Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ORGANIZATIONAL DISTRACTORS AND REBALANCING THE INSTRUCTIONAL CORE Philip Streifer, Superintendent, Bristol Public Schools, CT – Retired; NWEA Board of Directors; www.EDvisualize.com
Barry Sheckley, Emeritus Professor of Education, University of Connecticut
Problem/Discussion:• What keeps you from implementing creative and
innovative solutions to instructional problems that are not part of your prescribed school program?
Participant Discussion
Learning Outcomes• Organizational distractors can sabotage even the best-
planned intervention− Participants will learn to identify potential distractors that interfere
with systems coherence.
• Students' abilities to use self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies is often an ignored component of the instructional core− Participants will learn how to rebalance the instructional core by
helping teachers promote students’ use of SRL strategies
The Instructional Core Operationalized Agenda
• The Instructional Core and Impact of Organizational Distractors• Organization/Political Factors• The Testing Debate & Growing Rebellion: Need to Use
Research to Guide Decision and Policy Making• The Proper and Ethical Use of Achievement Test
Results – It’s All About Proper Inferences• Need for Assessment Literacy
• The Missing Component of the Instructional Core Needed for Success (student to teacher)
The Real Work – Harvard PELP ModelCoherence Framework & The Instructional Core
The Work Is Developmental…
Distractors• External Political Forces and Conditions
• Intra Board Conflict• Board -- Superintendent Conflict
• Internal Pressures and Requirements• Administration not focused on instructional core• Excessive paperwork and reporting requirements
• Financial Exigencies• Proper Use of Achievement Tests
• Teacher Evaluation• Principal Evaluation• School Evaluation• NCLB/AYP Targets
• The Preparation Gap and Instructional Time
Peter Senge: Schools that Learn (2000)
“Schools that Learn”, View 1.
Schools that learn, View II
Curriculum Standards
Standardized Exams
IEPs
Parent’s Concerns
Professional Organizations
Curriculum Guides
State Mastery Tests
Student Progress Reports
Student History & Profile
Schools that learn, View III
Why the Straitjacket?• Encroaching Federal Role/Influence/Control• “Education” is Not in the Federal Constitution• Before 1979, the US Department of Education was NOT
a cabinet level position• 1983 A Nation At Risk & The Manufactured Crisis:
Myths, Fraud and the Attack on America’s Public Schools. 1995 – David Berliner and Bruce Biddle
• Goals 2000 – Largely a Failure• NCLB/AYP: Collateral Damage: How High Stakes Testing
Corrupts America’s Schools. 2007. Sharon Nichols and David Berliner
Straitjacket: How Overregulation Stifles Creativity and Innovation in Education. George Goens & Phil Streifer, Roman & Littlefield, October 2013
Why the Straitjacket? - Con’t• The Truth About Testing: An Educator’s Call to Action
2001. James Popham• Impact of the Preparation Gap – Streifer & Goens• NAEP 2012 – America’s Report Card – Poverty Matters
• Relationship between poverty and achievement• Private/Independent schools do better (wealthier and freer)• Suburban schools do better than urbans (wealthier)• Charters are a form of deregulated public schools
BOTTOM LINE: Policy would be much more effective if policy-makers followed the research, rather than political ideology
Recommendations• Deregulate to the greatest extent possible• Scale back the role of the US Department of Education• Assessment Literacy training for all policy makers and
educators• Use tests only for which they were designed – proper inferences• Schools need a political buffer. Minimize the impact of
organizational distractors to the greatest extent possible on principals, teachers and schools
• Provide adequate resources to close the preparation gap – increase instructional time
• Focus all efforts on the instructional core, particularly the role between student and teacher
• Use Research!Straitjacket: How Overregulation Stifles Creativity and Innovation in Education. George Goens & Phil Streifer, Roman & Littlefield, October 2013
Efforts to Rebalance the Instructional Core
Curriculum
Teachers
Student
Curriculum
Teachers
Students
FROMSeptember
TOJune
THROUGHDistractors
Why We Choose SRL Strategies as Our Focus
Cleary, T. J., Zimmerman, B., & Keating, T. (2006). Training physical education students to self-regulate during basketball free throw practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(2251-262).
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring Writing Revision Skill: Shifting from Process to Outcome Self-Regulatory Goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 241-250.
One Phase Two Phase Three Phase0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
64
71
87
Writing Skill and SRL Training
Writi
ng S
kill
One Phase Two Phase Three Phase1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
2.46
2.852.92
Foul Shooting and SRL Training
Axis Title
Phase 1: September – January
How are students using SRL strategies in their learning?
NAME________________• PLAN
– What is the learning task I face in this class?
– What is the best plan for me to use to
complete this task?
• MONITOR
– How well am I following my plan? + (very well); < (following it somewhat); − (not really following it)
– How is it working? + (working well); < (working somewhat); − (not working)
• EVALUATE– How well did my plan work today?
+ (worked well); < (worked somewhat); − (did not work)
– How can I adapt my plan to learn better in my next class?
SUMMARY
• What’s the learning task?Do what teacher says to do (58%)Get a good grade (32%)
• How to be a “better learner?”Focus, Pay attention, Don’t fool around (87%)
• How to learn better?Concentrate, pay attention, focus (66%)Continue doing what I’m doing (16%)
Self-Analysis
• Following my plan (92%)
• Plan is working well (91%)
• Plan worked well today (94%)
N = 1071 responses
Phase 1
20
N = 338 responses
Phase 1 (cont.)
