From the Quality Teaching model to Quality Teaching Rounds: Leading professional learning

From the Quality Teaching model to Quality Teaching Rounds: Leading professional learning

Professor Jenny GoreThe University of Newcastle

2

Complex field of teacher professional learning

DES

IGNDesign of

approach to professional development PR

OCE

SSES

IMPA

CTSupport such as protocols, leadership, facilitation

Teacher learning, teaching practice, student outcomes

3

Principles of effective PD1. Adequate time for professional learning2. Collaboration among teachers3. Reflection on practice4. A coherent professional learning program5. Participation in active rather than passive learning

4

We have worked, collectively and separately, in dozens of school districts where there was no common point of view on instruction, where ten educators from the same district could watch a fifteen-minute classroom video and have ten different opinions about its quality, ranging the full gamut from high praise to excoriation. Gaining an explicit and widely held view of what constitutes good teaching and learning in your setting is a first step toward any systematic efforts to scaling up quality.

(City et al.,2009 p.173, emphasis added)

5

Quality Teaching - Dimensions and Elements

Note: * Marked elements do not pertain to the coding of assessment practice.

6

Underlying mechanisms

A comprehensive approach to teaching

Focus on curriculum decisions

Clear goals for and commitment to learning for all students

A supportive approach to teacher development

7

Overview of data collection SIPA 2004 - 2007

*1942 teachers, several of whom completed the questionnaire in more than one year of the study

Deep Knowledge coding scale To what extent does the knowledge addressed in the lesson focus on a

small number of key concepts and the relationships between them?

1Almost all of the content knowledge of the lesson is shallow because it does not deal with significant concepts or ideas

2Some key concepts and ideas are mentioned or covered by the teacher or students, but only at a superficial level.

3Knowledge is treated unevenly during instruction. A significant idea may be addressed as part of the lesson, but in general the focus on key concepts and ideas is not sustained throughout the lesson.

4Most of the content knowledge of the lesson is deep. Sustained focus on central concepts or ideas is occasionally interrupted by superficial or unrelated ideas or concepts.

5Knowledge is deep because focus is sustained on key ideas or concepts throughout the lesson.

9

Intellectual Quality of lessons

Difference between primary and secondary is statistically significant (t=4.469, df=662, p<.01)

10

Quality Learning Environment of lessons


11

Significance of lessons


12

Quality Teaching and Equity

Students with low prior achievement get poorer quality pedagogy

Indigenous and low SES students get poorer quality pedagogy

Better pedagogy is correlated with narrowing of achievement gaps for indigenous and low SES students

Teachers’ dispositions and beliefs are related to the context in which they work

13

Quality Teaching Rounds

Developed for the ARC Linkage project Effective Implementation of Pedagogical Reform, 2009-2012 – Gore and Miller CIs; Bowe, PhD candidate; Bowe and Roy, facilitators

Taking place in 4 schools, with 7-8 teachers in each school forming a professional learning community (principal included in 3)

Combines aspects of professional learning community, instructional rounds and the Quality Teaching model

14

Literature on teacher buy-in

Convinced effect on teaching practice and student outcomes Explore and understand concept in relation to beliefs and

values Active collaboration and dialogue Trusting, supportive atmosphere External facilitation Coherence in professional learning and in reform agenda Extended professional learning time Leadership support

15

Professional Learning Community

long-term, ongoing commitment to a group

the capacity for the development of trust and respect

colleagues with whom to debate and explore practice

scope for breadth of insights/diverse views to be articulated

16

Rounds process

turn taking which requires all participants to share their practice

a common experience as a basis for analysis and discussion

deprivatised practice

a focus on describing practice

17

Quality Teaching model

a lens through which to comprehensively notice and assess what it happening in any lesson -- both for the teacher and for the students

a tool for the systematic and specific analysis and judging of lesson quality

a focus on the lesson rather than the individual teacher

a framework from which to commence important conversations not only about the specific lesson observed but also about teaching in general

18

Anatomy of a Rounds day Session 1: Professional reading to develop a shared knowledge

base, includes interrogation of the Quality Teaching model, explicitly providing constructive spaces for alternative points of view.

