Mar 152017
 

March 14th (3/14) is recognized around the world as Pi Day. A mathematical constant, Pi represents the ratio between circumference of a circle and its diameter. Typically represented as 3.14159, Pi (Greek letter “π”) continues infinitely without repetition or pattern, and can be calculated to more than one trillion digits past its decimal point.

The late Russian composer Igor Stravinsky once stated that “musical form is close to mathematics—not perhaps to mathematics itself, but certainly to something like mathematical thinking and relationship.” Building on this connection between music and mathematics, composer Michael Blake created a musical representation of what pi sounds like. Take a listen to hear what happens when you transpose the first 31 digits of the number pi into musical notes!

Feb 232017
 

In the part one of this post, we discussed the concepts of working memory and cognitive load to help explain how cognitive overload occurs.  This post suggests some practical strategies teachers can use to reduce cognitive load so a student can meet a curricular outcome that might otherwise be too complex or overwhelming.

Strategy 1 – Build on Prior Knowledge

It is easier to understand new things and remember them later when they are explicitly connected to prior knowledge.  Common tools for making overt connections include KWL charts, mindmaps, brainstorming, anticipation guides, and cloze procedures. Tools that help students explicitly think about what they already know before the new learning begins are particularly helpful if a new procedure or concept is built on pre-requisite information or skills.  If you know a task is going to be difficult, start with either a formal pre-assessment to see what your students know or a prior knowledge activity they helps them demonstrate their thinking. Either way you’ll be better able to start where they are and connect to what they know.

Strategy 2 – Think carefully about your content

Make mental space for the complex generative load by reducing the essential and extraneous load.  Consider what you were about to teach and break it into what it essential and what is nice to know.  Remove anything extra including distractions like lots of visual details, cool additional facts, and extra elaboration.  It is a lot like de-cluttering a room by taking everything out, then only putting back essential items. Remember clutter is not just content, it includes anything the brain needs to make sense of like sounds, moving images, or complex vocabulary.

Once you’ve reduced your extraneous load, make the essential load as explicit and simple as possible.  Make that information easy to process by moving away from dense text.  Leave lots of white space on the page, and use text features to make the ideas easy to scan, like headings and bullets.  Consider making simple memory tools like diagrams, graphic organizers, or a bookmark with the key facts. When you distill something to a few key steps or ideas and then leave a visual up to remind learners of the steps or ideas, you reduce cognitive load while still helping students learn new things.

Strategy 3 – Take small bites (chunking)

One of the best ways to reduce the load of a task is to organize the task or idea into small bits or chunks.  Sometimes chunking can apply to the visual look of content on the page, or to small groups of information a student must learn. Chunks are most effective when they are a small unit of elements that are directly related and a complete thought. Having students pay attention to just one small group of things at a time makes it much more likely they can process the information and use it.

Strategy 4 – Scaffold and support

As much as possible, use the same structures and processes when presenting new information, so the brain doesn’t need to spend any effort deciphering the process and can just focus on the generative learning. The more automatic the process, the less load is needed to do the task.  That is why breaking in time is hard when you are learning to drive and automatic most of the time as an experienced driver. The more places a student has automaticity, the easier it is to carry the load of the new task.

You can also help by providing other supports. A student just learning English does much better with a vocabulary list and visuals than she does with just an oral presentation. Similarly a student struggling to write an essay will do much better with frame or formula to add ideas into, or a scribe to writing things down.

One of the most important reasons we need teachers to help us learn is that they are intermediaries with the content and skills.  As teachers, there is a lot we can do to make the process of learning more effective by reducing the cognitive load when we know we are about to teach something hard.

Feb 142017
 

I was discussing common problems students in modified programs have with high school teachers last week, and one of them sent me a couple of videos about the concept of cognitive load. I think many of us notice times when we have students struggling to understand or remember things, and as teachers we have a variety of tools to try to help. This post is designed to be a quick summary of two key ideas related to learning: working memory and cognitive load. Understanding these ideas can help teachers know what problems they are trying to tackle when they adapt their instruction.

What is working memory? Working memory is where we do our conscious thinking and learning as we take in new information. It holds a limited amount of information for a short period of time.

