Quick Feedback for Teacher Assessments

Working with teachers on assessment is one of the best ways to improve curriculum and instruction practices. Teacher assessment provides a reflective space where there are no political or philosophical arguments - just student data that results from a teacher's design and decision making. This provides a great space to talk to teachers about how they understand what the curriculum is, their approaches to teaching, and the results that they get as a direct result of the relationship between curriculum and instruction. Furthermore, if a teacher has really been paying attention to his or her own assessment practices, it makes data analysis of external assessments more personal and valuable as a source of information.

Reviewing assessments can assist you as the principal with really understanding curriculum and instruction implementation in your school. Of course, you don't want to spend enormous amounts of time going through each individual question, but there are some quick points that can be valuable to both you and the teacher.

1. Is the time assigned to the test/task reasonable? Many teachers make the mistake of trying to test fluency (how automatic a skill is) before they test mastery. This happens when you try to test a large amount of items in a short time or require a complex task to be completed in a short amount of time.

I tell teachers to use the time and a half rule. If it would take you as an expert an hour to do this test/task, then expect for it to take students at least 1 1/2 times amount of time. For instance, a teacher has a 45 minute class period, but they have 30 questions attached to two reading passages and 2 short answer questions. If a student were to finish this test, this would mean that either the questions are very low level or the students are very fast, expert readers who have already mastered the skills in the exam. Neither situation is ideal for assessment and demonstrates that the assessment probably is not going to be worth the class time being used.

I encourage teachers to use less items that are higher quality and have different levels of complexity. They get better information about student performance this way. The purpose of assessment is not to fill up the class period; it is to find out if students have mastered the skills and content taught.

TIP: Make this the first thing that you look at. The size of the task v. the time given will probably help you to develop some very pointed questions that will help you to zero in on feedback for the specific teacher.

2. Does the question/prompt reflect the standards? I encourage teachers to explicitly write the standard/objectives on their assessment. This serves three purposes: one, it helps the teacher to focus on making sure that (s)he is aligning the assessment item to the standard; two, it helps the student know what is being evaluated during the assessment (really important in complex tasks like projects or essays); and, three, it serves as valuable information in data analysis later on. As the administrator, you can also use it to understand how standards are being implemented in your school.

If the standard says to explain but the assessment has the student selecting an answer or giving an opinion, this is not aligned. The result will be that the assessment item isn't that valuable for understanding the effectiveness of instruction or if students are learning.

TIP: Review the teacher's unit/lesson plan before you look at the assessment to make sure you know the standards/objectives and then check to see if the items match

3. Is the assessment organized by standard/objective and then by difficulty level? Assessments that are measuring student performance should be organized first by the standard/objective; within that, the assessment should be organized from the easiest skill/task to the most difficult.

This allows the student to progress through levels of mastery, keeping their attention focused on a specific objective rather than having to sporadically change gears throughout the test (which adds a cognitive skill outside of what is being tested). It also allows the teacher to see the depth of mastery very quickly (hmm, most students score low at the 3rd level of this objective....).

If the teacher is using multiple anchors (reading passages, graphs, etc.) and testing multiple objectives, they should have almost like a protocol for each assessment item, going from easiest to most difficult testing the same skills.

TIP: This is something that you can see fairly quickly and if you use something like Bloom's or Costa's, then you can easily give feedback on the organization and difficulty levels.

Of course, this isn't everything to look for in an assessment, but it is a good start, and will be a strong conversation starter with your teachers. Some have never thought about these issues and others don't know where to start. But, in my experience, the more teachers understand about the assessments they create, the better they get at data analysis and responding to student data. Furthermore, the data begins to have an intrinsic value to the teachers rather than the stench of compliance.

How Do You Define Struggling?

It is now en vogue to use the word "struggling" - it is, in fact, the nice way to say if someone is in need of intervention or has a number of "growth opportunities".  The issue with this is that struggling is not necessarily a bad thing - most of us struggle before we have breakthroughs.  But, how do we define the difference between those who are in the natural progression of learning versus those who need intervention?

