task 4 meeting – oct 4, 2000 -...

Supporting a Comprehensive

Approach to LiteracyHand-outs for Day 1

A Course Created by the Alliance of Regional Educational Service Centers

Comprehensive Literacy

(Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening, Viewing, Presenting)

Read AloudTeacher reads to children, mode ling how fluent readers interact wi th text

Shared ReadingTeacher conveys

bedtim e story atmosphere,

modeling reading stra tegies; chi ldren

jo in in

Guided ReadingSm all groups of

children read; teacher acts as guide

choosing texts so children wil l be

successfu l

Modeled WritingTeache r

dem onstrates the act of writing;

teacher chooses topic & "owns " the

writing

Collaborative/Shared WritingTeacher scribes as teacher & students

compos e jointl y, s haring the topic.

Interactive WritingTeacher &

s tudents com pose jointly, sharing the

topic and pen

Sharing Time

Students share what they have read or written,

practicing speaking,

listening, viewing & presenting

Spelling and Word Study

Children work with developmental ly

appropriate words, bu ilding vis ual & audi tory memory

Phonemic Awareness/

PhonicsChildren develop

sound/symbol understanding in

oral & wri tten language

Independent Writing

Students choose topic & practice wri ting process

Content Area

LiteracyTeacher

integrates l iteracy across

all content areas; children view literacy as a

natura l part of all learn ing

Independent Reading

Teacher & students practice reading alone; child is

responsible

Additional materials can be found at: www.blackboard.com/courses/RLA515

Day 1 Hand-outs for Supporting a Comprehensive Approach to Literacy - Page 1

Supporting a Comprehensive Approach to Literacy

Day 1 Agenda

Agenda topics Outcomes9:00 - 9:45 AM Welcome!

Introductions and expectations

Background on the Early Reading Success Grant and the State Literacy Initiatives

Overview of the training and KWR from Literacy Teams

Meet, share expectations, learn about the state's literacy initiatives and the training that is planned for the day.

9:45 - 10:30 AM The Conditions of Learning for Acquiring Language

Conditions of learning reflection activity

The conditions of learning in action

Learn about Cambourne's conditions of literacy learning.

10:30 - 10:45 AM Break Relax!

10:45 - 11:30 AM The Conditions of Learning for Acquiring Language (continued)

Sharing reflections with the whole group and review of Cambourne's conditions of literacy learning

Discuss the implications of Cambourne's Conditions on our work.

11:30 - 12:00 Noon What is a Comprehensive Approach to Literacy?

Reflection Activity: What is literacy?

A definition of literacy and the four roles of a literate person

A graphic organizer and planning tool

Explore a comprehensive approach to literacy. Discuss the four roles of a literate person.

12:00 - 12:45 PM Lunch Eat and enjoy!

12:45 - 2:45 PM What is Cognitive Coaching?

Definition and implications

Building a trusting relationship

Johari's Window

Where do effective communications skills fit?

Examine cognitive coaching as a strategy to support a comprehensive approach to literacy.

2:45 - 3:00 PM Closure and Next Steps

Homework Assignment

Feedback on the session

Discuss homework assignment. Provide feedback on the training.

Homework Assignment: 1. Observe a lesson in at least one classroom using the Reflections on Observation hand-out to make notes. Debrief the observation with the teacher. Get feedback from the teacher on the conference using the Coaching Feedback Sheet. Write up a reflection on how the conference went. Bring all of your notes to Day 2.


2. Bring sample/s of student work from one student with whom you are working.

3. Review hand-outs and articles; bring questions to Day 2.


Cambourne's Conditions of Learning: A Model of Learning as it Applies to Literacy

Learners need to be immersed in text of all kinds.

Immersion

Learners need to receive many demonstrations of how texts are constructed and used.

Demonstration

Expectations of those to whom learners are bonded are powerful coercers of learners' behaviors. "We achieve what we expect to achieve; we fail if we expect to fail; we are more likely to engage with demonstrations of those whom we regard as significant and who hold high expectations for us.

Expectations

Probability of engagement is increased if these conditions are also optimally present.

Learners need to make their own decisions about when, how, and what "bits" to learn in any learning task. Learners who lose the ability to make decisions are disempowered.

Responsibility

Learners need time and opportunity to use, employ, and practice their developing control in functional, realistic, and non-artificial ways.

Employment

Learners must be free to approximate the desired model - "mistakes" are essential for learning to occur.

Approximations

Learners must receive feedback from exchanges with more knowledgeable others. Response must be relevant, appropriate, timely, readily available, and non-threatening, with no strings attached.

Response

From: Cambourne, Brian. (1995) "Toward An Educationally Relevant Theory Of Literacy Learning: Twenty Years Of Inquiry". The Reading Teacher, Vol. 49, No. 3.

Engagement

Engagement occurs when learners are convinced that:1. they are potential

doers or performers of these demonstrations;

2. engaging with these demonstrations will further the purposes of their lives;

3. they can engage and try to emulate without fear of physical or psychological hurt if their attempts are not fully correct.

Helping learners to make these decisions constitutes the artistic dimensions of teaching. It is difficult for teachers who dislike children.


CONDITIONS OF LEARNING REFLECTION ACTIVITY

Think back on something that you learned as an adult. Reflect on the following questions and then write your answers to them.

1) What did you learn?

2) How did you go about learning it? 3) Why did you choose to learn it?

4) What/Who helped you learn it? 5) What hindered your learning?

6) How did you know that you had learned it?


Balanced Early Literacy: Classroom Environment:The Natural, Optimum Language Learning Environment

In a natural, optimum, print-rich learning environment, teachers have the opportunity to create conditions where:

1. Children’s interest is sparked by what they see and hear so that they want to learn the new skill (immersion – see below for full description of terms)

2. Children believe that they can achieve competence (expectation) 3. Children are able to make decisions about how much they will attempt

(responsibility) 4. Children are safe from criticism when they take risks (approximation) 5. Children are shown numerous models and given a lot of direct instruction

(demonstration) 6. Children have plenty of opportunity to practice new skills and strategies and try to

improve proficiency (demonstration/immersion) 7. Children receive praise and encouragement from teachers and peers (feedback)

The Seven Conditions of Natural Language Learning(Brian Cambourne)

ImmersionFrom the moment they are born, children are surrounded by meaningful spoken language. They are "immersed" in a "language flood." Proficient users of the language of the culture into which children are born surround them with the sounds, meanings, cadences, and rhythms of the language. It is important to remember that this language is meaningful and purposeful.

DemonstrationIn the process of learning to talk, children receive thousands and thousands of demonstrations (models or examples) of the spoken form of the language being used in functional and meaningful ways. The "demonstration" of the conventions that are used to express meanings is repeated over and over again. In this way, learners are given the information that enables them to adopt the conventions they need to use to be speakers of the language of their culture.

ExpectationUnless their infant is severely disabled, parents expect their children to learn to speak. These expectations are subtle forms of communication to which children respond. We let children know that they will learn to walk and talk, even though walking and talking may be complicated. We know that, as they are watching and listening, they will sort out movements, steps, and the complexities of language. If we give off the idea that learning to read, write, spell, and learn another language is difficult, complex, and beyond the grasp of some children, then they will respond accordingly. The kids in the "Green Stars" group eventually learn to read, write, and spell like "Green Stars" because we expect them to.


ResponsibilityWhen learning to talk, children are left to take responsibility for what they learn. They master grammatical structures at different ages. Some will talk "fluently" and appear to reason well for their 4 or 5 years; others will move more slowly. By 6 1/2 years, however, most children talk with ease and express themselves well. The point is that they arrived at the same point by different routes. This is natural learning. If we took away this responsibility, our children may never have learned to talk.

ApproximationYoung learners using the oral mode of language are not expected to display full-blown competence from the beginning. Parents often reward young children not just for being right, but for coming close – that is, for their approximations. Children should be rewarded the same privilege with respect to the written language. When a child writes, "WSAPANATM" (Once upon a time), it’s time for celebration!

EmploymentWe provide our children with plenty of opportunities to learn to talk as they grow. We don’t ask our children to wait until "talking time" comes around to use the conventions of oral language. We do not restrict children to twenty minutes a week to learn the formal conventions of language. We likewise shouldn’t restrict children’s frequent employment of print. In classrooms, we need to provide children with many opportunities to engage in using the medium of print.

FeedbackThe evidence from Tambourine's studies (and others) is quite conclusive. Older siblings, older adults, and parents who are with young children during their early years of learning to talk give them a very special kind of feedback. The feedback is always nurturing. The response contains the "acceptable" conventions of language without unnecessary attention to the child’s errors. This type of feedback mirrors how teachers of the young support children as they learn to write, plan, and revise their work. Providing this feedback means giving children many chances to see good writing and hear quality reading.

Source: The School District of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PAhttp://www.phila.k12.pa.us/teachers/frameworks/bel/content/bel_b002.htm


What Is Literacy? Literacy - (noun) state of being literate (able to read and write); possession of an educationSource: The American College Dictionary

Literacy Definition from the Government of Tasmania

Source: ww.discover.tased.edu.au/english/liteng.htm#continuity

Literacy is viewed no longer as a single, finite 'thing', but rather as a flexible group of skills and strategies that are closely linked to context and purpose. Contemporary definitions of literacy are characterised by activity, critical thinking and linguistic and cultural knowledge.The definition of literacy that has been adopted by government schools in Tasmania is the one agreed to by State and Federal ministers in 1997:'Literacy is the ability to read and write and use written information and to write appropriately in a range of contexts. It also involves the integration of speaking, listening, viewing and critical thinking with reading and writing, and includes the cultural knowledge which enables a speaker, writer or reader to recognise and use language appropriate to different social situations.' (Literacy Policy, DoE, Tasmania)


The Four Roles Of A Literate PersonSource: http://www.discover.tased.edu.au/english/liteng.htm#continuity

Students need to be proficient in four interrelated dimensions of language use.Freebody and Luke (1991) identify the roles literate people take on as: code breaker; text participant; text user; and text analyst. Code Breaker 'How do I crack this code?' This involves being able to decode and encode language at anappropriate level of proficiency. It includes recognising and being ableto speak and write words and sentences; it incorporates phonics andthe use of accurate spelling and grammar.Text Participant 'What does this mean to me?'Students use their knowledge of the world, knowledge of vocabularyand knowledge of how language works, to comprehend and composetexts. Examples of activities that involve this role include: making a listof questions after reading a poem for the first time; comparing theworlds created in two science fiction films; predicting the style andcontent of a television program from the opening titles.Text User 'What do I do with this text?'Students understand how language varies according to context,purpose, audience and content, and are able to apply this knowledge.Examples of activities that involve this role include: creating aninformation leaflet for a sporting club; preparing a talk about newbooks in the library for an assembly; choosing an appropriate style fora letter or phone call thanking a visiting speaker.Text Analyst 'What does this text do to me?'Students critically analyse and challenge the way texts are constructedto convey particular ideas and to influence people. Examples ofactivities that involve this role include: working out the beliefs aboutfathers implied in a range of picture books; looking at newspaperphotographs to consider who is not represented and why this might be;re-writing fairy tales to present different ideas about gender or class.




Read AloudTeacher reads to children, modeling how fluent readers interact wi th text



modeling reading strategies; chi ldren

jo in in




successfu l

Modeled WritingTeacher



writing


compos e jo intly, s haring the topic.



topic and pen

Sharing Time



li stening, viewing & presenting



appropriate words, building vis ual & audi tory memory

Phonemic Awareness/




Independent Writing

Students choose topic & practice wri ting process

Content Area

LiteracyTeacher

integrates l iteracy across

al l content areas; children view literacy as a

natural part of all learn ing

Independent Reading


responsible


Types of Reading & Writing

in a Comprehensive Literacy Program

Read AloudTeacher reads the story/text (to whole class or small group) in order to convey content, provide exposure to and appreciation of varied literature, etc.

To

Modeled (or Demo) WritingTeacher demonstrates writing process, style and/or strategies (for whole class or small group) and thinks aloud (metacognition). Students observe, comment, and/or take notes.

Shared ReadingTeacher and whole class or small group read/reread together (songs, poems, stories). Teacher encourages participation and models fluency, expression, reading strategies, etc.

With

Collaborative (or Shared) WritingTeacher and whole class or small group generate the message together and how to write it. Teacher acts as scribe while offering prompts and modeling writing behaviors.

Guided ReadingBased on knowledge of students, teacher selects appropriate reading texts and meets with small groups of similar abilities, providing feedback while students independently apply strategies and read text.

Bridge

Interactive/Guided WritingTeacher meets with small group to apply writing strategies and knowledge. The message may be group-elicited - students are invited/encouraged to contribute to the chart/board story. (The pen is shared). Teacher only fills in unknown information.

Independent ReadingStudents choose to read and enjoy reading other assigned or self-selected text without teacher direction/support

ByIndependent Writing

Students write without teacher involvement i.e. journal-writing, writer's workshop, literature response logs, etc.

Adapted from the Pendergast School District, Phoenix, AZ (http://pendergast.k12.az.us/bal.htm)


Planning a Comprehensive Literacy Program

Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Lunch


Slide 1 ______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

_________________

Slide 2 ______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

_________________

Slide 3 ______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

_________________


Slide 4 ______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

_________________

Slide 5 ______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

_________________

Slide 6 ______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

_________________


Slide 7 ______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

_________________

Slide 8 ______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

_________________

Slide 9 ______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

_________________


Slide 10 ______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

_________________

Slide 11 ______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

_________________

Slide 12 ______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

_________________


When I trust someone, I...(List as many behaviors and/or attitudes that you experience when you trust someone.)

When I want someone to trust me, I...

Building a Trusting Relationship

Three Levels of Trust that Encourage

Cooperation, Collegiality, and

Collaboration

Trust in the relationship with others

Trust in the organization

Trust in self


THE JOHARI WINDOW MODELAdapted from: http://www.knowmegame.com/Johari_Window/johari_window.html

The Disclosure/Feedback model of awareness known as the Johari Window, is named after Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham. It was first used in an information session at the Western Training Laboratory in Group Development in 1955.

The four panes of the window represent the following:

Open: The open area is that part of our conscious self - our attitudes, behavior, motivation, values, way of life - of which we are aware and which is known to others. We move within this area with freedom. We are "open books".

Hidden: Others cannot know our hidden area unless we disclose it. It contains information that we freely keep within ourselves and that which we retain out of fear. The degree to which we share ourselves with others (disclosure) is the degree to which we can be known.

Blind: There are things about ourselves which we do not know, but that others can see more clearly; or things we imagine to be true of ourselves for a variety of reasons but that others do not see at all. When others say what they see (feedback), in a supportive, responsible way, and we are able to hear it; in that way we are able to test the reality of who we are and are able to grow.

