Tag Archives: Learning

Posted on by

Summer Learning Resources from the IL State Superintendent

Message From State Superintendent Christopher A. Koch

The General Assembly’s spring legislative session is scheduled to wrap up later this week. Things move quickly during the end of session, as evidenced last week when lawmakers began work on a budget that significantly reduced funding for education. That proposal was soundly rejected Friday morning in the House with only five members voting for it and 107 voting against it.
…
I was pleased to join Governor Pat Quinn and Secretary of State Jesse White last week in encouraging students from across Illinois to access free online tools designed to promote reading, maintain math skills and inspire learning during summer vacation.

The free online Find a Book utility provides a way for parents and children to quickly and easily search books that match a child’s reading level and interests as well as locate a local library carrying each title. The Summer Math Challenge is a free math skills maintenance program targeted to students who have just completed grade 2 through 5 and is designed to help children retain math skills learned during the previous school year. From June 23 through Aug. 1, parents who enroll their children in the program will receive daily emails with fun activities and links to educational resources.

We hope that you can help disseminate the letters to parents, principals and librarians that was sent out last week as part of this annual promotion. You can also find copies of those letters and other resources on ISBE’s Summer Learning Webpage at http://isbe.net/find-a-book/default.htm.

Finally, I hope you had a safe and relaxing Memorial Day weekend.

Chris

More information from Dr. Koch:
llinois Virtual School

IVS Offers Summer School Opportunities for Students Across Illinois

Attention principals and guidance counselors, Illinois Virtual School (IVS) can be the summer school destination for students. IVS can be your resource for students needing:
· Credit recovery options to graduate on time;
· Opportunities to take a foreign language, or other course not offered at your school;
· Opportunities to strengthen reading and/or writing skills by enrolling in Reading Skills and Strategies or Writing Skills and Strategies;
· a chance to take a course for enrichment.

Visit http://ilvirtual.org/summer4 to learn more about what IVS has to offer this summer. Please share this link with parents that may be looking for summer school programs for their middle or high school students.

Posted on by

#Engage109 Podcast Channel

Dr. Zoul and I are so proud of all DPS109 educators! In another form of communication and celebration, he and I are proud to share the inaugural #Engage109 Podcast Channel (see below). We will interview (10 minutes or less) an educator from DPS109 and we will share out news, updates, information, celebrations, and thoughts from our engaging, inspiring, and empowering public school district!

Posted on by

Did you know 2014 – CHANGE

Each year I have posted to a blog I have posted the “Did you know video” … with this blog post, I am sharing the 2014 version below. The points of these video messages are many: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation – of information, data, knowledge and the “new normal” as it relates to the world in which our children live and are growing.

As you know, I follow Twitter, I follow educational technology trends, and I am a STUDENT centered, and LEARNER centered educational leader. I post these videos and share the information in an effort to spread the word, continue the message, and keep all who care about education focused on GROWTH, CHANGE, and success for students (and for us).

Check the video, check #Engage109 on Twitter, stay current on trends facing our world beyond the borders of our small villages, stay current on how best to meet the needs of all learners. We in DPS109 are proud to meet the needs of all of our learners … Did you know?

Posted on by

Article From AASA Journal of Scholarly Research Spring 2014 (Math CCSS)

This month’s blogging focus is on professional development (PD) … another source of learning for me and educational leaders is the membership in organizations and associations related to leadership, education, and the superintendency. Once such organization is the American Association of School Administrators (AASA). One of the membership benefits is access to peer-reviewed research and commentary on current trends, issues, and areas of educational concern.

As I have mentioned in other blog posts, DPS109 is focused on 5 main areas of growth, “The Big5”: Common Core State Standards, Teacher Evaluation, Technology, Organizational Culture, and the Superintendent’s Task Force for Middle Level Education. Our professional development, time, energy, community outreach, and resource allocation are focused and concentrated under the umbrella of the Big 5.

In this blog post, I’m reprinting an article published in the Spring 2014 AASA Journal of Scholarly Practice. The article is shared here as an example to the readers of scholarly materials that school leaders look to for guidance, information, and “research” in support of personal professional development. Articles like these also support organizational professional development and we leaders personally learn and grow as we support our organization’s learning and growing. Locally in DPS109, we look to professional organizations to gain greater expertise on our “Big 5”.

The article reprinted below is about mathematics and the new Common Core State Standards and support for teachers in their pedagogical growth and development. This post and the reprinted article also serve as windows into the world of a practitioner scientist whose purpose is to engage, inspire, and empower members of a school district, community, and the general blog reading public! Thank you for reading, commenting, and supporting public education!

Copyright – Articles published by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) in the AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice fall under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-NoDerivs 3.0 license policy  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Please refer to the policy for rules about republishing, distribution, etc. In most cases our readers can copy, post, and distribute articles that appear in the AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, but the works must be attributed to the author(s) and the AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice. Works can only be  distributed for non-commercial/non-monetary purposes. Alteration to the appearance or content of any articles used is not allowed. 

Commentary (page 38) AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice Spring 2014

Supporting Mathematics Teachers in the Common Core Implementation

P. Holt Wilson, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Teacher Education and Higher Education, School of Education, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, Greensboro NC

Holly A. Downs, PhD, Assistant Professor, Educational Research Methodology Department, School of Education, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, Greensboro, NC

Abstract

Based on work with elementary grades teachers in mathematics professional development to prepare for the implementation of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, we offer a set of recommendations for school leaders who wish to assist teachers in adjusting their instruction to meet the challenges that the new standards present.

Key Words: Common Core State Standards, mathematics, professional development, learning progressions

Now that the Common Core State Standards have been adopted by 45 states, the District of Columbia, and four U.S. territories, schools are on the frontline in proactively shaping these changes in ways that support teachers in assisting students in meeting them. Yet monthly curriculum updates, documents that crosswalk previous standards with the new ones, the barrage of commercially available curriculum and training programs, and uncertainties of future assessments have placed school leaders in the difficult but all too familiar place of “building a plane while flying it.”

