Tag Archives: collaboration

Lessons That Cause Learning Are Like Cookie Recipes That Must Be Perfected Over Time

Posted on by
Reply

“I really nailed that lesson!” A teacher can have that feeling at the end of a lesson or school day and the smile of success feels wonderful. A “nailed” lesson is like eating a freshly baked chocolate chip cookie in which all the ingredients come together for a completely satisfying bite of life. And like a favorite cookie eaten and enjoyed, a teacher knows that all lessons are not created equally, so she savors the moment.

We cause children to learn with the lessons we teach. Our curriculum provides a continuum of learning targets that achieve larger educational goals for children’s education. Teachers make those targets into lessons that teach content knowledge, skills, and/or contexts for how students use knowledge and skills. Lessons are episodic because they fit into a singular place and time in a curriculum. We teach lesson in a unit once each school year and do not teach that lesson again until the next group of children are ready for that episodic lesson. Therein lies a rub.

Lessons, as clinical tools designed to cause specific learning, must be analyzed for their effectiveness after each time they are taught. It is like eating a hot just from the oven cookie – we bite into it, chew it, and taste it to verify that it satisfies. If we do not analyze lesson effectiveness, we do not know if lessons really cause the learning desired. Analyzing a lesson is biting into it and chewing with student learning as the taste that matters. Without analysis for effectiveness any old lesson will do, and instead of causing learning teachers are daycare providers.

What do we know?

Teaching and learning are cause and effect. We do not know the effect of the teaching until we assess for learning. After teaching a lesson, the teacher formatively assesses student learning with a test or performance or demonstration of learning. That assessment creates data about how well each child learned the educational objective of the lesson. The data is what decides if the lesson is a success, a failure, or if the lesson needs improvement. Every lesson a teacher teaches needs assessment and evaluation. If not, education stumbles around in the dark.

We also know that schools do not provide teacher time for lesson analysis. Nada! Schools treat lessons as “contracted line work” – one lesson follows another until a week of lessons and a semester of lessons and a year of lessons have been taught. There is no institutional time set aside for lesson analysis when lessons are line work.

After teaching a lesson, a teacher helps students with their independent practice, homework or other assignments stemming from this lesson, collect assignments and prepares to teach the next lesson. There is no school time nor expectation that a teacher will or should pause other work to evaluate the assessments of lessons taught.

We know that schools do give nominal time for teacher preparation of lessons. Daily prep time however is when principals, counselors, and parents talk with a teacher, or a teacher responds to their communications. Prep time is a teacher’s “bio” break time. And prep time is when a teacher actually takes a break in an otherwise fully packed school day of line work.

Schools also expect a teacher to “prep” on her own time. This may be before or after the school, but “own time” most often is at home wedged into a teacher’s family and personal time. Schools do not keep track of how much “own time” a teacher spends on schoolwork; it is assumed to be part of the job. Own time at home is not truly focused time for lesson evaluation. This assumption fails tests of best educational practice and contributes to teacher burn out and dissatisfaction with teaching as a career.

A better idea!

At first blush, providing teacher time for lesson evaluation really is a “no brainer.” Every artist stands back from their work to study what they have done, consider its form, function, and beauty, and returns with ideas of how to make it better. Why wouldn’t school leaders provide time for teachers to step back and conduct lesson analysis? Time is a logistical problem. How do we provide time for lesson study with children in school? Simple – dismiss the children. Teachers cannot give their mind and effort to lesson analysis during a school day with children in the schoolhouse. Also, few teachers can walk out of a classroom straight into lesson analysis knowing that they still have lessons to prepare for the next day.

Provide protected and dedicated time for lesson analysis to assure the teachers can give their best attention and efforts at lesson improvement. Add paid days to each teacher’s annual contract for this professional work. A month of days should suffice.

Second, collaboration and collegiality are needed for objective lesson analysis. Getting the cook’s thumbs up on freshly baked cookies is one person’s subjective opinion: most cook’s like their own baked goods. Getting opinions from other bakers provides objectivity and validation.

Within the protected and dedicated time, create small teams for lesson studies. Team members must have commonality in their grade level (child development) or subject area content or their comments are without evidentiary substance. At the same time, there can be no competition within a lesson study. In our era of “choice” – parents choosing teachers – teachers in the same grade level cannot be using lesson study to gain advantage over their peers. Best practice is “what is said in lesson analysis stays in lesson analysis,” the benefit of study shows in the next iteration of lessons.

Third, lesson analysis is data and evidence driven. When a teacher presents her lesson she also presents the formative and summative data related to the lesson. She talks of the cause and effect of teaching and learning so that she can improve the “cause” to get better “effect” next time. A lesson analysis without data is just anecdotal – there is no evidence of learning.

Fourth, all the rules of collaborative group work apply. This is professional work at its highest level and requires respect, integrity, and good will. After presenting a lesson and its data, the group pauses for each member to consider the presentation and make notes for their comments. Then the presenter becomes a listener, recording comments that make sense for the perfection of the lesson. There is no tacit agreement that a presenter will take all comments to heart. As a professional, she considers group comments as objective insights. In truth, if she uses only one comment to improve the lesson, the lesson analysis was beneficial.

