Collection of Responses to Survey

So far, so good. We have collected about 20 surveys from a range of staff and faculties. The responses are mixed in most areas but clearly most people think that they have little say in the decision making process of the school as a whole.
I have been intrigued by the feedback by both the KLA coordinators and people in their factulty. I will use RE as an example. The coordinator feels like everybody gets a go and decision making is shared. However, the (albeit few) two responses from the faculty suggest otherwise.
What has been excellent is that most people have given examples of worthwhile decision making processes.
On reflection the best process I have been involved in has been with the Fantasy Football association that I am involved in. We are about to have an AGM and the process for changing the constitution is as fair and clear cut as I have seen. This usually involves sending out a proposal sheet, getting proposals in by a due date, printing them off in a very well set out booklet with all the options available, getting this out before the day and encouraging discussion before the meeting. Finally, all people come to the meeting with an idea of how they are going to vote. Some people reasons for/against and then we vote.
We will do a final appeal for surveys tomorrow and then collate them on the weekend - if I can fit in all the reports I have to write!
A friend of mine suggested that the school's PC might help developing the processes involved in developing worthwhile decision making structures. Will contact him with the results to see what he thinks.

The surveys start coming in...oh, and another meeting

Yes, the first decision making surveys have come in and even the ESOs are getting involved. Should make for interesting reading.

I attended another typical meeting today, this time for a particular KLA that I am closely associated with.
The meeting started late with the usual excuses. The chair also said at the start: "I don't want to do a lot of talking at this meeting" and then proceeded to talk for about 80% of the meeting. She stuck to the agenda for the most part except near the end when we had an open discussion on what skills we would like our Year 12s to have by the time they reach Year 12. We can then use that to map what skills we develop in Year 11, 10 etc. down to Year 8. She really needs to be shown a technique on how to do this.
Prior to this, the only decision making part of the meeting was to decide on whether the new Engineering Course we are a part of (!) should be run across Year 10 or should be aimed at a particular group. It consisted of a small amount of discussion, then around the room for a vote! Hmmm. Very interesting way of doing things. She does not have much of an idea about getting opinions of others as she appeared to be very uncertain when asking for this.
Verdict: not a meeting more of a lecture/information session.

A meeting of the second kind

This is a review of a second meeting of a group that I have reviewed previously.
I usually take minutes for this meeting but it was suggested that this not be necessary - I don't know why. The agenda seemed to be an informational one but the discussion that ensued was quite vigorous (if unruly) . Intriguingly the chair did not take notes as the meeting progressed - a recipe for time wasting if ever there was one.
Here is a sample of the progress of discussion about student recommendations for senior subjects.
Objections to the process because it seemed pointless as students can still choose a subject even if they are not recommended -> student progress in general, some students should not be doing certain subjects because they were never going to be suited to it and are now dropping out -> should we introduce a minimum "B" standard for all assessment tasks? Should start in Year 8 not Year 12, and no progress until it is achieved -> teachers spend too much time re-teaching work in Year 12 -> can't get through the course -> some students doing outdoor ed and/or child studies miss many weeks of lessons and don't make them up -> could we have subject panels to recommend students? -> could we get students doing work prior to the commencement of Year 12 - say in the holidays or final weeks of Year 11 -> why are some Year 12 students doing Year 12? -> we need to focus on what is required for Year 12 and scope this back to Year 8 students -> back to subject recommendation panels -> back to teacher recommendations and so on and so on....
It was agonising. Don't get me wrong the topic(s) were worthy of conversation but given that no notes were taken and nobody will remember what was said I just don't see the point.

Ok how could it have gone?
Firstly, if it is simply to present information, then present it,
If you want to discuss it, present it, ask for clarifying questions and then discuss it in small groups. Under no circumstances should an individual take hold of the agenda and fly kites.
Time limit the discussion and move people back to the agenda if they start to stray. This meeting went no-where because there was no purpose to it.
If you want to decided something, then people must be given time to digest the suggestion - it SHOULD NOT be raised at the meeting for a decision there and then. Grrrr. That makes me mad!

The Project: Current Status

Met with Susan to talk about where we are at with the AGQTP project.
After giving her the run down of where we are at:

Aim is to survey the decision making process at the school and offer suggestions for decision making protocols.
We are doing this by making observations at meetings, evaluating them as we go, searching for decision making models and surveying staff on decision making.

Susan made a few suggestions:

• Aim to create a decision making policy
• Do a survey of what decisions are made at the school
• Rating the decision beforehand ie Level A Decisions are critical and need to be discussed and decided upon broadly; Level C decisions probably just need some feedback and then an individual can make the decision. This would be determined by examining the impact of the decision.
• How are we involving students and parents in the decision making process?
• There is an urgent need for a shared vision
• Critical - giving feedback about why a certain decision was made.