Unknown: The unknown window is information that is unknown to self and others. We are more rich and complex than what we and others know, but from time to time something happens - is felt, read, heard, dreamed - something from our unconscious is revealed. Then we "know" what we have never "known" before.

It is through disclosure and feedback that our open pane is expanded and thatwe gain access to the potential within us represented by the unknown pane.

Known to Self Unknown to Self

Known to Others Open/Public Blind

Unknown to Others Hidden/Private Unknown

Feedback

Disclosure

http://www.knowmegame.com/Johari_Window/johari_window.html


PRINCIPLES OF CHANGE WITHIN THE JOHARI WINDOWSource: http://www.augsburg.edu/education/edc210/johari.html

8. A change in any one quadrant will affect all other quadrants.9. It takes energy to hide, deny, or be blind to behavior which is involved in interaction.10. Threat tends to decrease awareness; mutual trust tends to increase awareness.11. Forced awareness (exposure) is undesirable and usually ineffective.12. Interpersonal learning means a change has taken place so that Quadrant I is larger, and one or more of the

other quadrants has grown smaller.13. Working with others is facilitated by a large enough area of free activity. It means more of the resources

and skills in the membership can be applied to the task at hand.14. The smaller the first quadrant, the poorer the communication.15. There is universal curiosity about the unknown area; but this is held in check by custom, social training,

and by diverse fears.16. Sensitivity means appreciating the covert aspects of behavior, in Quadrants II. III. IV. and respecting the

desire of others to keep them so.17. Learning about group processes, as they are experienced, helps to increase awareness (larger Quadrant I)

for the group as a whole as well as for individual members.18. The value system of a group and its membership may be noted in the way unknowns in the life of the group

are confronted.19. A centipede may be perfectly happy without awareness, but after all, he restricts himself to crawling under

rocks.

http://www.augsburg.edu/education/edc210/johari.html


Effective Communication

What Conveys Attitudes or Feelings?

Effective communication starts with good listening skills. Listening means more than just hearing what is said. It means actively responding to what’s said with both your body and your voice. When you listen responsibly, a person will feel respected and important. You’ll be establishing a climate in which he/she can get the most out of your positive or negative (constructive) feedback.

Studies have shown that just about any message we send out has three components: the words themselves, the tone of voice, and body language. The total amount of information reaching the listener will be influenced by these three factors in a surprising way:

• Words.......................................................7%• Tone of voice...........................................38%• Body language (nonverbal)......................55%

Mehrabian, Nonverbal Communication & Human Interaction

Both tone of voice and body language play a powerful role in shaping any message.

Body Language (nonverbal)Because many managers believe that their job is to do the “telling,” they miss the easiest nonverbal listening method: BE quiet. Other nonverbal listening skills include:

• Maintaining eye contactThis is an important way to indicate that you are listening. Direct eye-to-eye contact, particularly during tough moments, is often reassuring. However, riveting or staring should not replace normal eye movements.

• Keeping an open body positionYour body position conveys interest or disinterest. An open body position shows that you are ready and willing to receive what the other person is saying. Among the ways to listen with your body are:- Face the other person directly.- Lean toward the person.- Assume a relaxed posture.- Keep your body (particularly hands) still while listening.- Maintain a “warm’ facial expression.- Match body language.

• Using positive body movementsThe way you move your body communicates a great deal about the value you place on what the other person is

saying. To “turn your back” on someone is to convey a lack of interest in what they are saying, while “welcoming with open arms” conveys just the opposite. Facial expressions such as nodding and smiling communicate that you are listening.

People communicate by the way they speak as well as by what they say. An irritable or urgent tone of voice, for example, inhibits communication. A relaxed, warm tone of voice works best. Using short, specific statements or questions, “pregnant pauses” before you speak, and keeping your comments to a minimum are also effective.


Tone of Voice Activity

Say each of the following sentences in at least three different ways to convey three different intents:

1. I didn’t fail that test.

2. Step into my office.

3. Can I see you later today?

4. You did an excellent job.

5. Can he tell me more about that?

6. Yes.

7. No.

8. Here’s a new memo from the State Department of Education.

9. Don’t worry about it.

10. I had a wonderful day today.


“The greatest enemy of communication is the illusion if it.”William H. Whyte

Active Listening Skills

For active listening to take place, the listener should make use of certain skills to make sure he/she understands. Very often, consciously or not, we tend to cut off communication rather than make the effort to understand the speaker. The four basic skills listed below aid the listener to understand.

A. Reflecting Skill: Reflecting is the ability to restate as exactly as possible what another person has said to you. Keep in mind the example of a mirror reflecting exactly the image that appears before it.

B. Paraphrasing Skill: In paraphrasing the listener attempts to restate the important elements of the speaker’s statement, while trying to use the speaker’s words, more importantly, capture the meaning.

C. Clarifying Skill: The clarifying question is one that seeks to get at the meaning of what the speaker has said.

D. Drawing Out Skill: This skill is used to allow the speaker the opportunity to expand upon what was said.


Blocks to Communicating

1. Directing, Ordering, Commanding(“You must . . . ” “You have to . . .” “You will . . .”)

2. Warning, Threatening, Admonishing(“You had better . . .” “If you don’t, then . . .”)

3. Moralizing, Preaching, Obliging(“You should . . .” “You ought . . .” “It’s your duty . . .” “It’s your responsibility . . .” “You are required . . .”)

4. Persuading with logic, Arguing, Instructing, Lecturing(“Do you realize . . .” “Here is why you are wrong . . .” “That is not right . . .” “The facts are . . .” “Yes, but . . .”)

5. Advising, Recommending, Providing Answers or Solutions(“What I would do is . . .” “Why don’t you . . .” “Let me suggest . . .” “It would be best for you . . .”)

6. Evaluating, Judging Negatively, Disapproving, Blaming, Name Calling, Criticizing(“You are bad . . .” “You are acting foolishly . . .” “Let me suggest . . .” “It would be best for you . . .”)

7. Praising, Judging or Evaluating Positively, Approving(“You’re a good boy . . .” “Don’t worry . . .” “You’ll feel better . . .” “That’s too bad . . .”)

8. Supporting, Reassuring, Excusing, Sympathizing(“It’s not so bad . . .” “Don’t worry . . .” “You’ll feel better . . .” “That’s too bad . . .”)

9. Diagnosing, Psychoanalyzing, Interpreting, Reading-In, Offering Insight(“What you need is . . .” “What’s wrong with you is . . .” “You’re just trying to get attention . . .” “You don’t really mean that . . .” “I know what you need . . .” “Your problem is . . .”)

10. Questioning, Probing, Cross-Examining, Prying, Interrogating(“Why . . .” “Who . . .” “Where . . .” “What . . .” “How . . .” “When . . .”)

11. Diverting, Avoiding, By-Passing, Digressing, Shifting(“Let’s not talk about it now . . .” “Not at this time . . .” “Forget it . . .” “We can discuss it later . . .”)

12. Kidding, Teasing, making Light of, Joking, Using Sarcasm(“Why don’t you burn down the school?” “When did you read a newspaper last?” Get up on the wrong side of the bed?” “When did they make you principal of the school?”)


REFLECTIONS ON OBSERVATION

Date: _________________ Teacher/Class: ___________________________________

Class Activity/Lesson Observed: ___________________________________________ Use the form below to make notes about what you observe as the class is in session. What is the teacher doing? How are the children responding? What conditions of learning do you see? What questions come into your mind? What can you use or adapt for your situation? Use these notes when you debrief after the lesson ends.

I see… I wonder…

Developed by Jane Cook, EASTCONN – adapted from ELIC Demonstration Lesson Response Sheet


The Cognitive Coach as a Mediator of a Teacher's Thinking

Occasionally, we find that people make the mistake of equating mediation with asking a lot of questions. It is possible for a coach to ask numerous questions of a teacher and be doing very little mediation of that teacher's thinking. While good mediators typically do ask a lot of questions, it is not the number of questions that is significant but their quality. A good mediator asks questions that are directed toward engaging thinking processes. Below is a list of 12 mediational phrases that illustrate how to emphasize thinking processes. Coaches may want to study this list from time to time and ask themselves if they are using mediational language.

1. How did you do that?2. When have you done something like this before?3. Yes, that's right, but how did you know it was right?4. How is ______________________ like (different) ________________________ ?5. When is another time you need to ___________________________ ?6. What do you think the problem is?7. How can you find out?8. What do you need to do next?9. Can you think of another way we could do this?10. Why is this one better than that one?11. What do you think would happen if __________________________ ?12. How would you feel if ________________________________ ?

Questions That Promote Reflection

What pleased you most about this lesson? Can you talk more about that? Why do you think that happened? What evidence do you have for that? Has anything like this happened before? Help me to understand... What has worked for you in the past? What have you tried so far? What did you take into account in planning this? What did you expect would happen? What conclusions can you draw? If you could replay the class, would you make any changes? What would they be?


Coaching Conference Feedback Sheet

Teacher: Coach:

Conference Date: Location:

1. What did you gain from the conference?

2. What questions or concerns did you have after the conference?

3. What suggestions do you have for me to help improve the next conference?


Overview of Cognitive CoachingSource: http://www.cognitivecoaching.cc/overview.htm

Cognitive Coaching is a supervisory/peer coaching model that capitalizes upon and enhances cognitive processes. Art Costa and Bob Garmston, the founders of Cognitive Coaching, define it as a set of strategies, a way of thinking and a way of working that invites self and others to shape and reshape their thinking and problem solving capacities. In other words, Cognitive Coaching enables people to modify their capacity to modify themselves. The metaphor of a stagecoach is one used to understand what a coach does--convey a valued person from where s/he is to where s/he wants to be. Cognitive Coaching is based on the following four major assumptions:

1. Thought and perception produce all behavior. 2. Teaching is constant decision-making. 3. To learn something new requires engagement and alteration in thought. 4. Humans continue to grow cognitively.

A coach is actually a mediator, one who figuratively stands between a person and his thinking to help him become more aware of what is going on inside his head. It is not enough for a person to behave in a certain way--what's important is the thinking that goes on behind the behavior. A large part of the role of a mediator is based on trust and rapport with the person being coached. At the heart of Cognitive Coaching is the concept that each of us has resources that enable us to grow and change from within. Costa and Garmston call these resources (also referred to as capacities or energy sources ) "States of Mind." It is the States of Mind that the coach mediates, allowing the person to use her inner resources more effectively. There are five States of Mind: consciousness, efficacy, flexibility, craftsmanship and interdependence. When a person functions at her resourceful best, she is said to be holonomous. Holonomy is a term that was coined by the physicist, Arthur Koestler; it means to be simultaneously whole and part. A holonomous person is competent and confident as an individual in the organization, and at the same time critical to the effective functioning of the organization. In Cognitive Coaching, the person being coached, not the coach, evaluates what is good or poor, appropriate or inappropriate, effective or ineffective about his/her work. This is a powerful approach to enhancing performance and building learning organizations. It is not conventional evaluation or performance appraisal.

Overview of Cognitive Coaching TrainingCognitive Coaching training focuses on the maps and tools needed to mediate another's thinking. The metaphor of maps and tools is used to indicate the dynamic, individualized way in which coaching takes place. A coach is equipped with maps and tools which s/he uses to assist the person being coached in "navigating" the territory of his/her thinking. Each coach uses the maps and tools in slightly different ways, but always focuses on mediating thinking. The three maps of Cognitive Coaching are: planning, reflecting and problem-solving. Each map has identified elements, which are learned in the training. The three maps interact with each other. When a person reflects on something he has done, he often begins thinking about the next activity or event and begins planning, based on what he learned from reflecting on a previous experience. Problem-solving can come from a person feeling "stuck" or can be part of reflecting or planning. When a person is "stuck" in his thinking, it is usually one or more of the States of Mind that are causing the "stuckness." The main tools of Cognitive Coaching are: rapport, mediative questioning, response behaviors, pacing and leading. The training focuses on learning these tools and using them with the maps. A major focus of the training is trust and rapport. Specifically, a person will do the following in Cognitive Coaching training:

build trust by developing physical and verbal rapport facilitate thinking through questioning and developing greater precision in language develop a person's autonomy and sense of community by increasing their sense of efficacy and

self-awareness distinguish between coaching and evaluation practice coaching interactions that are congruent with a variety of styles apply coaching skills which enhance the intellectual processes of performance

Copyright © 1999, 2000 Center for Cognitive Coaching. All rights reserved.


How Should Learning Be Designed?

Cognitive Coaching

Source: http://www.funderstanding.com/learning_theory_instruct7.html

DefinitionCognitive coaching is based on the idea that metacognition--or being aware of one's own thinking processes--fosters independence in learning. By providing personal insights into the learner's own thinking processes, cognitive coaching builds flexible, confident problem-solving skills. Plus, it encourages self-efficacy and pride.

Basic ElementsCoaching involves the modeling of self-appraisal and the self-management of cognition by an expert. It also involves learner performance and reflection, internalizing, and generalizing.

In modeling, the instructor explains thinking, reading, and calculating strategies by naming the strategy (such as "eliminating alternatives" or "finding the main idea"), then explaining why it should be learned. The instructor also provides explicit steps for using a particular strategy, deciding when it's appropriate, and evaluating it.

Dialogue, both on the part of instructor and student, is another prominent aspect of coaching. For example, in the "scaffolded instruction" technique, teachers and students take turns leading dialogues about texts, asking each other to predict, question, clarify, summarize, and self-appraise.

Scott Paris, in his 1990 article "Promoting Metacognition and Motivation of Exceptional Children" in Remedial and Special Education, lists the following fundamentals of building effective metacognitive skills:

5. Common goals held by teachers and students

6. Ongoing assessment of performance, in order to adjust difficulty levels

7. Mutual regulation--in other words, teachers benefit from the students' misconceptions and observations of the strategies, while students learn from their instructor's previous experience using the strategies

Adult learning principles greatly support cognitive coaching and predict its success. For example, adult coaching is often used as an alternative to clinical supervision in developing the teaching and management skills of school administrators. However, cognitive coaching is also being developed in K-12 instructional programs for special needs and whole language students. Apparently, the same principles apply for both adults and children...imagine that!