Fifth, principals and curriculum directors have a place in lesson analysis. While some may feel that administrative presence discourages peer comments, it sanctions all comments. There is no teacher evaluation in a lesson analysis – neither of the presenter or of the commenters. An administrator is not a referee in the process but a contributor to and reporter of the process. Principals and directors can add larger data perspectives to the analysis of a lesson’s specific learner objectives. As importantly, they can report to district and board leadership on the tangible benefits of district commitment to lesson studies. Without their reporting up the chain of command, lesson studies happen in the dark and things that live there do not last long when district resources are limited.

The Big Duh!

Very few school leaders reading this or any other writing about the value of lesson analysis will support this work unless they believe that every lesson taught to children matters. If leadership is into the business of “line work” and daycare, lesson analysis is not their thing. But, if they believe that lessons cause children to learn and teaching is all about causing learning, then new conversations can begin.

Change Cell Phones from Distractions to Learning Tools

Posted on by
Reply

If today’s child treats their cell phone like Linus treated his blanket, do not fight with Linus – let him have an acceptable blanket. There are too many lessons children need to learn at school and arguing about cell phones is not one. School leaders, either make Linus’ blanket work for you or give Linus a blanket that works for school.

Make the cell phone work for learning.

Children have power in their pockets. I continue to be amazed with this statement. A modern cell phone has more computing power than Mercury and Apollo astronauts had in their combined space capsules. Their on-board computers were not much more than calculators and programmable switches. Continuing the evolution of computing power, the chip in my cell phone far outperforms my earlier desktop and laptop computers and equals a contemporary tablet. In my pocket I carry a powerful computer.

Stop the redundancy. Schools spend hundreds to thousands of dollars each year providing children with laptops and tablets for school use. In real world terms, we create computing redundancy. A child at school has computing power on her desk and in her pocket. The real difference is screen and keyboard size. When asked to calculate numbers or find or verify a fact, does a child need a larger screen and keyboard?  No. How many times during a typical class does a child need a larger screen to look up data? Never. A phone’s on-board calculator and Internet browser are more than adequate for everything schoolwork can dish up. And children know how to use their phones for these purposes.

Save money. Save time. Save effort. Save the argument. Tell children to use their phones for in-class work that does not require a larger screen.

Imagine the first time a teacher says, “Okay, for this assignment take out your phones. You will use your calculator to ….” More than pins will drop

Cell phones are collaborative.

Goals of education at all levels include socializing and collaboration. We want children to learn to talk to each other both purposefully and socially. How many times have you watched a child on the phone either contact a friend or answer a friend’s contact and not been engaged in the communication? Whether phone calling or texting, children get engaged. It is easy to translate this into a school application.  How many times has a teacher formed a group of children and they either sit a look at each other or allow one child in the group to dominate or do all the work? If we want engagement, let children engage in a real-world way on their phones.

“Today you will work with partners to answer this question: how did the NASA mission of sending a man to the moon affect everyday life for Americans? Please use your phones to look up as much info on the Internet as you need to answer the question. Then text what you know to at least three classmates. When you have received three texts, use what you learned from your search and what your friends sent you to write out your complete answer to the question in longhand.  We are going to use cell phones for research and collaboration and longhand for original work. One last thing – send the text messages you received to your computer, print out those messages, and attach them to your handwritten work.”

This assignment uses cell phones to do research and collaborate, uses long handwriting to ensure original work, and ties the two together as a finished product. Linus would be happy.

Make the cell phone a learning tool not a distractor.

We contribute to every struggle between adults and children with fixed “No!” statements. As soon as “You cannot …” is declared, the commandment becomes a challenge for defiance. Defiance is not in either a teacher’s or a child’s best interest. There are, in fact, several non-negotiable rules for children in school. No fighting, no stealing, no cheating, no weapons, no drugs, and no bullying fit that descriptor. There are rules about technologies, like the non-negotiable rules, that are necessary ground rules for children in and out of school. Cyber-bullying and cyber-stalking are non-negotiable, especially as AI adds unforeseen dimensions to both. Almost all children will understand the “don’t use technology to …” rules. The rule that says “no cell phones” is an automatic challenge for defiance.

It is when children use cell phones for non-learning uses that a cell phone is a distractor in the classroom. Defiance and dug in opposition follow. Stop the defiance by showing children how to use cell phones as a learning tool. The more we can make a cell phone a tool for learning, the more we will make it a non-distractor. And the sooner we make it a non-distractor, we will make both teachers and children happier.

Do It Differently, Smarter – Student Rounds

Posted on by
Reply

“I spend the first days and weeks of the school year getting to know my students so that I can meet their needs as learners.”  I have heard this statement each September since the 1970s and I frown.  What hubris!  Unless the child is new to your school, teachers have a wealth of relevant and reliable information about every student’s needs at their fingertips.  There is no need under the sun to waste the first days and weeks “getting know” your students.  Why don’t we do it differently and smarter and do educational rounds just as medical doctors do patient rounds?  And, do these rounds at the end of the preceding school year so that a teacher has all summer to use solid information to plan for each child’s instruction in the fall.