While trying to make sense of these myriad changes with incomplete information, they must still move forward in supporting  teachers in preparing for these new standards. Many are left with questions: What really is different about these standards? How can I best support my teachers in the transition? In response, we draw upon our experiences from professional development, specifically from a year-long project with the teachers of two elementary schools, in preparation for the implementation of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M) (CCSSI, 2010). We describe two broad issues for school leaders to consider and offer a set of recommendations for school administrators working in similar schools to assist teachers in adjusting their instruction to meet the challenges that the new standards present.

So, What Is Different? The CCSS-Mi is comprised of two connected sets of expectations for student learning: the Standards for Mathematical Content and the Standards for Mathematical Practice. Together, they “define what students should understand and be able to do in their study of mathematics” (p. 4) and in our view represent major advances in standards-based reform in at least two distinct ways.

First, the writers began with “research-based learning progressions” to inform the priorities and sequencing of the topics that students encounter (p. 4). Using this approach, the Standards for Mathematical Content are aligned with research on mathematics learning regarding the ways children develop mathematical ideas over time (Daro, Mosher, & Corcoran, 2011).

Scholars working in the area of learning progressions point to numerous benefits, including opportunities for assessment systems
that provide instructional guidance for teachers (Battista, 2004; Confrey & Maloney, 2012) and more coherent curricular programs (Clements & Sarama, 2008).

In the classroom, emerging research indicates that knowing learning progressions supports teachers in preparing instruction that
simultaneously takes into account students’ experiences and prior knowledge, creating instructional environments more aligned with students’ likely paths of learning, assessing students with a focus on what they know (as opposed to what they do not know), and documenting common misconceptions (Edgington, 2012; Fennema, Carpenter, Franke, Levi, Jacobs, & Empson, 1996; Sztajn, Wilson, Edgington, & Confrey, 2011; Wilson, 2009). Thus, the Standards for Mathematical Content put into place a foundation that allows for student-centered mathematics instruction throughout their K-12 experiences.

Second, the Standards for Mathematical Practice “describe ways in which developing student practitioners of the discipline of  mathematics increasingly ought to engage with the subject matter as they grow in mathematical maturity and expertise  throughout the elementary, middle, and high school years” (CCSSI, 2010, p. 8).

These practices include behaviors and skills such as persevering in problem solving, critiquing others’ mathematical arguments, and using tools strategically. Though the inclusion of expectations that describe the processes and dispositions of mathematical proficiency is not new in the standards tradition, two national groups developing assessments aligned with the CCSS-M–-the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and the Partnership for Assessment of College and Careers Readiness  (1PARCC)–-formally include the Standards for Mathematical Practice in the frameworks for their assessment design.

Such an inclusion suggests that high-stakes tests will not only assess concepts and procedures but also promote these ways of
engaging in mathematics. There is a concern that these practices will be marginalized in classrooms (Confrey & Krupa, 2010), and
research suggests that teachers require time and resources to develop instructional routines that support the Standards for Mathematical Practice (Krupa, 2011).

From our work with elementary grades teachers, we believe that these advances–-the foundation of learning progressions and an emphasis on mathematical practices–-warrant two considerations for school leaders wishing to support teachers in the CCSS-M implementation:

1. Opportunities for teachers to learn about and engage with the learning progressions on which the new standards are designed enrich their understandings of the mathematics students bring to the classroom and how students’ understandings are likely to progress.

2. Opportunities to learn and adopt new pedagogical strategies to create nurturing environments for students to develop these mathematical practices lead to instruction that is more student-centered.

Supporting Teachers in Implementation

After the adoption of the Common Core State Standards by our state, leaders from two schools approached us to design and facilitate professional development to support elementary grades teachers in preparing for the CCSS-M implementation. Both schools were identified as “high need” by the state, using criteria that included a large percentage of economically disadvantaged students, teachers working outside of their area of licensure or holding provisional licenses, and low performance on year-end testing in reading and/or mathematics.

In response to their request, our project team created a 120-hour professional development program for elementary grades teachers to plan for the new standards. To do so, we aimed to share with teachers (1) a selection of the learning progressions that underlie the standards and (2) student-centered instructional practices that create spaces for students to experience and gain expertise with the Standards for Mathematical Practice.

Over the course of the 2011-2012 school year, our team worked with 30 teachers, 15 from each school, who demonstrated
moderate to large effect sizes on pre/post measures of content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and the ability to identify and analyze student-centered instructional practices. As we reflected on the project and its success, two broad ideas emerged that we believe offer direction for school leaders wishing to assist teachers in adjusting their instruction to meet the challenges of the CCSS-M.

More Than Just Content Knowledge

Undoubtedly, the CCSS-M represents a curriculum significantly different than previous state standards, both in terms of sequencing and cognitive demand (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011), and will require that teachers teach mathematical topics with which they may be unfamiliar. Yet learning more mathematics is unlikely to assist teachers in implementing
the new standards. It has been shown that teachers’ content knowledge alone is insufficient to support student learning (Begle,
1972; Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001).

Instead, understandings of particular mathematics concepts that are flexible and multifaceted allow teachers to recognize and
build upon students’ prior knowledge in instruction (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008), and such knowledge has been demonstrated to be a strong predictor of student achievement (Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005). Research on teachers’ learning about learning progressions suggests deeper content and pedagogical content knowledge in mathematics result from a focused study on students’ mathematical thinking described by the progressions (Mojica, 2010; Wilson, 2009).

Thus, rather than simply assisting teachers in learning “more math,” our work with them stressed learning about and engaging
with the mathematical ideas that students bring with them to the classroom through focusing on learning progressions. Tools such as the Progressions Documents for the Common Core Math Standards http://ime.math.arizona.edu/progressions/ and the Learning Trajectory Display of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics posters (Confrey, Maloney, & Nguyen, 2011) were particularly useful in supporting teachers in learning to consider the mathematics of their grade level in relation to their students’ previous and future understandings rather than as a set of isolated procedures for students to apply.

For example, consider the development of multi-digit multiplication of whole numbers. Although the formalization of this idea with the familiar algorithm is delayed until Grade 5 in the CCSS-M, the new standards expect students to begin building multiplicative understandings much earlier. In Grades 1 and 2, students work with equal-sized parts, a foundational idea for
multiplication. They investigate and use properties of operations in Grades 3 and 4, gaining deeper understandings of the ways
multiplication works. Only in Grade 5 are students expected to learn and apply the formal procedure.

