H De Blasio ICSEI2016 learning without limits

Interna'onal Congress for School Effec'veness

and Improvement

Connec'ng teachers, schools and systems:

Crea'ng the condi'ons for effec've learning

Glasgow, Scotland Jan 2016

Heather De Blasio ,

Director of Learning and Teaching Excellence

D. Ed candidate University of Melbourne

Learning without limits: how a narra've of growth is driving professional learning that makes a difference to the quality of teacher

prac'ce

Conference subtheme: Teacher effec*veness, teacher

quality and professional learning

Structure of presenta*on a)The context b) The model : developmental learning and

teaching (Griffin 2014), what is it? c) How is the ini*a*ve being undertaken (and

ra*onale) d) Barriers and enablers e) The impact : teacher percep*ons f) The impact: student percep*ons g) Relevance and resonance

a) The context Wilderness School :

•  girls, independent, non-‐denomina'onal, high fee paying, Adelaide, South Australia

•  131 years old

•  Mission-‐ ‘to enable each girl to be the best that she can be throughout her life’

•  Highly Successful – according to a raX of academic indicators

The context (cont) If educa*onal success and quality is measured by academic outcomes, what can an already successful school do beMer to keep improving ?

•  interrogate our prac*ces, iden*fy needs, ensure alignment with mission

•  examine educa*onal research and school improvement(SI)/teacher effec*veness research (TER) literature

•  select what is ‘known’ to work and can be adapted to our context

HaZe: the ‘right’ or the ‘wrong’ ques'ons? According to HaSe (2014), if you ask the wrong ques*ons, you get the wrong answers and end up with the wrong focus for educa*onal reforms.

HaSe defines the ‘wrong’ ques*ons as those which are part of a narrow educa*onal narra*ve focusing on academic outcomes, or the lack thereof.

If you ask the ‘right’ ques*ons (choosing a narra*ve of individual growth and progress), you obtain more per*nent answers, with more explicit direc*ons for reform, and more hope of greater improvement for all.

A narra've of growth – •  Matches our needs -‐ data from NAPLAN:

high achievement, but some uneven levels of growth

•  aligns with our mission: to enable each girl to be the best she can be, throughout her life

•  provides clear direc*ons for improvement

Pressing Issue: How can we ensure that we are engaging in educa*onal prac*ces which are enabling each student to achieve the level of growth not only expected by normal matura*on, but also to exceed that level?

OUR SOLUTION: ‘Learning without limits: a narra*ve of growth’ Research Base: HaSe (2012) Masters (2014) Griffin (2014) Richhart (2015)

Solu'on : Learning without limits Research base

Masters (2014): use assessment to ”establish and understand where learners are in an aspect of their learning at the *me of assessment” HaSe (2012) : establish progressions of what learning and progress look like in each subject discipline, so that students can be given feedback on how am I going, where am I going, where to next?

Solu'on : Learning without limits Griffin (2014) : to use a developmental approach to learning and assessment, wri*ng developmental progressions/rubrics to document/describe in behavioural terms how increasing competency typically develops. From these, iden*fy ZPD and target teaching at these zones – so that all students can progress. Ritchhart (2015): our expecta*ons for students – learning, independence, effort

Where are we going? Strategic priority (2016 and beyond):

“By implemen*ng a developmental model of learning and teaching, we will provide each girl with the

opportunity to achieve academic growth”

b) The model What is Griffin’s developmental learning model Synthesis of the theories of Rasch, Glaser and Vygotsky (Griffin, 2007). “Essen*ally we work in a social construc*vist theory of learning aMributed mostly to Vygotsky. We have however added criterion referenced interpre*ve frameworks [Glaser] and the psychometric models of Rasch. Many people interpret the term developmental in terms of psychological age groups. We’re certainly not in that game. Piaget is far too determinis*c” (Griffin, pers. comm. 20.9.15).

b) The model What is Griffin’s developmental learning model? Based on no*on that the aim of educa*on is development: “the movement of student learning along a path of increasingly complex knowledge, skills and abili*es” (Griffin, 2014) Recognises the developmental level at which students are actually opera*ng and targets instruc*on to focus on the skills the student needs to develop in order to move to the next level. The focus is on development! Opposed to a ‘deficit’ model Deficit approaches to diagnosis of student learning focus on the things that students cannot do and then aMempts to remediate them. This approach is insufficient to improve learning (Griffin, 2014).

b) The model : how does it work?