Current Practice

On the last day of school in the spring, the experts who know the most about the students in a teacher’s next fall assignment go home.  Historically, the last days of school are all about ending the current school year.  Records are updated and classrooms are closed.  School is vacated for the summer recess.  The knowledge next year’s teachers need departs for the summer.

Ten weeks later teachers return to school in the last week of August to prepare for a new school year.  The major focus of August work is getting classrooms ready for children and teaching.  As a rule, more professional time is spent reviewing school rules and regulations and putting up bulletin board displays than is spent in discussion of student learning needs.  We are compelled to get ready for the first day of school and most teachers sitting in August PD meetings wish they were in their classrooms doing their physical preparation tasks.

Check this out.  A teacher who cannot pronounce the name of a child in their classroom on the first day does not know that child’s learning needs.  Mispronunciation of the names of children who were students in the school last spring occurs in almost every classroom.  Not knowing how to pronounce a continuing student’s name is a sign that no teacher-to-teacher discussion of learning needs has taken place.

At best, we hold rushed meetings in which counselors share information about various students and their learning challenges.  There is scant time for a teacher to delve into those needs and plan instruction.  We prioritize classroom readiness not instructional readiness. 

The closest current practice comes to rounds is an IEP or 504 Plan meeting that includes all of a child’s teachers plus parents and advocates.

Student Rounds in the Summer

Better practice is to extend contracts for all teachers beyond the last of school and use time at the end of a school year for this year’s teachers to tell next year’s teachers what they know about promoted children.  There are many ways to implement and schedule rounds. 

Grade level to grade level – Within a schedule, 4K talks to 5K, 5K to first grade, until all grade level conversations are completed.  This organization favors more global discussion as teachers discuss each child across all instruction.  All teachers of a grade level, including special subjects and special education participate.  Grade level to grade level applies to children 4K into middle school or until the next year’s student schedule is dominated with elective or leveled courses.

Subjects within grade levels – This organization focuses on each subject areas of instruction and completes one subject area before starting a next area.  Regular, special education, and second language teachers share in discussing each child’s development in one subject at a time.  If there are different art, music, PE, and technology teachers at different grade levels, subject area sharing is the pathway for “specials” teachers to share student information teacher-to-teacher.

Secondary Subject departments – The daily class pathway for children in secondary school fans out, especially in high school with multi-grade classes and electives and an array of teachers.  Using the next year’s already developed student schedules, children are ordered alphabetically and information about their learning preferences, challenges, and uniqueness is shared. 

Face-to-face – School leadership may choose to organize students rounds as a whole school, all teachers at the same time and in the same place activity.  Every student-based meeting is face-to-face.

Virtual – We became better than average facilitators of virtual, group meetings in the pandemic.  Rounds can be held with teachers in school or at home or other locations using virtual platforms.  Virtual rounds accommodate teachers and administrators’ preferences to work from or home.

Why Rounds?

Fresh details matter.  In primary grade transitions, the current teacher has fresh knowledge of the child’s mastery of phonemic sounds and letters and ability to pronounce new words and spell words on demand.  Because these details are fresh, the current teacher can anecdotally describe what works best to support this child’s learning.  Freshness details are diminished over the summer as each former student melds into the greater group of former students.  This just simply happens.

Magnify this across all the children in a school and fresh details become even more important.  There is no reason for next year’s teachers to await similar experiences to arise when they can learn from and plan using the expert commentary of their colleagues.

Learning styles and preferences matter.  Although there is current literature that devalues learning styles profiling, the truth is that some children prefer to watch, listen, or do.  Whereas teachers want to develop broader learning modalities for all children, starting a school year with a child’s preferences creates early school year success and nothing succeeds greater than early success.

Progress in annual strategies prepared by a teacher and a child’s parents’ matter.  We tout and encourage parents to engage with teachers to create student-centered partnerships.  There is no reason to recreate new partnerships every time a teacher assignment changes.  Our current practice of starting a new discussion about their child confirms for parents that teachers are independent contractors and do not cooperate or collaborate.  This is not the storyline we want to perpetuate.  Just share what you know and build upon what you collectively know.  Be professionally seamless.

SEL challenges matter.  Children face developmental challenges as they transition from pre-school to 4K-5K, grade school to middle school, from pre-adolescence adolescence, and into semi-independent learners in high school.  The pandemic and remote education caused challenges for children returning to in-person schooling.  These mean that teacher-to-teacher discussions about children are even more important.  In-school behaviors and dispositions about school, respect and consideration for teachers and fellow students, and consistent school attendance all took hits from the pandemic.  Lack of shared knowledge hampers a child’s next teacher understanding of what she needs to know on day one of a school year.

What To Do?  If you believe your current practices optimize your teachers’ knowledge of the children they will teach in fall, continue with your current practices.  If you believe your current practices are not preparing all teachers for their next year’s students, develop your version of student rounds.  You have a wealth of knowledge about your students, use that knowledge to their advantage in preparing for the 2022-23 school year.  Do student rounds.