What is cognitive load? The amount of mental resources (cognitive processing) to complete a thinking task is called cognitive load. Familiar or simple tasks have low cognitive load and new, more complex task require high load. There are three parts to cognitive load, including:

  • Essential load: the effort involved in remembering all the parts you need to think about to do a thinking task or process
  • Generative load: the effort involved in understanding and making sense of something well for yourself
  • Extraneous load: The effort spent processing things unrelated to the task

What is cognitive overload? Experienced differently by different people even for the same content with the same teacher, cognitive overload means the learner has difficulty processing and learns less. It can be caused by:

  •  Lots of new information
  • The way the information is organized or presented
  • How much the learner is focused or can focus

Why does this matter?

Teachers can make a series of decisions designed to raise or lower the cognitive load for learners based on the learners’ needs. A student just learning English while trying to keep up with classroom work needs materials that reduce the cognitive load of language.  In general, learning is occurring when generative tasks occupy the working memory.  Teachers can do a lot to reduce the load of essential task and increase the opportunity for cognitively appropriate generative ones.

Read Next Post: What teachers can do to reduce cognitive load

Feb 012017
 

I had the privilege of digging into Book Love by Penny Kittle with SPS Colleagues last year. Through the reading and conversations I took away so many lessons. It was great to hear about how educators build and promote a culture of reading in a variety of schools. Although every page has wonderful quotes and insights to take away for this post we will focusing on setting reading goals and conferring with students.

Tracking reading success and setting reasonable reading goals was also central to Kittle’s work and served as a departure point for engaging students in their reading lives. Kittle discusses that students can reasonably read between 175 to 200 book in adolescence; but the “reality is that students will read on average 6.5 texts per year” (p. 23). Students are simply not reading enough to engage reading skills needed to thrive in post-secondary education or to even worse to sustain reading lives into adulthood. “Developing reading stamina by cultivating an individual reading habit requires relationships with students and systems that support, encourage, and challenge readers; it also requires will” (p. 24).

Interested in setting personal and realistic goals and beginning to confer with students? Check out the links below.

• SPS Conferring Videos (below), SPS Conferring Booklet 2016-2017, Reading Rate Class Tracking Conferring Kittle

Notebooks are a big part of Kittle’s reading life and she begins by modeling for the students how she tracks her reading life. Along with tracking books read through months of year to celebrate success of students she uses the notebooks to keep track of personal reading goals and responses to reading (personal or assigned). She begins conferring with students by engaging in informal conversations and over time as relationships are built she asks open questions to deepen thinking.

Setting personal and realistic reading goals are established with a simple calculation. Students record how many pages they can read in 10 min and follow a simple calculation to establish pages expected per week; adjusting the number based on difficulty of material.

Tracking students can be difficult with demands on time. Kittle outlines how when students are silent reading she passes out the weekly reading recording sheet and has students fill out the information. When conferring with the students she compares the goal and the recorded pages and engages the students in conversation to challenge them in meeting or exceeding their reading goals. She also records names of students 3 to 5 students a day in a weekly conferring record so she doesn’t overwhelm herself with trying to confer with each student each day but also to ensure she meets with each child at least once a week.

Classroom Libraries and Book Talks are essential to building a reading culture. Kittle believes the more books we passionately share with children the more they will want to read. Teachers can invite guests to share books, Teacher Librarians to introduce new books, or even get students to share what they are reading. Most importantly share and be passionate about books so students engage with you and in turn want to engage in new material; when you share your passion people listen!

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Dec 062016
 

This morning I attended a full morning sessions on a framework for coherence in school reform.  The presenters are all from New Jersey, where the framework is an agreed upon common practice called the Connected Action Roadmap (CAR). The presenters are Vicky Duff, Donna McInerney, and Patrica Wright.

The sessions starts with a Think-Pair-Share on why change does not work.  Then the presenters bring us back in and summarize their thinking as initiative fatigue, including:

  • Too much change
  • Flavor of the month
  • Little “buy-in” (I’d call this one lack of a compelling case for change)
  • Lack of leadership understanding or knowledge of how to support it

They move through many common elements of an early presentation including learning outcomes, essential questions (there are a lot of them – four) and some expectations and norms.  Because I have led a lot of professional learning, I often watch the structures of a professional learning structure from outside to think about how they are functioning.  I like the process used with the norms, which asks us to consider which one each of us as individuals most needs to consider.

After all the initial conversation wraps, we do a four corners activity about our assumptions.  This type of activity is a strong formative assessment activity in the classroom or a teacher learning workshop.  In this case, it helped me see what is common and different in Canadian and American thinking about professional learning groups.  I got really uncomfortable when we started talking about a need for high fidelity implementation of standards with identical lesson goals and instructional strategies.  I do think is is important for us all to teach provincial curriculum, but not in exactly the same way.  I can’t imagine how individual teacher’s strengths and differentiation for students would occur when everyone does the same thing each time. Many of the other common barriers raised by the process did resonate, like not understanding purpose, lack of individual responsibility, have data but not making changes based on it, etc.  I do keep noticing that everyone else is talking about buy-in, when I am talking about providing a compelling why.

