There
are 2 elements to this post: actual effective
teaching through effective instructional strategies and assessments, and documenting effective teaching through effective
instructional strategies and assessments for TKES/TAPS.
Actual Effective Teaching: The result of
my doctoral study was a research based lesson plan design that was flexible for
all subjects, all grade levels, and would help the teacher offset some of the
effects of low-socioeconomic situations on middle school students’ learning. It is a very simple design, and it
works. You can view it here: https://sites.google.com/site/gcason123/lesson-plan-design
Briefly:
Relevant Literature: As the research base increases, there is an emerging picture
suggesting that low-SES factors do affect student achievement, students from
low-SES environments are likely to have less prior knowledge than their higher-SES
peers do, and prior knowledge is a critical variable for learning new content
(Barton & Coley, 2009; Planty et al., 2009; Stewart, 2008; Wyner et al.,
2008) . Past researchers have shown that
an effective classroom teacher can offset some of the low-SES effects [emphasis
added] (American Psychological Association, 2008; Brown, Anfara, & Roney,
2004; Marzano, 2000, 2003; Marzano et al., 2000; Williams, Kirst, &
Haertel, 2005). As Marzano (1998) pointed out, there is a relationship
between APK and increasing student achievement for low-SES students [emphasis
added]. Marzano (2003) also noted that effective teachers increase student
achievement approximately 50 percentage points in 1 school year…. Goodwin (2010) noted that the difference in
student achievement in a single school year from a highly effective teacher
could be a gain as much as a year and a half [emphasis added] versus a highly ineffective
teacher who could increase student achievement a little as one half year—a
potential difference in student achievement of an entire school year.
Results: (Simply put, the
students in the classroom whose teacher APK scored 5 points higher than the
other classes with a 99.99% certainty.) The
classes where teachers APK had a statistically significant greater increase in
achievement, controlling for the pretest and grade-level effect as indicated by
their standardized posttest scores, F(1, 863) = 35.398, p <
.000, than the students whose teachers did not APK and only used LFS. The critical region for the F ratio
was 3.86, α = 0.05.
Here
are the elements that need to be in the lesson (note that every element is the
summation of high quality research findings):
Assumptions: Expectations must be clear to the
teacher and clearly and directly communicated to the students. Learning goals (concepts, skills, and/or
relationships) must be specific and directly linked to prior knowledge. Students’ prior knowledge must be activated before proceeding with
the instructional component. Explicit
classroom behavior, participation, and outcome results must be clear to the
teacher, and explicitly and directly communicated to the students. Identifying similarities, differences, and
relationships for new content and as they relate to prior knowledge is the
strongest instructional strategy. Practice/homework
provides self-pacing and exploring required concepts and skills.
Components: specific curriculum standard,
specific learning goal, specific learning activities, general and specific
prior standards, specifically activating prior knowledge, essential question,
specific explicit directions, specific learning activity structure (beginning,
middle, end), specifically identify similarities, differences, and
relationships; specific practice opportunities; specific directions for orderly
classroom.
Why
do I bring that to your attention? To
demonstrate the absurdity of what a teacher might have to do to document
effective teaching for Evaluators, Observers, and Teachers in the TKES/TAPS
walkthroughs.
Our
school had a district walkthrough this past week. Principals, TKES Evaluators, Assistant
Principals, and the like, walked our hallways, went into classrooms
with their clip boards, took notes, and had meetings to provide a “snap shot”
of the quality and effectiveness of our school.
In the end, they provided a list of areas that were “glow” and areas of “grow.”
Documenting Effective Teaching: The following
sample is what I wrote on the board for the day’s lesson. I literally read every Standard and Element
and typed out how/if it applied to the lesson that day. Simply put, the students had their weekly
Thursday playing test.
Because the students know how the procedure works, I normally would
write on the board, “TEST: #49.” But for
those who are not familiar with my procedures, subject matter, and
instructional techniques, I wrote it all out so that I would get “credit” for meeting
the Standards, Elements, and being a good teacher for our school (obviously, there is more to
being a good teacher than just this….)
Go straight to
your instrument, straight to you chair, and prepare for your playing test. You may warm up on your own.
1. Today you will be
demonstrating your prior knowledge of Standards 2 and 7 through individual
playing in a formal summative test. Sixth
grade will play
the first four measures of #49 (you want to demonstrate mastery of
notes), and the seventh and eighth graders will play #82 without the
repeat (you want to demonstrate mastery of rhythm).
2. You all need to have a pencil and paper. You will grade each other, make a brief note
as to what needs improvement, and compare your grade with what I give
them. You may not talk during the
test.
3. Grade yourself as well; if you do not like your grade, practice at home
some more, and you play it again for a higher score.
4. To give the best, accurate
grade, identify similarities and differences
in what you see on the page and what you hear.
Ask, “How does what I hear compare with what I see?”
