Flipping the focus

instructional Leadership in mathematics - administrators' perspectives

11/4/2019

Introduction

Welcome back to Flipping the Focus. In the last post, I asked the following about inspiring insights towards innovative teaching practices.

What do you do to move yourself and others FROM insight TO implementation TO staying the course?

Today's post builds onto that by seeking a closer examination of a, perhaps not so well understood, form of leadership--i.e., Instructional Leadership (Neumerski 2012, MISA 2018, 2019a, 2019b). Please note that the content of this post isn't being offered as a solution; rather, in consideration of current evidence and respect for local contexts, it is being shared to help generate conversation around leadership for improvement. Let's start with a few guiding questions:

What does it mean to be an Instructional Leader?
What are the characteristics of effective, Instructional Leadership?
How is this form of leadership impacted by one's role? (E.g., as a teacher, an administrator or system support partner)
How might leaders transfer this evidence as well as their own experiences to district- and school-level improvement in Mathematics?

Instructional Leadership in Mathematics - An Example

In May 2019, I was both happy and thankful to have attended the 2019 Ontario Association of Mathematics Educators (OAME) Annual Conference in Ottawa, ON--both as a participant and volunteer.

OAME

Through the conference, I was able to meet and learn alongside various educators--many of them working in different roles in #mathed | #mathedu | #iteachmath | #mtbos: classroom teachers, coaches and administrators. Given my past experiences working with teachers and coaches (having been in both of these roles, myself), I took the opportunity to pay closer attention to the perspectives of administrators as architects for school improvement in Mathematics.

Gathering as a focus group, three administrators offered to share their experiences in multiple ways over time--a) conversations, b) interview (emergent themes, see Fig. 1) and c) group conferencing (i.e., 'meet' them in the podcast, below). Leading towards a one-to-one interview with each administrator, several prompts were provided for reflection (as follows):

What was your interest in attending OAME?
What did you learn (alongside your team, if applicable) while at OAME?
How might this influence the culture of teaching and learning math in your school?
Do you have any tips to offer up regarding professional learning for Math Education?
Are there any other thoughts, regarding the conference or professional learning in mathematics, you’d like to share?

Following the interviews, each administrator's responses were qualitatively analyzed for sub-themes. These sub-themes, as well as their descriptors--what one could use as codes for future analysis (i.e., in conjunction with what we currently know about instructional leadership), appear in Fig. 1, below.

Fig. 1 - Analysis & Interpretation of Interviews

As you review Fig. 1, take note that Attribute 1 (A1) was drawn from an intersection of Questions 1 and 2; A2 from Q2 & Q3; and A3 from Q3 & Q4. Also important to note is the context in which each administrator is practising instructional leadership. In general, there was variation in terms of school population (demographic, size), past experiences brought to the role (e.g., coaching as system level support) and years of experience.

What, at this time, seems notable are the larger themes (or Attributes, Fig. 2) that can be drawn from their responses--that is, by looking down each column of Fig. 1.

Fig. 2 - Attributes of Instructional Leadership for Improvement in Mathematics (An Example)

Attributes of Instructional Leadership for Mathematics

I am moved deeply by this example. And I have a number of questions--many of them wondering about the implications of these attributes with respect to both future, local improvement efforts, as well as how the conditions for growing instructional leadership are done at scale (i.e., across a system of education). Here are a few questions to get started--questions that will help guide the development of my own Instructional Leadership:

Implications & Considerations

How do these attributes correspond to what we currently know about the evolving role of instructional leaders? (see the links to literature reviews provided in the introduction)
How well do these attributes, over time, correspond to improvements in students' motivation and achievement in Mathematics?
How might the example constructed, from what these leaders have shared, evolve as a result of developmental evaluation? (based on generating and assessing practice-based evidence through cycles of inquiry)
In relation to #3: What does internal accountability look like and how do monitoring practices become pedagogical for educators--both locally and systemically?
In relation to #2 and #3: What professional learning is required to continue building and sustaining student motivation and achievement in Mathematics?

Next Steps - Taking Insights towards Innovation for 2019/20

Beyond our interviews, we took time to meet online and expand upon the Attributes, above, in the form of a podcast. You can access the podcast--Episode 4: Instructional Leadership in Mathematics - Administrator's Perspectives--below. I am deeply grateful for the time and dedicated commitment by the administrators who participated. 'Meet' them by listening, and as you listen, try reflecting upon the guiding questions drawn from the Attributes, as well as the list of Implications & Considerations, above.