Without an understanding of the ways these ideas build across grades, one can imagine a well-intentioned teacher, desiring to
help his or her students, prematurely introducing the algorithm and curtailing the development of a deeper understanding of the
concept.

For the teachers with whom we worked, knowing how students’ understanding of multiplication develops across grades as
described by the learning progression assisted them in identifying the ideas that students already knew, such as repeated addition or decomposing into tens and ones, and in customizing their instruction in response to those understandings. For these teachers, the learning progressions helped them make informed instructional choices in relation to their students’ understandings and their own knowledge of content and curriculum. More Than Just “Good Teaching”

Terms like good teaching and best practices are commonly used when referring to markers of quality instruction, such as cooperative learning and formative assessment strategies. Yet the implicit, and perhaps unintended, message of these phrases is that effective instructional approaches are independent of the content being taught. Put another way, the language of “it’s just good teaching” leads many to believe that, for example, high quality mathematics instruction entails the same pedagogical strategies as effective literacy instruction and that the same

strategies for teaching mathematical procedures are appropriate for teaching mathematical concepts. Yet progress in the learning sciences suggests that this overgeneralization is misleading (cf. Sawyer, 2006). Some instructional approaches are more effective at assisting students in learning domain-specific knowledge than others.

Piaget (1950) made distinctions among different types of knowledge, two of which he called social-conventional and logical-mathematical knowledge. For social-conventional knowledge, the source of ideas is outside of the learner and must therefore be internalized from a more knowledgeable other, such as pre-reading strategies in literacy or locating continents on a globe in social studies. In mathematics, examples of this kind of knowledge include mathematical vocabulary and notation, like the word rhombus for a figure with four sides of the same length or the symbol = for denoting equivalence. Instructional practices aimed at supporting students in developing social-conventional knowledge might include direct instruction, modeling, or the gradual release of responsibility (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) with an “I do—We do—You do” format (Fisher & Frey, 2008).

In contrast, learning concepts requires students to bring their prior knowledge to bear on a novel, problematic situation. Logical-
mathematical knowledge exists as relationships among ideas in one’s mind and must therefore be constructed by adapting one’s current understandings to address new situations, such as understanding changing states of matter or the relationship between mass and density in science. Examples of this type of knowledge in mathematics include concepts and relationships, such as an understanding of place value or the connections among arithmetic operations.

In contrast with direct instruction, student-centered mathematics instruction for developing logical-mathematical knowledge might include the use of high cognitive demand tasks to elicit multiple approaches from students (Stein, Grover, & Henningson, 1996) and the careful sequencing and connecting of these approaches through discussion (Smith & Stein, 2011) in a “Launch-Explore-Discuss” format (Smith, Bill, & Hughes, 2008).

As we worked with teachers during the project, there was often confusion and tension about selecting instructional approaches to
address particular Mathematical Content Standards. Perhaps an unintended consequence of intensive literacy initiatives that they had experienced, many of the teachers advocated using “gradual release” and “modeling” to support their students in learning mathematical concepts and wrestled with how to organize their instruction differently.

Not only are these strategies likely to be ineffective at supporting learning of logical-mathematical knowledge, we argue that these approaches provide only limited opportunities for students to gain expertise in the Mathematical Practice Standards. Over the course of the project, however, teachers began to differentiate instructional approaches that were likely to engender the types of mathematical understandings that meet the CCSS-M from others they used for other content areas.

Recommendations

Based on these two broad ideas, we offer a set of recommendations for school leaders working in similar schools wishing to assist teachers in adjusting their mathematics instruction to meet the challenges of the CCSS-M. Though we acknowledge that our suggestions are based on experiences from one year-long project with a small number of teachers from two schools with particular contexts, we contend that these recommendations may prove useful and resonate with the findings of other scholars working in the areas of professional development (e.g., Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Heck, Banilower, Weiss, & Rosenberg, 2008; Wei, Darling-Hammond, & Adamson, 2010) and teachers’ learning of learning trajectories (Sztajn, Confrey, Wilson, & Edgington, 2012).

1. Offer and personally participate in
professional development on learning
progressions. Professional development
opportunities for teachers and school
leaders should ensure that the content
includes attention to children’s
mathematical thinking and the learning
progressions that describe its
development across grades.

2. Provide time for teachers to articulate
students’ mathematical development
across grades. School leaders should
provide time and support for cross-
grade conversations that examine and
describe their own students’
development of mathematical
understanding over time.

3. Support teachers in understanding
effective instruction for mathematics
concepts. Professional development and
instructional support for teachers should
emphasize the importance of
pedagogical strategies for teaching
mathematics concepts that allow
students to engage in the Standards for
Mathematical Practice.

4. Allocate time for cross-subject matter
discussions. Provide opportunities for
teachers to clarify the similarities and
differences of effective instructional
practices in mathematics and other
disciplines such as literacy.

5. Understand that learning new
instructional practices takes time.
Professional development should offer
scaffolded opportunities for teachers to
try new practices over extended periods
of time in their own classrooms.

6. Acknowledge examples of quality
mathematics instruction. Mark
instances of mathematics instruction
that builds upon students’ thinking in
walk-throughs and formal observations
and communicate with all faculty that
such instruction is valued.

AUTHORS’ NOTE

The authors contributed equally to the writing of this manuscript. The work on this article was supported by the U.S. Department of Education’s ESEA Title II-A Improving Teacher Quality Grants program awarded to the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors. A special thank you to Craig Peck for his feedback on an earlier version of this paper and to members of our research group and our partners in schools: Kerri Richardson, Carol Seaman, Ana Floyd, Wendy Rich, Michelle McCullough, and Aundrea Carter.

Further, one anonymous reviewer pointed out that the CCSS are not field-tested and lack empirical support for claims related to college and career readiness. Our purpose is not to advocate for these standards but rather to share our experiences in supporting classroom teachers and school administrators in meeting standards that have been set for them.

Author Biographies

P. Holt Wilson is an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. His research focuses on mathematics teachers’ knowledge, practice, and professional development.