I have been grappling with this concept over the past year as I look at and process where my school goes next, but the one thing that persistently comes up in this internal conversation is the fact that everyone can't be struggling.  Everyone can't be in need of intervention.  And, everyone cannot be at the remedial level.

This particular thought is very important because I think that it will define who I am as an administrator as well as the identify of our school.  What are the specific criteria for struggling or in need of intervention versus the need for support and encouragement?  These are two very different strategies, and, to get results, they have to be applied judiciously.

Has it been taught?  In education, I find that we make a lot of assumption about both adults and students.  Is it really fair to label someone as struggling when they actually haven't been taught?  I'm sure that I would be a struggling neurosurgeon having taken no medical courses or having spent any time in an operating room, but in this case would struggling be the right classification?  I love the teaching profession.  I believe that teachers and instruction make a difference.  Part of truly believing in the power of education is believing that instruction occurs before intervention or remediation.

This happens to students when schools and teachers assume that they should just know how to read, how to write, how to do math, etc. when in fact a large group of them do not and have never had the instruction to know it.  We act surprised when students fail to excel on exams when we have no evidence that the curriculum or instruction ever addressed the material.  The students are then blamed for not knowing something that they have never been taught.

This happens to teachers when schools and administrators assume that teachers should be able to implement every best practice and have data analysis skills without any reflection on when teachers became certified or what their schools of education focused on, or, even closer to home, the type of professional development that teachers have had access to.  The teachers are then blamed for not knowing something that they have not been taught.  I don't say this to mean that teachers should not continually seek professional development, but to point out that if you change the expectations for teaching, then you should expect for there to be gaps in teacher knowledge and practice.

The struggling/intervention label should not be used for people who have not actually received instruction in the skills that they are being critiqued on.

What is the mindset?  An administrator shared a great way that she learned about her staff - she said she started every conversation trying to figure out if teachers "can't" or "won't".  This definitely speaks to making sure that people have had access to instruction, but it also points to another important issue - mindset.

Can we define people as "struggling" if they are not putting forth effort?  It seems that this drains resources and energy rather than solving the issue of performance.  When we encounter students who "don't/won't do school", are we pouring money and time into academic interventions that most likely will have little impact unless the mindset is changed?  Are we doing the same with teachers or other staff members in our building who have already made up their minds about what they are or are not going to do?

The struggling/intervention label should not be used for people who we need to have difficult conversations with (and, I do believe that students and their parents can fall into this category as well - everyone is responsible for learning).

What are the resources?  I'm always hesitant to believe everyone is struggling unless I see concrete proof.  The biggest reason is that it is my job, as the administrator, to make sure that the resources that we have are appropriately distributed and targeted to help everyone in my building (child and adults) reach their maximum potential.

If everyone is struggling, then there are only two real options - one, redirect most of your resources to intervention (and some will have to be here regardless of what your data is) or rethink how you work and approach the issue, which means that you have to look at how you allocate resources to: one, ensure initial instruction and programming is effective for the majority of your stakeholders; two, allocate resources to those who need additional instruction and support; and, three, allocate time and resources to foster the environment to have the difficult conversations that will move the organization forward.

This seems to be the real theory between Response to Intervention systems rather than the everyone needs some type of intervention approach that seems to be popular in some schools and places across the country.

I am o.k. with people struggling - this is a natural state for everyone.  I struggle everyday, and I'm sure that I'm not alone.  But, the question is, do we need intervention or do we need a different approach?  And, that is something that everyone in education needs to look very closely at.

What We're Not Getting About Tech Integration

Technology integration will not save schools.  It will not make teachers into super-teachers.  It will not raise the IQ points of students or necessarily their test scores.  These are feats created by human expertise and interaction.  But, what it will do is to help maximize the potential of every person in the building with access and that is why it is important for our schools.

At every turn in history, whenever advancement comes, it is pooh-poohed or treated as charlatanism.  Reading and writing evolved from being evil, to being useless, to being revered.  And, we can see the same pattern emerge over time with many other things that we now overlook as "normal" in our every day lives.  Yet, here we are again, facing another innovation with the same drudgery that school officials looked upon at the introduction of pens and papers to classrooms, and we ask if technology is necessary.