Dufours’ common questions for PLC are discussed next, and I still like them as great questions for departments or PLCs:

  • What do we want our students to know?
  • What strategies do students need in order to master the learning goals?
  • What instructional activities will help teach students the strategies they need?
  • How do we know when they know it?
  • What do we do it they don’t know or already know?
  • How can we best address these questions in order to build knowledge ad skills effectively and consistently  across grade levels in the content area/across content areas?

The group notes that when PLCs are focused on these areas, they are very effective is supporting teacher and student learning.

The presenters next spend a while explaining how student learning improvement is the central goal, and PLCs, Curriculum, effective instruction, and formative/summative assessment serve that goal. When they move into the role of the administrator in the climate and monitoring, I get concerned. I am with the presenter when she says monitoring everyone’s lesson plans is not good, but I am not sure monitoring everyone’s unit plans (her alternative) is much better.  I am reminded again that as a facilitator, I may run into opposing assumptions and need to address them for someone to move on. I can see that given their model, unit plans are great data about what elements of unit planning are well understood.

Some time later we come back to ten (I condensed to nine) PLC conversations that I like, and do a cross-pollination activity between the questions and a unit planning template. I have transformed it to Saskatchewan curriculum language here:

  1. Unpack the outcomes in simple, student friendly language
  2. Cluster outcomes and indicators into units
  3. Create essential questions
  4. Create summative assessments including rubrics, examples and non-examples
  5. Design pre-assessments
  6. Design learning experiences, including instructional activities that are best given the outcomes, and formative assessments.  Check to be sure you are not using your preferred instructional strategies over and over.
  7. Analyze formative assessment as you teach the unit to plan differentiation and responsive instruction
  8. Analyze summative assessment data to refine unit and choose targets for more professional learning
  9. Discuss grading and strive for consistency.

I notice the process is much more focused on planning and instructing that our current TLG or CIT work, with a strong emphasis on curriculum. It would require a variety of teachers teaching the same curriculum in order for it to work.

The facilitator share access to their online moodle, used to support their PLC process for teachers and leaders.  If you’d like to explore the topics or see an example of blended staff development, create an account.

Perhaps the most useful elements of the day were about how to use pre-assessments to plan and common formative assessments to discuss. We tried several activities practice looking at data then considering what to do next in planning and instruction.  We used some common rules that helped to guide the process.

Reflecting:

  1. Be honest about what the data are saying about your current reality.
  2. No blaming.
  3. Focus on what the data says and does not say about the progress of each student.
  4. Recognize it is not about you, it is about what you can do next to improve success. The data is not a reflection on your teaching because it is influenced by many factors and it is formative. However, the action you take is a reflection of your dedication and professionalism.

Next steps you control:

  1. Reflect on how instruction could be changed.
  2. Share best practices for what to do when things don’t go well.
  3. Review your assessments to ensure they are measuring outcomes
  4. What will you do next for students who were not proficient?
  5. Consider revisions to your unit.

We looked through sample data sets together to make plans for next steps in instruction. The data helped explicitly describe who we needed to differentiate for and about what, and when it was important to reteach and how. This workshop was a good model for strong facilitation and modeled process for using data I’ll definitely use in my work in the future. I also like how we cycled back and directly addressed each of issues we identified initially.

Dec 052016
 

The keynote session today is a call action about transforming professional learning, according to to Micheal Fullan.  He and Andy Hargreaves are presenting today in response to the question:

Can someone please tell me the impact of professional learning? We are spending millions of dollars and lots of time,  and I want to know it is worth it.

They are speaking in response to Carol Campbell’s report on the state of professional learning in Canada, released this morning. You can find the links in the blog post on it. Hargreaves notes the terms professional learning and professional development are used interchangeably.

Fullan and Hargreaves define professional learning as an effort (direct or indirect) to learn something new that has value, formally or informally. Hargreaves defines professional development as how your grow and change as a professional person, and describe it mostly as personal growth and leadership growth. They combine them in PLD.

The room laughs as Hargreaves starts by defining people with high professional learning but low development as eggheads and sociopaths.  You can read about the categorizations in the full paper.  He argues we want teachers to be moral, mature professionals, who who learn a lot and grow personally.  Fullan takes over, and notes that although we want PLD (those moral, mature professionals), we always argue things that prevent it.