Emphasises growth and development for all students High expecta*ons for all students -‐ every student has an expecta*on that they will develop by the maximum of which they are capable within a par*cular *me Size of the leap is not important Not just about helping students who are struggling, but to concentrate on all students-‐ and this is the strength of a developmental approach. Targe*ng teaching: the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) Concept well established in the literature (Armstrong 2014: Wasser & Golding, 2014), but how to do it not necessarily so well understood Teachers develop, then use rubrics (describe progression of skills in a par*cular area), to assess student’s current level of achievement and what they are ready to learn (Griffin, 2014)

GuMman Chart – ZPD Groups

b) The model : evidence?

Research regarding teaching targeted at the ZPD using developmental model: -‐  ARC & Cath Ed Office (Melbourne, 2005-‐2006) 19 schools – all students

progressed in reading comprehension: (Griffin, Murray, Care, Thomas & Perri, 2010

-‐  Reading comprehension Years 3-‐10 and various aspects of numeracy. Doubled or tripled the average annual growth expected from process of maturity (Griffin, 2012)

-‐  Early high school students learn English adverbs beMer and deeper in their ZPD (2nd Language acquisi*on) (Rezaee & Rizvi, 2012)

-‐  Effec*ve use of the ZPD can improve Mathema*cs achievement in the schools (Denhere, Chinyoka, Mambeu, 2012)

-‐  Targeted teaching at ZPD for cri*cal thinking (Wass & Golding, 2014)

c) How the ini*a*ve is being undertaken •  Whole School Professional Learning program – related to strategic

intent •  Driven by no*on of reciprocal accountability ‘For every increment of performance I demand from you, I have an equal responsibility to provide you with the capacity to meet that expecta*on (Elmore, 2002, p. 5) -‐  Leadership expecta*ons of staff -‐  Provision of the resources needed -‐  Regular feedback to monitor and adjust •  Underpinned by principles of effec*ve professional learning from

the Teacher Effec*veness research (TER) from within the School Improvement (SI) literature

•  About ‘con*nuously improving the 100%’ e.g. all teachers (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012, p. 21)

How the ini'a've is being undertaken •  working directly with the academic experts, not watered

down or filtered (Harris, 2014) Partnership with Assessment Research Centre Melbourne University (Michael Francis – semi re*red, co-‐author), staged professional learning – to introduce developmental learning and assessment (based on Assessment for Teaching model)

•  Whole school approach: ELC to Y12 •  Across the curriculum: subject areas, general capabili*es e.g.

literacy & numeracy, student leadership, wellbeing etc. •  Monitoring teacher aStudes (Krathwohl’s Taxonomy of the

Affec*ve Domain, feedback)

How the ini'a've is being undertaken •  Consistent with Darling-‐Hammond et al’s (2009) claim -‐

providing *me for teachers to work in teams (both discipline based, cross-‐disciplinary, cross-‐age) and focusing on student learning and addressing curriculum content (working in teams to construct developmental rubrics/con*nuum describing what progress looks like in their subject area)

•  Ongoing and intense and on-‐the-‐job (Darling-‐Hammond et al 2009) -‐Focus of whole school PL days. School provides *me (PLT), small group/pair/individual sessions with Michael Francis and myself

•  Teachers set SMART goals each semester •  Teachers reflect in wri*ng each semester on their progress,

impact on prac*ce and what their next step is •  This feedback informs next steps in PL program

How are we going? What has been accomplished: •  Rubrics wriMen and trialed with students –

across the school (all years, subject areas) •  Whole school learning con*nuum-‐ in numeracy,

literacy, student leadership •  Skills con*nuum -‐ for each subject

(Founda*on-‐10)

d) Enablers and Barriers

Barriers

•  Few models to scale of implementa*on to follow •  Transforma*onal nature of change re assessment

Teachers need to ‘unlearn’ prac*ces with which they are very comfortable, skilled and highly successful current assessment paradigm, using qualifiers and counts/ pseudo counts to dis*nguish between different levels of student quality some deficit thinking

•  What technology can we leverage?

