Tag Archives: best practice

To Improve Student Outcomes, Theory Needs to Guide Teaching and Learning Practices

Posted on by
Reply

When veteran PK-12 teachers consider how to best instruct the children in their classrooms, what influences that critical decision? Do they give primary value to the teaching/learning theories they learned in their teacher preparation and post-graduate programs? Do they implement the school policies and instructional initiatives of their school district? Do they adopt the hot button interventions that seemingly rise for every school crisis. How teachers decide to teach and the rationales for their choices make a difference not only in how teachers teach but also in how children learn.

Reality tells us that local school policies and governmental mandates form a teacher’s working conditions and these conditions shape daily work for classroom teachers. In the post-pandemic era, school boards have been highly active in revising and creating policies on district curriculum, student academic achievements, and student wellness. As lay leaders, board members respond to assessments, parents, and their community. They tend to perseverate on generalized data without drilling into local and disaggregated data. And board members universally lack foundational philosophical and theoretical working knowledge that should underlie educational decisions. This is not fault finding, just descriptive analysis. I am a retired school superintendent who also served as school board president.

Given the above, it is essential that professionally trained educators – teachers and administrators – provide their school district with the philosophical and theoretical foundations that ensure pedagogical and developmental appropriateness are embedded in solutions for academic and socio-emotional problems.

What do we know?

George Lucas tells us that “Your focus determines your reality.” When so many children are underperforming academically and are in socio-emotional distress, it is easy to focus on the here and now and that is what happens in school board meetings. Here and now focuses on existing problems by providing instructional remediation, services for the afflicted, and adopting rules and regulations to guard against repetition. Parents and community want to see action – something done now. A focus on immediate and direct responses, band aids though they may be, generally pleases constituents. When data says there is a problem, responses tend to focus on changing/improving the data. Action and quick response can be a focus and can be a wrong focus.

When I look at the number displayed on my bathroom scale each morning, I am presented with two different ways to focus on reducing that number. The first way, the one I usually choose, is fasting for two days and doing two-a-day routines on the elliptical. An immediate reduction of caloric intake and increase in calorie burn off lowers the numbers on the scale. If I repeat this routine every week for two months, I can really move the numbers. This is the same type of focus I see in too many school reactions to unsatisfactory data. Do something that is very visible now, repeat it over the short haul, and publish better data.

If I chart the numbers on my scale over several years, I can point out the months when I fasted and exercised and the months when I did not. However, I have known all along that this regimen is not healthy. It only moves the daily data. I can hear the old knight in Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade, tell me “You did not choose wisely.” And I know he is right.

We need to focus educationally on the soundness of our programming before we decide that the data we see is bad data. In fact, we may be seeing the data we should expect given the construction of our programs. Our programs may be working very well to give us the results we see because this is appropriate data for poorly aligned programming. My weight, though I may not like it, is my weight given the decisions I make.

What to do?

Focus on the through-line of practices that produce quality outcomes.

The disconnect between educational training and everyday teaching practice is not new. There is very little incentive for a teacher to tell the children doing her math assignments that she consistently compares her teaching with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics to ensure she always follows the highest professional standards. Or that “Today our learning objectives are at Bloom’s first two levels, remembering and understanding. Next week your learning will be at his application level.”

However, when focusing on the through-line of teaching practices that cause quality learning, there is every incentive for declaring the educational theories and principles of an instructional program and how those theories and principles are consistently developed in daily practice.

Examples look like these –

One should expect that EC/PK programs are aligned with national early childhood education standards (NAEYC), demonstrate an understanding of Piaget and child development, incorporate Montessori-like designs, are play-based, and emphasize socialization as well as pre-academic curriculum.  These should not be assumed but should be a published and highlighted through-line for every child. EC/PK teachers should tell parents about the theories and principles that are foundations in their children’s daily schooling. EC/PK programs aligned on this through-line begin to see student performance data aligned with program expectations. Programs aligned with valid principles see data resulting from best practices. There always may be room for improvement, but there are no end-of-year comments of “We never expected that data.”