Fullan states that good PLD is the tip of the iceberg, and collaborative professionalism is the 90% of the learning found under the surface. He says the good case focus on the following essential argument:

  • Every teacher and every principle, with autonomy (no exceptions)
  • Professional expertise thought reflective practice and feedback
  • Collaborate to improve learning and achievements for all students – be that explicit not to improve accountability but to improve results

Hargreaves stands up to attack the case against PLD (which is really the case against various forms for professional learning as described in the literature).  He makes fun of the alternative as ignorance and atrophy, then says the genuine case against comes from a variety of crusades:

  1. Do more with less: CD Howe Institute compared teacher effectiveness and noted similar results were achieved with lower salary in BC, and suggested the same quality could be maintained with lower salary.  There is not point in doing professional learning because it is hard to measure and makes little immediate change. Better to invest money elsewhere.
  2. Don’t learn and develop – instead evaluate and select: professional learning rarely results improved achievement scores in the short term. The argument is teachers change less after the first three years, so you should just pick the best then and get rid of the rest of the teachers. However, there is almost no evidence to show teacher evaluation has an impact on student achievement.
  3. Collaboration is often overrated:  This has truth, according to both men, in that collaboration can be ineffective talking or sharing bad practice. And because this is true, it is used to advocate not for improved collaboration, but for more working alone.  The worries may have legitimacy but the proposed solution actually makes the problem worse.

Fullan argues that bad pedagogy is relatively easy to identify, but good pedagogy is comparatively hard to agree on and even harder to spread. He sees this an argument for better PLD, not teacher sorting and firing. In his argument, good PLD is focused on good pedagogy which enables students to develop the six Cs: Character education, citizenship, creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration.  He puts in a plug for NPDL and then Hargeaves puts one in for ARC. They argue that both are examples of collaborative professionalism.  Hargreaves says there is a false dichotomy between individuals professionalism and collaborative learning.  Teachers might fear central office will dictate what they must be learn, and school leaders are worried unions will dominate any attempt to encourage teacher growth in specific areas.  He says both are legitimate fears if collaborative professionalism is misunderstood. I think collaborative professionalism sounds great in theory – I am worried how to actually support it happening, so I am really hoping they explain how it would be best supported.

In true academic glory, Hargreaves goes on to define collaborative professionalism in terms of both individual and collective autonomy, focus on impact, responsibility, inquiry, efficacy, and mindset. He described the role of the individual and the role of the group in each area. Each thing he describes is certainly ideal – it is less clear how it might be achieved. See page 19 of the full paper for details about what each part means.

Fullan warps up, already tight for time, by showing some slides they run out time for but not speaking to them and referring everyone to the full report. I am headed to their breakout session next and hoping it has some “how to get to the change” to accompany the contention that PLD is the specific change we want.

 

Dec 052016
 

I am at Learning Forward’s Annual Conference again, at a session on Educator’s Professional Learning in Canada.  If you are interested, you can read the full study by Carol Campbell et al., but you’ll get my summary in this blog post. I appreciate Learning Forward as an organization, because they are focused specifically on what makes high quality professional learning, which is helpful information for anyone wants to do a good job supporting teachers. If you appreciate a relatively simple summary of what current research says, check out the summary of the standards.

Carol Campbell is from OISE and worked with a team from across the country included a professor from the U of R, so there was some Saskatchewan in the study. The group attempted a generalized summary of the state of professional learning by summarizing existing research. As I listened and read the executive summary, I sometimes questioned the findings given the source and type of evidence, but a really appreciated the value of a pan-Canadian study, which is rare in this area.

Some quick facts about Canadian education for the out-of-country readers:

  • 96% of children in publicly funded schools, organized by province, territory, and the federal government for schools on reserve
  • Canada has about 400,000 teachers
  • Canada is a relatively high performing education system and that is relatively equitable, according to PISA results.

The group identified three main principles in the research, and found they generally existed in the type of professional learning typically found in Canada. They summarized in three main categories that are related to, but not the same as, the Learning Forward Standards.