Directions in Language & EducationNational Clearinghouse for Bilingual Educationvol. 1, no. 3, Spring 1995

PEER COACHING: AN EFFECTIVE STAFF DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR EDUCATORS OF LINGUISTICALLY AND CULTURALLY DIVERSE

STUDENTSby Paul Galbraith and Kris Anstrom

Source: http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/directions/03.htm

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT?The passage of the 1994 Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), has highlighted the need for integrated, teacher-driven, long-term professional development for all staff involved in the education of linguistically and culturally diverse (LCD) students. This emphasis is exemplified in Title XIII of IASA which authorizes technical assistance and dissemination efforts that assist in "integrating into a coherent strategy for improving teaching and learning" various staff development programs and other education reform efforts (Improving America's Schools Act, Title XIII, sec. 13001, 1994). Furthermore, the Department of Education has developed a set of principles for professional development that stress not only high quality, integrated training but that also recognize the leadership role teachers must assume in their own training (TESOL Matters, Feb/March 1995). This leadership role on the part of educators of LCD students along with interdisciplinary cooperation between bilingual/English as a Second Language (ESL) and mainstream staff is critical for the effective education of LCD students. For too long, the education of these students has been perceived as the domain of only a small group of specialized individuals, namely ESL and bilingual teachers. This perception has often led to the isolation of LCD students from the rest of the school and to the provision of a separate curriculum for those students.

WHAT TYPE OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT IS NEEDED TO IMPROVE COLLABORATION BETWEEN MAINSTREAM AND BILINGUAL/ESL STAFF?District administrators must offer mainstream classroom teachers a wide array of staff development activities which revolve around the education of LCD students. These can include training in theoretical areas such as second language learning and bilingualism, as well as practical suggestions for sheltering English instruction, integrating the teaching of content areas and English as a second language, and cooperative learning. In addition, training should be teacher-driven, as is the case with a peer coaching model of staff development.

WHAT IS PEER COACHING?Peer coaching is defined as a professional development method that has been shown to increase collegiality and improve teaching. It is a confidential process through which teachers share their expertise and provide one another with feedback, support, and assistance for the purpose of refining present skills, learning new skills, and/or solving classroom-related problems (Dalton and Moir, 1991). Peer coaching also refers to in-class training by a supportive peer who helps the teacher apply skills learned in a workshop. Coached teachers experience significant positive


changes in their behaviors, when provided with an appropriate program that insures accountability, support, companionship, and specific feedback over an extended period of time. Coaching is an ongoing process that involves a training stage followed by various extensions of that training. One model describes five functions of successful peer coaching:

Companionship: Teachers talk about their successes and failures with a new model of teaching, reducing their sense of isolation;

Feedback: Teachers give each other objective, non-evaluative feedback about the way they are executing skills required by a new model;

Analysis: Teachers help each other extend their control over a new approach until it is internalized, spontaneous, and flexible;

Adaptation: Teachers work together to fit a teaching model to the special needs of students in the class; and

Support: The coach provides whatever support is needed as the peer teacher begins to apply a new strategy (Showers, 1984).

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF PEER COACHING?Teachers who work with LCD students can benefit greatly from a staff development model which incorporates peer coaching (Kwiat, 1989). On the one hand, ESL and bilingual teachers often experience isolation from their mainstream classroom peers. On the other hand, mainstream classroom teachers do not have the strategies and skills necessary to reach the LCD students in their classrooms. A peer coaching program helps bilingual/ESL and mainstream teachers to form the types of relationships they will need in order to coordinate knowledge and skills needed to serve their LCD students effectively. Mainstream teachers can most easily learn new knowledge and skills and how to apply this knowledge in their classrooms from those peers who are more experienced or more trained in bilingual/ESL education. By experimenting with specific skills and experiencing success through coaching, mainstream classroom teachers are not only able to improve their teaching in such a way that all students benefit, but they also develop a more positive outlook toward having LCD students in their classrooms. (Kwiat, 1989). Peer coaching is a positive solution to some of the problems of traditional inservice offerings that have been used to educate teachers of LCD students. Instead of one-time workshops with no follow-up, peer coaching provides the ongoing assessment of a specific skill or strategy that enables the teacher to continue his/her training in the classroom. This follow-up and continued professional dialog are particularly essential for mainstream and bilingual teachers whose educational training and philosophy may vary widely. For example, inservice pertaining to the integration of language teaching and content instruction could be followed by having the bilingual teacher observe his/her mainstream partner's classes with the objective of noting the presence or absence of particular strategies, such as the use of graphic organizers or the repetition of key phrases. In coaching conferences, peers can discuss individual and school needs as well as give and receive feedback about the specific skill being observed. Coaching reduces isolation by providing the professional dialogue that encourages teachers to generate solutions to their own problems. When teachers collaborate for the benefit of LCD students, coaching is a natural outcome of the cooperative planning meeting. When a teacher works with others to develop an LCD student's educational plan, it is possible that s/he will suggest instructional techniques or interventions not familiar to the other teachers. By sharing instructional strategies and techniques, teachers pool not only their physical but also their intellectual resources. Such collaboration is especially important in enabling teachers from a variety of disciplines to become familiar with and value the contributions of the others. Even when a teacher is receptive to using a new technique and has good intentions for implementation, numerous obstacles may prevent its successful use. A


structured approach is needed to ensure that the new instructional technique is not neglected or practiced incorrectly. Peer Coaching has the potential for furthering a teacher's individual professional development, for improving school climate, and, ultimately, enhancing school effectiveness when a model appropriate to school goals is applied. Teaching strategies such as cooperative learning and writing across the curriculum are examples of topics which can serve as the basis for coaching sessions. (Garmston, 1987).

HOW ARE PEER COACHING PROGRAMS INITIATED?Several approaches to initiating peer coaching are possible. Some peer coaching programs begin with two teachers jointly planning instructional segments in which new knowledge and skills will be applied. For example, a bilingual Spanish teacher and a science teacher could be paired in order to plan and teach a unit on sound that incorporates the language and culture of both English and Spanish speaking students. The school principal provides time for the teachers to observe one another as they carry out the instruction. Observation notes, videotapes, coded information, and narrative reports are prepared. The teachers review and discuss the data together. Actions that might improve the use of the skills and knowledge are explored. New applications are planned, observed, and analyzed (Ward, 1986).Another approach assigns a teacher who is more skilled than other teachers to conduct model lessons, which illustrate the use of new skills and knowledge. The other teachers, in turn, use the model on similar lessons to practice the new instructional processes in their own classrooms. Often, this model is applied by ESL teachers to demonstrate how language can be contextualized so that LCD students can comprehend content area subject matter. Model lessons and the analysis of what occurred both take into account the classroom context and the particular needs of each teacher (Griffin, et al, 1984; Schlecty, Crowell, Whitford, and Joslin, 1984).

WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF PEER COACHING?Four working models for coaching include: technical, collegial, challenge, and team coaching (Garmston, 1987 and Neubert and Bratton, 1987).

Technical coaching refers to the facilitation of transfer from inservice training to classroom practice. This mode promotes collegiality and the sharing of professional dialogue and gives teachers a shared vocabulary for discussing professional views. For bilingual and mainstream teachers, might include discussion of how specific methods (bilingual or ESL) would apply in their classrooms. For example, following inservice on cooperative learning, teachers could discuss how heterogeneous grouping would occur given the language groups and language abilities of students.

Collegial coaching shares the common goals of refining teaching practices, promoting collegiality, and increasing professional dialogue with technical coaching. However, it also helps teachers be more analytical about what they do in the classroom. The long range goal of collegial coaching is self-perpetuating improvement in teaching. For example, a teacher to be observed may want to learn more about how to improve in a particular area. This desire becomes the focus of the coaching sessions. The coach gathers classroom data on the teacher's priority and helps him/her analyze and interpret teaching/learning strategies while encouraging applications to future learning. An example of collegial coaching is given in The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. In implementing CALLA, teachers are advised to keep a teaching log of class activities that can be discussed when meeting with their partners. Examples of categories on the teaching log that can be used to reflect on and discuss with their partners include student activities and type of instruction. In


addition, partners are advised to use a checklist when observing each other so that follow-up discussion is focused on what actually happened during the lesson. Examples of categories on the checklist include: "teacher's language somewhat simplified" and "students' prior knowledge elicited" (Chamot and O'Malley, 1994).

Challenge coaching refers to the application of coaching techniques to the resolution of problematic situations. Teams, which may include teachers, teachers' aides, librarians, and administrators, work together to resolve persistent problems in instructional design or delivery. Challenge coaching often results in a formal plan proposed by all participants for the resolution of a given problem.

Team coaching is a variation on peer coaching and team teaching. Visiting mentors or resource teachers, instead of observing classroom teachers, teach right alongside them. These resource teachers should have considerable expertise in the methodology being used by the teachers they are coaching. The coach and teacher plan, teach, and evaluate the lesson as partners. Bilingual education programs funded through Title VII may employ resource teachers skilled in ESL/bilingual methods serve as mentors to either mainstream or less-skilled bilingual/ESL staff. These teachers coach their peers intensively in their classroom settings to assist them in applying effective methodology for LCD students. The success of team teaching supports the notion that people other than regular classroom teachers can be coaches. However, the coach should always be someone who is a peer; otherwise teachers may perceive the coaching as evaluation rather than collaboration. The importance of support and facilitation by coaches cannot be emphasized enough.

WHAT FACTORS NEED TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE IMPLEMENTING PEER COACHING?Several preconditions should be considered before implementing a peer coaching system:

There must be a general perception on the part of the people involved that they are good but can always get better--that they can always improve what they are doing. This general orientation has been found to characterize effective schools.

The teachers and administrators involved must have a reasonable level of trust; they must be confident that no one is going to distort the situation in any way.

There must be an interpersonal climate in the school that conveys the sense that people care about each other and are willing to help one another (Dalton and Moir, 1991).

HOW IS PEER COACHING IMPLEMENTED?Once preconditions for implementation have been met, various strategies and procedures for implementing peer coaching may be used. One coaching strategy has been developed that provides a systematic way to introduce a new teaching routine to other professionals (Knackendoffel, 1988). This strategy shows the coaching teacher how to introduce a new instructional technique, gain a commitment from other teachers to try it, model the technique, and assist others in initiating the routine. Finally, the coaching strategy shows how to provide feedback and ensure maintenance and adoption of the teaching technique. Each of the coaching strategy steps as suggested by Knackendoffel are listed below.

COACHING STRATEGY STEPS1. Set the stage for collaboration and introduce the teaching routine;2. Gain commitment to listen to the teaching routine;3. Describe the teaching routine;4. Model the teaching routine;


5. Gain commitment to try the teaching routine;6. Offer assistance for initiating the routine (give choices);7. Collaborate on the effectiveness of the teaching routine in class;8. Provide for maintenance and adoption of the teaching routine.This coaching strategy provides a step-by-step procedure to facilitate the effective use of new instructional techniques by other professionals. The process can and should be reciprocal across content areas so that mainstream, ESL, or bilingual teachers all share new techniques. The combined knowledge and experience of these teachers can enrich each educator's teaching skills. This sharing can also extend to other instructional and support personnel in the school.Peer coaches, in a study by Showers (1984), regarded their access to a consultant through weekly staff meetings as essential to their success. For this reason Showers recommends that districts provide some means of ongoing support and training for peer coaches. This training should focus on both the content they are seeking to share with their peers and on the process of coaching. Showers (1984) also notes that teachers and administrators must be creative in organizing peer coaching systems to free up teachers' time. In schools where teachers already have preparation periods scheduled into their work days, teachers can be organized into coaching teams for collaborative planning and feedback sessions. Some schools have used specialist teachers to release teachers for observation periods, and some principals have taken classes in order to provide observation times for teachers. In other cases, teachers have had to videotape lessons for sharing at a later time when live observations could not be arranged. In the peer coaching study reported here, substitutes were provided for peer coaches one day per week in order for them to complete their observations and conferences.Like many educational innovations, peer coaching is more complex than it appears at first glance. To implement a peer coaching program which complements staff development and helps build a community of teacher scholars, educators will want to explore the following areas:

The coaching process: Typically, peer coaching models follow the steps of pre-observation conference and establishment of observation criteria, classroom observation, collection of data, data analysis, post-conference, and establishment of subsequent observation criteria.

Coaching vs. Evaluation: Whereas traditional teacher evaluation typically implies judgement by an administrator/superior about an individual's total professional performance, coaching consists of assistance by a colleague/peer in a professional development process. Successful coaching programs can only be established in an atmosphere of trust and support, where teachers feel it is safe to experiment, fail, reflect, question, solicit help, revise, and try again.

Selection of coaching partners: To help faculty to trust in the process, teachers should be allowed to select coaching partners to form teams of approximately four colleagues who observe each other regularly. As members of coaching teams structured across departments or grade levels, colleagues become more aware of their common resources and challenges, and tend to focus their observations on the target instructional practices rather than primarily on lesson content.

Training of coaches: An effective training-for coaching program includes pre-coaching follow-up training while the program is under way. Training in coaching must empower teachers by helping them identify practices that impede movement toward collegiality and equipping them with an extended repertoire of coaching skills (e.g., providing prompt, descriptive, nonevaluative feedback).

Administrative support for peer coaching: An effective coaching program requires an active and supportive instructional leader (Kinsella, 1993).


WHAT ARE SOME PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS?Six strategies that provide for low-cost arrangements for peer coaching include: 1. Free teachers to observe other teachers by taking their classes. Administrators alone, teaching one period a day, can provide about one-fourth of the hours needed. 2. Schedule larger than classroom-size group instruction. By bringing students together in larger groups, teachers would have time to visit one another. 3. Arrange for independent study and research. Frequently, teachers need to locate and assemble information, study, and then practice instruction. Often these activities can take place in a library or a setting other than the classroom.4. Enlist volunteer aides. Aides enable a number of arrangements to be made that free teachers for peer coaching.5. Seek out student teachers. Student teachers (and aides in some states) can be given limited certificates permitting them legal responsibility for students.6. Organize team teaching. Teachers may be paired not only for coaching but also for instruction. This would enable teachers to free one another to engage in peer-coaching observation and discussions (Showers and Joyce, 1987).The preceding discussion has highlighted various models of peer coaching and has offered suggestions for implementing them. Administrators and teachers interested in pursuing peer coaching as part of their staff development programs are urged to further investigate the various models proposed, keeping in mind the needs and goals of their particular school. Finally, it must be emphasized that any staff development program, including peer coaching, must have the support and leadership of teachers if it is to be successful.