Final Remarks

In closing, I can't help but to think of the conversations that can be inspired when we take collective action to improving student learning. As this blog is a means for readers to network and gradually change the context for how they teach and learn, we all benefit by drawing nearer to the perspectives shared here and shared beyond with our professional learning networks.

I am more than happy to collaborate with you and make our learning visible, here. If at any time, you have questions or comments, please feel free to reach out to me at Flipping the Focus.

Sincerely,

Chris Stewart, OCT
Education Leader at Flipping the Focus

CONTACT

BOOK CHRIS

0 Comments

inspiring insights towards innovative teaching practices

7/10/2019

0 Comments

Welcome back to Flipping the Focus.

As suggested by the title of today's post, ...

What inspires you towards being innovative in your teaching (or leadership) practice?
How do you come by inspiration?
And better yet, what do you do to move yourself and others FROM insight TO implementation TO staying the course?

A) Sources of Inspiration
This Spring and Summer, I've had the privilege of contributing my experiences in Education as a course instructor for Intermediate and Senior Math ABQs through the University of Windsor's Centre for Teaching and Learning. And I must say that this has and continues to be a source of inspiration for my own pedagogical practice and instructional leadership. I am both thankful and grateful for my students' leadership in learning for and on behalf of one another.

Of the many discussions and assignments that students engage in, most recently students completed some background research on gap-closing in Mathematics and shared and discussed their perspectives with one another. What came out of that discussion for both students and their instructor (me) was a deepened sense of learning for all--all of it made possible by the authentic engagement of each contributor. And the discussion went well beyond working to close gaps: the conversation guided us towards planning the actions we could take to prevent gaps from being created and widened over time.

Below is a response that was shared with students as general commentary and feedback to the insights evoked from their contributions--A Letter to Students: Gap-closing in Mathematics. At this time, I'm sharing it with you for your consideration and commentary.

B) A Letter to Students: Gap-closing in Mathematics

"Hello Everyone. What a lively discussion around why gaps occur, what to do when they do, and most importantly how to address closing them! From what I can see, as the conversation evolved, is a theme of pro-activity. Thanks so much for your contributions.

A number of keywords 'lifted' off the page for me, as I spent time thinking about your posts. Perhaps, this highlighting bears some implicit bias as per my experiences, but I hope that you don't mind me sharing. These words included the following:

LIST: diagnostic, extra support, learning styles, school/district support, SES, student engagement, novelty (interpreted), assessment (formative; interpreted), confidence & teacher efficacy (interpreted).
Interestingly, if other educators were to look upon this list without context, I'm not altogether certain that "gap-closing" would be the first response. So what does this mean? I'm going to refer back to a term/adjective that <student> has been using in some of their posts--and that term is "dynamic".

If you have a moment, perhaps you can scan the following Capacity-Building Series document on "Dynamic Learning" (2013) and see how the ideas presented there either square with your thinking, leave you wondering, and/or give you takeaways to apply to your pedagogical practice. The monograph aims to connect student learning with teacher learning--i.e., what it means to be a dynamic learner (either from the student or educator perspective). I think that you'll find it both inspiring and thought-provoking.

After I took time to scan the monograph and do some further reflection, I thought about re-grouping the terms into an overarching theme and sub-groups.

RE-GROUPING: Over-arching Theme: Student Engagement | Group 1: diagnostic, learning styles, novelty | Group 2: assessment, learning goals, backwards design | Group 3: extra support, school/district support, SES, individual & collective teacher efficacy

Essentially, our role is to help students engage in learning--learning that is relevant and meaningful, as well as learning to becoming more assessment-capable over time. This is the over-arching theme I'm proposing.

Groups 1 & 2 refer to those aspects of pedagogical practice that fall within the domain of educators and groups of educators. Group 1 aspects focus on getting to know students early on, and the term "novelty" (interpreted from one of the posts) relates to getting to know our students, as uniqueness in the experiences we cultivate are paramount to student engagement. There is a fair amount of cognitive/brain science that relates to novelty and its importance in students transferring their learning to long-term memory and/or having facility in retrieving information. For additional reading, I'd like to suggest the following:

Book: How the Brain Learns Mathematics (2015) by David A. Sousa.

If you have the opportunity to purchase (or borrow) the book and study it with colleagues (e.g., a book study with a school learning team), I think you'll find some wonderful benefits there. Chapters 5 & 6 deal with the concept of novelty and learning for both the pre-adolescent and adolescent brain. It's a great resource to have in your professional library.