  1. Quality content
  2. Learning design and implementation
  3. Support and Sustainability

A summary of some of the findings:

  • The group found that data alone is not driving decisions in Canada, but a combination evidence, inquiry, and professional judgement are impacting professional learning practice. The report determined evidence was being used because provinces and individual schools had models that had stages where evidence should be consulted.  While I am glad that models include data, there seemed to be very little information about the actual impact of professional learning on student results.  Most data seemed to be about what professional learning models included data.
  • Subject-specific and pedagogical knowledge is a key element of quality professional learning according to the report .One of the things I found most interesting in the presentation was that 56% of teachers wanted information about supporting diversity in learners, making this the topic most in demand. Subject and pedagogical knowledge was only the highest priority for teachers in their first five years of teaching. I wonder how significant immigration, the TRC recommendations, and immigration are in shaping this finding.
  • A focus on student outcomes is the most important element of quality content, but broadly defined and integrated with professional learning outcomes in Canada. In the US, where as the focus is on student outcomes as defined by test scores, teacher professional learning is often linked to it.  The study noted that teacher collective agreements in places like Manitoba still describe a specific need for teachers own learning and efficacy, rather than starting with student outcomes. Carol spoke repeatedly about linking professional learning to teacher voice. Teacher voice and system coherence was the most controversial subject in the report.  The report found that the appropriate balance between teacher interest and student learning was contentious. In Saskatchewan, 95% of teachers reported employer-led professional learning, and 79% were involved in professional learning based on personal interest, including action research.  The Canadian Teacher’s Federation reports that 55% of teachers get to use professional judgement in selecting professional learning, but over half of teachers say this has decreased.  In Alberta, both teacher voice and choice in PD and system supported are both declining.  This finding is mirrored in other provinces.
  • Feedback is relatively rare in Canada.  Alberta is the only province with TALIS data, where 81% of teachers report receiving feedback from an administrator.
  • Mentoring and induction is only required for new teachers in Northwest Territories and Ontario.  The majority of teachers in Canada are not offered formal mentoring.

The report disagreed with current research in several areas:

  • It noted that professional learning does not need to be directly related to teachers’ work, and could be indirectly related and just as effective
  • The presentation stated one day sessions and conference are effective forms of professional learning, according to data from one maritime province, were one-day sessions are the most common form of professional learning
  • The presentation was much less definative than other current research, finding “it depends” for what models are effective or whether teacher learning should be about teacher interest or student need.

Implications for planning professional learning:

  • Time is critical to change teacher practice, and 50 or more hours in an 18th month period is required to change student results.  The presentation indicated Canadian teachers get an average of 2 hours per week, 76 hours per year, (I missed the source of this data, sorry)  but not sustained, cumulative quality learning. Mostly half day sessions and meetings, or on the weekends or over the summer, the PD does not have a common focus.  The way the time is used makes it unlikely to have impact, even with sufficient amounts of time.
  • Carol also related work-life intensification to PD, noting that much professional learning occurs outside of the official school day. Teachers and principals reporting minimum of 45 hour work weeks in Canada, averaging of 55 hours. 38 hours is average from TALIS, indicating time dedicated to teaching practice is high and professional learning outside the school day may be a factor.

 

 

 

Nov 282016
 

As part of the division-wide goal of elevating Indigenous and struggling learners, the band teacher learning community is investigating how collaboration between music educators can support students during the transition from elementary to secondary music programs.  On November 17th, we met in neighbourhood groupings to initiate discussion about student engagement in Band, factors for continuing/discontinuing participation in an instrumental music program, and transition strategies to connect students from elementary and secondary feeder schools.

 Prior to our session, we activated prior knowledge by considering a variety of reasons why students choose to continue with Band at the high school level.  Teachers created profiles of grade 8 students most likely to continue and not continue with Band in high school.  This created a framework for understanding which students most need support with smooth transitions from one teacher/program to another.

Reflecting on our own experience as music educators, we brainstormed factors that impacted student engagement and participation in Band:

  • Love of music (intrinsic motivation)
  • Parental support
  • Positive teacher-student relationships/expectations
  • Culture of playing music in the school (“It’s what we do”)
  • High number of students involved in school program
  • Appropriate level of challenge
  • Sectional time to support learning
  • Administration and homeroom teacher support of program
  • Participation in extra ensembles (ie Lions Band, North Heights Winds, Junior East Winds)
  • Additional support from peer tutors/private lessons
  • Lack of schedule conflict with other classes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relationships are the underpinning for most of these factors.  The most common time for students to quit band is between Grade 8 and 9 as they switch buildings, and leave their elementary program and teacher behind.  Teachers identified key challenges for students during this pivotal transition time:

  • Lack of interest (not band keeners)
  • Struggling at band at elementary level
  • Feeling not good enough for high school band
  • Intimidated by high school expectations for assessment
  • Desire to try something new (try an option that wasn’t available in elementary school)
  • Specialized instruments (ie bassoon, tuba) less likely to continue because only one on their part
  • Schedule conflicts (mandatory classes with only 1 or 2 options available)

Thinking about the students who need the most support to feel confident and committed to sticking with band, we’re completed a culturally responsive activity called a Graffiti Wall.