One should expect a K-12 mathematics curriculum to teach and require children to demonstrate understanding of and proficiency with each grade level of mathematics before progressing to the next level or course. Two realities exist for students in K-12 mathematics. First, math is not easy for all children, but all children can learn mathematics. Second, the “math wall” is not due to harder concepts in upper-level math but to the failure to master predecessor content, procedures, and reasoning. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives, Ausubel’s development of predecessor knowledge, Vygotsky’s principles of proximal learning, theories of retention and transfer, and best practices of explicit teaching tell us these two realities are true.

The reality behind our students’ dismal performance on NAEP and international assessments is that children in our schools get passing grades without mastering developmental mathematics. The theory and principle-based through-line for mathematics must be theory and principle-based instruction AND mastery of content and procedures. Children cannot advance to the next level with demonstrative deficiencies in their predecessor understandings and skills. If they do advance, we should be pleased that the data resulting from their poor assessments correlate directly with the quality of our teaching.

One should expect all K-12 teachers to be versed in child and adolescent development, be proficient in identifying and responding to a child’s own aberrant behaviors and aberrant behaviors directed at other children. Bullying and harassment are real, just like a child who says 2 + 2 + 5. And they need to be corrected and repaired just like an academic error. Teachers who know and talk about principles and practices of logical consequences, assertive discipline, restorative justice, discipline with dignity and special needs programming of PBIS are prepared to deal with bullying and harassment when they encounter or are informed about it.

The Big Duh!

To paraphrase a line from the movie, The American President, “We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them.” In a nutshell, the problem is not the data resulting from student assessments. The problem is that we expect better data without fixing the breakdowns in our teaching an learning. The data is accurate given our disconnected instruction.

When we align foundational teaching and learning theories, principles, and practices as a through-line in student learning, we will see improved data because it results from connected instruction.

Test Less and Converse More

Posted on by
Reply

How do you really know what your students know? Is a student’s learning only the composite score of tests, quizzes, papers, and projects?

Too often students in our classrooms are not children. Students are the grades and points behind their names in our grade books. In the long slog of a school year, each student in your class becomes what their line of grades says they are. A student is – passing or not passing, exceeding expectations or not meeting expectations, or the child who will always give the right answer versus the child who does all he can to avoid being asked a question. The reality of classrooms is that one student is only a single student in the totality of a teaching assignment, one amongst the many, and the speed of curricular coverage blends them all together. This is the web we weave when the only source we use to know how well children are learning are whole group assessments.

As negative as the second paragraph reads, it is the truth in too many classrooms. We prove it’s true when a parent or your principal asks how Alexa is doing in your class, and you immediately need to consult your grade book to answer. School, not just Alexa’s teachers define Alexa’s learning progression by the data in a grade book. How sad for Alexa and how sad for education. We can do better.

What do we know?

First, a child is one among many children. If the average public school teacher’s career is 14 years long and a class assignment averages 25 students, then a grade level elementary teacher teaches approximately 350 children and a secondary subject area teacher teaches 2,100 children in that span of years.

https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/who-average-us-teacher

It is probable that an elementary teacher who sees the same faces for an entire school day is more familiar with each student than a secondary teacher who sees the same faces for only one class period each day. However, the same portrait of what we know about our students holds for elementary and secondary classrooms – students are characterized by the grades they are assigned by the assessments the are given.

Second, we do not plan for a teacher to know each child in the classroom. In their college preparation courses, teachers learn that a teacher’s knowledge of each student’s prior school learning achievement, their so-called learning styles, their academic strengths and learning challenges, and their cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds help the teacher to better instruct each student. Theory does not always find its way into practice. The short cut answer most teacher take to the idea theory of learning about their students prior to teaching them is “I will find out what I need to need to know as I teach them.” This is not necessarily a teacher’s fault. Contracted in-service time includes several days at the beginning of the school year for a teacher to get ready for the first day of school. But after mandatory district and school staff meetings and required organizing of a classroom, there is little to no time for a teacher to study and know what they should know about their new students. Theory is pushed aside and all they know will know of Alexa is gained through daily in-class interactions in the running stream of school days.

Third, successful teaching is about the success of a statistical majority students not individual students. Instructional school goals want 80% of the students to 80% or better learning success 80% of the time in class. The Rule of 80% is commonly applied is schools using Tier 1, 2 and 3 instruction and Response to Intervention concepts. Sometimes teaching really is an industrial quality control model or at least a cattle drive.