Group 2 is the "heart-and-soul" or "art of teaching" that we engage in daily, and from a macro-level, we spend significant amounts of time in terms of designing assessment plans that flow from the big ideas and curriculum (call this "Point A") to students identifying what's important to their learning (these very ideas; call this "Point B"). Although simply put, there's so much that happens between these points in time and is consistently influenced by the Group 1 aspects you've brought to light. And let us not forget the importance of students being a part of co-designing the assessment process (this has also been mentioned (interpreted from) several of your comments in different posts).

Group 3 elements are primarily directed from the domain of instructional leaders--be they teacher-leaders, administrators, supervisory officers or a combination of all three. The formalized, extra support examples in our discussion were tied to also boosting parent confidence in the supports being made available to their children. Certainly in these times (and historically), it's key that we are growing public confidence in public education, as "we're all in this together"--parent engagement...not just involvement...is important to student and school success.

As per the research of Dr. Ken Leithwood, adherence to school improvement, with a predominant focus on parent confidence and engagement (what is referred to as the "Parent Path") will not effectively yield the sought improvements in student engagement and achievement, but it is one of several contributing factors. The greatest (most influential) factor upon a school's improvement is a focus on the teaching and learning that educators and their students do on a daily basis--teaching, as I identified earlier, being driven by student need. This is well-documented in the research literature (e.g., Viviane Robinson, University of Auckland) and is a key aspect of any leader's approach to school improvement.

The mechanism for these improvements lies in what we refer to as Collaborative Inquiry--i.e., investigating a shared problem of practice that relates to pedagogical practice. For example, at the elementary level, we might focus on unpacking a continuum of additive or multiplicative strategies for operating on numbers. In the secondary panel, we might focus on formative assessment practices--i.e., what the use of conversations, observations and products looks like for both teachers and their students.

These shared problems change over time, as educators, schools and systems evolve with new student and societal challenges being identified as urgent needs. The collaborative study (as done by learning teams) is also a source of increasing both individual and collective teacher confidence and efficacy towards improving student engagement and achievement.

This brings me back to the theme mentioned at the outset of my response: pro-activity. Throughout this post, I haven't been referring to and/or using the term, "gap" or "gap-closing". This is not intentional: it's a product of what you've presented along the way. This, in no way, implies that gap-closing is not going to be addressed. Veritably, there are times where we need to provide tiered supports to students to help them draw closer to the goals of the curriculum they're working towards attaining--absolutely. My point, here (as you've inspired), is that which we do in preparation for (i.e., our own learning...as determined by student need), during (based on ongoing, formative assessment), and after (reflecting upon the monitoring of students' learning and our own) working with our students over specific intervals of time can and will go a long way to help close learning gaps (i.e., for students) and achievement gaps (for groups).

As for mitigating factors--SES, parent engagement, supports from districts and other sources, etc.--we will always be working alongside these (sometimes urgently, persistently, flexibly or a mixture of all of these modes), but amazing things can be accomplished with our most challenging students when they are motivated to learn--cared for, challenged and championed by the adults in their school.

Lastly, in addition to the resources I've suggested earlier (Dynamic Learning, David Sousa, and the work of Dr. Ken Leithwood), you might find the following helpful in your journey. I've included links to make them more accessible.

-Ontario's "Achieving Excellence" document (2014)
-Learning for All (Ministry of Education, 2013)
-Focusing on the Fundamentals of Mathematics: Teacher's Guide (2018)

I hope that you've found this post helpful and that you've been as inspired by your peers' contributions as I have been. Thanks again for your contributions...so appreciated. If you have any further comments to share to this thread, and/or have additional questions/comments you'd like to share with me, please feel free to do so.

All the best, Chris."

C) Inspiring Insights Towards Innovation in Teaching
Outside of accreditation being a source of external inspiration, what are the primary, internal drivers for a group of professional educators to generating insights towards innovation? Our purpose and intentions--to improve the conditions for both teaching and learning--are supported because our own learning involves the following drivers:

Relevant curriculum and meaning-making supported
Collaborative and supportive learning environments
- Relational trust links being established
Building knowledge from places of strength and experience, as well as being research-informed
Accountability to learning on behalf of others
Autonomy through the group, as well as respect for individual choices, contributions, and self-pacing

These are but a few sources that come to mind, and perhaps there are more and/or specific examples of these drivers influencing innovation. If you are inspired by this post; that is, if you find yourself drawing nearer to the example and perspectives shared through this post, I would like to encourage you to comment to this forum by responding to the prompts shared at the outset:

What inspires you towards being innovative in your teaching (or leadership) practice?
How do you come by inspiration?
And better yet, what do you do to move yourself and others FROM insight TO implementation TO staying the course?