Examples:Level 1: Focus, Pay attention, Don’t talk, Level 2: Get good grade, Work harder, Check my workLevel 3: Use strong verbs, Write a summary, Elaborate on key ideasLevel 4: Think about what I am learning and try to learn more
Increasing use of SRL strategies
Strategy listed most frequently: “Get a good grade” (20% of all responses)
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 0
25
50
75
8
65
18
8
Students' Strategies by SRL Level12/6 to 2/14
Perc
ent o
f Res
pons
es
Phase 2: February – May
What results can be achieved when students use SRL
strategies?
SRL and Increases in Math Grades
Low SRL involvement High SRL involvement
Phase 2
Multiply fraction 2/1 Playground Project 4/6
Pre Algebra 5/2050
60
70
80
90
100
Math Grades vs. Student SRL Involvement
Interview Project 1/23
Interview Project 2/13
Book Review 5/5
African Essay 6/1
50
60
70
80
90
100
LA Grades vs. Varying Levels of Students' SRL Involvement
Teac
her G
rade
s
Low SRL involvement High SRL involvement
Phase 2 (cont.)SRL and Increases in LA Grades
• Student-teacher assessment with rubric developed by teacher
• Student-teacher assessments on writing projects using rubric developed by teacher. Same rubric for both assignments.
• Student-teacher assessments with high SRL involvement.
• Student-teacher assessments with rubric developedby teacher.
SRL and Improving Self-Assessments
The small difference between teachersand students on projectssuggests that involving students in SRL activities leads to a shared understanding of the assessment standards
24
Phase 2 (cont.)
Canad
a Pro
ject 3
/5
Intervie
w Projec
t 1/2
3
Intervie
w Projec
t 2/1
3
Playgro
und Projec
t 4/6
Book Rev
iew 5/5
Pre-Alge
bra I 5
/20
African
Essay
6/1
Pre-Alge
bra II 6
/60
0.5
1
1.5
21.8
1.3
0.7
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.8
0.2
Differences in Teacher - Student Assessments
Stan
dard
Dev
iatio
n Di
ffere
nce
SRL and Improvements in Approaches to Learning
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 40
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
What is the Learning Task?
Level of SRL Strategy Low (1) to High (4)
Perc
ent o
f Res
pons
es
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 40
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Best SRL Strategy to Use
Level of SRL Strategy Low (1) to High (4)
{Per
cent
of R
espo
nses
Note increase in SRL strategy from December to June25
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 No Change
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
How To Be a Better Learner
Level of SRL Strategy Low (1) to High (4)
N = 74
EOY Differences between Two Teams
_x000d_Le
arning T
ask
_x0008_S
trateg
y
_x000e_
Better
Learn
er
-0.3
-5.55111512312578E-17
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
1.12
1.56
1.37
Standard Deviation DIfferenceTeam 1 vs. Team 2
Stan
dard
Dev
iatio
n
Learning Task Strategy Better Learner0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Students' EOY Use of SRL Strategies
Team 1 vs. Team 2
Team 1Team 2
Leve
l of S
RL S
trat
egy
Repo
rted
Faculty on Team 1 worked through distractors (e.g., State mandates; Faculty on Team 2 did not
N = 146
Team 1 Teachers’ Perspectives
We definitely plan to incorporate students’ use of SRL strategies into our lessons next year• Building students’ SRL skills is well worth the effort
– Improving grades, accurate self-assessment, shift in mindset– Students are more involved in their learning– Students ask more in-depth questions during lessons– Parents endorse the emphasis on SRL
• Best to weave SRL as a priority into all lessons – Building students’ understanding of SRL takes time
• Multiple approaches required– Engage students in SRL cycle: Reflect on past work, use reflection to set goals,
develop rubrics to assess their work, repeat cycle
• Best if entire instructional team involved– Communicates importance of SRL to students, consistently
A Few Thoughts
• Note the long start-up time in Phase 1– Teachers struggled with integrating SRL with other priorities
even though they viewed SRL as more beneficial to students
– Teachers had a hard time “letting go” of old habits • Teacher-Leaders were the most important
factor– School leaders supported efforts of teacher-leaders by widening
the corridor for experimentation, creativity and innovation– The differences between Team 1 and Team 2 were related to the
work of Teacher-Leaders on Team 1
Summary• Barry’s work shows teaching can be more
effective by focusing on student self-regulation.• Teachers have a hard time of “letting go”
– They want to “teach”– They need to comply with programs and
regulations• Phil’s experience is that administration needs to
formally free teachers and principals from organizational constraints to widen their corridor for experimentation, creativity and innovation.
30
Self-Regulation:Meta-cognitive strategies
30
REFLECTIONon performance
*Review Feedback*Causal Attribution
*Adaptive/Defensive Response
FORETHOUGHT*Plan Strategy
*Set Expectations*Set Goal Orientation
PERFORMANCE*Self-Instruction
*Time Management*Help Seeking
*Self-monitoring
Zimmerman, B. J. (2009). Development and adaptation of expertise: The role of self-regulatory processes and beliefs. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 705-722). New York: Cambridge University Press.
“Plan”
“Monitor”
“Evaluate”