Session 2: Classroom observation by all members of the PLC. A common experience on which to base discussions using the shared lens of Quality Teaching.

Session 3: Coding and discussion of the observed lesson drawing on the language and concepts of the Quality Teaching model. Teachers make judgments about the observed practice based on their own experience, knowledge, and insights. Disconfirming evidence or alternative experiences and views are discussed.

Note: Teachers are encouraged to reflect on their own practice and broader practices within the school, so that the professional conversation moves beyond the observed lesson.

19

The sample Group A: 28 teachers who participated in Rounds,

21completed survey in 2009

Group B: 47 teachers at schools where Rounds were being conducted but not participating

Group C: 256 teachers at 12 other schools in same school system that had participated in QT Rounds pilot and prior QT professional development

Group D: B +C = 303

20

Survey scales

teachers’ view of the coherence of professional learning in the school;

teachers’ view of the coherence between Quality Teaching and aspects of the school organisation:

teachers’ views of the effectiveness of their professional learning experiences;

teachers’ estimate of the level of trust among teachers in the school;

the degree to which they feel supported to engage with Quality Teaching;

how favourably Quality Teaching has been received in their school; how important Quality Teaching is; and, the degree to which they take responsibility for student learning.

Comparison between participants in QT Rounds and non-participants for all scales, 2009Scale QTR

participantd

Professional Learning Coherence*

0.81 QTR 16 34.56 5.416 Non-QTR 223 31.52 5.690 0.54

Quality Teaching Coherence*

0.87 QTR 21 30.24 4.312 Non-QTR 163 27.28 4.327 0.68

Professional Learning Effectiveness*

0.86 QTR 19 21.37 2.166 Non-QTR 206 18.64 3.447 0.81

Teacher to Teacher Trust

0.86 QTR 20 23.55 5.424 Non-QTR 282 23.55 4.292

Quality Teaching Support**

0.67 QTR 18 16.28 1.965 Non-QTR 228 13.38 2.532 1.16

Quality Teaching Reception**

0.7 QTR 21 15.81 1.721 Non-QTR 207 13.51 2.838 0.83

Quality Teaching Importance*

0.68 QTR 20 22.20 1.508 Non-QTR 277 21.12 2.073 0.53

Teacher Responsibility*

0.75 QTR 17 35.88 5.407 Non-QTR 267 32.41 5.189 0.67* p<0.05, ** p0.01, d>0.5 (moderate), d>0.8 (large)

SUMMARY

This comprehensive approach to teacher professional learning, an approach that focused teachers’ attention on student learning, actively and collaboratively engaged them in making sense of the reform, and provided them with extended time and other symbolic and practical forms of support, enabled them to experience coherent and meaningful professional learning.

These data augur well for the potential of Quality Teaching Rounds within professional learning communities to substantially impact on teacher professional learning.

23

Developing Teachers’ Pedagogical Understanding Well, I think the whole notion of not being on your

own, locked behind a door and teaching, … there’s a lot of security in that and this model [QT Rounds] removes a lot of security and … teaching in front of your peers is quite challenging. [I51000209]

We were all along thinking, we’re not going to teach in front of anybody, we’re not going to actually do that, we’ll pull out before that or whatever, but [now] we understand what this is all about…it really, to me, makes me a better teacher” [I51000609]

24

Developing Teachers’ Pedagogical Understanding I think that it’s the best approach to changing your

thinking and changing your classroom practice that I’ve been involved in…This rounds approach means that you’re in the thick of it straight away. There’s no hiding, there’s no – like it’s you’re in there and you’re doing it and it’s affecting your classroom practice… like I was going in and viewing other people’s lessons and there’s so much value in even doing that and learning from each other and it’s the value of the conversation afterwards that’s so important and sort of that reflective practice. [I51300409]

25

Developing Teachers’ Pedagogical Understanding I think the model of teachers presenting lessons and

being coded is beneficial for all. We are learning from each other in a risky but safe way. Risky because you put yourself in front of people you respect and admire, but safe because they can be trusted to deliver honest and helpful critiques. Being in other classrooms widens your experience of different ideas and practices. I have always felt there is a level of ‘performance’ in teaching- and watching other teachers ‘perform’ enriches your own approach to the craft of teaching. [J042010]