Technology integration provides opportunities that have not existed previously times and has the potential to create real innovation in our concepts of instruction and schooling.  Unfortunately, we seem to lack the imagination to really embrace this.

Time.  Is the most valuable thing in schools, and there isn't enough of it.  You can't get more time, but you can free more of it up.  Technology integration has the ability to automate processes that take time away from administrators, teachers, and students.

File sharing instead of copying.  Auto-reviewing instead of personal review.  Data dashboards instead of data review and collation.  Feedback systems.  Responsive systems that create individualized paths.  Videoconferencing instead of driving to meetings.  Collaborative documents instead of downloading, meeting, uploading, and repeat.

And, what can you do with the time?  Anything that you would like.  Additional time has the potential to improve student achievement and outcomes, and it is the number one thing that everyone says that they need to improve student outcomes.

Enhancement and augmentation.  There is more than one way to skin a cat and individual differences matter.  We talk about literacy and numeracy but we deny many of the aides available by skipping the technology.  Interactive texts, multiple representations, and responsive platforms are available but not in use.  Each of these innovations has some type of research base that demonstrates that they improve student learning and can serve as effective interventions, but we're not using them because we don't have the technology.

Even more interesting is that these aides are available to ALL students and not just students with disabilities, which opens us up to the possibility that literacy and numeracy as we know them will continue to evolve with people using a variety of strategies that maximize their own skills and abilities.  We can expect that this will become a challenge to "traditional" notions of literacy and numeracy as well as to assessment.

Will colleges or workplaces care if students prefer to listen to a text, read a text as its highlighted, or to watch a video version if the student can demonstrate comprehension?  So, why do we?  Will colleges or workplaces care if students write texts using combinations of speech to text applications and grammar correction apps if the product is good?  So, why do we?

Technology integration makes it possible for everyone to rely more on their strengths and to supplement their weaknesses.  Hence the catchphrase, "there's an app for that".

Hybridization of the school-world and the real-world.  Technology allows us to reach beyond our immediate spaces.  We can find information.  We can connect with others.  We can recognize shared problems and solve those problems together.

This isn't to say that our teachers and students should be engage online at all times but to point out the vast number of prospects that are available simply by having the technology available.  In the past few years, we have already seen the ability of young people to contribute innovation to different fields (http://www.oddee.com/item_99064.aspx).  We see heartwarming stories of students able to reach out to their real life mentors and celebrities who make a difference in their lives, and, more importantly to interact with those individual academically, enhancing and solidifying their academic experiences.

We preach that we want this to be a norm, but we aren't necessarily providing the tools to make it a reality.

As important as technology integration is, we can't overlook people.  The people usage of technology in our school is what defines the value of the integration; however, without the technology, how will schools ever advance?  We are in a learning phase in schools - a phase that unfortunately lags behind the world that we are trying to "prepare" our students to enter.  Colleges and workplaces are technology integrated already, and we already see the innovations that occur happen quickly and frequently.  Colleges and workplaces are not static and are being defined by adaptability - an adaptability that we are not preparing teachers or students for.  And, among the least prepared, will be our low-income students whose families can't afford home technology or continuous, uninterrupted access to smartphones, which are looked upon by many as a "staple" possession.

So, we may not know everything there is to know about technology integration or it's impact on school outcomes, but we do know that the world will keep progressing technologically, while our schools may or may not.

As an administrator, I've been questioned about my focus on technology in schools, and I can share this with everyone.  This year, my school went 1:1, and I have seen a slow evolution building in our classrooms - I see more students engaged, I see teachers changing their approaches to teaching (because they can), and I see collaboration, not only among the adults, not only among the students, but also between the adults and the students.  It starts off small and then it starts to spread.

From what I have seen, I do not believe that technology integration, by itself, will improve my school's outcomes, but I do believe that the people, in my building, using that technology, will.  And, that their success will come as a result of me believing in them and providing them with the tools and space to innovate.  Every day that I walk into the building, I am just beginning to see what is possible and that is what many people do not get about technology integration.