D) Final Remarks
In closing, I can't help but to think of the conversations that can be inspired when we take collective action to improving student learning. As this blog is a means for readers to network and gradually change the context for how they teach and learn, we all benefit by drawing nearer to the perspectives shared here and shared beyond with our professional learning networks.

I am more than happy to collaborate with you and make our learning visible, here. If at any time, you have questions or comments, please feel free to reach out to me at Flipping the Focus.

Sincerely,

Chris Stewart, OCT
Education Leader at Flipping the Focus

CONTACT CHRIS

LET'S COLLABORATE!

0 Comments

cognitive science...meet the thinking classroom

2/27/2019

0 Comments

Welcome back to Flipping the Focus.

Introduction
In the last post (here), you read an interview, conducted by Flipping the Focus, with Ottawa Educator, Jaime DePippo (@MrsDePippo). The interview was Part 2 of a series that delved into the mindset and actions of an educator who is actively exploring the impact of the Thinking Classroom Framework (see Liljedahl, 2017) on student learning and teaching--in both Mathematics and English (Grades 9 and 10, Applied courses).

During a recent conversation that I had with a colleague, we reflected upon the following statement from that interview:

"Students are capable, critical thinkers and problems solvers. If we deprive our students of these opportunities, they will not grow. Students need to be actively engaged in their learning."

This quote, in turn, lead us to the following wonderings:

1-What does this mean for educators' planning?

Given that adolescents are more likely to respond faster emotionally than rationally, how can we better support their learning?
How can we engage adolescents' understanding that it's difficult for them to 'override automatic responses' because their pre-frontal cortex is still maturing?

2-How does novelty--in the context of the Thinking Classroom--fit into conversations (perhaps, larger ones) about student engagement?

The remainder of this post focuses on these questions--that is, not in an effort to answer them: As pointed out by the last wondering, the goal is our own learning...through conversations about exploring where novelty 'fits' into our teaching practices.

As you continue with the information presented from both cognitive science and the Thinking Classroom, invite a colleague to read, reflect on practice, and discuss next steps with you.

"Cognitive Science...Meet the Thinking Classroom"

Thinking Classrooms
In an earlier post, I listed and defined each of the elements (E) of the Thinking Classroom (here). These elements are clustered into, what Dr. Peter Liljedahl, refers to as gears. In the graphic (right), the 14 elements are colour-coded into their respective gear. Generally, as we evolve our pedagogical practice through the elements, we tend to begin with Gear 1 (G1) and progress by adding subsequent gears over time (G2 to G4).

Cognitive Science
Currently, I am helping support networked/regional professional learning around improving student outcomes in Mathematics through inquiry. The inquiries are being implemented by nine, district school boards in Eastern Ontario. These districts, for many years now, have been contributing to both networked learning and educational research through the Eastern Ontario Staff Development Network (EOSDN).

A complementary resource that educators are studying is David A. Sousa's How the Brain Learns Mathematics.

List of Peter Liljedahl's 14 Thinking Classroom Elements

Geared (4) Elements (14) of The Thinking Classroom

Recently, I've been reading and reflecting upon both brain development and cognitive processes that influence teaching and student learning. Below are some highlights from Chapter 5 (Teaching Mathematics to the Preadolescent Brain) and Chapter 6 (Teaching Mathematics to the Adolescent Brain).

Highlights on Teaching Mathematics to Preadolescent and Adolescent Brains

Based on some the emerging themes, I couldn't help but to consider how these highlights might 'bump up against' the geared elements of the Thinking Classroom Framework. In relation to the wonderings presented (#1 and #2, above), how might the intersection of both cognitive science and Thinking Classrooms impact educators' planning and interaction with students in the evolution of their classroom practice?

In the section that follows, I will present a draft of results of some coding that I completed between the framework and Chapters 5 & 6. In terms of my own interpretation, I am currently seeing that aspects of both cognitive science (CS) and Thinking Classrooms (TC) play a reciprocal role in student learning. That is to say, a TC pedagogy is more successfully enacted when we attend to preadolescent and adolescent brain development, while student cognition is supported by engaging students with the geared elements of the framework.