REFERENCESCasteneda, L. (1992). "Alternative visions of practice: An exploratory study of peer coaching, sheltered content, cooperative instruction, and mainstream subject matter teachers." Paper presented at the Third National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues: Focus on Middle and High School Issues, Washington, DC. Chamot, A. and O'Malley, J.M. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Dalton, S. and Moir, E. (1991). "Evaluating LEP teacher training and n-service programs." Paper presented at the Second National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues. Washington, DC.Garmston, R.J. (1987). "How administrators support peer coaching." Educational Leadership, 44 (5), pp. 128-26.Griffin, G.A., Barnes, S., O'Neal, S., Edwards, S. A., Defino, M.E. and Hukill, H. (1994). Changing teacher practice: Final report of an experimental study (Report no. 9052). Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.Hamayan, E. (1990). "Preparing mainstream teachers to teach potentially English proficient students." Paper presented at the First National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Students' Issues, Washington, DC.Hones, D. and Gee, M. (1994). "Flying by the seat of one's pants: An intensive teacher preparation program." TESOL Journal, 3 (2) pp. 8-12.Hudson, P. (1989). "Instructional collaboration: creating the learning environment." In S. Fradd and M. J. Weismantel (Eds.), Meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically different students: A handbook for educators (pp.106-129). Boston: College Hill Press.Improving America's Schools Act, PL 103-382. (1994). Title XIII, Section 13001.


Innovative staff development approaches.(1988). New Focus, No. 4 Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Joyce, B. and Showers, B. (1987, Spring). "Low-cost arrangements for peer coaching." Journal of Staff Development, 8 (1), pp.22-24.Joyce, B., Murphy C., Showers, B., & Murphy J. (1989). "School renewal as cultural change." Educational Leadership, 47 (3), pp. 70-77.Kinsella, K. (1993, Fall). "Quality staff development and peer coaching: Partners in educational change." ARC Currents, 1 (2).Knackendoffel, A. (1988). "Teaming strategies." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.Kwiat, J. (1989). "A peer coaching model for teachers of limited English proficient students." Paper presented at the annual AERA convention, San Francisco.Leggett, D. and Hoyle, S. (1987). "Peer coaching: One district's experience in using teachers as staff developers." Journal of Staff Development, 8 (1), pp. 16-20.Neubert, B.A. and Bratton, E.C. (1987, February). "Team coaching: Staff development side by side." Educational Leadership, 44 (5), pp. 29-32.Showers, B. Joyce, B. and Bennett, B. (1987, November). "Synthesis of research on staff development: a framework for future study and a state of the art analysis." Educational Leadership, 45 (3), pp. 77-87. Showers, B. (1984). Peer coaching: A strategy for facilitating transfer of training. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy and Management.Schlecty, P. C., Crowell, D., Whitford, B. L. and Joslin, A. (1984). Understanding and managing staff development in an urban school system: Executive summary (NIE Contract No. 400-79-0056). University of North Carolina.Smith, S. and Scott, J. (1990). The Collaborative School: A work environment for effective instruction. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. "U.S. legislation--Title VII update." (1995, February/March). TESOL Matters, p. 6.Valdez-Pierce, L. (1988, April/May). "Peer coaching: an innovative approach to staff development." NCBE Forum, 11 (3).Ward, B.A. (1986). "Clinical teacher education and professional teacher development." In J. V. Hoffman and A. Edwards (Eds.), Reality and reform in clinical teacher education (pp. 65-86). New York: Random House.


Bibliography from the Center for Cognitive CoachingSource: http://www.cognitivecoaching.cc/bibliogr.htm

The following bibliography is a composite of research on Cognitive Coaching. Cognitive Coaching ResearchAlbert, S. (1991). Developing beginning teacher autonomy: Gender differences on observer ratings of cognitive coaching elements. Unpublished paper, Federal Way School District, Federal Way, WA.

Awakuni, G. H. (1995). The impact of cognitive coaching as perceived by the Kalani High School core team. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57 (01-A). (University Microfilms No. AADAA-I9613169).

Calhoun, E. F., (1985, April). Relationship of teachers' conceptual level to the utilization of supervisory services and to a description of the classroom instructional improvement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Costa, A., & Garmston, R. "Cognitive Coaching: Mediating Growth Toward Holonomy." Chapter 5, pp 52-60 In Strunk, J., Edwards, J., Rogers, S., & Swords, S. (1998). The Pleasant View Experience. Golden, CO: Jefferson County P.S.

Donnelly, L. (1988, Spring). The cognitive coaching model of supervision: A study of its implementation. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Sacramento.

Edwards, J. L. (1993). The effect of cognitive coaching on the conceptual development and reflective thinking of first year teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40 (12). (University Microfilms No. 93-20751).

Edwards, J. L., & Green K. E. (1997). The effects of cognitive coaching on teacher efficacy and empowerment. (Research Report No. 1997-1). Evergreen, CO: Author.

Edwards, J.L, & Green, K.E. (April 1999). "Growth and Coaching Skills Over a 3 year Period: Progress Toward Mastery." AERA: Montreal.

Edwards, J.L, & Green, K.E. (April 1999). "Persisters v. Nonpersisters: Characteristics of Teachers Who Stay in a Professional Development Program." AERA: Montreal.

Edwards, J. L., & Green, K. E. (In Press). Growth in teacher efficacy, professionalism, and collaboration through cognitive coaching to implement standards-based education. Golden, CO: Jefferson County Schools.

Edwards, J. L., Green, K. E., & Lyons, C. A. (1996). Factor and rasch analysis of the school culture survey. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Edwards, J. L., Green, K. E., Lyons, C. A., Rogers, M. S., & Swords, M. (1998). The effects of cognitive coaching and non-verbal classroom management on teacher efficacy and perceptions of school culture. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

Edwards, J. L. & Newton, R. R. (1994a). The effect of cognitive coaching on teacher efficacy and empowerment. (Research Report No. 1994-1). Evergreen, CO.

Edwards, J. L. & Newton, R. R. (1994b). The effect of cognitive coaching on teacher efficacy and thinking about teaching. (Research Report No. 1994-2). Evergreen, CO.

Edwards, J. L. & Newton, R. R. (1995, April). The effect of cognitive coaching on teacher efficacy and empowerment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.


Flores, J. (1991, Spring). Cognitive coaching: Does it help?, Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Sacramento.

Foster, N. (1989). The impact of cognitive coaching on teachers' thought processes as perceived by cognitively coached teachers in the Plymouth-Canton Community School District. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, Detroit, Michigan. Dissertation Abstracts International, 27. (University Microfilms No. 54381).

Garmston, R. (1990). Is peer coaching changing supervisory relationships?: Some reflections. California Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3 (2), 21-27.

Garmston, R., & Hyerle, D. (1988, August). Professor's peer coaching program: Report on a 1987-88 pilot project to develop and test a staff development model for improving instruction at California State University. Sacramento, CA.

Harwell, K., & Hawkins, L. (1994, January). Cognitive coaching: An alternative to the Texas teacher appraisal system. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.

Johnson, J. B. (1997). An exploratory study of teachers' efforts to implement cognitive coaching as a form of professional development: Waiting for godot. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (04-A). (University Microfilms No. AAD97-29048).

Krpan, M. M. (1997). Cognitive coaching and efficacy, growth, and change for second-, third-, and fourth-year elementary school educators. Dissertation Abstracts International, 35 (04). (University Microfilms No. AAD13-84152).

Liebmann, R. (1993). Perceptions of human resource developers from product and service organizations as to the current and desired states of holonomy of managerial and manual employers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ.

Lipton, L. (1993). Transforming information into knowledge: Structured reflection in administrative practice. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association National Conference, Atlanta, GA.

McDonough, S. (1991, Spring). The supervision of principals: A comparison of existing and desired supervisory practices as perceived by principals trained in cognitive coaching and those without cognitive coaching training. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Sacramento.

McLymont, E. F. (1998, April). Cognitive coaching: The vehicle of professional development and teacher collaboration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

Midlock, S. (1990). Peer coaching of high school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, Decatur.

Naylor, J. (1991). The role and function of department chairpersons in the collegial peer coaching environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign.

Perkins, S. J. (1998, Spring). On becoming a peer coach: Practices, identities, and beliefs of inexperienced coaches. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 13 (3), 235-254.

Schuman, S. A. (1991). Indicators of teacher's autonomy: Cognitive coaching rating scale. Federal Way, WA: Federal Way Public Schools.

Smith, M. C. (1997). Self-reflection as a means of increasing teacher efficacy through cognitive coaching. Dissertation Abstracts International, 35 (04). (University Microfilms No. AAD13-84304).


Ushijima, T. (1996a). Five states of mind scale for cognitive coaching: A measurement study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (01-A). (University Microfilms No. AAD97-20306).

Ushijima, T. (1996b). The impact of cognitive coaching as staff development process on student question asking and math problem solving skills. Honolulu, HI.

Yust, J. (August, 1997). Cognitive coaching: A multiple case study. St. Catharine's, Ontario: Brock University.

Cognitive Coaching ReferencesCosta, A., & Garmston, R. (1997a). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools, 3rd Ed. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (1997b) The process of coaching: Mediating growth toward holonomy. In A. Costa & R. Liebmann (Eds.), The process centered school: Sustaining a renaissance community. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin Press.

Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (1998, October). Five human passions. Think, pp. 14-17.

Costa, A., Garmston, R., & Lambert, L. (1988). Evaluation of teaching: A cognitive development view. In W. J. Popham & S. J. Stanley, (Eds.), Teacher evaluation: Six prescriptions for success, pp. 145-172. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Costa, A., Garmston, R., & Zimmerman, D. (1988). Helping teachers coach themselves (Videotape script). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Dyer, J., & Fontaine, O. (1995, Spring). Can a zebra change its spots? Some reflections on cognitive coaching. Education Canada, pp. 19, 28-32.

Garmston, R. (1986, November/December). Improve conference results...not performance. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 16 (3), 34.

Garmston, R. (1987a, February). How administrators can support teachers who coach? Special Education Resource Network News, 4, 12.

Garmston, R. (1987b, February). How administrators support peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 44 (5), 18-28.

Garmston, R. (1987c, March). Teachers as coaches: Training for peer coaching success. Special Education Resource Network News, 5, 13.

Garmston, R. (1987d, December). Support peer coaching. School Administrator, 11 (44), 36-37.

Garmston, R. (1988, August). A call for collegial coaching. The Developer, 1, 4-6.

Garmston, R. (1989a, Spring-Summer). Cognitive coaching and professors' instructional thought. Human Intelligence Newsletter, 10 (2), 3-4.

Garmston, R. (1989b, July). Peer coaching and professors' instructional thought. Wingspan, 5 (1), 14-16.

Garmston, R. (1991). Cognitive coaching: Leadership beyond appraisal. Instructional Leader, 4 (1), 1-3, 9.

Garmston, R. (1991, April). The cognitive coaching post conference. Instructional Leader, 4 (2), 10-11.

Garmston, R. (1992). Cognitive coaching: A significant catalyst. In If Minds Matter: A Foreword to the Future, pp. 173-186. Palatine, IL: Skylight.


Garmston, R., Linder, C., & Whitaker J. (1993, October). Reflections on cognitive coaching. Educational Leadership, 51 (2), 57-61.

Garmston, R., & Garmston, S. (1992, Summer). Supporting new teachers. Kansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Record, 10 (1), 9-16.Hayes, C. (1994, November). Promoting professional dialogue through cognitive coaching. The Developer, p. 3.

Hayes, C. (1995, Spring). Public coaching as a tool for organization development. Journal of Staff Development, 16 (2), 44-47.

McDonough, S. (1992, Spring). How principals want to be supervised. Visions, 9 (3), 4-5, 7b.

Mott, M. (1992, April). Cognitive coaching for nurse educators. Journal of Nursing Education, 31 (4), 188-189.

O'Neil, J. (1993, August). Supervision reappraised. Update, 35 (6), 1, 3, 8.

Ray, T. M. (1998, April). Implementing the NCTM's standards through cognitive coaching. Teaching Children Mathematics, pp. 480-483.

Sommers, W. (1991, January). Cognitive coaching sustains teaching strategies. Minnesota Association of Secondary School Principals Newsletter, p. 7.

Sparks, D. (1990, Spring). Cognitive coaching: An interview with Robert Garmston. National Staff Development Council Journal, 11 (2), 12-15.

Stoner, M., & Martin, L. (1993, November 18). Talking about teaching across the disciplines: How cognitive peer coaching makes it happen. Paper presented at the 79th Annual Conference of the Speech Communication Association, Miami, FL.

Weatherford, D., & Weatherford, N. (1991). Professional growth through peer coaching: A handbook for implementation. Unpublished master's thesis. California State University, Sacramento.

Wood, S. W. (1991, March/April). Cognitive coaching: leadership style for 21st century. The Principal News, 19 (4), p. 12.

Zimmerman, D. (1988). Trust-intentions are the message. In Another set of eyes: Conferencing skills (Trainer's Manual). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Cognitive Coaching: Some Related LiteratureArredondo, D. E., & Rucinski, T. T. (1998, Summer). Using structured interactions in conferences and journals to promote cognitive development among mentors and mentees. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 13 (2), 300-327.

Ashton, P., Webb, R., & Doda, C. (1983). A study of teachers' sense of efficacy. Gainesville: University of Florida.

Coladarci, T., & Breton, W.A. (1991, April). Teacher efficacy, supervision, and the special education resource-room teacher. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago.

Costa, A., & Garmson, R. (1977). Teaching as process. In A. Costa & R. Liebmann (Eds.), Supporting the spirit of learning: When process is content. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (Spring, 1998). Maturing outcomes. Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 11 (1).

Evans, M., & Hopkins, D. (1998). School climate and the psychological state of the individual teacher as


factors affecting the utilization of educational ideas following an in-service course. British Educational Research Journal, 14 (3), 211-230.

Garmston, R. J., Lipton L. E., & Kaiser, K. (1998). The psychology of supervision. In Handbook of research on school supervision, pp. 242-286. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 36 (4), 569-582.

Gilliam, E. S. (1990). Meta-cognitive processes and learning behavior evidenced by teachers of varying cognitive styles during self-regulated learning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51. (University Microfilms No. AAD90-30018).

Glenn, R. A. (1993). Teacher attribution: Affect linkages as a function of student academic and behavior failure and teacher efficacy. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54 (12-A). (University Microfilms No. AAD94014958).

Glickman, C. D., & Tamashiro, R. T. (1982, October). A comparison of first-year, fifth-year, and former teachers on efficacy, ego development, and problem-solving. Psychology in the Schools, 19 (4), 558-562.

Hunt, D. E, Butler, L. F., Noy, J. E., & Rosser, M. E. (1978). Assessing conceptual level by the paragraph completion method. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Nisbet, R. I. (1990). The relationship between cognitive developmental level and the concerns of teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51. (University Microfilms No. AAD91-10198).

Oja, S. N. (1979). A cognitive structural approach to adult ego, moral, and conceptual development through in-service education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Pajak, E. (1993). Models of supervision. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Peterson, P. and Clark, C. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd Ed. p. 10. New York: MacMillan.

Poole, M. G., & Okeafor, K. R. (1989, Winter). The effects of teacher efficacy and interactions among educators on curriculum implementation. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4 (2), 146-161.