Assessment's Missing Link: Success Criteria

There's a missing link in assessment.  That's why everyone is talking about it.  We have standards.  We have assessments. But, they aren't connecting, and they aren't helping students.  Many of us are missing a step - we don't have success criteria.

Success criteria are called by many names - mastery levels, student level objectives, etc., but many are not equivalent to their actual definition.  Some of you are thinking, but we have rubrics, interim exams, and test banks.  We have common objectives.  We have mastery targets (80% of the questions).  You may have all of these things but these are components of testing, not success criteria.

Success criteria are the defined levels of student performance that articulate what student performance actually looks like.  Success criteria answer the question, "How do we know that the students have mastered the objective?".  Oftentimes, teachers begin to tell me how they will test students (bellringers, discussions) or the frequency of answers (they can answer 6 of the 10 questions).

This is the catch: success criteria are created before any actual assessment tool is created (rubrics, exams, projects, etc.).  This is often overlooked when we talk about assessment.  

Professional test developers:

1.  Define performance levels

2.  Sketch or blueprint assessments

3.  Create assessments

But, in schools, we tend to simply create assessments.  The most common error that we make is that we equate rubrics or percentages correct to success criteria.  Rubrics/percentatges are used to evaluate products; success criteria describe objective performance.  

Here's an example.

A teacher has decided that she is going to assign an essay (assessment tool) to her class.  She is doing this to test how well her students can use supporting details to support a claim (objective).  

What is on her rubric?  She has 5 categories: Main Idea, Supporting Details, Grammar, Neatness, and Outline.  For each of the categories, she creates 4 levels of description.  Sounds great, right?  Except that she has been teaching supporting details, not the 4 other categories.  

Depending upon how she writes the descriptions, she may or may not describe mastery. Additionally, it is possible for a student to get a grade that does not necessarily reflect mastery of their ability to use supporting details since this category is conflated with four other categories (so, a student could have a very neat paper, with an outline, a clear main idea, and great grammar, and STILL do well even though they haven't mastered supporting details).

Let's look at the difference between a rubric and success criteria.  

Rubric Example:  

At a level 4 on the rubric, a student provides 6-8 supporting details for the main idea in each paragraph.  The details are clear and support the main idea.

At a level 3, a student provides 4-6 supporting details for the main idea in each paragraph.  The details are overall clear and support the main idea with one or two exceptions.

Success Criteria Example:

 At a level 4, the student is able to provide explicit and inferential details to support the main idea.  The student uses transition words and gives explanations that clearly articulate the relationship between the details and the main idea to create a logical text.  The details are a mix of direct quotes, paraphrases, and the student's interpretation.  

At a level 3, the student is able to provide explicit details to support the main idea.  The student mostly uses transition words and explanations that clearly articulate the relationship between the details and the main idea to create a logical text.  The details are a mix of direct quotes, paraphrases, and the student's interpretation.

As administrators, we really want to hear the success criteria, but we often get the rubric instead.  Note that the success criteria can be used in conjunction with the rubric.  The rubric can adopt the success criteria as it's descriptions, but the rubric CANNOT replace the success criteria.

Success criteria are about learning - it helps both teachers and students to identify the gaps and the possible next steps for instruction.  Rubrics, multiple choice questions, etc. ON THEIR OWN are very limited in their ability to do this because they are designed for specific testing events, not student learning; whereas, success criteria can be continually used regardless of activity, test, or context.  Success criteria can also do something assessment tools by themselves cannot do - guide the alignment of instruction, activities, and TEACHER FEEDBACK (what is outlined in the success criteria should be what you hear and see in classroom/assignment feedback) and prevent classes from falling into the abyss of confusion (what were we learning today?).

If we take more time and create viable success criteria, they can be used to build common understanding of standards implementation and student mastery across classrooms and disciplines, not just common testing.

This is not a quick and easy process - it's not one or two sit down meetings, this is meaningful work that develops over time from looking at student work and assessment results, but it is work worth doing when everyone understands what is supposed to be going on rather than using their individual interpretations.

NOTE: PARCC actually provides it's Common Core standards interpretations.  In fact, any and all standardized exams provide their interpretation of standards (they may create their own standards), but these can be found on their websites in their test blueprint areas.