Enablers

-‐  Full support of leadership (walking the walk etc) -‐  Provision of resources -‐  Established cross-‐disciplinary/cross school PLTs -‐  Established expecta*on that professional learning ‘should’

make a difference to classroom prac*ce and student outcomes

-‐  Can-‐do school -‐  Highly commiMed teachers – high level of commitment to

mission, values of school – most devoted to con*nually improving teaching prac*ce, assis*ng students to grow

e) The impact – teacher’s perspec*ves

Jan 2015 (anonymous survey of teaching staff) at end 1st PD

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Waste of Time Prepared to Listen Par*cipate See the worth I want to incorporate this

Before PD

Awer PD

“

Towards end of Term 1, 2015

Impact : on teachers? The voices of teachers

The 3me ….has been professionally rewarding. It has challenged my way of thinking about assessment and in par3cular really analysing assessment tasks from the view of the end user (i.e. The Girls). I have no doubt that this will assist girls to clearly understand what is required to move to the next level and to guide them in each task. (Yr 10 Science) These rubrics have made us ar3culate what it is that we already know about student progress in the development of skills. (Yr 7 English) It makes the progression much clearer for students and makes my job of informing and assessing easier, as the criteria are clear (Senior Biology)

“

Impact: on teachers

The voices of teachers Our girls were able to self assess their oral presenta3ons and iden3fy learning inten3ons to help them improve (Y 6) This had had enormous impact on our pedagogical knowledge and confirma*on of our image of the child as a learner. Meaningful dialogue and not just discussion between educators to confirm and ar*culate our approaches is vital to exploring our philosophy and ideology. Challenging and having passionate discussion to dare to disagree….. (ELC)

“

Impact: on teachers The voices of teachers This was a 'game changing' experience for me. Michael was fantas3c. There are so many 'bad' Art rubrics out there! We have a lot of work ahead of us in developing rubrics for such a broad, mul3faceted subject area. AMer trialling a rubric and receiving feedback from my Year 7 classes, I realised the need for breaking down Art language even further to create a rubric that students understand and engage with for added value. (Primary Art) I find myself having conversa4ons with my students in a depth, complexity and specificity that I have never done before (Yr 12 Legal Studies) I can see how powerful these will be in shiMing control of learning to the students, empowering them to know where they are and what their next steps are, and also in helping teachers monitor growth in a systema3c and transparent manner. This transparency will be very powerful in building a learning community, through shared understanding of development, parents, teachers and students will be able to use them to facilitate discussion and support student learning.

“

c) The impact: student views (Year 6)

Video clip of Year 6 student views has been removed for privacy purposes

Design & Development: RUBRIC-‐ to be used by students to self-‐ assess their draw, by teacher to assess their skills, obtain baseline data, provide feedback to students on their draw 1.  A general construct developed based on Blooms

revised, SOLO, Reliable rubrics website, teacher experience (see Appendix/AMachment 1)

2.  Ini*al Draw (see Appendix 2) created 3.  Feedback from panelling with other Senior English

teachers, Michael Francis, students 4.  Further draws

2. Rubrics

2016 and beyond – Further ongoing professional learning with Michael Francis and myself regarding: -‐ how to iden*fy zones of proximal development through the rubrics and GuMman charts and iden*fy the different levels opera*ng within a classroom -‐  How to then target teaching at the different levels with learning

inten*ons, various forms of scaffolding (which teachers will collaborate to develop)

-‐  Document levels of growth in various elements within subject disciplines and through the Junior School in selected areas

-‐  Engage parents – through PT mee*ngs, video clips, web presence,

-‐  Inves*gate sowware

Where to next?

Early days -‐by end of 2016, clearer idea of impact Poten*al for successful applica*on in other classrooms: Contains elements iden*fied in the SI literature as having an impact on student achievement

-‐ Primacy of the classroom level (EER Muijs et al, 2014) -‐improving teacher prac*ce – direct instruc*on (par*cularly effec*ve for pupils of low SES: Houtveen, Van de Griw, & Creemers, 2004; Sammons, 2007) -‐ interven*on at point of ZPD -‐ increased teacher clarity on how to progress (HaSe, 2009 )

-‐  feedback at self-‐regulatory level (HaSe, 2009) -‐  -‐high teacher expecta*ons – self fulfilling prophecy (Muijs,

Kyriakides, van der werf, Creemers, Earl 2014) Watch this space

Relevance & Resonance

TIME FOR INTERACTION

What ques*ons do you have? What are your take-‐aways?