Focusing on our goal of strengthening student learning and smooth transitions from elementary to secondary music programs, we recorded our ideas and suggestions for four areas of support:

  1. Workshop/Performances
  2. Mentoring/Tutoring
  3. Division-wide Events
  4. Other Ideas

These ideas helped direct our collaboration time that was set aside for teachers to make plans for collaboration in their neighbourhood groupings.  Teachers co-created a planning document that focused on areas of need with targeted strategies to enhance relationships between elementary and secondary programs. We will continue to revise and revisit throughout the year to support our students as they continue in their lifelong journey with music.

Sep 172015
 

The keynote of a conference often gives you the Reader’s Digest of a complex topic, and day 1 of the Saskatchewan Educational Leadership Unit’s (SELU) annual conference feature a keynote discussing the nature of engagement and what we can do to foster it, so we had to get a summary of many points.  Nicole Vagle discussed a variety of topics and  provided lots of opportunity for discussion and reflection. In the ninth year of Collegiate Renewal (podcast describing what it is), Saskatoon Public has been discussing engagement deeply for nearly a decade, so much of what Vagle said was familiar.  However, there were some reminders worth discussing:

  • Vagle argued that the teacher can focus on engagement at a ratio of about 2/3 classroom environment/ relationships/beliefs to 1/3 instructional strategies.  She discussed a number of key elements that can help, and I have linked to older post on this site discussing these ideas:
  • She also noted that teachers who name a number of things within their control to increase engagement have more engaging classrooms than teachers who see engagement as outside their control.  This matches theory in wide variety of areas that indicates when you believe something is within your locus of control, you are more effective at dealing with it. Read more about teacher beliefs and engagement from this site, or a great post from Vagel detailing what teachers can do in increase motivation and flow.
  • Vagle spoke extensively about the role of empathy and thinking deeply about what motivates students.  We discussed the perception that a student might be lazy and considered how to avoid inference and stereotyping when considering what a student might need.

One of the things I appreciated the most was the fact that Vagle made a deliberate attempt to relate things to Saskatchewan. While she slipped and mentioned standards a couple of times instead of outcomes (hard to avoid if you come from the States), she referred to the Broad Areas of Learning when talking about 21st Century Literacy and did great job of addressing Cultural Responsiveness, a main theme in Saskatchewan education at the moment. We looked at common definition from Gay and spoke about which words resonated for us. Gay (2000) defines culturally responsive teaching as using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, and performance styles of diverse students to make learning more appropriate and effective for them. Some of the people I spoke to real appreciated the clarity about why responsive instruction maters.

All in all, it was a lot to digest in a short morning, but a summary with helpful highlights. If you are interested, you can see some of Vagle’s books and chapters at Solution Tree.

Apr 242015
 

Coaching Classroom Instruction BookAt Saskatoon Public Schools, we have moved into supporting literacy instruction using a Learning Leader model. We have had the wonderful opportunity to work with five wonderful teachers who have taken on the Learning Leader role. Recently, our group met to explore Coaching Classroom Instruction by Marzano and Simms. We had a great discussion and wanted to share some highlights that we took from the book discussion and further connections that we made to the work.

  • Chapter 1 outlines coaching models and the benefits of coaching.  If interested in coaching models, please see graphic below.
  • The book emphasizes the importance of creating relationships, setting goals, and providing relevant feedback.
  • A framework provides coaches and teachers to establish a shared understanding of instructional practice that starts with a self-audit.
  • The last portion of the book takes you through 41 elements (see table 3) that can has a positive impact on classroom environment and learning. Through exploration of the Marzano site we found support documents for individual teacher scales for reflective practice in Becoming a Reflective Teacher in Appendix B
  • This book supports the coach in guiding a teacher from implementing new strategies to innovating and integrating several strategies that supports differentiation.
  • The book outlined many activities which support the elements using Marzano’s 9 Effective Instructional Strategies

This book enhances the learning we have done with Jim Knight’s book High Impact Instruction and is a nice companion to Charlotte Danielson’s book Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching.

By: Deighan Remoundos & Michelle Pantel