Holly Downs is an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Her research focuses on the evaluation of multi-site educational initiatives and programs delivered via traditional and online settings, particularly from the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

References

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.

Battista, M. (2004). Applying cognition-based assessment to elementary school students’ development of understanding of area and volume measurement. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 185–204.

Begle, E. G. (1972). Teacher knowledge and student achievement on algebra. School Mathematics Study Group (Report No. 9). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental evaluation of the effects of a research-based preschool mathematics curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 443-494.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/ CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf

Confrey, J., Maloney, A., & Nguyen, K. (2010). Learning trajectory display of the Common Core State Standards for mathematics. New York, NY: Wireless Generation.

Confrey, J., & Krupa, E. (2010). Curriculum design, development, and implementation in an era of common core state standards: Summary report of a conference. Retrieved from http://www.ncsmonline.org/docs/resources/ccss/CSMC%20Conference%20Summary%20Report%20CCSS.pdf

Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (2012). A next generation digital classroom assessment based on learning trajectories. In C. Dede & J. Richards (Eds.), Digital teaching platform (pp. 134-152). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Daro, P., Mosher, F. A., & Corcoran, T. (2011). Learning trajectories in mathematics: A foundation for standards, curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Retrieved from http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/learning% 20trajectories%20in%20math_ccii%20report.pdf

Edgington, C. (2012). Teachers’ uses of a learning trajectory to support attention to students’ mathematical thinking. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403-434.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B, F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945.

Heck, D., Banilower, E., Weiss, I., & Rosenberg, S. (2008). Studying the effects of professional development: The case of the NSF’s Local Systemic Change through Teacher Enhancement initiative. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 113-152.

Hill, H., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371 – 406.

Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Krupa, E. L. (2011). Evaluating the impact of professional development and curricular implementation on student mathematics achievement: A mixed-methods study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Mojica, G. (2010). Preparing pre-service elementary teachers to teach mathematics with learning trajectories. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Pearson & Gallagher. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317-344.

Piaget, J. (1950). Introduction a l’epistemologie genetique. [Introduction to genetic epistemology]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core Standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103 – 116.

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Introduction: The new science of learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, M., Bill, V., & Hughes, E. (2008). Thinking through the lesson: Successfully implementing high-level tasks. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14(3), 132 – 138.

Smith, M., & Stein, M. K. (2011). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematical discourse. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455-488.

Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction: Toward a theory of teaching. Educational Researcher, 41(5), 147 –156.

Sztajn, P., Wilson, P. H., Edgington, C., & Confrey, J. (2011). Learning trajectories and key instructional practices. In L. R.

Mission and Scope, Copyright, Privacy, Ethics, Upcoming Themes, Author Guidelines & Publication Timeline The AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice is a refereed, blind-reviewed, quarterly journal with a focus on research and evidence-based practice that advance the profession of education administration.

Mission and Scope

The mission of the Journal is to provide peer-reviewed, user-friendly, and methodologically sound research that practicing school and district administrations can use to take action and that higher education faculty can use to prepare future school and district administrators. The Journal publishes accepted manuscripts in the following categories: (1) Evidence-based Practice, (2) Original Research, (3) Research-informed Commentary, and (4) Book Reviews.

The scope for submissions focus on the intersection of five factors of school and district administration: (a) administrators, (b) teachers, (c) students, (d) subject matter, and (e) settings. The Journal encourages submissions that focus on the intersection of factors a-e. The Journal discourages submissions that focus only on personal reflections and opinions.

Posted on by

Journey toward meeting the needs of all learners

In this blog post my aim is to share a personal journey and the relationship of video and technology in meeting the needs of all learners. The overall purpose of this blog post is related in part to my participation in the Blogamonth Challenge, #Blogamonth on Twitter, and http://blogamonth.weebly.com/ on the web.

I’m participating in the Blogamonth Challenge, and this month’s optional topic is: “Great movies challenge our thinking, speak to our emotions, and take us to distant worlds both historical and fantastic.  Integrating the power of videos into your classroom, professional development, and/or school culture offers even greater potential impact as there is the opportunity to reflect, discuss, and critique the quality and message of the video.

Suggest one – two of your favorite videos (Ted Talks, YouTube Clips, Vimeos, Movie Clips…etc) that you have used in your school setting, and share how you used it. Explain how incorporating this visual into your presentation or lesson has helped you to achieve your goals.”

The journey began in 1993 when I first stepped into the classroom at Blackhawk Middle School in Bensenville, Illinois. We’ll fast forward to an experience from 1995 which was pivotal in my journey toward meeting the diverse learning needs of all learners with whom I had the honor of teaching.

In 1995 I attended a professional development 5-day workshop led by Dr. T. Roger Taylor (link to his website). The point of this workshop was for me, then a middle school social studies teacher and district K-8 social studies coordinator, to learn how to integrate video clips, audio clips and H.O.T.S. (higher order thinking skills) into all units and lessons of study. This was in the early days of the “standards movement” and the change in Illinois from IGAP to ISAT (we’re now watching the ISAT go the way of the IGAP in favor of the PARCC) … but I digress … The Roger Taylor unit/lesson planning was also a way to get “general education teachers” like me to DIFFERENTIATE instruction. Differentiation is a “buzz word” and an oft misunderstood concept in education. Meeting the needs of ALL learners is a goal of instruction and an often elusive goal for many teachers.

Using video clips (1995) to You Tube (2014) in and of themselves will not be sufficient to reach and motivate and challenge each and every learner. But the use of multiple modes of content delivery and use of multiple ways for children to show learning WILL lead to meeting the different needs of all learners. In my classrooms where I taught, in social studies, I always had multiple levels of ability. As a recipient of an Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA) Caring Enough To Challenge Award early in my career I realized the value of meeting the needs of the highly gifted in a differentiated classroom. As a teacher of children with special needs, regular needs, and every need in between, I learned the value of lessons learned from Roger Taylor and others of differentiated learning.