Saban J. M., Wensch T. P., Costa, A. L., Garmston, R. J., Battaglia A., & Brubaker W. (1998, Spring). Designing the holonomous school building. Journal of School Business Management, 10 (1), 35-39.

Shavelson, R. (1973). The basic teaching skill: Decision-making. pp. 18. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd Ed. pp. 3-36. New York: MacMillan.

Sparks, G. M., Starko, A., Pasch, M., & Colton, A. (1989). Pedagogical language acquisition and conceptual development taxonomy of teacher reflective thought: interview and question format.

Sprinthall, N., & Sprinthall, L. (1983). The teacher as an adult learner: A cognitive-developmental view. In G. Griffin (Ed.). pp. 13-35. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vincenz, L. (1990). Development of the Vincenz empowerment scale. Dissertation Abstracts International, 90. (University Microfilms No. 31010).

Supporting a Comprehensive

Approach to LiteracyHand-outs for Day 2

A Course Created by the Alliance of Regional Educational Service CentersAdditional materials can be found at: www.blackboard.com/courses/RLA515



Read AloudTeache r reads to children, mode ling how fluent readers interact wi th text



modeling reading stra tegies; children

join in




successfu l

Modeled WritingTeacher



writing


compos e jo intly, s haring the topic.



topic and pen

Sharing Time



listen ing, viewing & presenting



appropriate words, bu ilding vis ual & audi tory memory

Phonemic Awareness/




Independent Writing

Students choose topic & p ractice wri ting process

Content Area

LiteracyTeacher

integ rates l iteracy across

al l content a reas; children vi ew literacy as a

natura l part of all learn ing

Independent Reading


responsibl e


Supporting a Comprehensive Approach to Literacy

Day 2 AgendaAgenda topics Outcomes

9:00 - 9:30 AM Welcome Back!

Warm-up activity

Overview of the training and revisit expectations

Burning questions

Meet again, revisit expectations, and the training that is planned for the day. and respond to burning questions.

9:30 - 10:00 AM More on Communications Skills

Active and empathetic listening

Continue discussion and activities on effective communications skills.

10:00 - 10:30 AM Cognitive Coaching Conferences

Viewing a cognitive coaching conference

View a cognitive coaching conference and discuss what you saw and what you wonder.

10:30 - 10:45 AM Break Relax!

10:45 - 11:15 AM Cognitive Coaching Conferences (continued)

Review homework assignment: Observation notes

Whole group discussion

Share observation notes from coaching conference homework assignment. Share questions and insights.

11:15 - 12:00 Noon Looking at Student Work Through the Lens of a Critical Friend

How do we look at student work?

What kind of student work should we look at?

What is a critical friend?

Review homework assignment: Small group examination of student work

Review research on looking at student work. Explore the concept of critical friends and how to apply that when examining student work.

12:00 - 12:45 PM Lunch Eat and enjoy!

12:45 - 1:15 PM Looking at Student Work (continued)

Small and whole group debrief

Share discussions on student work and critical friends activity.

1:15 - 2:30 PM Implications for Our Work and Action Planning

Work in Literacy Teams to develop Action Plans

Share Action Plans

Discuss the implications for our work. Develop and share Action Plans.

2:30 - 3:00 PM Closure and Next Steps

Revisit expectations and burning questions

Reflections on the training & CEU evaluation form

Revisit expectations and burning questions. Provide feedback on the training.

Homework Assignment: 1. Carry out Action Plans developed during this training.

Designed by the Alliance of Regional Educational Service Centers under the auspices of the CT State Department of Education's Early Reading Success Grant


The Chocolate Personality Test The Chocolate Personality Test

Choose your favorite Hershey miniature.

If you chose: Here are the characteristics that describe you...

Milk Chocolate

You're an all American who loves baseball, Mom & apple pie. You're a cheerleader for your program, level-headed, a good PR person and a great fundraiser. You're also kind, thoughtful, and always remember everyone's birthday. You are nurturing, dependable, loyal, and help others to "shine". Others often turn to you for help.

Krackel

You're creative, optimistic, always see the cup as half full. You're messy (messy desk or classroom) but organized (eventually find a missing item or believe you will). You like to be a hands-on person. You're a little off-beat, ditzy, funny, friendly and outgoing person who is always will to help. You like the surprising things in life, the "krackel". You like situations that allow flexibility, change and growth.

Mr. Goodbar

You're analytical and logical. You gather data first before giving an opinion, play the devil's advocate at meetings, tend to see all the possibilities and drive people crazy by sharing all the "what ifs". You hate deadlines and put off starting things; you're a procrastinator. You like to be the expert but in your own time frame. You can analyze things to death. You like there to be rules that everyone follows. You like a lot of structure and hate surprises.

Special Dark

You're a patient, thoughtful individualist and problem-solver. You like to see a project through from start to finish. You're a good grant writer and work well with difficult people. You are reflective and insightful and have little patience for incompetence or liars. You set high standards for yourself and others. You are dependable, resourceful, and loyal.



LEVELS OF COMMUNICATION

High

TRUST

LowLow High

COOPERATION

Source: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey


Synergistic (Win/Win)

Respectful (Compromise)

Defensive (Win/Lose or Lose/Win)


Reflections on Cognitive Coaching Conference

Share the notes from your observation and cognitive coaching conference with a partner. Be sure that you discuss the questions below and make notes about this conversation. Be prepared to share one insight or question from this discussion with the entire group.

1. What happened that you expected?

2. What happened that you didn't expect?

3. What would you do differently next time?

4. What questions do you have?



Looking Collaboratively at Student Work:An Essential Toolkit

Volume 13, Number 2November, 1996

Source: http://www.essentialschools.org/pubs/horace/13/v13n02.html#top

Looking closely together at student work can unveil a treasure trove of insights to guide school communities as they reflect on their purpose, assess their progress, and plan strategies for reaching all children better. It's scary work, though, and respectful protocols can help.

The New York Times Science pages recently told the story of the heart surgeons in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont-there are only 23 in all-who agreed in 1993 to observe each other regularly in the operating room and share their know-how, insights, and approaches.

In the two years after their nine-month-long project, the death rate among their patients fell by an astonishing 25 percent. Merely by emphasizing teamwork and communication instead of functioning like solitary craftsmen, the study showed, all the doctors brought about major changes in their individual and institutional practices.

For teachers who, like heart surgeons, have traditionally worked as isolated professionals, the experiment holds a powerful lesson. If their goal is to lower the "death rate" of young minds and see them thrive, many educators now emphatically believe, they can do it better together than by working alone.

Like doctors making hospital rounds, architects gathered for a charrette, or lawyers examining clues to build a case, teachers in Essential schools have begun purposefully probing the rich evidence that lies immediately at hand in every school, searching for what it can yield about how students best learn.

They bring to the table their students' writing, math problem-solving, science projects, artwork, and whatever other evidence they can gather-in written notes or audio or video form-of what kids are producing every day.

Instead of disappearing into the bookbag or the wastebasket, these artifacts become a valuable mirror of how the school's practice does or does not reflect its intentions. Unlike a standardized test, their evidence speaks directly and revealingly of what teachers and students actually do and learn. Like a compass reading, it can then translate into informed action: changed perceptions of students; revised curricula and teaching strategies; new goals and a sense of direction for a faculty.

Rather than first focusing on the work's quality, these processes often ask teachers to suspend judgment and describe its qualities-bringing multiple perspectives to bear on what makes students tick and how a school can better reach them.

At first that multiplicity may complicate rather than simplify things, observes Joe McDonald, who has worked with the Coalition of Essential Schools on developing new methods to look at student work. But such discussion does not require consensus. Indeed, when people who come at school change with very different beliefs and assumptions meet to look at student work, their mutual understanding often deepens. Using diplomatic protocols that make communication feel "safe," they often find common ground and can move more surely toward creating the conditions in which teachers and students might do better throughout the system.



Across the country and abroad, school reformers have recognized the pressing need to place actual student work formally and respectfully at the center of both public and private conversations about school. From California to Vermont, from the Coalition of Essential Schools to its many working partners and friends in schools, teaching centers, and universities, people are trying out new tools making change through that most radical of activities: unarmed discussion.

Though these tools differ, all share a focus on bringing together people across the school community -teachers, parents, students, and outside visitors-to look at work. All aim to learn something that will then affect future teaching and learning, not just the individual student whose work they examine. And all provide a formal structure, or "protocol," that, while often uncomfortable at first, surfaces and values different points of view.

In his work with the Coalition, David Allen has compared such protocols to putting on a play, "though the dialogue," he notes, "is mainly improvisational." Yet just as theatrical styles that range from classical to "method" can all work magic on the mind and soul, effective protocols have their styles and purposes too.

Some fall on the more evaluative end of the spectrum, aiming to analyze and thus improve teaching strategies and curriculum. Others rely more on close description to heighten teachers' understanding of individual children and hence affect their practice. Some look at a moment in time and extend its meaning outward; others take an accumulated body of evidence and draw new meanings from its larger picture.

"All these years we have been looking at students' work in order to see whether they have done what we told them to do," says Maine educator Marylyn Wentworth drily. Now a new set of purposes suggests itself, larger than what a red pencil can accomplish. And which process one chooses from the interesting array that has sprung up must grow from how well it suits one's purpose.

"Tuning" the Work Upward

In California, for instance, two groups of students from different houses in the same school used the CES-born "tuning protocol" (see sidebar, page 4) to present project work to each other, critiquing the work in front of an audience of school administrators. In this structured, facilitated discussion model, participants give both "warm," supportive feedback and "cool," more critical feedback to the presenters, who then reflect on it together without interruption, "tuning" their craft much as a musician might tune an instrument to its peak effectiveness.

"The students asked each other hard questions about grading, about standards, about the objectives of the projects and the coaching students received," says Joel Kammer, a school coach who teaches at Piner High School in Santa Rosa and who has written about California's use of the protocol in David Allen's forthcoming book for Teachers College Press. "It helped build community and a sense of common purpose and shared responsibility. And it produced substantial and useful information about student work and the possibilities for improvement."

The tuning protocol is widely used within and between Essential schools-as a means of developing more effective exhibitions and assessments, as a way of developing common standards, and as a means to gather and reflect on ideas for revising classroom practice. Kammer describes, for example, how the staff of a restructuring school uses the same steps to get feedback from a panel of teachers from another school. And he tells how a "critical friends group" of faculty members meets regularly in Piner's library to scrutinize student and teacher work, ask questions, and suggest improvements.

In most instances, the protocol's ritual of presentation and response works to mitigate the defensiveness people typically feel when they present work for public critique. Participants take turns in timed segments and eschew direct response. Even the placement of chairs contributes to the purpose of this technique: neither to argue nor to reach agreement, but to gain the benefits of each other's diverse perspectives.

Nonetheless, Joe McDonald observes, bringing private work into the public eye constitutes a "culturally wrenching act" in most schools.

"Some people would never do this unless there was a clear structure to protect them," says Bill Munro-Leighton, who teaches at Brown School in Louisville. And Ceronne Berkeley of Boston's Center for Collaborative Education recalls that at first she reacted to the protocol with "very real fear that I would be criticized as a teacher."



The tuning protocol can prove especially useful in loaded situations where poor communication is a problem, school people say. Typically, its users pose an important question they hope to answer by a close look at actual work-whether the school needs a new policy on spelling, for example, or how to incorporate writing across the curriculum.

In California, the state Restructuring Initiative has taken the ritual one step further, using it to reflect on change at the system level. At an annual symposium, analysis teams from restructuring schools now go through its "California protocol" to discuss before a reflective audience the "critical questions" they have identified as a result of earlier sessions examining student work.

That state's wide-scale use of both the tuning protocol and its own "meta-protocol" reflects a decision to ground systemic decisions firmly in student work, says Juli Quinn, who works with many Essential schools in Los Angeles. "Otherwise the kinds of things the system does will not be related to what students and teachers need," she observes.

The tuning protocol has proved equally useful in giving shape to conversations among parents and community members about the content and quality of student work. In New York City, University Heights High School asks parents to use it at students' "roundtable exhibitions." And both University Heights and Central Park East Secondary School use it to obtain feedback from outside visitors on their graduation requirements and academic programs.

As these examples show, people tend to use the tuning protocol and its relatives as a concrete way to hold up their practice against some standard, or even to work out what their own standards look like. In that process, however, unexpected new meanings often arise.

"When we look as individual teachers at student work we often see it through the narrow lens of the assignment," says Daniel Baron of the Harmony School and Education Center in Bloomington, Indiana. "But a group looking at it together makes a new meaning, focused not on evaluation but on the much bigger question of what we can learn. Doing this builds a profound sense of community."

That sense of shared interest in the big picture of student learning also shows up in another method of looking at student work: the "Language Record" or "Learning Record" first developed for British primary schools and now used in California, New York, and elsewhere at many levels. This far-reaching description of a child's growing language skills across the curriculum draws the family, the student, and all the student's teachers into observing and discussing his or her learning over time.

Assessing the System

The Learning Record stands out among portfolio assessment techniques because it regards the student's entire life experience as relevant-honoring, for instance, a bilingual child's fluency in another language as a demonstration of literacy and communicativeness. But it holds promise at the systemic level, too, as a reliable and valid portfolio-based picture of a program's effectiveness. Teachers across a system use the same scale to rate students' growing fluency over time, resolving variations among their scoring through a sampling and "moderation" process.

Reflecting on the "authenticity" of a student's learning tasks is still another way to frame a collaborative look at student work in a way that has usefulness both to the teacher and to the system. Fred Newmann at the University of Wisconsin has devised a set of criteria that prompts teachers to think through their work with that quality in mind. His standards emphasize not only higher order thinking skills and application to real life but also the central content and processes of the academic disciplines. Though they can be used to "score" classroom instruction, assessment tasks, and student performances, they make an even more useful filter as schools use student work to prompt long-range plans for raising the level of teaching and learning.

At Harvard University, Dennie Palmer Wolf leads the Performance Assessment Collaboratives in Education (PACE) project in another effort to mine portfolio assessment for what it can reveal about the bigger picture of teaching and learning. Funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation, teachers from urban middle schools in Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Rochester, San Diego, and San Francisco have gathered for close looks at portfolios-not only to chart a picture of students' growth over time, but also to raise their schools' consciousness about what opportunities students get to continuously use their minds in more demanding ways.



This kind of protocol can also yield important information, Wolf observes, on how well curriculum connects across the grades. Even in more privileged school communities, she notes, and especially in middle schools, "we often could not find in portfolios a progression of opportunities from simple to demanding between the sixth and the eighth grade. And within any one year kids are typically writing the same thing over and over again in the same context. The topic may change, but not the demand level."

