LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

2012). When teachers give common assessments aligned to essential standards, they are able to compare results to determine which initial instructional practices are producing the best results. Formative assessments are classroom and curriculum evaluations teachers use to monitor student progress toward learning outcomes and to inform instructional decision making. Rather than considering these as assessments of learning, assessment expert Rick Stiggins (2007) calls them assessments for learning, because they inform both teachers and students. Teachers embed formative assessments in the current unit of instruction and use them to diagnose where students are in their learning.

      It is important to note that not all formative assessments have to be given in common, and not all common assessments need to be formative. But when teachers combine these two powerful assessment processes, Hattie (2009) finds that common formative assessments have the astonishing impact rate of 0.90. (In chapter 6, page 147, we take a closer and more detailed look at the assessment process.) Any school committed to a highly effective core instructional program would ensure that teacher-created common formative assessments, designed to guide both teachers and students in their next steps, would be the foundation of assessment practices.

       How Will We Respond When Students Don’t and Do Learn?

      How do educators respond when students struggle to achieve their essential learning targets? Furthermore, how do they respond when students succeed in achieving those learning outcomes? The purpose of RTI is to answer these two questions. Tier 1 core instruction creates the instructional focus and ongoing assessment processes necessary to effectively respond when students need additional support.

      Now, consider for a moment the prerequisite conditions necessary for a school to successfully provide supplemental and intensive interventions for students who require additional support and extended learning for those who are ready to master grade-level curriculum. Asking an individual teacher to meet all these needs in his or her classroom would be unrealistic. Educators who have formed the collaborative teams of a PLC can respond collectively when students need additional time for remediation or extended learning. Yet, teachers on the same team could not collectively provide these supports unless they first agreed on essential learning outcomes and the kind of ongoing common and formative assessment information necessary to identify both student needs and the effectiveness of initial instruction. Creating a guaranteed and viable curriculum and ongoing common formative assessment processes are the foundational building blocks of an effective Tier 1 core instructional program. They are also practices that drive and depend on frequent, job-embedded teacher collaboration. These practices do not reduce teachers to the role of instructional facilitators but instead empower teacher teams to make critical decisions regarding curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Equally important, these PLC practices don’t cripple an individual teacher’s ability to practice the art of teaching. They give educators the freedom to determine how they will initially teach essential standards.

Leveraging the Power of Student Collaboration

      As important as teacher collaboration is to good instruction, teacher-to-student and student-to-student collaboration are equally essential to the learning process. As we discuss in chapter 2, the neuroscience of learning confirms that the brain seeks social interaction, relevance, and meaning. Students are best able to develop these attributes when they are engaged in the learning process, rather than being mere idle spectators in the classroom. Student engagement begins when teachers carefully create a classroom environment that provides safety and order but also promotes student participation in the instructional process. Equally important, teachers must provide students the opportunity to answer the four critical PLC questions from their own perspective. Then, those questions become:

      1. What do I need to learn?

      2. How will I know if I am learning it?

      3. What must I do when I am not learning?

      4. What can I do to extend my learning?

      Having students answer these questions can help them develop what Hattie (2009) identifies as the most powerful leverage of learning at our disposal—self-grading. Students can successfully self-grade (become assessment-capable learners) when they:

       Clearly understand what they must learn

       Clearly know what they must be able to do to demonstrate proficiency

       Know how to self-assess their progress

       Have strategies to successfully respond when their efforts fall short

      Students cannot master these outcomes through passive observation. When students develop the ability to self-grade, the impact rate is 1.44—the highest impact rate Hattie (2009) reports in his initial study. Beyond offering self-assessments of their performance, students also benefit from playing an active role in the creation and implementation of strategies to improve their performance—practices that we will describe in detail throughout this book. Unless teachers can see students successfully demonstrate what they taught, then they have no evidence that learning has taken place. Furthermore, teachers cannot observe this when students are passive participants in the learning process. Learning requires teachers working with their students and students working with each other to transform instruction into application and action.

      In this chapter, we’ve explored the big picture of good teaching and how the PLC process is essential to an effective core instructional program. We’ve also taken a brief look at some of the previous attempts to improve core instruction and why those efforts failed. While all of these powerful ideas are worthy of deep and ongoing discussion, this book isn’t just a collection of ideas—or guiding principles and general concepts. Instead, it offers specific recommendations and proven tools to achieve these outcomes. In the next chapter, we do just that, as we dig deeper into the process of creating a brain-friendly classroom environment and explaining how that environment contributes to the successful implementation of best practices at Tier 1.

Taking the Discussion Further

      Following are some of the important ideas from this chapter that are worthy of further reflection and discussion. Educators in a PLC may want to read through this chapter with their collaborative teams and discuss each section, recording the issues related to each piece of information and considering classroom implications for students. Collaborative teams can reflect on the prompts to deepen understanding and set subsequent goals for improvement.

       What are some of the past efforts to improve core instruction? Why didn’t they work?

       Revisit Hattie’s (2009) quote, “Not all teachers are effective, not all teachers are experts, and not all teachers have powerful effects on students” (p. 34). Discuss its implications for your classroom and school and the core curriculum.

       What are the two characteristics of good teaching? How do your teams illustrate these?

       Revisit the quote “Good teaching is not ‘what I do for my students’ but instead ‘what we do with our students.’” How is collaboration part of your instruction?

       Скачать книгу