One of the major “disruptors”, or “game changers” in education, and in my experiences as a teacher and as an educational administrator is TECHNOLOGY. Flash forward to 2011, as seen and read in the linked video I made regarding district/school technology integration: VIDEO LINK. The power of Technology to motivate learners is easier to see and feel and study and observe than the power of technology (and the tools related to technology) to meet the needs of all learners.  Returning to this month’s Blogamonth Challenge, I’m sharing the reasoning behind the linked video above from 2011. I share this video here – not for shameless self-promotion – but instead to show how a teacher who learns, grows, and becomes a school district superintendent (me) continues the journey to share with broader audiences tools, strategies, methods, ideas, values, goals, and aspirations all centered around the eye on the prize – the prize is learning for ALL students. The most effective way to get there is through carefully and thoughtfully planned out lessons and units and assessments designed to meet the varied learning needs and ability levels of all students!

An additional use of video is linked here to a ROUGH Udemy course I created – emphasis on ROUGH … The point of sharing this set of videos and embryonic entry into online learning with Udemy is an effort to show a unit planning process that like the Roger Taylor work, was instrumental in supporting and sustaining a rigorous course that was designed with multiple student ability levels at the beginning, middle, and end. I used the workshop in 6th grade world history as well as in 8th grade U.S. history (the 8th grade Workshop is described in the Udemy course). Teachers in districts where I have served currently use the Workshop model in an effort to meet the learning needs of all students in their classrooms.

My professional career is based upon the foundation that our society is complex enough to present many challenges to people as they pass from childhood to adulthood. It is my firm belief that a strong foundation in educational preparation will support a person’s quest for success and prosperity. My philosophical foundation holds that young people are our windows to the future; working with them has given me a unique vantage point to assess their goals, needs and abilities. I have been, and I remain committed to preparing our young citizens, and those who teach and support them, for their futures – and ours.

So … as a recap … I’m motivated to Blog as part of professional growth, learning and reflection. I’m participating in the Blogamonth challenge with other educators around the country and world (via the best personal learning network – PLN – Twitter), and I am committed to helping principals help teachers meet the needs of ALL learners. I am also a firm believer that technology and the related tools are and will continue to be the “game changers” in terms of seeing a world where all classrooms differentiate for all learners. And, finally, I am proud to share works in progress of my own tinkering with video, communication, leadership, and growth as I continue in service above self to the various stakeholders whom I serve and with whom I am inexorably linked in a journey to support continued growth and learning for ALL.

Posted on by

Reflections on a day back in the classroom!

Atlantic Sunrise Desktop Image

On Friday I was lucky since I had the opportunity to get back in the classroom as a substitute teacher for the entire day! As an administrator I visit classrooms every week, in fact this year I have already logged more than 100 individual classroom visits, some lasting a few minutes and others lasting a few hours.  I recently had a chance to participate in middle school First Amendment debates all day, and on Friday I was a substitute teacher all day for students in grades K, 1, and 2! Nothing compares, though, to being the substitute teacher all day in relation to “walking in another’s shoes”. There are many ways administrators can learn about the thoughts, feelings, needs, and experiences of teachers, but literally getting back into the trenches as a teacher is one of many highly effective methods we have in our district. This year each member of the administrative team was in a “raffle” to serve as a substitute for interested employees in the school district.  I was selected by an elementary school teacher who teaches students in grades K-2.

To say that I am proud of the teacher for whom I subbed is an understatement. Her lesson plans were among the best I have ever seen, her organization is phenomenal, her team of educational support personnel is outstanding! I think everyone might have given me extra special treatment due to my official position, but at the end of the day (literally and figuratively) I was the teacher and the experiences were awesome. Like the students, I too learned a lot on Friday!

The students behaved beautifully and eagerly learned and went from task to task. I was told that from time to time these students have challenging or even bad days and sometimes they can give members of the team challenges, but on Friday, they were all about learning, doing, being. The students were kind, attentive, helpful, focused, and quite busy. The teachers plans, about which I describe as well organized, helped guide me in math, language arts, computer work, snack time, motor time, etc.

Each of the students on the teacher’s caseload have individualized plans and individualized schedules. The teacher plans with the other certified specialists (speech language pathologist, social worker, psychologist, etc.) to integrate with the students during their daily work. The students work with one another academically, socially, emotionally, and creatively throughout the many subjects, transitions, etc. I was charged with teaching English, reading, math, social skills, technology usage, listening, writing, etc. I was busy pretty much every minute of the day and the students were quite ready for the routine and quite comfortable with the predictive nature of their days.

So often I have to make decisions that affect many people. The best of those decisions are made when I can get collaborative input from those most impacted by the decisions. Having the opportunity to substitute teach yesterday gave me a real life view point from teachers, teacher assistants, social worker, psychologist, speech language pathologist, assistant principal, and others! Being present all day, being in the trenches so to speak, truly helps me “walk a mile in their shoes”. I am so grateful to have had the opportunity to serve as a substitute teacher. I am so grateful to the teacher and the educational team members for their amazing support and work on a daily basis on behalf of the kids; and I am so grateful to the parents of the students for their input, communication, support, and partnership in support of the education of their children!

It truly takes a village to raise a child and I am so happy to be part of this village!

Posted on by

Why John Hattie’s findings matter – Learning for ALL!

As I have posted before, the research results from John Hattie (and team) multi-year, multi-study, and multi-student (53,000,000 – yes, 53 Million students) meta-analytic research studies yield our generation’s most profound, prolific, and pronounced guidance as to WHAT WORKS in teaching and learning. My aim in sharing is to keep the conversation alive about how to best learn from research studies and how to best replicate that which works in an effort to improve the learning for all of our children!!  Research should always be viewed with two very critical eyes. Studies on this or that can come and go … BUT – Hattie’s research studies, his books, his findings are HUGE. I believe that Hattie is our generation’s Benjamin Bloom (see Bloom’s Taxonomy).

Another topic about which I post is Twitter and its use as a PLN (Professional Learning Network). On Twitter (the world’s largest professional learning network), there are a number of educational leaders, educators, and bloggers who gather, analyze, share, question, etc. “in time” guidance on how to best impact learning. Of course Twitter has other purposes, but my purpose in using Twitter is for news and for educational leadership information and for increasing the leadership ability of those I serve and for increasing the learning of those I serve.