How might this approach be transferable? [email protected]

@deblah123

Reference List Darling-‐Hammond, L., Wei, R. C.. Andree, A., Richardson, N. & Orphanos, S.(2009). Professional Learning in the Learning Profession. A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. Na*onal Staff Development Council. Denhere, C., Chinyoka, K. Mambeu, J. (2012). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development Theory: What are its Implica*ons for Mathema*cal Teaching? Greener Journal of Social Sciences, 3 (7), pp. 371-‐377, August 2013 Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement. The Impera3ve for Professional Development in Educa3on. Albert Schanker Ins*tute. Retrieved from hMp://nuatc.org/ar*cles/pdf/Bridging_Gap.pdf. Griffin, P. (ed). (2014). Assessment For Teaching. New York. NY: Cambridge University Press. Griffin, P., Murray, L., Care, E., Thomas, A. & Perri, P. (2010). Developmental assessment: liwing literacy through professional learning teams, Assessment in Educa3on: Principles, Policy & Prac3ce, 17:4, pp. 383-‐397, DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2010.516628

Reference List

Griffin, P. "Session L -‐ The influence of teaching strategies on student achievement in higher order skills" (August 27, 2012). 2009 -‐ 2015 ACER Research Conferences. Paper 19. hMp://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference/RC2012/27august/19 Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital. New York: Teachers College Press Harris, A. (2014). Teacher Effec*veness Research and Professional Learning: What if? Interna3onal Council School Effec3veness and Improvement Monograph Series, Issue 4. HaSe, H. (2009). Visible Learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-‐analyses rela3ng to achievement. London: Routledge. HaSe, J. (2012). Visible Learning For Teachers: Maximising impact on learning. Abingdon, Oxen: Routledge. HaSe, J. (2014). ‘Can Australian educa*on become self-‐transforming?’ ACEL Conference. Sept. 2014. Inaugural Patron’s Ora*on. AEL (37 )1

Reference List

Houtveen, A.A.M., Van de Griw, W.J.C.M., & Creemers, B.P.M. (2004). Effec*ve school improvement in mathema*cs. School Effec3veness and School Improvement, 15(3–4), 337–377. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B.S., Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of Educa3onal Objec3ves: Affec3ve Domain. New York. David McKay Com. Masters, G. N. (2014). ‘Assessment: GeSng to the Essence’. Occasional Papers. Centre for Strategic Educa*on. hMp://www.cse.edu.au/content/assessment-‐geSng-‐essence Muijs, D. (2008). Educa*onal Effec*veness and the Legacy of Bert P. M. Creemers. School Effec3veness and School Improvement, 19(4), pp. 463-‐472, Dec 2008 Muijs,D., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Creemers, B.Timperley, H. & Earl, L (2014) State of the art – teacher effec*veness and professional learning, School Effec3veness and School Improvement, 25(2), 231-‐256, DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2014.885451 Puntambekar, S. Hubscher, R. (2005) ‘Tools for Scaffolding Students in a Complex Learning Environment: What Have We Gained and What Have We Missed?’ Educa3onal Psychologist. 40(1) 1-‐12.

Reference List

Rezaee, A. & Azizi, Z. (2012). The Role of the Zone of Proximal Development in the Students’ Learning of English Adverbs. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3, (1), pp. 51-‐57, January 2012. DOI: 10.4304/jltr.3.1.51-‐57 Ritchhart, R. (2015). Crea3ng Cultures of Thinking. San Francisco. Jossey-‐Bass. Sammons, P. (2007). School effec3veness & equity: Making connec3ons. Review prepared for CfBT. NoSngham, UK: University of NoSngham, School of Educa*on. hMp://www.c~t.com/~/media/c~tcorporate/files/research/2007/r-‐school-‐effec*veness-‐and-‐equity-‐full-‐2007.pdf Wass, R. & Golding, C. (2014). Sharpening a tool for teaching: the zone of proximal development. Teaching in Higher Educa3on. (19(6), pp. 671-‐684. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2014.901958

H De Blasio ICSEI2016 learning without limits

Education

Transcript of H De Blasio ICSEI2016 learning without limits