Results: "Cognitive Science (CS)...Meet the Thinking Classroom (TC)"

Thinking Classroom Gear Frequency Results - Preadolescence

Figure 1 - TC Gear Frequency Preadolescent

Thinking Classroom Gear Frequency - Adolescent

Figure 2 - TC Gear Frequency Adolescent

Figures 1 and 2 present the relative frequencies with which each of the gears (i.e., group of elements) related to the highlighted material in Chapters 5 and 6. Most notable are the differences between the relative frequencies of Gears 2 and 3 (see graphic for description of each gear's elements, above).

Figure 3 - TC Elements Frequency (Combined Sets)

TC Elements-Adolescent
Figure 3 presents the frequencies for each of the 14 elements and for each stage in cognitive development--preadolescence and adolescence. The adolescent data portrays elements 9 through 11 as supporting adolescent cognition the most (i.e., "Gear 3")--specifically, managing hints and extensions; consolidating from the bottom; and student self-assessment.

Next to these, elements 4, 7 and 12 were also coded frequently--i.e., using verbal instructions, constructing meaningful notes, and communicating where students are in their learning/where they are going, respectively.

TC Elements-Preadolescent
Figure 3 also presents the frequencies for preadolescent learners. Notably, elements 4, 8 and 10 seem to be most influential in supporting preadolescent cognition (i.e., verbal instructions, building autonomy, and consolidating from the bottom, respectively), followed by elements 7, 9 and 12.

Discussion
Before wading further into the complexity of these results, I would like to re-emphasize that these are drafted--i.e., they, on the basis of my interpretation, suggest how CS and TC are related. They also provide you with a glimpse into my own reflective practice: not only is this how I inquire, in part, into examining the value of pedagogical practice on student engagement and learning; it is also representative of the collaborative inquiries we can be doing alongside and in support of future-ready learners.

It's also important to consider those places where I have used the word, "most", in relation to support. For example, when thinking about the most frequently recorded skills for preadolescents, it's not that learners already 'arrive' with these abilities; rather, we use the elements to actively engage learners and support the development of their executive functioning. Similarly with adolescents, learners may not enter in to your class already expressing the skills encompassed by the emerging themes (table, above). What it does imply is that we can attend to planning and interacting with learners in ways that will bring about growth in these areas.

"Students are capable, critical thinkers and problems solvers. If we deprive our
students of these opportunities, they will not grow. Students need to be
actively engaged in their learning."

In addition to the thinking, above, each student develops and attains proficiency in different ways and at different times. To help students grow their mindset around becoming assessment-capable, actively build, share and discuss students' learner profiles with them--especially as you plan tiered interventions with your "students of mystery". You can access a sample TC observation and student profiling template here to support your TC planning, documentation and profiling.

With respect to planning instruction for all (Chapter 2; Learning for All, 2013), we might interpret Figure 1 as Gear 2 elements being more widely used to setting the foundation for more complex interactions between preadolescent learners with elements of the "Assessment Loop" (Causarano & Coulombe, 2018)--for example, establishing assessment capability for deepened learning through self-assessment, goal setting and monitoring towards attaining goals.

Moving towards adolescence, we might look upon the prevalence of Gear 3 elements as leveraging students' growing capacity to solving complex problems for deepening their conceptual understanding. We might also see how assigning fewer, meaningful "check your understanding" problems puts less strain on working memory, provides adequate time for elaborative rehearsal--lending itself also to developing procedural fluency.

Across all graphs (Figures 1 to 3), you'll note an under-representation of gear 1 and 4 elements. Gear 1 elements--good tasks, VNPSs and VRGs: these are the starting point for any educator's journey into enacting a TC pedagogy. Even for educators consistently practising Gear 4 elements, alongside their students, Gear 1 elements are a 'gateway' to engaging in deep, pedagogical practice. Notably, these elements can be implemented quickly and, perhaps, contribute indirectly--through classroom structures (physical space and groupings)--to student cognition. Gears 2 and 3 are comprised of a number of strategies that engage students to being active in their learning. Our engagement with these strategies means that we are consistently monitoring and communicating with learners over time. These actions, we might say, have direct impact on student learning and are more easily referenced against developmental markers from CS. Lastly, most of the Gear 4 elements relate to assessments of learning. These can be redressed by students and teachers in a formative manner but constitute a small amount of all assessments performed.

Conclusion
Beyond what has been presented in this post, there is so much that we can discuss and propose as inquiries that bridge the gap between the many opportunities we have to promote student learning and the actual learning that takes place for educators and their students.

In the opening, two wonderings were shared:

1-What does this mean for educators' planning?