Today I came across an impressive report/synthesis of Hattie’s Research findings from http://www.teachthought.com, Teach Thought’s website has this blurb about their director:

Terry Heick is a former English teacher turned education dreamer who is interested in how learning is changing in a digital and connected world. This includes, among other changes, the rise of self-directed learning.

He is also interested in the power of questions, the role of play in learning, clarifying digital literacy, the flexibility of project-based learning, marrying mobile learning and place-based education (especially through mentoring), the potential of video games and simulations in learning, what it really means to “understand” something, and how all of this produces wisdom and self-knowledge in students.

In addition to his work with TeachThought, he also presents at national conferences, provides professional development for schools, blogs for edutopia, and creates content for companies including learn.ist.

With their permission, I am reprinting their blog post in its entirety:

Hattie’s Index Of Teaching & Learning Strategies: 39 Effect Sizes In Ascending Order

, , Leave a comment

An Index Of Teaching & Learning Strategies: 39 Effect Sizes In Ascending Orderby Dana Schon, sai-iowa.org

Effect Size Defined

Statistically speaking, the strength of the relationship between two variables. John Hattie, Professor of Education and Director of the Melbourne Education Research Institute at the University of Melbourne, Australia, says ‘effect sizes’ are the best way of answering the question ‘what has the greatest influence on student learning?’

Effect Size Applied

  • Reverse effects are self-explanatory, and below 0.0
  • Developmental effects are 0.0 to 0.15, and the improvement a child may be expected to show in a year simply through growing up, without any schooling. (These levels are determined with reference to countries with little or no schooling.)
  • Teacher effects “Teachers typically can attain d=0.20 to d=0.40 growth per year—and this can be considered average”…but subject to a lot of variation.
  • Desired effects are those above d=0.30 (Wiliam, Lee, Harrison, and Black 2004) and d=0.40 (Hattie, 1999) which are attributable to the specific interventions or methods being researched– changes beyond natural maturation or chance.
  • Blatantly obvious effects: An effect-size of d=1.0 indicates an increase of one standard deviation… A one standard deviation increase is typically associated with advancing children’s achievement by two to three years*, improving the rate of learning by 50%, or a correlation between some variable (e.g., amount of homework) and achievement of approximately r=0.50. When implementing a new program, an effect-size of 1.0 would mean that, on average, students receiving that treatment would exceed 84% of students not receiving that treatment.
 Cohen (1988) argued that an effect size of d=1.0 should be regarded as a large, blatantly obvious, and grossly perceptible difference [such as] the difference between a person at 5’3″ (160 cm) and 6’0″ (183 cm)—which would be a difference visible to the naked eye.

Effect Size CAUTION

Reduce temptation to oversimplify. This is one more resource in our efforts to problem-solve on behalf of our students. We need to be careful about drawing too definite a conclusion from an effect size without examining the study. For example, homework is shown to have an overall effect size of 0.29, which is low and well below the average of 0.40. But when you look more closely, you find that primary students gain least from homework (d = 0.15) while secondary students have greater gains (d = 0.64).

Editor’s Note

Data is only as useful as its application. As hinted at above, don’t fall into the trap of assuming the teaching and learning strategies and other impacts on student achievement at the top of the list are “bad,” and those at the bottom are “good.” These are not recommendations, but rather a comprehensive synthesis of a huge amount of data. Every study has a story, and every strategy and impacting agent below has a background.

The most helpful part of this chart–and the reason we asked Dana to share her work here–was the column on the right where she adds a short statement or tidbit that helped contextualize the data point. Otherwise, judging purely by the chart, inquiry-based learning. self-directed learning,  class size, and teacher content knowledge perform terribly, while skipping a year, reciprocal teaching, and teaching of study skills are through the roof.

Ultimately, to best use this data to inform teaching and planning, every study we need to be looked at on its own. We would need to clarify what the terms were for success. We’d also need to plainly clarify the definition for every word and phrase for every impacting agent and strategy so that we were all speaking the same language. We would then need to identify and analyze other variables in each study–inquiry with or without technology, with or without access to local communities, with students reading at, below, and above grade level, using culturally relevant or irrelevant text, and so on.

Which makes two of his books–Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn, and Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement–must-buys so that you can do that kind of analysis on your own rather than skimming a blog post and extracting misguided takeaways (which is why we hesitated to publish it to begin with). That said, the results of the synthesizing of the data appear below.

Also, we used a new embedding host for the document. If you have trouble viewing or scrolling, let us know in comments, via email, or on twitter!

What Has The Greatest Influence On Learning? A Synthesis Of Hattie’s Synthesis

Retention (holding back a year)

-0.13

 Repeating a grade. Also negatively correlated with social/emotional adjustment, behavior, and self-concept.
Open vs traditional learning spaces

0.01

 Open classrooms range widely in features—not correlated to increases in achievement.
Student control over learning

0.04

 Effect of student choice and control over learning is somewhat higher on motivation outcomes than achievement outcomes, but neither have major consequences on learning and too many choices can be overwhelming.
Teacher subject matter knowledge

0.09

 Little data to support claim that teacher content knowledge is critical to student achievement. Darling-Hammond claims content knowledge influential up to some level of basic competence but less so thereafter. Since publishing Visible Learning, Hattie has studied this topic more in depth and has shared that the issue is a pedagogical issue—teaching is occurring at a surface level such that deep content knowledge has not presented itself as influential or not. Expert teachers know how to connect their content to other relevant issues and content and how to organize that content.
Ability grouping/tracking/streaming

0.12

 Refers to whether classes are heterogeneous or homogeneous. Studies consider achievement effects and equity effects. More than 300 studies show tracking has minimal effects on learning outcomes and “profound negative equity effects.”Separate gifted programming is not considered in this set of studies—see ability grouping for gifted.
Gender (male compared with female achievement)

0.12

 Males and females are more alike than they are different, and differences are minor. 2,926 studies all point to the same conclusion. “The differences between males and females should not be of major concern to educators.”
Matching teaching with student learning styles

0.17

 Contends different students have differing preferences for particular ways of learning—auditory, visual, tactile, or kinesthetic, for example. No gains in achievement found when teacher matched instruction to preferred modality.  Much skepticism surrounding claims around learning preferences. Research does not support correlation between matching learning style and increased achievement.
Within-class grouping