Public discussions about opportunity to learn, Wolf says, typically rely on "easy countables" such as property-tax dollars, numbers of books in the library, or staff education levels. "We need to think more about the conditions-the real quality-that make learning possible," she urges. "If schools want to become accountable, not just "be held. accountable, we must make that visible and discussable."

Seeing the Student Anew

The protocols described thus far fall on the more evaluative end of the spectrum of ways to look at student work. Toward the other end of the continuum lie methods that deliberately steer away from evaluation of student work and toward close description instead.

When a group agrees to withhold judgment and simply describe what each member sees in a piece of student work-absent its context or any other introductory information- a new sense of wonder can emerge about the way the particular student engages with learning, writes Harvard University's Steve Seidel. The "collaborative assessment conference" he developed with colleagues at Project Zero sets the stage for teachers to open themselves to the interests, passions, and direction that reveal themselves subtly in their students' work, and to unearth new means of reaching them.

Describing work closely without leaping to judgment proves extremely difficult in a culture used to a "thumbs up, thumbs down" critical style, Seidel observes. Yet as each participant offers what she notices to the group, the student's work yields new insights-not only about its own complexity, but also about the subjectivity of teaching in general. Because this structure demands questions more than seeking answers, Seidel says, teachers find it both frustrating and exciting.

The Descriptive Review of a Child, developed by Patricia Carini at the Prospect Center for Education and Research in Bennington, Vermont, also emphasizes discovering the whole child and also frames that inquiry around a question the teacher brings to a group of peers (sometimes including the child's parents). But for its "text" it takes a wide range of observed characteristics: physical presence, relationships, disposition, and interests as well as formal learning behaviors. As one by one participants amplify the teacher's description, and as the group then questions and comments on the observations, the child becomes increasingly "visible," writes Rhoda Kanevsky, a teacher in Philadelphia who has used the process for many years. "The child emerges as a unique person who is trying to make sense of the world," she says; and all participants gain new insights into the complex business of teaching and learning.

At New York's Central Park East Elementary School I, teachers gather regularly for such Descriptive Reviews of children, says principal Jane Andrias. But they also use that process for reflecting on curriculum and practice. Last year, for instance, the staff began an inquiry into the school's homework practices, using the descriptive protocol to surface harmonies and discrepancies among different teachers' practices and perceptions. "We began to see change right away," says Andrias. "Now we'll continue to meet this way and reflect on where we're going."

At Pasadena High School, Christelle Estrada says, her "critical friends group" found the purely observational approach to looking at student work so powerful that it has also begun using a similar protocol for peer review among teachers. And at Harmony School, Daniel Baron has devised a "constructivist" descriptive protocol in which students describe the qualities in their own "best work" from any time or place, then look for those same qualities in work they do for assignments.

Perhaps the most sweeping of all descriptive review protocols made its stage debut last January, when one full day's ordinary work collected from a sample of students in a small Minnesota school district came under the lens for collective discussion.



Such a "vertical slice" affords a unique cross-sectional look at the evidence, says Joe McDonald, and can yield powerfully authentic answers for schools struggling to look honestly at the need for change. Already several groups have chewed on the Minnesota slice, and several Coalition member schools are taking a comparable approach to exploring the issues they face.

The Minnesota slice came to the table in heavy brown cardboard boxes, but it might as easily have appeared on a small computer disk, David Niguidula points out. "The conversation grows more comprehensive and rich," he notes, "when you have access to different media-say, a video clip of a student doing peer tutoring-and when you can include people even if they're not all in the same room at once."

The Croton-Harmon, New York school district is one of six pilot sites where "digital portfolios" have provided a way to look at student work over time-work organized on disk according to the school's own goals. Indeed, notes Croton's former superintendent, Sherry King, coming together to design and discuss the digital portfolios brought the entire district together in a coherent way around student work, and helped articulate a common vision to link teaching and learning at every level.

How to Do It, and Why

It's not easy, of course, for a group to suspend judgment as it regards student work together; and a recent Atlas Communities paper (complete with its own protocol) lays out some guidelines for those who try it, no matter which method they select. Not unlike the norms for a good text-based Socratic seminar, these suggestions focus on sticking to the evidence, on understanding where other perspectives arise from, and on identifying patterns that emerge as discussion continues.

In another forthcoming guide from the Atlas Seminar, David Allen, Tina Blythe, and Barbara Powell have useful advice for those who would gather around student work; and they describe ways that several Atlas school communities have made up their own collaborative protocols to suit specific purposes. Indeed, logistical questions-who should participate, when and where to gather, who will facilitate the discussion and how, and which format fits the situation best-loom large in a context already charged with anxiety about exposing one's professional work.

Despite the benefits of hearing from multiple perspectives, for example, many who have used these protocols caution teachers to practice them in a safe environment before trying out broader forums. Joel Kammer writes of witnessing how a politically motivated audience tainted the atmosphere of trust when teachers presented work before an adversarial school board.

Yet some of the most useful feedback in protocols, teachers say, comes when they involve students and parents. "Our conversations took a huge leap forward when students joined the adult audiences at our senior exhibitions," says Allison Rowe at New Hampshire's Souhegan High School. "The protocols taught us to conduct that discourse without saying hurtful things."

No matter how powerful the experience of looking together at work, warns Nancy Mohr, who used several of these protocols for years as principal at University Heights, the challenge of bringing the insights it yields back into daily practice may prove daunting. "It is essential," she says, "to establish a process for taking what we learn from the examination of student work and using it in classrooms." That may involve teaming this work with other forms of professional development that are imbedded in practice, like peer coaching or critical friends groups.

And although it takes time and effort, few who have tried it would give up this simple and powerful practice. "The more I looked, the more I saw," observed Brad Stam of San Francisco's James Lick Middle School teacher after his first collaborative assessment conference.



"It affects everything you do," another teacher observed. "Once you routinely look at the work, you can begin moving from just ideas into your daily practice and planning."

Once begun, that cycle-reflecting together on direct evidence, drawing out its meaning, then folding what we learn back into the daily work-may prove the very engine of school change in the critical years ahead. "I used to think student work was between student and teacher," says Jon Appleby, who teaches at Maine's Noble High School. "Now I think all work should be as public, and as shared, as possible." When a teacher can say that, things have begun to move.

Some Guidelines for Learning from Student Work In "Learning from Student Work," Eric Buchovecky of the Atlas Communities project has described a collaborative process adapted from the work of Mark Driscoll at Education Development Center and that of Steve Seidel and others at Harvard University's Project Zero. The piece lays out useful reminders for how participants can stay focused on the evidence before them and on listening to multiple perspectives, rather than getting bogged down in assumptions or evaluations. Those norms are summarized with the author's permission here:

When looking for evidence of student thinking: Stay focused on the evidence that is present in the work. Avoid judging what you see. Look openly and broadly; don't let your expectations cloud your vision. Look for patterns in the evidence that provide clues to how and what the student was thinking.

When listening to colleagues' thinking: Listen without judging. Tune in to differences in perspective. Use controversy as an opportunity to explore and understand each other's perspectives. Focus on understanding where different interpretations come from. Make your own thinking clear to others. Be patient and persistent.

When reflecting on your thinking: Ask yourself, "Why do I see this student work in this way? What does this tell me about what is important to me?" Look for patterns in your own thinking. Tune in to the questions that the student work and your colleagues' comments raise for you. Compare what you see and what you think about the student work with what you do in the classroom.

When you reflect on the process of looking at student work, ask: What did you see in this student's work that was interesting or surprising? What did you learn about how this student thinks and learns? What about the process helped you see and learn these things? What did you learn from listening to your colleagues that was interesting or surprising? What new perspectives did your colleagues provide? How can you make use of your colleagues. perspectives? What questions about teaching and assessment did looking at this student's work raise for you? How can you pursue these questions further? Are there things you would like to try in your classroom as a result of looking at the student's work?



The Collaborative Assessment ConferenceDeveloped in 1988 by Steve Seidel and his colleagues at Harvard University's Project Zero, the Collaborative Assessment Conference asks teachers to look together at pieces of student work and discuss, quite literally, what they see in the work. Through observing and describing the work, participants practice "looking more and seeing more" of what is in the work. The protocol is based on the notion that students are often working on problems or exploring interests that extend beyond the parameters of the assignment. To see the student's work fully, a teacher may have to look beyond those parameters and, with the help of colleagues less familiar with the child and the assignment, mine the piece for new insights.Initially intended for use in middle and high schools, the Collaborative Assessment Conference is often used in elementary schools as well. Conferences can focus on all types of student work, though they tend to work best with open-ended assignments (as opposed to worksheets). The process takes anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour and a quarter, using these steps:

1. Getting started. The group chooses a facilitator to keep it focused. Then the presenting teacher gives out copies of the selected work or displays it so all can see it. At this point she says nothing about the work, its context, or the student. The participants read or observe the work in silence, making notes if they like.

2. Describing the work. The facilitator asks, "What do you see?" Participants respond without making judgments about the quality of the work or their personal preferences. If judgments emerge, the facilitator asks the speaker to describe the evidence on which the judgment is based.

3. Raising questions. The facilitator asks, "What questions does this work raise for you?" Group members ask any questions about the work, the child, the assignment, the circumstances of the work, and so forth that have come up for them during the previous steps of the conference. The presenting teacher makes notes, but does not yet respond.

4. Speculating about what the student is working on. The facilitator asks, "What do you think the child is working on?" Based on their reading or observation of the work, participants offer their ideas.

5. Hearing from the presenting teacher. At the facilitator's invitation, the presenting teacher provides her perspective on the work and what she sees in it, responding to the questions raised and adding any other relevant information. She also comments on any unexpected things that she heard in the group's responses and questions.

6. Discussing implications for teaching and learning. The group and the presenting teacher together discuss their thoughts about their own teaching, children's learning, or ways to support this student.

7. Reflecting on the conference. Putting the student work aside, the group reflects together on how they experienced the conference itself.



The Tuning Protocol: A Process for Reflection on Teacher and Student WorkThe "tuning protocol" was developed by David Allen and Joe McDonald at the Coalition of Essential Schools primarily for use in looking closely at student exhibitions. In the outline below, unless otherwise noted, time allotments indicated are the suggested minimum for each task.

I. Introduction [10 minutes]. Facilitator briefly introduces protocol goals, norms and agenda. Participants briefly introduce themselves.

II. Teacher Presentation [20 minutes]. Presenter describes the context for student work (its vision, coaching, scoring rubric, etc.) and presents samples of student work (such as photocopied pieces of written work or video clips of an exhibition).

III. Clarifying Questions [5 minutes maximum]. Facilitator judges if questions more properly belong as warm or cool feedback than as clarifiers.

IV. Pause to reflect on warm and cool feedback [20-30 minutes maximum]. Participants make note of "warm," supportive feedback and "cool," more distanced comments (generally no more than one of each).

V. Warm and Cool Feedback [15 minutes]. Participants among themselves share responses to the work and its context; teacher-presenter is silent. Facilitator may lend focus by reminding participants of an area of emphasis supplied by teacher-presenter.

VI. Reflection / Response [15 minutes]. Teacher-presenter reflects on and responds to those comments or questions he or she chooses to. Participants are silent. Facilitator may clarify or lend focus.

VII. Debrief [10 minutes]. Beginning with the teacher-presenter (How did the protocol experience compare with what you expected?"), the group discusses any frustrations, misunderstandings, or positive reactions participants have experienced. More general discussion of the tuning protocol may develop.

Guidelines for Facilitators1. Be assertive about keeping time. A protocol that doesn't allow for all the components will do a disservice to the presenter, the work presented, and the participants. understanding of the process. Don't let one participant monopolize.

2. Be protective of teacher-presenters. By making their work more public, teachers are exposing themselves to kinds of critiques they may not be used to. Inappropriate comments or questions should be recast or withdrawn. Try to determine just how "tough" your presenter wants the feedback to be.

3. Be provocative of substantive discourse. Many presenters may be used to blanket praise. Without thoughtful but probing "cool" questions and comments, they won't benefit from the tuning protocol experience. Presenters often say they'd have liked more cool feedback.

Norms for Participants 1. Be respectful of teacher-presenters. By making their work more public, teachers are exposing themselves to kinds of critiques they may not be used to. Inappropriate comments or questions should be recast or withdrawn.

2. Contribute to substantive discourse. Without thoughtful but probing "cool" questions and comments, presenters won't benefit from the tuning protocol experience.

3. Be appreciative of the facilitator's role, particularly in regard to following the norms and keeping time. A tuning protocol that doesn't allow for all components (presentation, feedback, response, debrief) to be enacted properly will do a disservice both to the teacher-presenters and to the participants.



The California Protocol Many teachers in California's Coalition member schools routinely use the tuning protocol to surface issues arising from close examination of student work. But the state's Restructuring Initiative, which funds some 150 schools attempting whole-school reforms, has also adapted and expanded the protocol for a new purpose: to examine how such issues relate to the larger school organization and its aims, and to summarize and assess its progress. Instead of having teachers present student work, the California Protocol has a school's "analysis team" work through an important question (possibly using artifacts from their work) in the presence of a group of reflectors, as follows:

The moderator welcomes participants and reviews the purpose, roles, and guidelines for the Protocol. [5 minutes]

Analysis 1. Analysis Team provides an introduction including an essential question that will be the focus of the analysis. [5 minutes]

2. Reflectors ask brief questions for clarification, and the Analysis Team responds with succinct information. [5 minutes]

3. Analysis Team gives its analysis. [25 minutes]

4. Reflectors ask brief questions for clarification, and the Analysis Team responds with succinct clarifying information about the Analysis. [5 minutes]

Feedback 1. Reflectors form groups of 4 to 6 to provide feedback; one member of each is chosen to chart warm, cool, and hard feedback. The Reflector Groups summarize their feedback as concise essential questions (cool and hard feedback) and supportive statements (warm feedback). Each group posts the chart pages as they are completed so Analysis Team Members can see them. [15 minutes]

The Primary Language Record & The California Learning Record The Primary Language Record

British educators developed the Primary Language Record in 1985 as a framework for observing students. developing skills in reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Teachers take notes on classroom events and samples of work, add information provided by parents, and a rich conversation develops over time-with subsequent teachers, with parents, and with students themselves-about the student's needs, talents, interests, and progress, and about which strategies best serve those factors.Its users praise the Primary Language Record for its flexibility: teachers decide for themselves the frequency, format, and style of their recorded observations. In every case, a parent interview starts the year; all teachers of the child make notes on her developing literacy; joint conferences with parents and child end the year; and that information influences the next year's planning.