26

Distributing power I think I was third and I remember sitting there once

thinking, oh crush [sic], one instance I think where a score was something completely way off what everyone else had coded and I was like ‘oh gosh, I was doing so well.’ …but I think what was more valuable was the talk around it and different people’s insights into why they coded a particular way, so yeah while, though it was just that one fleeting moment of oh dear I’ll just sink into my shell, the conversation allowed me to come back out I guess and then still be a part of all the conversations that came after, still be part of all the sessions that came after. [I51000309]

27

Overcoming differencesI have never planned so collaboratively in my previous 20 years of teaching experience as I have over the last 18 months. I don’t think it’s because I didn’t want to, but I think it was the fact that I felt I was very dissimilar in my teaching style to others I have worked with. The focus of lessons or units I have previously taught didn’t seem to always go with the way others were teaching the same material. Now that we all have the same ideas about what makes a great unit or a great lesson I see how similar I am to the way I plan with my grade partner. Because we have the same language and goals for a lesson/unit now, we are not bogged down with the way we like to do things, but are focused on the way these lessons should be planned: what to include, what to leave out, what is the focus. [J112009]

28

Negotiating agreement Yeah you have your shared understandings … you’ve

got something to base it on so it doesn’t matter if you’ve been teaching a hundred years or two years you know, if you can put it in the context and argue it for or against within that framework or that language, then it kind of becomes a benchmark. Because if you don’t have that, it’s very easy for me to convince anybody that what I’m doing is right, if I don’t actually have something to stick onto. [I51100210]

29

Negotiating agreement This year a lot of our time, for two or three hours, is

centred on debate and discussion and clarification and challenging each other’s ideas and I think [this] comes through the confidence, and talking the language, and understanding and unpacking what was happening in the lesson, as well unpacking what the suggestions and what the elements are all about and what they’re centred on. [I5120042010]

30

Negotiating agreement so you’re talking about apples and apples whereas if

people are off doing their own thing, there is no commonality of either any form of criteria let alone the language that you will use, so for us the benefit has been around - it’s the critiquing that we’ve done that’s been important. [I1000910]

And when you look at like the 1 to 5 criteria, you’re actually now honing in on okay what does that one little word mean and how you actually score people and why you score people there rather than say a 3 or a 5 if you’re choosing a 4. It can be just that one little word that…and you actually really think about it much more now than you used to and me in particular I do. [I51300510]

31

Affirming and Reassembling SchemaI’ve really, really enjoyed the opportunity to be involved with Quality Teaching. First of all in general because I…having taught for 30 years, it was probably…came at a good time when I was starting to feel a little bit stale. I wasn’t unhappy with my teaching but Quality Teaching has helped me look at it in the lens, under the QT lens, but make some changes to my teaching and it’s given me really good professional development that I wouldn’t have had otherwise, so I’ve really valued it for those reasons. I think it’s affirmed a lot of the things that I’ve always thought but made me look more closely at it and be more specific in what I’m…when I’m planning to do things, look at it much more specifically because I now have language to use around it, which has been helpful.[I51100310]

32

Coherent focus That was our very first step here. Once we started

using that language with each other things started to move but before that, when it was just two of us or three of us that just had it, I mean with everyone okay, but once we all joined the group and started using the language I think that’s when we made the big moves. [I1000510]

33

SIPA_EIPR N Mean SD SEM ~d Diff PSD 09 d

Deep knowledge SIPA 664 3.48 1.09 0.04 EIPR 28 4.39 0.83 0.16 0.94 0.91 1.09 0.84