If you are interested in PARCC, I have written a blog about the particular site page that you may want to check out.  http://principalinstruction.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-mecca-of-parcc-assessment-page-you.html

Thanks for giving me a few minutes of your time.  Looking forward to your comments.

A Single Point of Data: Avoiding the Telephone Game

Cartoon courtesy of thadguy.com

Over the last couple of years, I have seen the following quote used to bolster arguments against data: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics".  The quote is often attributed to mark Twain, however, the original source is contested.  The actual quote that Mark Twain made in "Chapters from My Autobiography" (1906) was "Figures often beguile me particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"

Like this quote, we often only depend on part of the data when we do interpretations, leading to unnecessary misunderstanding and caustic arguments.  The simple fact is that there is not one single data point that can tell a story on it's own.  Some people will say that the argument is about the numbers and will follow up with several anecdotes: the issue with this is that anecdotes are data themselves.

As administrators, our role is to create a story about our school's performance, using multiple data points and to ensure that these data points accurately portray our schools.  As we build our stories, we should make sure that we are clear about:

1.  The meaning of the data point.  Whenever data points are published, a definition is also published.  The interpretation of that data point is limited to that definition.  A single data point can contribute to an evaluation, but cannot serve as an evaluation itself.

Our role as administrators is to make sure that everyone understands the definitions of the data points that are used.

2.  Clusters of data tell stories, individual data points do not.  Summative data is a great starting point for understanding your school, but it most likely does not tell the whole story.  Use summative data as a starting point to find out your school's story.

I used to crunch data for a group of schools, and you would be surprised how far off base people's beliefs were about a school that they were sitting in based on the summative data that they received. They accepted the summative data even though their day to day experiences contrasted with the data.

Is your attendance really low, or are there data entry errors?  Do you have a large number of students cutting, or are your offices forgetting to submit attendance for them?  

How many of your students were within 1-2 questions of meeting proficiency? 

What percentage of your students have been disciplined and what are they being disciplined for? 

Our role as the administrator is to tell a story with the data, not just to report out what is given to us.

3.  Alignment: Systems, resources/training, processes, THEN people.  Summative data is OUTCOME data.  It is a reflection of SYSTEMS, not people.  This is why the role of the principal is so important - we lead the design of the systems.   

It is important to make sure that the data points you use align to the appropriate level (i.e. standardized test scores can be used to identify curriculum issues (system), but not resource or teaching issues), so it makes sense to people when you explain your strategies and to your staff as they work day to day. Weaknesses in resources/training, processes, or people all point to some system flaw.  Correcting at any of these levels may create short-term gains, but only system changes create long-term gains. Strategies based on changes or replacement of people are the riskiest and can cost you the most - that's why it's important that data is not used to blame people but to correct structures.

Failure to ensure the correct alignment leads to an over dependence on individual data points and misinterpretation.

Our role as the administrator is to make sure that the main thing is actually the main thing.

Many people are intimidated by statistics and this can lead to a multitude of issues.  As administrators, becoming data proficient can be a big support to our stakeholders and help everyone stay focused on improvement rather than blame.

If you're new to working with data, you may want to check out my post about managing your school data, "Getting Muddy: Personalizing Your School's Data",
http://principalinstruction.blogspot.com/2014/12/how-to-personalize-your-school-data-get.html

Why Passing and Failure Rates Matter

Every since I have been in education, I have been acutely and painfully aware of grades.  I tracked them as a teacher, I tracked them as an area coach, and I have tracked them as an administrator.  Grades are a sensitive issue in school with every stakeholder, and there is good reason why.  Your passing and failure rates are a definitive factor in your academic culture.

This is why it is critical that administrators monitor the pass/fail rates of every teacher in the building and follow up with the appropriate conversations once the data is reviewed.  Part of this conversation is sharing the rationale for paying such close attention to grades.  The other part is to review the gradebook with the teacher to identify why the grades may be problematic and to connect those problems, if necessary, to instructional practices.

