary Herald draws attention to the widening gap that students in Alberta and North America are experiencing. What is at the heart of this discussion, discovery math and bringing math teaching back to the basics.

To engage in this conversation about teaching mathematics I would like to clarify some terminology for those that are not familiar with discourse around math teaching.

Inquiry (Constructivism) is not Equivalent to Discovery Learning

The apparent connection, which has been made between these two different ideas is false and unproductive. Firstly, the term “inquiry” is a stance, a way of being, not an approach to teaching. To inquire means to ask questions, to gather information about the world and use that to help answer those questions. However, there are three main ways of knowing through inquiry that Friesen et. al. (2015) highlight in their comprehensive review of inquiry: Minimally Guided Inquiry (discovery learning), Universal Inquiry Models (the discipline does not matter) and Discipline Based Inquiry. Of these three approaches, discipline based inquiry is a way to know our world that is authentic, personally meaningful, relevant beyond school and connects to real work. It is a way to thoughtfully and intentionally design learning experiences for students. As teachers, it is our job to provide authentic learning experiences for students. This comes from designing lessons, which are inspired by the disciplines which we have learned the information from in the first place. Students must experience the teaching of mathematics in ways that are authentic to the discipline of mathematics.

The False Dichotomy of Back to the Basics

The discourse in math has created a false dichotomy in the teaching of mathematics. Back to the basics, I believe, must mean back to the way we understand the world through the discipline of mathematics. Mathematics is not unlike any performance-based discipline. Yes we need to know basic facts in mathematics, like this “=” means equivalent. Yes we need to know the fundamental results found in our multiplication tables. We must practice these such that they are easily recalled. However, it is equally important that we understand how mathematics works. If students are merely learning algorithms to solve problems, and applying these algorithms repeatedly, again and again, they will not understand. Students must be given the opportunity to think like a mathematician. Students must learn to recognize the information that is necessary to solve a problem, that there are multiple ways to solve those problems and that all problems have with them assumptions that must be acknowledged. Otherwise, we are simply asking them to do math mindlessly and not to think.

My recommendation is that we embrace the idea that "Back to the Basics" means back to the ways of knowing in mathematics. It's not this way verses that, memorization verses conceptual understanding. It's "Yes" to practice and "Yes" to thinking, it's a resounding “Yes!” to foundational principles and a “Yes!” to deep conceptual understanding. We cannot abandon our learners in their quest to become literate in mathematics. Nor can we teach them that math is just a series of algorithms to solve problems in a textbook. To teach mathematics in that way would be a disservice to the learning of our students. We must embrace teaching math, authentic to the discipline and ignore the false dichotomy that plagues the discourse around teaching mathematics.

References

Calgary Herald Editorial Board. (2015). Editorial: Back to the Basics. Retrieved from:

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-back-to-basics

Galileo Educational Network. (2015). Focus on Inquiry, What is Inquiry. Retrieved from: http://inquiry.galileo.org/ch1/what-is-inquiry/

Inspired by the words of Dr. Sharon Friesen at the Werlund School of Education, University of Calgary and conversations with colleagues at the Galileo Educational Network.

For further understanding about the conceptual teaching of mathematics visit Dan Meyer’s blog: http://blog.mrmeyer.com

Supporting Professional Learning In Practice

As mentioned in the previous blog I wrote, professional learning is supported by providing choice and promoting inclusion of all. These are all great ideas in theory but in practice what structures and events need to be in place to ensure that this actually will work? There are four major ideas that have emerged through our experience in the implementation of this plan: 1. Time must be embedded, 2. Whole staff events are organized with the intent of promoting cross-pollination of ideas, 3. Communication of the vision must be clear and 4. Making the work visible for others must be a primary purpose.