Deep understanding

SIPA 664 2.81 0.77 0.03 EIPR 28 3.36 0.62 0.12 0.78 0.55 0.77 0.71

Problematic knowledge

SIPA 664 1.61 0.78 0.03 EIPR 28 2.04 0.88 0.17 0.52 0.43 0.78 0.55

Higher order thinking

SIPA 664 2.55 0.93 0.04 EIPR 28 3.96 0.69 0.13 1.72 1.41 0.93 1.53

Metalanguage SIPA 664 2.47 1.20 0.05 EIPR 28 3.36 0.91 0.17 0.83 0.89 1.19 0.75

Substantive communication

SIPA 664 2.84 1.01 0.04 EIPR 28 4.07 0.81 0.15 1.35 1.23 1.00 1.23

INTELLECTUAL QUALITY

SIPA 664 15.76 4.03 0.16 EIPR 28 21.18 2.42 0.46 1.63 5.42 3.98 1.36

34

SIPA_EIPR N Mean SD SEM ~d Diff PSD 09 d Explicit quality criteria

SIPA 664 1.84 0.99 0.04 EIPR 27 3.30 0.82 0.16 1.60 1.45 0.98 1.48

Engagement SIPA 664 3.30 0.86 0.03 EIPR 27 4.67 0.56 0.11 1.90 1.37 0.85 1.61

High expectations SIPA 664 2.60 0.98 0.04 EIPR 27 4.22 0.85 0.16 1.77 1.62 0.97 1.67

Social support SIPA 664 3.70 0.93 0.04 EIPR 27 4.56 0.80 0.15 0.98 0.85 0.92 0.92

Student's self-regulation

SIPA 664 3.67 0.96 0.04 EIPR 27 4.59 0.57 0.11 1.17 0.93 0.95 0.98

Student direction SIPA 664 1.57 0.83 0.03 EIPR 27 2.07 1.04 0.20 0.54 0.50 0.84 0.60

QUALITY LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

SIPA 664 16.68 3.82 0.15 EIPR 27 23.41 2.29 0.44 2.13 6.72 3.77 1.78

35


Background knowledge

SIPA 664 2.73 0.99 0.04 EIPR 27 3.59 0.89 0.17 0.92 0.86 0.98 0.88

Cultural knowledge

SIPA 664 1.27 0.65 0.03 EIPR 27 2.15 1.23 0.24 0.90 0.88 0.68 1.29

Knowledge integration

SIPA 664 1.45 0.76 0.03 EIPR 27 2.85 1.23 0.24 1.38 1.41 0.78 1.80

Inclusivity SIPA 664 4.20 1.06 0.04 EIPR 27 4.70 0.72 0.14 0.56 0.51 1.05 0.48

Connectedness SIPA 664 2.04 1.01 0.04 EIPR 27 2.89 1.05 0.20 0.83 0.85 1.01 0.84

Narrative SIPA 664 2.30 1.36 0.05 EIPR 27 3.26 1.23 0.24 0.74 0.96 1.35 0.71

SIGNIFICANCE SIPA 664 13.98 3.41 0.13 EIPR 27 19.48 3.60 0.69 1.57 5.51 3.41 1.61

36


QUALITY TEACHING TOTAL

SIPA 664 46.42 9.44 0.37 EIPR 27 64.04 7.03 1.35 2.12 17.62 9.36 1.88

SIPA EIPRIntellectual Quality

Knowledge is treated unevenly during instruction. A significant idea may be addressed as part of the lesson, but in general the focus on key concepts and ideas is not sustained throughout the lesson. Deep understanding is uneven. Students demonstrate both shallow and deeper understanding at different points in the lesson. A central concept understood by some students may not be understood by other students. Some knowledge is treated as open to multiple perspectives. Students primarily demonstrate routine lower-order thinking a good share of the lesson. There is at least one significant question or activity in which most students perform some higher-order thinking. Low metalanguage. During the lesson terminology is explained or either the teacher or students stop to make value judgements or comment on language. There is, however, no clarification or assistance provided regarding the language. Substantive communication among students and/or between teacher and students occurs occasionally and involves at least two sustained interactions.