Last, we prioritize efficiency over effectiveness. Each teacher is assigned a grade level or subject area curriculum to teach. In the continuity of PK-12 education, these are building blocks that create an educated school graduate. If the teaching of a single building block is incomplete, there are consequences to the integrity of the education. Completing the total annual curriculum is more important than assuring what is taught is learned well by all students. Emphasizing totality of instruction over quality of learning ensures that the 80% rule becomes 70% or 60% or 50%.

An alternative – talk with Alexa.

An alternative model is Socratic-like: A teacher often sits with Alexa asking Alexa key questions as a verbal quiz AND then asks Alexa to explain her answers. Alexa talks about the background knowledge of her answers, the context for her answering, her problem-solving, and her conclusions about what she knows. When done with proper frequency, this takes 15 minutes. In the aggregate of meetings with Alexa, the teacher’s conversation models what Alexa should know and how she should know it and the conversation coaches Alexa’s personal learning strategies over time. Alexa may have scored only 5 of 10 correct on a written quiz but scored 8 of 10 in an oral discussion of what she knows and how she knows it. Alexa knows more than what a quiz can extract from her.

The conversation is not a complete Socratic model. It stops with a personal assessment of what Alexa knows and how well she knows it. Instead of leading directly into personalized new instruction, the conversation informs the teacher about Alexa’s learning as well as all the Alexas in the class so that the teacher can best confirm what has been learned well by all all students and clarify or correct what has not been learned well. This modified Socratic conversation helps the teacher move the quality of learning above the 80% Rule.

Children respond to this alternative differently. Some will love the opportunity to talk with their teacher and gladly explain what they know and how they know it. On the other hand, some children will be intimidated by the face-to-face time with their teacher and not want to risk talking. These are the same children who do not volunteer in class and of whom the teacher knows the least about their personal learning using traditional assessments. As they are intimidated by all assessments, it is easier to wean them away from fear or their teacher than it is fear of a test. Most children will respond positively to their teacher’s sincerity in wanting to know what they know and how they know it.

Personal conversation models instruction as well as assessment. Children quickly learn that simple yes or no answers or one-word answers only cause the teacher to say, “Tell me more.” Children learn that conversation is like composing an essay. The teacher is looking for the second and third sentences that provide evidence for the answer the child gives to the first question. The child also learns to summarize and give a conclusion.

The conversation also instructs the teacher. She can easily understand from a variety of conversations how well her instruction caused children to learn the curriculum she taught. Some children will need clarification or correction if their learning had errors. The conversation tells her more than which students have errors in learning; she knows the dimensions of their errors. The conversation also affirms that children are ready for the teacher’s next instruction.

This modified Socratic conversation takes time. What do other children do while the teacher converses with Alexa? Individualized and collaborative learning advanced immensely with the pandemic. Classrooms have the technologies for a teacher to readily make individual assignments for students or organize a collaborative activity for groups. Classrooms no longer live in the whole group instruction only era. A contemporary teacher has the resources to provide ongoing instruction for other children while she converses with Alexa.

We get what we settle for.

The traditional model of “teach and test, teach and test” efficiently moves children through the school year’s curriculum. That model drives children from grade level to grade level and course to course. It is a “ready or not, here I come” model.

When we consider that most 4th, 8th, and 10th grade students show “less than proficient” scores on state assessments in reading and math, we should understand that the traditional model is not achieving the 80% Rule but a less than 50% reality.

The traditional model gives us an incomplete understanding of what each child knows and how well she knows it. Based on an incomplete knowledge of what children have learned, we only create an incomplete design for their next instruction.

We can do better when we use better practices.

Remembering Is Difficult; Forgetting Is Easy

Posted on by
Reply

When we know the best teaching practices, we should use them.  A best practice for causing children to learn is to build and strengthen short term memory muscle through everyday teaching and learning.

Expediency is the enemy of best practice.  We are all guilty of these three errors in thinking about our teaching.  First, “If I said it, they heard it”.  Second, “If they heard it, they learned it”.  Third, “If they learned it, I am done.  I can go on to the next instruction”.  Sadly, we jump from the first statement to the third statement multiple times in an hour and too many times in a day’s instruction.  Then when children are given a quiz or check test, we wonder why too few children remembered much of what we taught.