She seemed to have a few good ideas and her business is aimed at training leaders so we could use her as a sounding board for ideas. She seemed very supportive.
We hope to complete the survey and analyse it when we next meet. We asked about any accreditation we might be getting but she is none the wiser.
Our presentation needs to be 10 minutes long.

The Decision Making Process

This is from a reading from Amanda and the GenGroup about decision making.
It suggests that there are three main factors which influence a decision:

• The decision maker - chair of the meeting, coordinator, principal.
  Such leaders can be extroverted (thinks aloud, facilitates group decisions) or introverted (processes information in a controlled fashion, must include much preparation and planning beforehand).
  

• The decision process - fitting in with the decision maker's style, planning and preparation, sharing information, decision making process.
  Involves two processes - information (search, amount, supply and use of data required in the decision) and procedure (steps that a group uses to make a decision).
  Information should be of high quality and have predictive value when making decisions in a short time frame.
  The process of decision making can further be broken down into three stages: Preparation (sourcing, collecting and analysis of data), Facilitation (drawing out persepectives, opinions and options based on their analysis), and a Decision (decision maker considers the options in relation to vision and mission and choses a course of action).
  
• The situation - what are we deciding on, where and when. This needs a group that can trust each other (must consider time pressure, acceptability and group/team factors)

This is a good way to analyse what happens in our school. Maybe the next step is to review the meetings based on this analysis and see what the data shows us.

This prompted me to come up with an analysis grid to help with the process:

Analysing decisions at our school:

Questions to ask:

What was the decision made?
Who was (were) the decision maker(s)?
Was their style extraverted? Some planning done prior to the meeting as information and expectations shared? Thinking out loud? Guides group decisions? Or Introverted? Much planning and preparation done prior to the meeting
What was the process involved in the Search for data Supply of data to meeting participants Use of data during the meeting Analysis of data during the meeting What data was valuable in making the decision?
What was the process involved in the drawing out the Perspectives opinions, and options from group or team members based on their analysis of the data
What was the process involved in making the final decision? Were a range of options considered? What strategic goals were addressed? How was the final course of action decided upon?
What were the time constraints, acceptability?, and group/team factors, which make the decision task more difficult

Might try it at the next meeting!

Two more meetings

First meeting was a general staff meeting. Mostly information or taking a survey on ICT habits. This is ok as long as they don't call it professional development. I prefer the term, Professional Information. Part of the meeting included a short session on the on-going Dress Code development. Of all the processes going on at work, this is the best managed one. It has been on the go for about two years and we are now at the stage where dress amongst the staff - especially on formal occasions - has improved significantly. Almost to the point where I feel like a slob.
Anyway, todays process included a set of recommendations by the Consultative Committee sub-group on Dress Code. I won't go into the details but we use DeBono green, yellow and black hats to analyse the code. Each group discussed it and then some of the feedback was presented to the big group. The whole feedback will be presented to the committee for further refinement. Pretty superficial but at least we did it in groups which meant many people had a chance to have a say in the process.
Second meeting was a consultative forum. Shoddy start with half the group going one way and the other half going somewhere else. Eventually the two groups met but there were no items on the Agenda! So, let's make one up! No process agreed to .Some discussion on why the forum has such poor attendance - I think it is obvious. Poorly run session dominated by a few opinionated old farts. Whew! Hope this never gets out. Although THIS meeting was better, we still had situations where individuals talked over each other, determined to get their point across; a lack of clear process when discussing ideas or making opinions evident.
A good thing though is that they recognised this and attempted to run the meeting properly with acknowledgment of the speakers, people taking turns, a proper proposal, a somewhat lame attempt to get discussion on the proposal, an "Enough discussion, let's vote" comment from the chairperson and then a vote.

Another Meeting

This was a very different meeting. It included people from other schools and was designed to discuss the facilities we share and some of the issues that arise from it.
Not many decisions were made and most of the meeting was spent listening to the coordinator talk about the budget and future plans - something he could have quite easily sent out in an email. Boy, did he like the sound of his own voice!
Some observations during the meeting:

• It was all business.
• Seventeen people were present at the meeting and only six people spoke up. Of those six, four people, including the coordinator dominated the discussion. They were all senior, experienced teachers, mostly coordinators in the school.
• The meeting discussed the unsafe state of the labs., especially when numbers of students were big. The big four basically made statements about how we can lobby for action. Then the coordinator said "I presume that because people are not saying anything, that they agree with what we are saying here"!. A huge presumption

What it needs is more time in small, mixed groups where people can actually have a say in the issue not just making presumptions because people don't want to speak up. Again, this was not really a decision-making meeting but when a "decision" was made, the process was nonsense.