The greatest barrier to all professional learning within a building is time. There is never enough time to do the professional learning that we intend. The immediate needs of the classroom far outweigh what is often perceived as an additional thing that I need to do. Here are some ideas we have implemented to have more time: 1. shorten instructional time slightly to give time back to teachers (we have 30 minutes of contact time Monday through Thursday); 2. meeting times on a monthly basis is modified to provide additional professional learning time; and 3. having 10 non- instructional days, 7 of which are driven by departmental and individual work. Other ideas may be to set aside regularly 10-15 minutes of whole staff meeting time or department meeting time to engage in professional learning conversations. As Stoll, Fink and Earl (2003) like to write, “It’s about learning and It’s about time”.

Organizing whole staff events are at the core of the sharing opportunities that we provide. In addition, these whole staff events are key moments for us to organize collaborative groups and clarify the work we are undertaking. Here are some of the events that we have implemented. The first example is one where staff members are given the opportunity to explore the three different approaches to professional learning (action research, peer coaching, and PLCs). This was a time to come to a common understanding of the three different approaches and establish groups. These groups would then form norms of interaction. A second example is running a mini-convention. This was a great sharing opportunity. Sessions were put forward and facilitated by staff members and other staff members would choose which session suited their interest and needs best. A third event was a sharing and celebrating event. During this time staff were given time to prepare and share the work that they had been doing throughout the year.  A final example was one we did at the beginning of the second year. We hosted a “Revisiting, Reviewing and Revising” day where staff were given the time to adjust the focus of their work, form new groups, and chose a different approach should they have discovered their first choice was not working for them. Embedded within all of these different events is the idea that the event must promote conversation, leading to a cross-pollination of ideas and that it must be inclusive of everyone on staff.

Upon receiving feedback about areas of growth it became apparent for the need to enhance the communication of the professional learning within the building. Communication originally was exclusive to whole staff meeting, staff e-mails and during whole staff events. The committee that organized the professional learning was comprised of individuals from a number of different departmental groups but did not have representation from everyone. These individuals would share the work of the committee and obtain feedback during their regular departmental meetings or through informal conversations. Enhancements to this communication model included the following: creation of posters to be distributed through work spaces in the building to help make visible the mission and goals of the professional learning, distribution of a summative report to all Learning Leaders from each department in the building, and the creation of an orientation handout for new staff. It is through strong communication where misconceptions and ideas are addressed and clarified for staff. In the absence of clear information individuals are likely to generate and share misinformation.

Finally is the effort to share our work with others. There are a number of different approaches that we have used to help capture the professional learning that is happening and then showing it back to staff. These would include: asking staff to document groups goals, focus and norms of interaction; staff members use poster paper to share ideas, laminating them and showing them back to staff at other times throughout the year; providing staff members a hash-tag to use digital media such as “Twitter” to record ideas, comments and suggestions that occurred throughout whole staff professional development events; using post it notes and posting them on a whiteboard making ideas visible to others. These are few of the ideas that we used to help in an effort to share our work with others.

Professional learning is at the core of teaching and learning. As part of the High school redesign initiative we are called into professional learning where: structures are created to better support new types of learning relationships; collaboration and shared decision making are encouraged; administrators participate in the learning community and expand their leadership roles; teachers build and have access to a growing repertoire of approaches to learning; teachers work together to improve the design and delivery of the curriculum (Alberta Education, 2011). It is my feeling that the professional development vision that we have created and are using meets all of these requirements.

References

 Alberta Education (2011). Educators Roles and Professional Development. Retrieved from: https://ideas.education.alberta.ca/media/74562/edrolesandpd.pdf

Stoll, L. ,Fink, D., & Earl, L. (2003) It’s About Learning (and It’s About Time):What’s in it for Schools?. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Supporting Professional Learning- Empowering Staff through Choice and Inclusion

At the current school that I teach, we have implemented a three year plan for our professional learning. Currently we are ending year two of the plan. The mission that we have with regards to professional learning is two-fold: 1. promoting innovation of practice through collaboration, and 2. making our work visible for others.