Given that adolescents are more likely to respond faster emotionally than rationally, how can we better support their learning?
How can we engage adolescents' understanding that it's difficult for them to 'override automatic responses' because their pre-frontal cortex is still maturing?

2-How does novelty--in the context of the Thinking Classroom--fit into conversations (perhaps, larger ones) about student engagement?

As you move forward with your own journey into enacting a TC pedagogy, I believe the following might serve as good guiding statements:

The Thinking Classroom can be enacted in such ways to support the development of student cognition.
The Thinking Classroom supports what is currently known about cognitive science and brain maturation.

When students understand how they learn and why a particular pedagogy is being used, they will be more likely to see themselves as confident and assessment-capable learners.

How Might I Share This Synthesis in My Context?

If the ideas presented in this post is something that you'd like to share within your own context (e.g., PLC, district team, learning network), I have posted a consolidation of the blog in the form of a slide-deck for your use. If you do happen to use it, please extend an invitation to me to discuss your plans.

You can view the slide-deck below, as well as downloading your own copy that includes notes I've used in speaking about the material in this blog, as well as future, potential directions for collaborative and action-based research.

Prefer to listen to a presentation of the synthesis? View the slides in the form of video? See the button below to listen/view.

MAKE A COPY

VIEW/LISTEN

Final Remarks
In closing, I can't help but to think of the conversations that can be inspired when we take collective action to improving student learning. As this blog is a means for readers to network and gradually change the context for how they teach and learn, we all benefit by drawing nearer to the perspectives shared here and shared beyond with our professional learning networks. Please feel free to share your comments and questions to this post using the "Leave a Reply" form provided, below.

I am more than happy to collaborate with you and make our learning visible, here, in this blog and across Flipping the Focus' social media platforms, as well as your own. If at any time, you have questions or comments, please feel free to reach out to me at Flipping the Focus.

Sincerely,

Chris Stewart, OCT
Education Leader at Flipping the Focus

CONTACT CHRIS

BOOK CHRIS

References
Causarano, J., & Coulombe, H. (2018, September 14). The Assessment Loop: Merging Assessment and Instruction. Retrieved January 29, 2019, from https://harnessassessment.com/2018/09/04/the-assessment-loop-merging-assessment-and-instruction/

EduGAINS. (2013). Learning for All, A Guide to Effective Assessment and Instruction for All Students, Kindergarten to Grade 12. Retrieved from http://www.edugains.ca/newsite/Learning4All/whats_L4All.html

Liljedahl, P. (2017, October 17). Building a Thinking Classroom in Math. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/article/building-thinking-classroom-math

Margaret Sinclair Memorial Award Lecture: Peter Liljedahl. (2019, February 14). Retrieved from http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/activities/18-19/Margaret-Sinclair-lecture

Sousa, D. A. (2008). How The Brain Learns Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Thinking Classrooms: An Interview with Jaime DePippo - Part 2 [Online Interview]. (2019, February 18).

0 Comments

the Equity through pedagogy series: thinking classrooms - Revisited

2/19/2019

0 Comments

Welcome back to Flipping the Focus.

1-Introduction

Part 1 of the "Equity Through Pedagogy" series took readers through an examination of pedagogical practice through the lens of the Thinking Classroom--in secondary Mathematics and English.

According to Dr. Peter Liljedahl (2017), Thinking Classrooms are defined as spaces “...not [only] conducive to thinking but [that] also [occasion] thinking...a space inhabited by thinking individuals as well as individuals thinking collectively, learning together, and constructing knowledge and understanding through activity and discussion”.

It's important to note that these classrooms go well beyond engagement in vertical spaces--that is, well beyond the Stage 1 elements described in the Part 1 post and summarized by the graphic (see right).

As you reflect upon the elements from Stages 2 to 4, note that these elements serve the conversations we can have with students and one another about refining teaching and learning.

Altogether, the last nine elements relate to the 'glue' that connects all aspects of our pedagogical practice: Formative Assessment.

The 14 Elements of a Thinking Classroom

"...these classrooms go well beyond engagement in
vertical spaces..."

As we collaboratively and continuously explore instructional practices that support students and promote respectful and caring learning communities, these elements can guide us in our efforts to better knowing both our learners and the learning.

Let's consider knowing our students and their learning through the context of the interview that follows.

2-The Search for Flow through Thinking Classrooms

Have you ever found yourself in a state where you were so engaged with a task that nothing else mattered? Think back to that time: Were you neither overwhelmed nor just coasting along? If you felt that you were in that space of 'neither', then you were in flow. Flow results from the dynamic relationship between challenge and skill development (Liljedahl, 2016). As teachers, we have a significant role to play in helping students find flow and what to do, alongside their peers, in this space.