Most of the content knowledge of the lesson is deep. Sustained focus on central concepts or ideas is occasionally interrupted by superficial or unrelated ideas or concepts. Deep understanding is uneven. Students demonstrate both shallow and deeper understanding at different points in the lesson. A central concept understood by some students may not be understood by other students. Some knowledge is treated as open to multiple perspectives. Most students demonstrate higher-order thinking in at least one major activity that occupies a substantial portion of the lesson. Some use of metalanguage. At the beginning of the lesson, or at some key juncture, the teacher or students stop and explain or conduct a “mini-lesson” on some aspect of language, e.g. genre, vocabulary, signs or symbols. Substantive communication, with sustained interactions, occurs over approximately half the lesson with teacher and/or students scaffolding the conversation.

SIPA EIPRQuality Learning Environment

Only general statements are made regarding the desired quality of the work. Variable engagement. Most students are seriously engaged in parts of the lesson, but may appear indifferent during other parts and very few students are clearly off-task. Many students participate in challenging work during at least half of the lesson. They are encouraged (explicitly or through lesson processes) to try hard and to take risks and are recognised for doing so. Social support is clearly positive. Supportive behaviours and comments are directed at most students, including clear attempts at supporting reluctant students. Most students, most of the time, demonstrate autonomy and initiative in regulating their own behaviour and there is very little interruption to the lesson. Once or twice during the lesson, teachers comment on or correct student behaviour or movement. Low student direction. Although students exercise some control over some aspect of the lesson (choice, time, pace, assessment), their control is minimal or trivial.

Detailed criteria regarding the quality of work are made explicit during the lesson, but there is no evidence that students are using the criteria to examine the quality of their work. Serious engagement. All students are deeply involved, almost all of the time, in pursuing the substance of the lesson. Most students participate in challenging work during most of the lesson. They are encouraged (explicitly or through lesson processes) to try hard and to take risks and are recognised for doing so. Social support is strong. Supportive behaviours or comments from students and the teacher are directed at all students, including soliciting and valuing the contributions of all. All students, almost all of time, demonstrate autonomy and initiative in regulating their own behaviour and the lesson proceeds without interruption. Low student direction. Although students exercise some control over some aspect of the lesson (choice, time, pace, assessment), their control is minimal or trivial.

SIPA EIPRSignificance

Students’ background knowledge is mentioned or elicited briefly, is connected to the substance of the lesson, and there is at least some connection to out-of-school background knowledge. No explicit recognition or valuing of other than the knowledge of the dominant culture is evident in the substance of the lesson. No meaningful connections. All knowledge is strictly restricted to that explicitly defined within a single topic or subject area. Students from all groups are included in a significant way in most aspects of the lesson, but there still appears to be some unevenness in the inclusion of different social groups. The teacher or students try to connect what is being learned to the world beyond the classroom, but the connection is weak and superficial or trivial. Narrative is used on occasion as a minor part of the lesson and/or is loosely connected to the substance of the lesson.

Students’ background knowledge is mentioned or elicited several times, is connected to the substance of the lesson, and there is at least some connection to out-of-school background knowledge. Some cultural knowledge is evident in the lesson, but it is treated in a superficial manner. At least one meaningful connection is made between topics or subject areas by the teacher and/or the students during the lesson. Students from all groups are included in all aspects of the lesson and their inclusion is both significant and equivalent to the inclusion of students from other social groups. Students recognise some connection between classroom knowledge and situations outside the classroom, which might include sharing their work with an audience outside the classroom, but they do not explore implications of these connections which remain largely abstract or hypothetical. Narrative is used at several points in the lesson to enhance the significance of the substance of the lesson.

40

For me the greatest positive that has come out of the QT PD this year was the time we were given to be able to have professional conversations around current research and best practice and equally to be able to go into our colleagues’ classrooms and see great learning that is taking place across the school and again have the professional conversation around that. As a school I believe we've been comfortable with our colleagues in our rooms and having safe professional dialogue, but to be able to have the time to dedicate to such conversations has been invaluable. This type of course comes with the negatives of the number of days away from our classes, time it takes to organize work etc. In saying that I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives as the learning and conversations that came out of these days were some of the best professional learning that I have been a part of.

41

For more information, email:[email protected]

Documents

From the Quality Teaching model to Quality Teaching Rounds: Leading professional learning