Prior
knowledge to be graded:
Posture,
embouchure, tonguing, fingerings, rhythmic understanding, articulation, tone,
air speed, rhythmic accuracy, key signatures, steady beat, counting, time
signature, evaluating musical performances, listing strength and weakness of
performances, and effectiveness of performances
These exercises will be used to develop your skill for the concert
December 18 in the gym at 7pm. We’ve
prepared for this test through a series of similar exercises in the book, so I
expect you all to make at least an A—probably a 100. If you want to take a risk, you can play the
exercise (correctly) from memory, I can give you 5 points extra credit. If we have time, we will work on concert
music.
If
you are familiar with the TAPS standards, you probably see the Standards and Elements
in the lesson; you may have seen how I incorporated findings from my doctoral
study. However, to itemize, here is what
each statement addresses—in my estimation:
Go straight to
your instrument, straight to you chair, and prepare for your playing test [2.6, 7.2, 8.1,
10.4, 10.5, explicit behavior expectations and orderly classroom]. You may warm up on your own [10.5, specific
opening of class, activating prior knowledge; differentiation of process,
specific practice opportunities].
1. Today you will be
demonstrating your prior knowledge [specific learning goal] of Standards 2 and 7 [1.1, 2.5,
explicit curriculum standard] through individual playing [3.4, 5.6,
specific learning activity] in a formal summative test [5.1, 5.4, 5.5,
5.6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 7.2, 9.1, 10.5, learning goal is clear to the teacher;
explicit directions communicated to students]. Sixth grade will play the first four
measures of #49 [5.1, 5.3, 10.5] (you want to demonstrate
mastery of notes) [explicit outcome], and the seventh and eighth graders will play #82 without the
repeat [5.1,
5.3, 10.5] (you want to demonstrate mastery of rhythm) [1.4, 1.5, explicit
outcome].
2. You all need to have a pencil and paper [7.2, 10.5]. You will grade each other [explicit
participation], make a brief note as to what needs improvement [8.2, 10.1, explicit
participation], and compare your grade with what I give them [1.7, 3.1, 6.5,
6.6, 7.2, 7.4, 8.3, 10.1, 10.5, explicit participation, specific learning
activity]. You may not
talk during the test [7.2, 10.5, explicit participation and orderly classroom].
3. Grade yourself as well [5.2, 6.7, 7.2,
10.5, explicit participation]; if you do not like your grade, practice at home
some more [practice/homework],
and you play it again for a higher score [6.7, 8.2, 10.5].
4. To give the best, accurate
grade [6.7],
identify similarities and differences in
what you see on the page and what you hear [10.5, 6.7].
Ask, “How does what I hear compare with what I see?” [1.2, 4.5, 6.5, 6.7, identify similarities and
differences, specific learning activity]
Prior
knowledge to be graded: [2.2, 2.3, 3.2, 6.7, 8.6, learning goal specifically and
directly linked to prior knowledge]
Posture, embouchure, tonguing, fingerings, rhythmic understanding,
articulation, tone, air speed, rhythmic accuracy, key signatures, steady beat,
counting, time signature, evaluating musical performances, listing strength and
weakness of performances, and effectiveness of performances
These exercises will be used to develop your skill [1.4, 2.3] for the concert
December 18 in the gym at 7pm [1.3, 3.8, 6.4]. We’ve prepared for this test through a series
of similar exercises in the book [2.2, 2.3, 3.2, learning goal specifically and directly
linked to prior knowledge, general prior standards], so I expect you
all to make at least an A—probably a 100 [1.6, 4.6, 5.5, 8.5]. If you want to take a risk, you can play the
exercise (correctly) from memory [10.5], I can give you 5 points extra credit [1.6, 2.1, 4.1,
4.2, 4.6, 5.2, 5.6, 7.2, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7]. If we have time, we will work on concert
music [2.3].
The
point? I make an effort to be a highly effective teacher through research based instructional
strategies, techniques, lesson plan design, assessments, paying close attention
to the engagement and understanding of my students (formative assessments) etc. on a daily basis, But, if I were to put “TEST: #49” on the
board and proceeded with the test in the manner I did, I would probably have
failed the observation walkthrough for that day (and received a “grow”) because
the Evaluator/Observers did not understand the depth of what was actually going
on. My attention to detail is driven by
the number of 2s given out to teachers, and the vast differences in Observer's
and Evaluator’s recording of minutia (to the teacher’s detriment) or omission
of details (also to the teacher’s detriment). It appears that if the teacher does not make everything explicit, it may get overlooked.
I
am planning on creating a detailed description (such as the first example above) to go on the board for each
walkthrough and observation—especially when the Evaluator is looking for all 10
Standards in a single lesson. I probably
will label the statements with each Standard and Element (such as the second example) and give a copy to the Evaluator when they enter the room.