The shared reporting mechanism also encourages a shared view of how language skills develop and provides coherence among teachers across the grades. All teachers use "reading scales" that describe progress across the years from dependence to independence as a reader, and from inexperience to experience in reading texts across the curriculum. Speaking and listening skills are also recorded in many different contexts, from dramatic play to science investigations. The scales have another benefit: they can be analyzed in aggregate to give schools and districts an overall picture of students' language skills and adjust their strategies accordingly. Teachers affiliated with the New York Assessment Network in New York City have worked with the authors of the Primary Language Record to create their Primary Learning Record, which shares most of its important characteristics.



The California Learning Record California educators adapted the Primary Language Record in the late 1980s, with permission from its British authors, to test its usefulness in tracking language skills across the curriculum and across grade levels, including in secondary school and with a special emphasis on recognizing the literacy skills of bilingual students. Like its counterpart, the system has teachers meet with parents and students at the start of the year, observe and document student progress in different contexts during the year, and assess progress at year's end while planning further work. It uses the same scales as does the Primary Language Record (above), as well as a new high school scale and another scale (developed by the British) that describes the bilingual child's development in English. Teachers phase in the method, in which most of the evidence of progress comes from teacher observation and student portfolios, over two years of professional development. Student self-assessment is also an important part of the California method at the upper elementary, middle and high school levels. More recently, California and British educators together developed a method of "moderating" the Learning Record results that has important implications for the use of this model. In this process, teachers meet with each other (and often with parents as well) to look closely at portfolio samples and talk through the ratings they received. This happens not only at the school level but again in district or regional groups, and boosts the reliability of teacher ratings so they might serve as an alternative or complement to norm-referenced tests in evaluating school programs. Moreover, by honoring and recording the student's larger experience with language-before the school experience and outside it, in English and in other languages-the CLR adds meaningful parental and student involvement to the process of looking thoughtfully at student work. For more information about the Primary Language Record and the California Learning Record, contact the Center for Language in Learning, 10610 Quail Canyon Road, El Cajon, CA 92021; tel. (619) 443-6320. E-mail: [email protected]; Web address: http://www.electriciti.com/~clrorg/clr.html The 'External Review' of Portfolios and ExhibitionsMany Coalition schools have begun regularly inviting a panel of outsiders-university people, legislators, members of the business community, and other educators-into the school to review and comment on a sample of student portfolios and exhibitions.

At University Heights High School in the Bronx, the External Review gathers some two dozen outsiders in for three hours to look at one particular student's work across her career at the school. Students at University Heights use their project work (in the humanities; math, science, and technology; and service and health) to demonstrate in portfolios their competence in each of five cross-curricular domains: communicating, crafting, reflecting; taking responsibility for myself and my community; critical thinking and ethical decision making; recognizing patterns and making connections; and working together and resolving conflicts. The Review works like this:1. The large group splits into five small "base groups," which review the five domains, discussing what the categories mean to them and what their own expectations might be in each domain. [30 minutes]

2. The large group comes together again and splits into five new "domain groups," each of which uses one of the five domains as a focus to describe one student's work in the Senior Portfolio, which contains evidence from throughout her time at the school. [90 minutes]

3. The "base groups" reconvene and members from each domain group report on what they found. Since everyone has been working with the same student's portfolio, they discuss their differing perspectives on the work. [30 minutes]

4. The large group joins to make any recommendations to the school, based on their close look at one portfolio and their insights from small-group reflections. [30 minutes] At Central Park East Secondary School (CPESS), the External Review consists of a day-long workshop also involving reading, reflection, and discussion about whether the school's graduation standards measure up to outside expectations. The visitors-who are researchers, principals, and teachers from other schools as well as some district and state officials-interview publicly two recent graduates, and examine privately three full "graduation portfolios" compiled by still other recent graduates, then share their reactions frankly among themselves while the faculty looks on. In a variation on this protocol, CPESS has also asked experts in a particular field-say, college writing instructors or scientific researchers-to examine and comment on portfolios of student work in that area.



Making the Whole Student Visible: The Descriptive Review of a ChildAt the Prospect Center for Education and Research in Bennington, Vermont, Patricia Carini developed one of the earliest and most influential processes for reflecting on students and their work. As the Center began to archive examples of student work from the Prospect School, an independent school founded in 1965, Carini and her staff recognized the potential for teacher learning through close collaborative looks at such work. The ensuing "Descriptive Review of a Child" comprised a series of rounds of description in which the observations of a number of participants accrue around a few focused questions. The process aims, writes Rhoda Kanevsky in her essay condensed below, to "make the child visible" as a "unique person who is trying to make sense of the world." Guided by a facilitator, the presenting teacher describes the child; then questions and comments from other participants evoke new information and insights. The intent, she says, is not to change the child but to help the teacher see the child in a new light, and "use the child's interests and values to create harmony in the child's school life." The protocol is summarized as follows:

1. The chairperson convenes the session. The teacher-presenter gives the child's basic statistics: a pseudonym for the sake of privacy, as well as such facts as grade, age, and birth order. The chairperson describes the teacher-presenter's "focusing question" (e.g., "How can I help Jason work more productively with other children in the classroom?").

2. The presenting teacher may describe the classroom context if it would be helpful to participants: the room plan, setting, schedule, etc. Then she describes the child, including both characteristic and unusual behavior, using the prompts in the following categories:

Physical Presence and Gesture. Characteristic gestures and expressions: How are these visible in the child's face, hands, body attitudes? How do they vary, and in response to what circumstances (e.g., indoors and outdoors)? Characteristic level of energy: How would you describe the child's rhythm and pace? How does it vary? How would you describe the child's voice: its rhythm, expressiveness, inflection?

Disposition. How would you describe the child's characteristic temperament and its range (e.g., intense, even, up-and-down)? How are feelings expressed? Fully? Rarely? How do you "read" the child's feelings? Where and how are they visible? What is the child's emotional tone or "color" (e.g., vivid, bright, serene, etc.)?

Relationships with Children and Adults. Does the child have friends? How would you characterize those attachments? Are they consistent? Changeable? Is the child recognized within the group? How is this recognition expressed? Is the child comfortable in the group? How would you describe the child's casual, day-to-day contact with others? How does this daily contact vary? When there are tensions, how do they get resolved? How would you describe the child's relationship to you? To other adults?

Activities and Interests. What are the child's preferred activities? Do these reflect underlying interests that are visible to you? For example, does drawing or story writing center on recurrent and related motifs such as superhuman figures, danger and rescue, volcanoes, and other large-scale events? How would you describe the range of the child's interests? Which interests are intense, passionate? How would you characterize the child's engagement with projects (e.g., quick, methodical, slapdash, thorough)? Is the product important to the child? What is the response to mishaps, frustrations? Are there media that have a strong appeal for the child (e.g., paint, blocks, books, woodworking)?

Formal Learning. What is the child's characteristic approach to a new subject or process or direction? In learning, what does the child rely on (e.g., observation, memory, trial and error, steps and sequence, getting the whole picture, context)? How does that learning approach vary from subject to subject? What is the child's characteristic attitude toward learning? How would you characterize the child as a thinker? What ideas and content have appeal? Is there a speculative streak? A problem-solving one? A gift for analogy and metaphor? For image? For reason and logic? For insight? For intuition? For the imaginative leap? For fantasy? What are the child's preferred subjects? What conventions and skills come easily? Which are hard?



3. The chairperson summarizes the teacher's portrayal, calling attention to any dominant themes or patterns.

4. The chairperson asks for descriptions from others who have worked with or observed the child. The presenter may also report comments from others who are not present.

5. The chairperson briefly describes the child's previous school experience, any important medical data, and any family information directly supplied to the school by the family (not by hearsay). The teacher also reports what she knows directly from the family. Unless the family is included in the Review, the review focuses primarily on what the teacher can do to support the child.

6. After the chairperson restates the focusing question, the participants offer questions or comments. This opens out multiple perspectives and generates new information that may enhance the teacher's insights, expectations, or approach, or may even shift her focusing question itself.

7. The chairperson summarizes this new information, restates the focusing question, and asks for recommendations drawn from both the foregoing description and participants' own experiences and knowledge of other children. These recommendations focus on ways to support the child's strengths (not change the child) and create harmony in his or her school life. They may contradict or build on each other, and the teacher need not comment on them or take them. They serve as a resource for all present.

8. The chair pulls together and critiques the Review, summarizing any themes of the recommendations or follow-up plans.

Condensed with permission from Exploring Values and Standards: Implications for Assessment. New York: NCREST, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1993.

Surfacing the "Opportunity to Demonstrate" Factor In six urban school districts, Dennie Palmer Wolf's Performance Assessment Collaboratives in Education (PACE) at Harvard University has focused on portfolios as a means to look at learning over time. When PACE teachers come together to look at their students' portfolios, however, they often focus not only on whether substantial learning has taken place over a span of, say, one year. They also ask what opportunities teachers and the curriculum offered students to learn and demonstrate worthwhile things. The protocol looks like this: 1. Teachers bring together (from one heterogeneous class or different classes) at least a dozen samples of portfolios that represent strong work, satisfactory work, and work from students who are struggling.

2. Using examples from previous sessions, experienced teacher-leaders frame the inquiry's dimensions. For example: How rigorous were the assignments? Did the student know the standards for good work? What opportunities did students have to move from first-draft work to better work later on? Is there evidence of supporting conditions: the chance to take work home, conferences, peer critiques?

3. With such questions in mind, teachers read and take notes on two samples from each "performance level" of the portfolios they have brought themselves.

4. In pairs, teachers select and read two samples from each level of their partner's portfolios, taking notes on where they want more information, what questions the work raises for them, and where opportunities for learning might be enhanced. They take turns interviewing each other about their observations, then together list the possibilities for change.

5. The larger group comes together to discuss their observations. What strong practices seem to support improvement, they ask, and which inhibit it or set a low ceiling? What new classroom strategies might emerge from this? Which practices might look promising but prove troubling in practice (such as rubrics that are imposed without reference to the work, or all-purpose reflection sheets photocopied from a textbook)? If possible, they make plans to try these out and come back to the group with the results.



Sampling a "Vertical Slice" of Student WorkWhat might one learn by examining all the student work produced during a narrow time period by a broad sample of students in a particular school or district? In a 1996 project of the Bush Educational Leaders Program at the University of Minnesota, one Minnesota district agreed to capture such data in a "vertical slice" that would gather one day's "ordinary work" and analyze what it revealed about the purposes of education in the real district they referred to as "Prairieville."

The collection came from a sample of two Prairieville elementary classrooms at each grade in two socio-economically different schools, and from a sample of secondary students that cut across curriculum "levels." Everything students did from the morning of January 10 to noon on the following day-homework, worksheets, artwork, notes, drafts, even discussions or events captured on audiotapes, videotapes, or photographs-was to make up the completed archive. Later, groups of school people pored for two hours over its contents. Then, in a Socratic seminar with the archive as its "text," they discussed the implications of what they saw.

This method is quite new and open to adaptation; in fact, the Essential school people who will try it again at the 1996 CES Fall Forum plan to adapt it to a new purpose and guiding question. In a planning session at Brown University, they came up with the following strategy for those considering a "slice" of their own design: 1. Decide on the purpose of your slice. The Prairieville school district administration, for example, wanted to hold up the daily reality of schooling against the district's stated philosophy. But a school might also use the slice to shed light on a particular problem it faces.

2. Come up with a guiding question. Prairieville asked, for example, "What does this work reveal about the dominant purposes of a Prairieville education? Does it seem to portray different purposes for different students, subjects, schools, or levels of schooling?" In a slice involving one heterogeneously grouped high school, the question might be, "Is class work appropriately challenging all students?"

3. Decide on a sampling strategy. Depending on your purpose, the sample should be distributed across the range of groups you want represented, which may be different schools, socioeconomic concentrations, grade levels, curriculum groupings either formal (such as vocational education, Advanced Placement, or special education) or informal (such as band students). Though this distribution cannot be scientifically prescribed, it will determine how useful the slice proves in answering your guiding question.

4. Identify the methods of the slice. Will you ask only for work on paper or can you collect other artifacts: artwork, photos, audiotapes, videotapes, student logs or reflections, information on what goes on outside of school hours? Will you see the work in context or divorced from assignment sheets, discussions, and the like?

5. Decide on the duration of the slice. Prairieville used a day and a half; depending on your situation you might choose a time period of up to a week. This is a cross-section, not a longitudinal study; and remember, work piles up fast.

6. Arrange the logistics. Someone will need to collect the work; gather parental permission to analyze it; remove from it all identifying names; copy it; create and organize the archive in an accessible form. Funding for this from an interested university or foundation partner could help.

7. Decide how to interrogate the slice. A number of discussion protocols might prove useful. For instance, the Fall Forum used a Socratic seminar conducted in a "fishbowl":

The facilitator introduces the norms for the seminar, which are descriptive rather than evaluative and derive from the Atlas method "Learning from Student Work." Then the facilitator introduces the slice's presenters. [5 minutes]

A spokesperson for the presenters briefly describes the parameters and methodology of the slice. The facilitator then presents the guiding question for the discussion. [5 minutes]

Responders examine the work (including any video or audio evidence) and take notes in silence. Small groups may examine different blocks of evidence in order to cover all the work presented. [45 minutes]



The facilitator leads a Socratic seminar among the responders, using the norms previously introduced. The work in the slice serves as the seminar's only text. Presenters remain silent. [40 minutes]

Responders and presenters change places, and the presenters continue the seminar discussion among themselves, with facilitation continuing. Responders remain silent. [20 minutes]

Led by the facilitator, the entire group debriefs the process. What have they learned of value through this process, and why? What could be improved? [20 minutes]

What to Look for in Student Work: Some Standards for 'Authenticity'What intellectual standards should serve as a foundation for the highest quality teaching and learning? Fred Newmann, who directs the Center on Organization and Restructuring Schools at the University of Wisconsin, has come up with a set of criteria for what he calls "authentic instruction and assessment," which can serve as a resource for reflection by teachers examining student work.

Though Newmann provides rubrics for applying his standards in the fields of mathematics and social studies, he intends them not as a mechanical scoring system (for students, teachers, or schools) but as a stimulus for discussion of larger standards and continuous school improvement. He urges groups of reflective teachers to try them out, debate them, perhaps modify them, and finally decide whether their school should incorporate them into its vision and seriously implement them for all students and teachers.

This complex process, he believes, cannot be done individually; it depends on teachers working in collegial small groups over time to discuss and develop their ideas. In Chicago, eleven Essential schools who are part of the Annenberg Challenge site there have agreed to use Newmann's standards as benchmarks for their collaborative looks at student work both within schools and as part of their "critical friendships" across schools.