I want to be clear - high failure rates are an obvious problem, but almost perfect passing rates MAY also be an obvious problem.  Too often the issue of grades is relegated to "maintaining metrics", but the academic culture of the school is more important than making one goal during the school year, especially if it destroys your academic culture.

Grades are a teacher's self-report about his/her own effectiveness.  When teachers have high passing rates or low failure rates, they are making a self-report to the community about their effectiveness.  As administrators, we want to make sure that these reports are valid and reliable and that our own responses are appropriate.

If you have a large number of teachers reporting a large number of failures, then your students and parents will accept failure as part of attending your school.  There is no urgency to improve when everyone is failing.

If you have a large number of teachers reporting a large number of passing grades without corresponding achievement data, then your students will accept low standards or minimal work as part of attending your school; parents will assume that their students are doing well and will not push students academically at home.  There is no urgency to face challenges or to work harder.

Grades are a reflection of expectations for student achievement.  Grades should be able to help guide expectations about student achievement.  When grades are skewed in any direction, you are dealing with bad data.

This impacts teachers' impressions of the students and will guide their conversations about student performance.

This impacts students' impressions of themselves and their ability to achieve academically; it also impacts their parents' expectations and beliefs about their students.

Additionally, it impacts your students' ability to go to college.  You may not be aware, but many colleges and universities keep stats on your students' high school grades and compare them to performance in college.  Based on your current and past students' trajectories, your school g.p.a.'s can be weighted differently during the application process and therefore impact admissions.

The purpose of monitoring grades cannot be to simply make teachers change grades.  Rather than solve problems, this exacerbates the issue.  I have seen administrators issue numerical caps for failures. I have seen administrators force teachers to write remediation plans for the 50% or more of their students who are failing - this just ticks teachers off and gives students the impression that they are going to get a make-up when they don't do work.  I am not against remediation plans - I do encourage teachers to use this as an intervention, but I am against having teachers do unnecessary work that undermines the purpose of grade monitoring in the first place.

Check the gradebook.  I often find that many grading problems actually have to do with grading practices rather than instruction.  When I look at gradebooks, I ask:

1.  How does student performance on summative assessments compare to student performance on classwork?  Nothing destroys class and school culture quicker than grades that are not predictable.  Students who are given failing classwork grades should not be scoring high on summative exams; students who are given high classwork grades should not be scoring low on summative exams.

This is one of the top reasons that many educators are looking at their grading practices.  It is perplexing that students who have not mastered objectives pass classes, while those that do, don't pass.  It is also heartbreaking to see students who have high ACT or SAT scores be held back in college admissions while students with much lower scores go off to school, where they often struggle to keep up with the work.

2.  Are there enough formative grades to justify the summative grade?  If a teacher only has a few assignments, this can skew grades.  

3.  What is the teacher grading?  Another issue that may be present is if the teacher is grading every and anything - even introductory practice.  This is definitely an issue when teachers have more non-academic grades than they do academic grades.  If there are 20 participation grades and 5 academic grades, the data will definitely be skewed.  

Excessive grading may also be a sign of classroom management issues - the teacher is trying to modify behavior through the gradebook; this method usually always fails and results in high passing/failure rates and creates a vicious cycle for the class.

4.  Is the teacher using weights and are they used appropriately?  I have seen teachers simply throw gradebooks off by weighing one specific type of assignment very heavily and then not following through and using the category or point value regularly.  I always emphasize to teachers who want to use weights that they need to know the number of assignments that will fall into each category to ensure that weights don't skew grades.

5.  Are there grades that should be thrown out or that students should be given an opportunity to redo?  While reviewing the gradebook, I point out assignments or exams that large numbers of students did poorly on or that were not completed.  If large numbers did not do well, this becomes either an assessment quality issue or an instruction issue.  If large numbers did not complete, I ask how the assignment was structured, especially if it involves a high point value/weighted assignment (was everything due on one day or were there checkpoints?).

Many of these issues can be addressed by having a schoolwide grading policy that builds a sound logic for grading.  This creates common expectations and understanding.  It also helps parents and students appropriately advocate for grades.  You may also be surprised that by simply starting this conversation and getting teachers to explore these issues that they will naturally press for mastery and stadards-based grading practices to improve the quality of grades.  And, then, grades really will matter: your passing and failing rate issues will manage themselves.