Why Is This Thus?

We know memory is not a “drive by” phenomenon.  By our own confession as humans, we do not remember everything we learn, and we forget a lot.  Daily life is so full of factoids, ideas, and things we do, and experience and they happen so quickly and constantly that we are not able to automatically categorize everything into what should or must be remembered.  The reality is that most of our daily experiences come and go and can be allowed to slip away.  We forget what we do not prioritize to remember.  What is true of us is true of our students.  Once in a blue moon we teach a child who seems to have photographic memory – who remembers and can recall what she sees, reads, hears, and experiences with high efficiency.  Blue moon!  Every other child needs our use of best teaching practices to help them build the power of memory so they can optimize what they learn.

Thus!

Best practice tells us that each fact, concept, word of vocabulary, word with definition – everything we want a child to remember – must be repeated and restated, clarified for correction, and reinforced 5 to 7 times before a child can be expected to recall with efficiency what we asked them to remember.  Recall, simply repeating what we said, did, or showed back to us, is short term memory muscle building.  Restating it in their own words increases their hold on that memory.  Finding contexts in which to apply the facts, concepts, and vocabulary learned allows them to flex the muscle of their own memory on demand.  Flexing memory muscle moves what is learned from short term memory into long term memory.  That is successful teaching and learning for what we want children to remember

Do These

Correct the first error in thinking about teaching by asking children frequently “What did you hear me say, do, or show you?”.  Be certain that children heard what you said, and just as importantly, heard you say what you think you said.  Stop here – this is important!  Did children hear you say what you think you said?  Did they see you do what you intended them to see?  A child may have been looking at a friend three chairs away wondering what they will do after school or worrying about their friendship while you were talking, doing, or showing and this child will not clearly know what you think you said, did, or showed.  Children are less focused on you than you think they are.  Ask them to tell you what they just experienced.

Ask children to repeat back to you constantly during a day of instruction.  As a first statement of practice, you are checking to understand what they heard, saw, and experienced.  As a second statement of practice, you are saying to all children “Pay attention.  You know I am going to ask you a clear and simple question.  Be prepared to answer.”

At this point, if multiple children cannot repeat back to you what you said, did, or showed them, then you need to tell, do, or show them again.  Don’t look for fault; just respond to fact.  If they can’t recall, you need too back up and repeat yourself.  This time with their attention.

Once you verify correctness of what children heard or saw, fix the second error – have students repeat it.  This expands your fixing the first error.  Ask multiple children to repeat what you said.  It may seem too repetitive and a waste of time, but you assumed that children listened to you.  Why do you assume they listen to each other?  Asking multiple children to repeat allows you to verify that each child you ask repeats correct information.  Asking multiple children begins to personalize their memory muscle. 

Remember your taxonomy.  Recall is good but recall is the basic level of learning.  The most basic.  Help all children muscle up by moving from recall to understanding of what they are learning by restating what you want them to remember using their own words.  No puppetry – no recitation of the teacher here.  “Tell me in your own words …” requires a child to manipulate their personal vocabulary and thinking about a fact, an idea, or an experience and to retell it in words that make sense to that child.  Share the muscle-building by asking multiple children to “Tell me in your own words …”.  Reciting is the teacher’s words; understanding is the child’s words.

Fix the third error by looping lessons in a unit of instruction.  You will go on to the next lesson in the natural flow of teaching.  Within the unit of teaching and learning you planned, lessons are building blocks of understanding where the second and third lessons build upon what was learned in the first lesson or a prior unit of teaching.  Madeline Hunter taught us to use “prior knowledge” in introducing new lessons.  Use key words, facts, ideas, and a recall of experiences to “set the stage” for next teaching and learning.  Looping also builds memory.  The best stage for next learning is when children discuss their “prior knowledge” not when the teacher tells them about their prior learning.  It is their learning you will build upon not yours.

Looping also builds muscle memory by making what is remembered contextual.  The act of repeating facts, ideas, and skills and of retelling of their understanding of their prior knowledge, and connecting what is remembered into the purpose of what is to be learned gives memory context.  If it can be applied, it is valuable to be remembered.  If it helps to explain, it is valuable to be remembered.  If it helps future learning, it needs to be strengthened in memory muscle.