In Part 1 of this series, I mentioned that there are a number of educators, in Eastern Ontario, journeying into building Thinking Classrooms. One of these educators is Jaime DePippo (St. Mother Teresa HS, Ottawa, ON). Jaime has been very gracious in speaking with me about her practice, and I am privileged and thankful to Jaime for the opportunity to feature her experiences, here, on Flipping the Focus.

Below, you'll see a continuation of our previous conversation, beginning with Question #4 (previously published). The remainder of the post focuses on Meaningful Notes, Spiralling, and Getting Started with a Thinking Classroom.

"Communicating where a student is and where they are going, alongside assessment AS learning, moves student learning forward."

3-A Conversation with Jaime DePippo

Question 4: You explained earlier that students are building and showing autonomy through their "meaningful notes". What does this look like in practice? What are you and your students doing?

Answer:
I use a gradual release model with my students in Applied English and Mathematics.

-A template, that provides some constraints--largely, the space provided for creating notes (i.e., not taking notes)--is shared with students towards the end of a period of learning.

-Students are encouraged to take notes when they need to.

-On a day-to-day basis, exit tickets are used to provide students with feedback.

-Using exit tickets allows me to provide suggestions for next steps. Students can map the next steps into the ‘what’ that they could be writing down in their notes.

-Students are not bound to making meaningful notes only at specific times in their learning.

-I accomplish this by spiralling the curriculum. Through interleaving the content, students have multiple opportunities to revisit and bring greater depth and meaning to their notes.

[The conversation continues, below, with a closer examination of meaningful notes.]

Question 5: In Stage 2 of Dr. Liljedahl’s elements is "Meaningful Notes". "Level to the Bottom" is in Stage 3.

-How fluid/flexible might we be in moving between these Stages? For example, should educators seek to fully level with student thinking, then build meaningful notes?
-Simultaneously level and build notes?

Altogether, how might a teacher best coach their students towards building autonomy?

Answer:
At the beginning of a semester, I provide students with a template for creating their own meaningful notes. Essentially, the templates have only the key headings for the concepts students are learning.

[As a side-note, having the templates is important for educators who are teaching through spiralling their curriculum. For the math courses I teach, there are typically 4 spirals (or cycles). The first two cycles tend to be the longest, and by the time we reach cycle 4, there is less new material--i.e., the complexity of the tasks and the interconnectedness of concepts increases towards and throughout the final cycle.

As far as student learning is concerned, students feel more successful when spiralling: there isn’t a need or a feeling that you have to attain mastery right away. One of the primary goals of spiralling is to continuously go deeper with critical thinking and problem solving.]

[Back to the beginning of the semester...]

As we work towards consolidating student thinking in relation to a learning goal/goals, I’ll do some checks for understanding, which can be a small number of individual questions or related task so that students can see how they’re doing. I also use exit cards frequently to gain a better understanding of what students have been taking away from their time thinking alongside their peers. It’s through the exit cards, that I can create another opportunity to provide feedback to students.

Above all of this, it’s important to remember that consolidation doesn’t always occur at the end of the task--student readiness is important: the exit card is key in my formative assessment and mentally-preparing students for self-assessment.

With this feedback, students can go back to their notes (template) and write down those things that are important--i.e., meaningful--to them. For example, some of my early feedback would include notes to (and conversations with) students to write down the things that are not as familiar to them, as well as what their next step(s) would be.

By the time we get to Cycle 2, I find that students require less prompting to making their own, meaningful notes: student autonomy is always growing, cycle-by-cycle.

Earlier, I mentioned that conversations are a vehicle for providing students feedback. These principles are still in effect when we’re working on some test items. For example, if there are aspects of a student’s work that are not shining through on a test, I’ll ask them to show me their notes. It’s through their meaningful notes that a conversation about learning opens up (or re-opens). It’s during these moments that you can really tell if a student knows what they’re doing and what our next steps will be. In fact, there has been many times where a student’s assessment of learning has been enriched through conversation.

Question 6: There are many ways that educators can create safe and productively challenging learning environments with their students—some that do not include a Thinking Classroom.

If asked by a teacher why they should consider trying a Thinking Classroom, what advice might you provide to them? On getting started?

Answer:
Students are capable, critical thinkers and problems solvers. If we deprive our students of these opportunities, they will not grow. Students need to be actively engaged in their learning.