The vision that we are using is summarized in the following diagram:

 

The plan appears to be complex at first but has within it a number of different ideas. Fundamental to its implementation is the idea that leadership must actively let go and provide time and choice in the professional learning that their staff members are involved in. Secondly, the way in which the plan is implemented must be inclusive of all members on staff, in that way all are valued for their contribution to the growth and development of the teaching and learning that happens within the building.

The question arises at what structures and events must be in place to help ensure that these ideals are put into action. Firstly, the introduction of evidence based professional learning. It is imperative that staff members are made aware of the fact that highly effective professional learning happens when problems of practice are at the center of the conversation. Those problems only will arise as a result of the use of student work and data, which provides insight into the learning that is happening within that individual’s experience. There are three approaches that are heavily supported by the literature (W. Auger & R. Wilderman, 2000; R. DuFour, 2007; M. Evans, P. Lomax, & H. Morgan, 2000; S. Scott & F.C. Webber, 2008; B. Showers & B. Joyce, 1996; D. Sparks, & S. Hirsh, 2000). in which teachers become co-researchers of learning. Those approaches include: Action Research, Peer Coaching and Professional Learning Communities. (PLC).

Given the fact that these approaches exist, the first act of letting go is not to marry your staff members to one approach. Each approach has its unique value and each may be best suited for different individuals. As a result, within this model staff members are given the option to choose which approach they would like to use.

The second act of letting go is in the acknowledgement that every context is different and each individual has specific needs that are very difficult to meet in a one-size fits all approach. As leadership recognizes this fact there is an inherent need to allow staff members to choose what the focus is of their professional learning. For example, a science teacher may choose to do an action research project at a high school on the implementation of a philosophy of education that is grounded in early childhood education. They may want to explore what the implications are for a change to their practice while still maintaining the rigor of their discipline. This project is great for that individual or even a group of individuals in that context but may not suite teachers in the physical education department. The focus of the work that is chosen by individuals whom we recognize as professional is best chosen by that professional.

It is also through this act of letting go of “what” individuals will work on and “the approach” that they will use that you have created a more inclusive setting. Educators from all areas are included in this model as they are given choice through the self-selection of the topic they are focusing their learning on, best suited for their context, and the evidence based approach to the their work which best suits their needs.

Collaboration is another foundation of inclusion. Having a requirement that all teachers must work with someone, but providing them the opportunity to work with someone by choice is also inclusive. Having the flexibility for those individuals to choose someone within the building or someone outside is an extension of trust which is paramount to creating a collaborative culture within your team. Forcing individuals to work on a problem of practice that is not directly related to both individuals that have entered into a professional learning contract are being set up for failure. It is important to recognize that I am not stating that they should not participate in a cross curricular work, but it is important to avoid the creation of contrived professional groups where staff are expected to comply as opposed to becoming engaged with their work. Ensuring that there is an expectation of this collaborative approach helps to open conversations, generate new ideas and provides the opportunity to share our work with each other. In the act of having a common purpose, such as improving the learning experience of all students, and working on it together with others you are being inclusive. Providing choice is an act of acknowledgment of individuals as professionals.

Professional learning is a very personal experience. Teachers who are given choice are more valued. Structures that are evaluated through an ethic of critique are more inclusive. Trust is extended through letting go and as a result a more collaborative culture emerges. This model of professional development is one which has experienced success at achieving this end. Read my next blog post to answer the question of how we put this theory into practice?

 

References

Auger, Wendy & Wilderman, Ron (Fall 2000). Using action research to open the door to lifelong professional learning. Education. 121, (1), 120-127.

DuFour, R. (2007). Professional learning communities: A bandwagon, an idea worth considering, or our best hope for high levels of learning?. Middle School Journal, 39(1), 4-8.

Evans, M., Lomax, P. & Morgan, H. (November 2000). Closing the circle: Action research partnerships towards better learning. CambridgeJournal of Education 30 (3), 405-419.

Scott, S., & Webber, C. F. (2008). Evidence-based leadership development: The 4L framework. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(6), 762-776.

Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12-16.

Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (2000). A national plan for improving professional development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.