0.18

 Defined as “teacher’s practice of forming groups of students of similar ability within an individual class.” Such groups that were studied were formed on semi-permanent basis. This is different from grouping for purpose of targeting instruction toward a specific skill area in which a heterogeneous group (achievement-wise) needs support for a short amount of time/intervention. Effects on research re: within class grouping (excluding gifted) was higher when class size was above 35—i.e. students in class sizes over 35 benefitted from small group instruction. Different from small group learning, defined as teacher assigning a task to small group and expecting them to complete.
Extra-Curricular

0.19

 Not a high correlation between extra-curriculars and achievement—sports is even lower than academic-related activities like speech/drama/music; however, because students enjoy activities, they are engaged and keep attending schools where they “gain the dividend of instruction in more academic subjects.” Effects from activities were found to be more related to identity formation and peer self-esteem, which are especially important to adolescents.
Reducing class size 

(Reduce from 25-15, effect between 0.10 to 0.20)

0.21

 Effects may be higher for working conditions which may or may not translate into effects on learning. For smaller class size to yield higher effects, the type of instruction needs to be re-conceptualized to ensure the needs of all students are met within whatever the class size. Need to focus on strategies that are maximized in smaller or larger groups and apply respectively.
Individualized instruction 

(Note: NOT special education)

0.22

 Based on ideas that each student has unique interests and past learning experiences, and individualized program takes this into account. Allows for student flexibility and individual differences. Small effect, but one study claimed higher effects based upon teacher adapting instruction to needs of students and aligning to capability in addition to finding resources that were fitting. Other whole class/group influences like peer tutoring have higher effects.
School finance

0.23

 Minimal relationship between educational expenditure and student achievement; more positive correlation between expenses for cost of instruction (e.g. teacher salaries and instructional supplies) and achievement. Not amount of money spent, but how it is spent.
Teaching test-taking and coaching

0.27

 Many studies around SAT preparation show influence impacted by length of coaching/training. Other studies indicate that familiarizing students with the examination process and examiner can make a difference, more so than test prep. Students in the low SES group performed significantly higher on standardized tests when they were familiar with the examiner.
Homework 

(Note: Elementary effect size of 0.15, and high school of 0.64)

0.29

 Involves “tasks assigned to students by teachers that are meant to be carried out during non-school hours.” Effects twice as large for high as for junior high, and twice as large again for junior high as for elementary. Smallest effects in math. Largest in science and social studies with English in the middle. Effects greater for higher than lower ability students. Homework for some reinforces that they cannot learn by themselves. Can undermine motivation and internalize incorrect routines and strategies.
Inquiry-based teaching 

(Note: Hattie wondered why effect wasn’t higher and since publishing, has learned that teaching content so students have some background knowledge about which they are inquiring increases effect)

0.31

 Art of developing challenging situations—students observe and question phenomena, pose explanations, devise and conduct experiments, collect data, analyze data, draw conclusions, design and build models, or any combination. Open-ended. Greater effects when teaching process rather than content. Shown to produce transferable critical thinking skills.
Using simulations and gaming

0.33

 Typically involves use of model or game (such as role playing, decision-making) with an aim to engage students in learning. Aims to mimic real-world problems.
Decreasing disruptive behavior

0.34

 Teachers need skills to ensure no student disrupts his/her own learning or that of others. Argument is NOT that disruptive student should be removed.
Computer-assisted instruction 

(Note: Web-based learning, interactive video methods, and simulations are analyzed separately)

0.37

 25 times out of 100, computer-aided instruction in the form of tutoring, managing, simulation, enrichment, programming, and/or problem-solving will make a positive difference. Majority of studies are about teachers using computers in instruction compared to those who don’t—fewer about students using them in learning in different ways. Use of computers more effective when a diversity of teaching strategies, when teachers receive pre-training in their use, when multiple opportunities for learning, when the student (not teacher) is in control of learning, when peer learning is optimized, and when feedback is optimized.
Integrated curricular programs (e.g. global studies class that incorporates both science and social studies or thematic unit– Friendship)

0.39

 More effective in elementary and middle school than high school. Greater effect when instruction was organized around a theme (0.46) and process skills were emphasized (0.36). Greater effect for lower achieving compared to middle and higher achieving students and when more experienced teachers implemented.

Effect Size greater than 0.4 effects student achievement

How to develop high expectations for each teacher 

(Note: Hattie contends teachers must stop over-emphasizing ability and start emphasizing progress—steep learning curves are the RIGHT of ALL students regardless of where they start. Be prepared to be surprised!)

0.43

 Studies included effects related to the notion of self-fulfilling prophecy—teachers are more likely to have their students reach their expected outcomes regardless of the “veracity” of the outcomes. Studies in this meta-analysis also show students know they are treated differentially in the classroom due to expectations by teachers for certain students to take AP courses, for example, or others to pursue technical fields.
Professional development on student achievement

0.51

 Research re: PD seems to focus more on changes in teachers rather than impact on student outcomes. PD likely to change teacher learning but has less effect on teacher behavior. PD in science has highest effects on student outcomes (0.94) then writing (0.88). Seven themes re: what works best in PD were advocated as a result of 72 studies.
Home environment

0.52

 Includes measures of the socio-psychological environment and intellectual stimulation in the home. Most highly correlated factors with achievement were maternal involvement, variety and play materials.
Peer influences on achievement

0.53

 Studies include a variety of influences: peer tutoring, helping, friendship, and giving feedback. Studies examining what happens when a student moves schools show single greatest predictor of subsequent success is whether student makes friend in first month.
Phonics instruction

0.54

 Teaching students the alphabetic code. Designed for beginners in early elementary.
Providing worked examples

0.57

 Typically consist of a problem statement and the appropriate steps to a solution. Three steps: introductory phase, acquisition/training phase, test phase (assess learning). Reduces cognitive load for students such that they concentrate on the processes that lead to the correct answer and not just providing an answer.
Cooperative vs individualistic learning

0.59

 Most powerful when students have acquired sufficient background knowledge to be involved in discussion and learning w/peers. Most useful when learning concepts, verbal problem-solving, spatial problem-solving, retention and memory.  Effects increase with age.
Direct instruction