In any subject, nowadays, the goal of the student experience is not to remember everything. The goal is to create critical thinkers and people with strong collaboration skills, as well as their other global competencies. These are the skills and competencies that students will need moving forward. As educators, we have a great opportunity to show students that anything is possible when they develop and use these kinds of skills. And because we’re our own worst critics, sometimes students need us to point out their strengths: it’s through their strengths that they can develop/use these skills and grow as learners.

All of this said, teachers and administrators should start by attending a workshop or spending time in the practice of other teachers who are practising a Thinking Classroom model for teaching and learning. Asking questions of teachers and students who have immersed themselves in a Thinking Classroom everyday is important. Hear their feedback about what has changed: engagement, curiosity, achievement, perseverance, etc.

Beyond this, I would say start small; take your time; and seek support from and collaboration with another person. There’s a lot to be said about planning and teaching together. To get a sense of the dynamic that’s possible between students and students and teachers--all of this in relation to the task that’s assigned--there’s a lot to be gained by spending time in and with these types of classrooms. Based on that experience, I would then encourage teachers to try the model by incorporating the Stage 1 elements--good tasks, visibly random groups and vertical non-permanent surfaces/whiteboards. For good tasks, there are plenty of resources available. 3-Act Math Tasks are a great base for teaching through problem solving--examples including Kyle Pearce & Jon Orr and Dan Meyer.

Realistically, it’s tough work to practise a Thinking Classroom model on a consistent basis, but it’s very gratifying and rewarding for both teachers and their students to see and hear themselves growing in autonomy and experiencing success. It has been and continues to be for me.

And I’m still learning! So if you’re starting out, don’t feel like you have to include all the elements of the Thinking Classroom right away. Dr. Liljedahl suggests you start with the top gear (visual included, above), and master that before you move on to the next. It happens in stages: not all right away. Start with something that you find manageable and continuously reflect and challenge you and your students to go deeper. Do some of your planning, teaching and reflecting with someone you trust. For feedback, also have them help you with how you’re going to challenge yourself in going for next steps.

4-Final Remarks

Achieving Excellence in Applied Courses (AEAC, 2017/18)

As this post draws to a close, I am certain of the following: my experience in teaching and learning has been enriched due to the collaboration that was experienced in seeing this post through from start to finish.

As you reflect upon the final question, below, I would like to encourage you to think about inviting others to share in your experience--e.g., co-planning, co-teaching, debriefing and reflecting towards next steps with Thinking Classrooms and spiralling your curriculum.

Evidence reported from a large number of districts' administrators, across Ontario, is showing that successful classroom strategies for improving student performance in Applied-level Mathematics courses includes co-planning and co-teaching, as well as spiralling and classrooms that include the use of vertical spaces (AEAC, 2017/18; see graphic, right).

Might you consider incorporating a Thinking Classroom into your pedagogical practice?

In closing, I can't help but to think of the conversations that can be inspired when we take collective action to improving student learning. As this blog is a means for readers to network and gradually change the context for how they teach and learn, we all benefit by drawing nearer to the perspectives shared here and shared beyond with our professional learning networks.

I am more than happy to collaborate with you and make our learning visible, here, in this blog and across Flipping the Focus' social media platforms, as well as your own. If at any time, you have questions or comments, please feel free to reach out to me at Flipping the Focus.

Sincerely,

Chris Stewart, OCT
Education Leader at Flipping the Focus

CONTACT

BOOK CHRIS

5-References

AEAC Project Team, Ontario Ministry of Education, Student Achievement Division. (2019). Achieving Excellence in Applied Courses: Dialogue with Principals, School Teams and Board Leads (Rep.).

Liljedahl, P. (2017, October 17). Building a Thinking Classroom in Math. Retrieved fromhttps://www.edutopia.org/article/building-thinking-classroom-math

Liljedahl, P. (2016). Flow: A Framework for Discussing Teaching. Proceedings of the 40th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 203-210). Retrieved from http://www.peterliljedahl.com/wp-content/uploads/PME-2016-Flow-and-Teaching-1.pdf

Thinking Classrooms: An Interview with Jaime DePippo [Online Interview]. (2019, January 23).

Thinking Classrooms: An Interview with Jaime DePippo - Part 2 [Online Interview]. (2019, February 18).

0 Comments

<<Previous

blog

instructional Leadership in mathematics - administrators' perspectives

inspiring insights towards innovative teaching practices

cognitive science...meet the thinking classroom

the Equity through pedagogy series: thinking classrooms - Revisited

Author

Archives

Categories

Contact