Teachers should examine classroom instruction, assessment tasks, and student performance, Newmann believes, for whether they are "authentic" in construction of knowledge, disciplined inquiry, and value beyond school. He defines "authenticity" using the following criteria: For Assessment Tasks 1. Organization of information. The task asks students to organize, synthesize, interpret, explain, or evaluate complex information in addressing a concept, problem, or issue. 2. Consideration of alternatives. The task asks students to consider alternative solutions, strategies, perspectives, or points of view in addressing a concept, problem, or issue. 3. Disciplinary content. The task asks students to show understanding and/or use ideas, theories, or perspectives considered central to an academic or professional discipline. 4. Disciplinary process. The task asks students to use methods of inquiry, research, or communication characteristic of an academic or professional discipline. 5. Elaborated written communication. The task asks students to elaborate on their understanding, explanations, or conclusions through extended writing. 6. Problem connected to the world beyond the classroom. The task asks students to address a concept, problem, or issue that is similar to one they have encountered or are likely to encounter in life beyond the classroom. 7. Audience beyond the school. The task asks students to communicate their knowledge, present a product or performance, or take some action for an audience beyond the teacher, classroom, and school building.



For Classroom Instruction 1. Higher-order thinking. Instruction involves students in manipulating information and ideas by synthesizing, generalizing, explaining, hypothesizing, or arriving at conclusions that produce new meaning and understandings for them. 2. Deep knowledge. Instruction addresses central ideas of a topic or discipline with enough thoroughness to explore connections and relationships and to produce relatively complex understandings. 3. Substantive conversation. Students engage in extended conversational exchanges with the teacher and/or their peers about subject matter in a way that builds an improved and shared understanding of ideas and topics. 4. Connections to the world beyond the classroom. Students make connections between substantive knowledge and either public problems or personal experiences.

For Student Performance Newmann uses these standards to assess the intellectual quality of student performance in mathematics and social studies. With adaptation to the different disciplines, he notes, they can be used to assess the quality of student performance in a variety of academic subjects. 1. Analysis. Mathematics: Student performance demonstrates thinking with mathematical content by organizing, synthesizing, interpreting, hypothesizing, describing patterns, making models or simulations, constructing mathematical arguments, or inventing procedures. Social Studies: Student performance demonstrates higher order thinking with social studies content by organizing, synthesizing, interpreting, evaluating, and hypothesizing to produce comparisons, contrasts, arguments, application of information to new contexts, and consideration of different ideas or points of view. 2. Disciplinary Concepts Mathematics: Student performance demonstrates an understanding of important mathematical ideas that goes beyond application of algorithms by elaborating on definitions, making connections to other mathematical concepts, or making connections to other disciplines. Social Studies: Student performance demonstrates an understanding of ideas, concepts, theories, and principles from social disciplines and civic life by using them to interpret and explain specific, concrete information or events. 3. Elaborated Written Communication Mathematics: Student performance demonstrates a concise, logical, and well-articulated explanation or argument that justifies mathematical work. Social Studies: Student performance demonstrates an elaborated account that is clear, coherent, and provides richness in details, qualification, and argument. The standard could be met by elaborated consideration of alternative points of views. Excerpted with permission from A guide to Authentic Instruction and Assessment: Vision, Standards, and Scoring by Fred M. Newmann, Walter G. Secada, and Gary G. Wehlage. Madison, WI Wisconsin Center for Educational Research. Copies are available for 9.00 call (608)263-4214.

Examining Student Work: A Constructivist Protocol What makes students and teacher's really care about their work? Daniel Baron of the Harmony School and Education Center in Bloomington, IN offers this self-assessment tool aimed at generating new insights and increasing that investment. The protocol can be used, he notes, both for assessment and for planning, and it can be done individually or in groups.1. Students bring to class an example of the best work they have ever done. The work can come from any source, medium or setting.

2. Students look carefully at their own work and come up with a list of three to five qualities they believe exist in the work and contribute to making it their best.

3. The whole class brainstorms the qualities they found, then condenses the list to three to five qualities everyone agrees are essential to good work.

4. The teacher gives an assignment to the class asking that student attempt to build those qualities into their work. Students should make five copies of their completed assignment.

5. When the assignment is completed, small groups of three or four students look at each other's work in search of evidence that the agreed on qualities are present. (The tuning protocol make an excellent vehicle for the student to present such evidence.)

For More Information



David Allen, ed., Student Work, Teacher Learning. NY: Teachers College Press, in press.

David Allen, "The Tuning Protocol: A Process for Reflection." Providence: Coalition of Essential Schools, 1995.

David Allen, Tina Blythe, and Barbara S. Powell, "A Guide to Looking Collaboratively at Student Work." Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project Zero, 1996. Tel.: (617) 495-4342.

Mary Barr, The California Learning Record: A Handbook for Teachers, Grades 6Ð12 (1995); Mary Barr and M. A. Syverson, The California Learning Record: A Handbook for Teachers, Grades KÐ6 (1994); and Winfield Cooper and Mary Barr, eds., The Primary Language Record and the California Learning Record In Use. Center for Language in Learning, 10610 Quail Canyon Road, El Cajon, CA 92021; tel. (619) 443-6320; e-mail [email protected]; Web site: http://www.electriciti.com / ~ clrorg/clr.html

Eric Buchovecky, "Learning from Student Work." Newton, MA: Atlas Communities, Education Development Center, 1996.

Patricia Carini, The Art of Seeing and the Visibility of the Person (1979), and The Lives of Seven Children (1982). Grand Forks: North Dakota Study Group on Evaluation.

Beverly Falk and Linda Darling-Hammond, "The Primary Language Record at P.S. 261: How Assessment Transforms Teaching and Learning." New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, NCREST, 1993.

Rhoda D. Kanevsky, "The Descriptive Review of a Child," in Authentic Assessment in Practice. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, NCREST, 1993.

Joseph P. McDonald, Redesigning School. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.

Fred M. Newmann, Walter G. Secada, and Gary G. Wehlage, A Guide to Authentic Instruction and Assessment: Vision, Standards, and Scoring. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 1995. Tel.: (608) 263-4214.

Fred M. Newmann et al., Authentic Assessment: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996. $29.95. Tel.: 1-800-956-7739.

Steve Seidel, "Collaborative Assessment Conferences for the Consideration of Project Work" (1991) and "Learning from Looking" (1996). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project Zero. Tel: (617) 495-4342.

Dennie Palmer Wolf, J. Craven, and D. Balick, More Than the Truth. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1996.



LOOKING AT STUDENT WORK THROUGH THE LENS OF A CRITICAL FRIEND

Slide 1 ___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 2 ___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 3 ___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 4 ___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________



Through the Lens of a Critical FriendArthur L. Costa and Bena Kallick

Educational Leadership, Volume 51 Number 2 October 1993

Source: http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9310/costa.html

Every student—and educator, too—needs a trusted person who will ask provocative questions and offer helpful critiques.

You are seated in the darkened "dilating" room, waiting for the ophthalmologist to bring you into the office. The routine is familiar. Sit in the chair. Place your forehead against the machine. Tell whether you see the letters better or worse as the doctor changes the focusing lenses. This could be an analogy for assessment.

It is only when you change the lens through which you view student learning—or your own practice—that you discover whether a new focus is better or worse. But if you never change the lens, you limit your vision.

Sometimes your frustration mounts and you ask, "Can't you just tell me the right prescription?" Furthermore, you need another person to continually change your focus, pushing you to look through multiple lenses in order to find that "just right" fit for you, the ultimate owner of the glasses. But it is not entirely a matter of science. It requires the subjective perspective, "Which looks better or worse to you?"

As we work to restructure schools, we must increasingly ask the right questions and collect the appropriate evidence; we are constantly refocusing our work. The visit to the ophthalmologist suggests that no one perspective on student learning will be sufficient to assess a student's capabilities and performances. It might also suggest that assessment feedback should provide as clear a vision as possible about the learning performance in the eyes of the learner. And, it illustrates how assessment requires someone who will provide new lenses through which learners can refocus on their work, namely, a critical friend.

Critical Friends

The role of critical friend has been introduced in many school systems that see themselves as learning organizations and know that learning requires assessment feedback (Senge 1990). A critical friend provides such feedback to an individual—a student, a teacher, or an administrator—or to a group. A critical friend, as the name suggests, is a trusted person who asks provocative questions, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critique of a person's work as a friend. A critical friend takes the time to fully understand the context of the work presented and the outcomes that the person or group is working toward. The friend is an advocate for the success of that work.

Because the concept of critique often carries negative baggage, a critical friendship requires trust and a formal process. Many people equate critique with judgment, and when someone offers criticism, they brace themselves for negative comments. We often



forget that Bloom refers to critique as a part of evaluation, the highest order of thinking (Bloom et al. 1956).

Critical friendships, therefore, must begin through building trust. The person or group needs to feel that the friend will:

be clear about the nature of the relationship, and not use it for evaluation or judgment;

listen well: clarifying ideas, encouraging specificity, and taking time to fully understand what is being presented;

offer value judgments only upon request from the learner;

respond to the learner's work with integrity; and

be an advocate for the success of the work.

The Critical Friends Process

Once trust has been established, the critical friend and the learner meet together in a conference. Time for this conference is flexible, but we found it useful to limit the conference to 20 minutes. (Once critical friends are accustomed to the structure, the time may be shortened.) One successful process to facilitate conversation is the following:

1. The learner describes a practice and requests feedback. For example, a teacher might describe a new problem-solving technique, or a student might describe a project being considered.

2. The critical friend asks questions in order to understand the practice described and to clarify the context in which the practice takes place. For example, the friend may ask the learner, "How much time did you allow for the students to do problem solving?" or "What do you hope other people will learn from your project?"

3. The learner sets desired outcomes for this conference. This allows the learner to be in control of the feedback.

4. The critical friend provides feedback about what seems significant about the practice. This feedback provides more than cursory praise; it provides a lens that helps to elevate the work. For example, the teacher's critical friend might say, "I think it's significant that you're asking students to do problem solving because it will help them become more self-directed." The student's critical friend might say, "I think your project will be significant because you are trying to bring a new insight into the way people have understood the changing role of women in the United States."

5. The critical friend raises questions and critiques the work, nudging the learner to see the project from different perspectives. Typical queries might be, "What does the evidence from your students' work indicate to you about their capacity to do problem solving?" or "When you do this project, how will you help others follow your presentation?" One 2nd grade student said to his partner, "You might want to glue the objects. It needs to be neater."



6. Both participants reflect and write. The learner writes notes on the conference—an opportunity to think about points and suggestions raised. For example, the learner may reflect on questions such as, Will changes make this work better or worse? What have I learned from this refocusing process? The critical friend writes to the learner with suggestions or advice that seem appropriate to the desired outcome. This part of the process is different from typical feedback situations in that the learner does not have to respond or make any decisions on the basis of the feedback. Instead, the learner reflects on the feedback without needing to defend the work to the critic.

Critical Friends in Many Settings

Critical friends are useful in various educational situations: in classrooms, in staff development meetings, and between administrators.

In the classroom. Students use the critical friends process in the classroom for feedback on their writing, project work, and oral presentations. The process provides a formal way for students to interact about the substantive quality of their work. They read one another's texts as peer editors and critics. Their conferences make the role of assessor part of the role of learner.

In staff development. Teachers use critical friends to plan and reflect on their own professional development. A critical friends group can consist of as many as six people who meet and share practices, perhaps every other week. Some teachers do this during their planning time. Although only one person may have time to share a practice in each meeting, instead of the usual show-and-tell sharing, the critical friends process allows teachers to understand one another's work at a deeper level.

Between administrators. Administrators often find themselves too busy to reflect on their practices. In addition, they are isolated from one another. To counteract these tendencies, some administrators have designed critical friendships into their working relationships, calling upon colleagues for critique. One superintendent called upon her board from time to time to be her critical friends.

The purpose of this new role of critical friend in assessment is to provide a context in which people receive both critical and supportive responses to their work. For example, a superintendent was recently called to make a presentation to her board. She was warned that certain members of the board were difficult. When she entered the meeting, the superintendent said that she hoped the board would not sit as a panel of judges but rather as a group of critical friends who would help her ask the best possible evaluation questions for the proposed project. The board, taken off guard, responded favorably. During reflection time, members were able to offer their concerns. As a result, in the privacy of the superintendent's own reflection, she was able to re-assess her work in light of the issues that were raised.

The art of criticism is often overlooked in school life. In theater, literature, and dance, a good critic can maintain and elevate the standards of performance. In fact, most performing artists have an outside editor built into their work, and over time, they internalize criticism sufficiently so that they are able to become more sharply self-evaluative (Perkins 1991).



Introducing the role of critical friends into the layers of a school system will build a greater capacity for self-evaluation as well as open-mindedness to the constructive thinking of others. As we begin to look through many lenses, we learn to ask the question, "Better or worse?" Critical friends help us change our lenses and ask this question.

References

Bloom, B. S. et al. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.

Perkins, D. N. (1991). "What Creative Thinking Is." In Developing Minds: Vol. 1. Rev. ed., edited by A. L. Costa. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.

Arthur L. Costa is a consultant. He can be reached at P.O. Box 705, Kalaheo, HI 96741. Bena Kallick is a consultant. She can be reached at 12 Crooked Mile Rd., Westport, CT 06880.



OBSERVER FORM

ACTIVE LISTENINGMake a check mark for each instance of reflecting, paraphrasing, clarifying and drawing out. Record at least one example of each type of behavior.

Reflecting: Example:

Paraphrasing: Example:

Clarifying: Example:

Drawing Out: Example:

BODY LANGUAGECircle the number that best represents the communications transaction observed.

Always faces person 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never faces person

Keeps body still 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Constantly moving

Facial expression always warm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Facial expression never warm

Constant eye contact 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No eye contact

Always looks relaxed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always looks tense



THE TIME MANAGEMENT MATRIX

URGENT NOT URGENT

IMPORTANT

Quadrant IACTIVITIES:CrisesPressing problemsDeadline-driven projects

Quadrant IIACTIVITIES:Prevention, Production/Capacity activitiesRelationship buildingRecognizing new opportunitiesPlanningRecreation

NOT

IMPORTANT

Quadrant IIIACTIVITIES:Interruptions, some callsSome mail, some reportsSome meetings

Quadrant IVACTIVITIES:Trivia, busy workSome mailSome phone callsTime wasters

Source: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey



ACTION PLAN FOR LITERACY WORK

Name: _______________________________________________________________________________

Step #

WHAT WHO WHEN OUTCOMES



Please write your reflections on a separate sheet of paper.

1. What did I expect from this training?2. Were my expectations met/not met?

How?3. What happened that I didn't expect?4. How do I feel about my participation

in the group?5. How have I changed as a result of this

training?6. How do I see my role as a teacher?7. If I were grading myself, what grade

would I give myself? Why?8. I wish...


task 4 meeting – oct 4, 2000 -...

Documents