Easy?  No.  Use the art of teaching to assist the best practices of teaching.

Building memory is mental work for a child.  It is strategic work for a teacher.  Like doing physical exercises everyday, it is routine and not necessarily exciting for either child or teacher.  As an analogy, we know that an adult’s physical health is optimized by “steps per day”.  Some experts point to 10,000 steps per day and others argue fewer is adequate, but most experts agree that steps cum muscle movement is very important for personal health.  The number aside, it is the stepping that is essential for building health.  But stepping for the sake of stepping can be tedious – it is not easy. 

Effective teachers use best practices to cause children to learn.  Effective teachers use the art of teaching to engage children in their learning.  Building muscle memory requires structured practices throughout every lesson and every unit of teaching.  These structures can begin to look and feel like routine and routines create a tension of engagement.  New and unique can be fun and exciting while routine and usual can become boring.  Boring is the tension.  This tension is real – to build memory requires structured teaching and learning but structured routines can become uninteresting for children and even for teachers.  That leads us to another best practice, because when we know what best practice is, we should try to do it.

Stay tuned for another blog!

The Era of Struggling Productively

Posted on by
Reply

Children forever hear slogans and sayings about the virtue of hard work and perseverance. These are just three.

“It’s hard to beat a person who never gives up.” Babe Ruth

“The three great essentials to achieve anything worthwhile are, first, hard work; second, stick-to-itiveness; third, common sense.” Thomas Edison

“There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.” Beverly Sills

Most of these, once we get past who is being quoted, serve as an aspirin to relieve the real-world anxiety and frustration children, and adults, feel when faced continuously with tasks that are difficult to complete successfully. School children today face an increasing array of difficult-to-complete tasks as educators are mandated to ramp up the pace and level of difficulty of rigorous academic content and skill sets.

The pace and level of difficulty of tasks laid before teachers is just as daunting as the challenges their students face. Everything about education is becoming more difficult. The issue for student and teacher alike is this – how can difficult problems be solved when there are no short cuts and hard work, perseverance and applications of common sense run thin?

“When the going gets tough, the tough get going,” doesn’t help and may only increase the angst.

Although it may sound like denying water to a person dying of thirst, best instructional practice is denying a learning child access to easy answers. Best practice reads like this.

• Provide children with difficult academic problems.

• Teach children the skills needed to solve similar problems. This step takes the most time and the most instructional diligence. Perseverance here pays dividends later.

• Point children to the resources needed to solve this type of problem. Part of problem solving is their experimentation with various resources not all of which will prove successful.

• Let children struggle with the application of their skills, their understanding of the academic context of a problem, and the solution to the problem at hand. Stand back and let them experiment. Ask only, “And, how did that work out?”

• Allow children to struggle productively, providing questions only, no answers, to help them progress through the problem solution. Good questions are more important than easy cues and clues.

• Debrief children after they have solved a problem. Talk just as much about what did not work as what did work. Debrief children on the struggle and what they learned from their persistence.

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/coach_gs_teaching_tips/2015/02/do_more_for_students_by_doing_less_for_students.html?cmp=ENL-TU-NEWS2

Too often adults intervene, swooping in like rescuers, to relieve children of the hardship of struggle. We see parents putting themselves between their child and impending failure all the time. It seems easier to give a child the release from a problem than it is to explain to the child why you let them “suffer.” Weepy little eyes beg for intervention. Many adults and parents perceive the lack of immediate success as a failure and want to buffer a child from failure. This flies in the face of what we know about resilience training. Perseverance is not a trait that can be pulled out of a backpack on demand, used, and then returned to a backpack for another day. Perseverance is a consistent exercise of grittiness that a person applies to every aspect of life, not just school work. A child’s failure to build perseverance and grit may be more significant to adult success than their failure to develop good reading and comprehension or computation skills.

Additionally, “When something comes easy, you usually let it go the same way” – Nora Roberts. The speed of life is very fast for children and challenges that are solved easily are like commercials on TV, interruptions in the main story. Tough sledding is what they will think and talk about long after the lesson.

“Struggling productively” may well be how someone in a few years will label this era of complex and rigorous academic standards, performance-based assessments and educational accountability.