Whose Strategy Is It? Building Independent Learners.

Whenever we talk about strategy, we are usually referring to adults - we just don't think about students.  However, we also consistently talk about student-centered, adult facilitated classrooms.  We talk about 21st century learning skills.  We talk about being a digital citizen.  But, what we don't talk about is the strategies that are employed by students or how to get students to use strategies to learn.

As a teacher, whenever, I heard student-centered, I thought about collaborative groups and giving students' choices on assignments.  This was a really short sighted view (but I didn't know that at the time).  But, then, I met these fantastic educators from District 214 who shifted my understanding.

If you aren't aware of this district and it's curriculum resources, you should check them out:  http://www.d214.org/staff_services/si__reading_writing_thinking_roads.aspx

Student centered classrooms are ones where students solve their learning problems to master skills and content.  Student centered classrooms give students choices about HOW they will approach learning tasks and meet goals.

One of the most important things that we can do as teacher leaders is to help teachers figure out HOW they help students to solve learning problems.

Often when planning, teachers think very deeply about how THEY will present information and what ACTIVITIES students will do.  What usually doesn't get as much thought is HOW STUDENTS will be able to complete the activity and use their own strategies to learn.  Accordingly, there is usually only one path or one right answer that students are expected to hit on.

But, in order for students to really learn, they have to employ their own strategies, and, without teacher support, they often can flounder.  So, when talking to teachers, I try to steer them to the following things:

Provide multiple models/process samples.  Even though, one specific model may be used for instruction, it helps students to see multiple models and approaches, so they can determine which components of a process help them to learn with the skills that they have.  This is why "think-alouds" are important - to help students develop logic, not imitate the teacher.

For instance, if you were in school 20 years ago, you probably remember the grueling process of outlining with a specific format and then having to do research notecards.  The process worked for some students but didn't fit everyone, but then the teacher would grade you on your outline and notecards, regardless of how good your written product was.  Even worse, there were always some kids who never wrote anything because they were stuck in the "process" of outlining.

I remember other kids asking me how I wrote my papers; the truth was that I would write the paper, go back, create the outlines, and notecards based on my paper.  I would turn in that part of the assignment late, but my paper always arrived on time (we were expected to attach the outline and notecards).

Provide multiple templates/graphic organizers.  As teachers start off the year, I encourage them to teach students how to use individual templates and graphic organizers, but, eventually, point out that the students need to be able to choose how they will complete the learning task.

Templates and graphic organizers are great ways to help students organize and demonstrate their thinking, but they should lead to an additional product.  When the teacher is showing the students how to complete templates or graphic organizers, it is an instructional activity; when students choose their template or graphic organizer, it is then a strategy.  High level classrooms have students independently selecting these "helpers" even when not prompted.  In high level classrooms, students find these items "helpful" and don't see them just as part of the "work".

Additionally, I encourage teachers to post the templates and graphic organizers in their classes, so students can be reminded of the strategies and have references as they work.  It also assists teachers in directing their conversations with students to focus on strategy use rather than "what is the answer".

In schools, at a really high level, they provide a bank of common templates and graphic organizers that students can use in multiple classes.  My school isn't here yet, but I hope to see this emerging over the next year or two.

Provide starters.  Sometimes, you just need a push.  I encourage teachers to use sentence starters and paragraph frames just to get students moving in the right direction.  If used well, students can internalize the structures and focus less on quantity of work and more on the quality of work.

Additionally, starters can maximize class time - rather than working for 15 minutes to figure out how to get started, with sentence or paragraph starters, students can begin working on the content and build on the assignment to make them their own.

The one caveat that I give with this advice is that teachers should not provide this all the time.  The starters should be removed as students get more and more practice and then referred to only when students need to be engaged in "strategy selection".

Using these strategies, helps students to become independent learners who can function in and out of the classroom.  After all, strategy selection and creativity are the hallmarks of the 21st century.  Independent learners have something to contribute in all situations - individually or collaboratively.  

What strategies are you sharing with teachers to build independent learners?