0.59

 Not to be confused with didactic teacher-led talking from the front. Refers to 7 major steps:

  1. Teacher specifies learning outcomes/intentions
  2. Teacher knows and communicates success criteria
  3. Builds commitment and engagement in learning task (the hook)
  4. Lesson design: input, model, check for understanding
  5. Guided practice
  6. Closure
  7. Independent practice

Speaks to power of stating learning intentions/outcomes and communicating standards for performance and then engaging students in getting there. Effects were found to be similar for regular education and special education—i.e. direct instruction is effective for all.
Concept mapping

0.60

 Involves development of graphical representations of the conceptual structure of content to be learned. Importance of concept mapping is in its emphasis on summarizing main ideas in what is to be learned. Assists in synthesizing and identifying major ideas, themes, and interrelationships.
Comprehension programs 

(Interesting note: Hattie did not find a 4th grade reading slump, just no growth or increase during upper elementary years. Several possible reasons for plateau: most curricula does not attend to reading progressions, lack of building upon learning to read once students have learned to read, and possibly perceived “unimportant” reading difficulties appear for the first time in Grade 5 when students encounter information materials and multiple text types requiring more inference and comprehension.

0.60

 Comprehension programs with dominant focus on processing strategies (e.g. inferential reasoning, rules for summarizing, and chunking texts) produced higher effect than did text programs (e.g. repetition of concepts and explicitness) and task programs.
Teaching learning strategies

0.62

 Teaching kids how to learn and developing students’ strategies for learning. Need to provide students with learning strategies in the context of learning, a chance to practice, and assurance that the strategies are effective. Need to understand intention to use, consistency in appropriate use ,and knowing when chosen strategy is effective—learning to learn or self-regulation.
Teaching study skills

0.63

 To get to deeper levels of understanding and effectiveness, combine study skills instruction with the content.
Vocabulary programs

0.67

 Students who experienced vocabulary instruction experienced major improvements in reading comprehension and overall reading skills. Most effective vocabulary instruction included providing both definitional and contextual information, involved students in deeper processing, and gave students more than 1 or 2 exposures to the word to be learned.
How to accelerate learning (e.g. skipping a year)

0.68

 Other forms of acceleration include compacting curriculum, telescoping curriculum, and advanced placement. No negative social effects for accelerated students were supported by the research. Effect size for 2 meta-analyses and 37 studies regarding all forms of acceleration was 0.88.
How to better teach meta-cognitive strategies

0.69

 Meta-cognitive strategies refer to those “thinking about thinking” strategies: planning how to approach a learning task, evaluating progress, and monitoring comprehension. Self-questioning is another meta-cognitive strategy.
Teacher-student relationships

0.72

 Interestingly, “when students, parents, teachers and principals were asked about what influences student achievement, all BUT the teachers emphasized the relationships between the teachers and the students.” “Building relationships implies agency, efficacy, respect by the teacher for what the student brings to the class (from home, culture, and peers) and recognition of the life of the student.”
Reciprocal teaching

0.74

 Teaching cognitive strategies intended to lead to improved learning outcomes. Emphasis on teachers enabling students to learn and use strategies such as summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting. Dialogue between teacher and students around text. Students take turns as teacher and lead dialogue to bring meaning to written word with assistance to learn to monitor their own learning and thinking.
How to provide better feedback

0.75

 Among most powerful of influences, especially when it is from the student to the teacher. If the teacher is open to feedback regarding what students know and understand, where they make errors, when they have misconceptions, and when they are disengaged, then they can respond accordingly.  Feedback is about providing information about the task performance. Effect sizes from these studies show considerable variability, meaning some forms of feedback are more powerful than others. Least effective: programmed instruction, praise, punishment, and extrinsic rewards. Feedback is more effective when it provides information on correct rather than incorrect responses and when it builds on changes from previous trials.
Providing formative evaluation to teachers

0.90

 Refers to teachers attending to what is happening for each student in their classrooms as a result of their instruction—when teachers ask, “How am I doing?” Highest effects when teachers seek evidence on where students are not doing well.
Teacher credibility in the eyes of the students 

(Note: This link is to an interesting article on credibility and how to build it: http://bit.ly/WRZ5iA)

0.90

 “If a teacher is not perceived as credible, the students just turn off. If a student doesn’t get (the value of education) by the age of 8, they are behind for most of the rest of their school life. Students are very perceptive about knowing which teachers can make a difference to their learning. And teachers who command this credibility are most likely to make the difference.”
How to develop high expectations for each student

1.44

 Refers to students’ expectations for and beliefs in themselves. Involves students predicting or self-reporting their grades. Implications: teachers need to provide opportunities for students to be involved in predicting their performance. “Making the learning intentions and success criteria transparent, having high, but appropriate, expectations, and providing feedback at the appropriate levels is critical to building confidence in taking on challenging tasks.”

 

(See above for effect sizes and context/explanation.)

  1. Retention (holding back a year)
  2. Open vs traditional learning spaces
  3. Student control over learning
  4. Teacher subject matter knowledge
  5. Ability grouping/tracking/streaming
  6. Gender (male compared with female achievement)
  7. Matching teaching with student learning styles
  8. Within-class grouping
  9. Extra-Curricular
  10. Reducing class size
  11. Individualized instruction
  12. School finance
  13. Teaching test-taking and coaching
  14. Homework
  15. Inquiry-based teaching
  16. Using simulations and gaming
  17. Decreasing disruptive behavior
  18. Computer-assisted instruction
  19. Integrated curricular programs
  20. How to develop high expectations for each teacher
  21. Professional development on student achievement
  22. Home environment
  23. Peer influences on achievement
  24. Phonics instruction
  25. Providing worked examples
  26. Cooperative vs individualistic learning
  27. Direct instruction
  28. Concept mapping
  29. Comprehension programs
  30. Teaching learning strategies
  31. Teaching study skills
  32. Vocabulary programs
  33. How to accelerate learning (e.g. skipping a year)
  34. How to better teach meta-cognitive strategies
  35. Teacher-student relationships
  36. Reciprocal teaching
  37. How to provide better feedback
  38. Providing formative evaluation to teachers
  39. Teacher credibility in the eyes of the students