Learning Team Meetings

The last two days have seen the running of the four learning teams at school.
In the English/SOSE/RE Year 8 group we discussed successful research tasks in our classes. We decided to trial the Success Analysis protocol as one of the teachers spoke about researching the Roman and Greek ancient cultures. The protocol went well and the group stuck to the process stocially. In the end we used it again with another teacher to talk about a quick research task her class did comparing many religious charities.
Then the Science/Maths/IT Year 8 group met in the afternoon and were a little more difficult to contain. The first presenter took a long time to get through his presentation - not that there was a problem with this but other people were chafing at the bit to say something. Whilst the rest of the group were reflecting on his presentation, he was also very keen to join the conversation but held back. In the end the free-for-all conversation that followed was quite a contrast - although interestingly, people seemed much more polite in there interactions.
This morning the the English/SOSE/RE Year 9 group met and our focus was on identifying what an "A" was in our subjects. The presenter spoke brilliantly on developing the different skills needed to write poetry and the scaffolding she developed to achieve this. In the end, the students could reflect back on their work and the obvious improvements they made in their poems. We did not use the protocol with this group but have decided to use it next time.
Finally, in the afternoon it was the turn of the the Science/Maths/IT Year 9 group. Again, the group found it difficult to keep to the protocol - at one stage, one member could not help herself and took the discussion on a tangent that suited her. Eventually we got back on task and I think benefited on the discussion about using Generic Rubrics to help us review student achievement in Maths and Science. This included Rubrics on Research skills, orals, practicals, test results and movie reviews. We decided to trial one of them and bring back our results for the next meeting.
Very useful technique for these groups.

Started the ball rolling with the project.

Won't mention which meeting we attended...but needless to say it was a perfect example of how not to run a decision-making meeting.
Almost every aspect of the agenda was open to railroading - that is, someone at the meeting taking over the "discussion" of the issue and forcing the group to make a decision. Yet, almost every point on the agenda was for information only! I feel it needs to be clear beforehand what you want from each part of the agenda. If you want feedback - ask for it before the meeting and summarise at the meeting.
If you need to make a decision about something - put that on the agenda!
Then when questions were raised, the vague answer of: "We need to look at that next year when it comes up again". In other words, whatever you just said will be forgotten unless it is raised again next year - after the event!
Finally, the section on the agenda where a decision needs to be made. At least it was handed out prior to the meeting and the people most likely to have gripes were met with BEFOREHAND. This is unusual - usually any proposal is handed out at the meeting with no prior discussion. There was less discussion but still it went round and round in circles with no clear purpose, easily distracted and with no idea how to resolve the issue. I'm not sure it was resolved in the end or what decision the committee could have made on it.
The committee involved should not be a decision making committee unless you have protocols for making the decision or you have a smaller (e.g. 4-6) body.

AGQTP Day 7&8 I think!

Over these two days we focussed on using the teaching protocols with our groups. Members of the group presented student work and the protocols were used to analyse issues associated with student work.
For example, we used the consultancy protocol to look at some work from a very bright student of Roses. This student was clearly batting out of her league and this was seen in the high standard of her three responses. Rose's concern was that she didn't know how to challenge this very polite student further.
After Rose gave her input, she then had to answer clarifying questions (simple, easily answered questions focusing on getting the facts straight); this was followed by probing questions (more indepth and expansive) and then step back whilst we (the rest of the group) discussed her issue. She could not speak but had to take notes.
After hearing what we had to say, she then gave her response to the feedback. Having done this a second time now, it was much easier and we were much more efficient. So in summary:

1. Presenter gives overview of issue and then question they want help with (5 minutes)
   
2. The group asks clarifying (but not probing questions) to the presenter (2 minutes).
3. The group asks probing questions to the presenter (5 minutes)
4. The group talk with each other about the strengths and gaps. The presenter is not allowed to talk and should take notes.
5. The presenter responds to feedback.
6. The group reflects on the process.

Over the two days we tried a very difficult protocol called the Atlas Protocol. Its harder because, although we use student work as the basis for discussion, the focus is on the thinking and values that TEACHERS have about students.

My understanding of the process is something like this. It is best used with a completed, discrete piece of student work and also with a group of teachers that are from across the faculties. There needs to be a facilitator, time keeper, observer and presenter.

1. The facilitator starts the process by reminding or agreeing to the protocol norms. The presenter then hands out the task and the student response to that task. They give minimal background information about the task but nothing about the student or the standard of the student's response to the task. Note: this will require a silent time so that teachers (especially those unfamiliar with this type of task) can have the chance to take in all aspects of this assessment task. (2 minutes) . At this point the presenter steps back from the conversation.
   
2. Looking at student work. The group then analsyes the student response by looking for evidence of achievement. By this we mean simpling describing what they see that the student has done. Judgments should be avoided about the quality of the work. If they are mentioned the teacher should state what evidence they used to make the judgements. Noting this down would be useful. (5 minutes)
   
3. Then next step is to interpret the evidence. The group tries to make sense of what they student was doing and why. What does the student understand and how the student interpreted the assignment. Try to see the work from the student's persepective. Try to understand the perspective of your teaching colleagues. (5 minutes)
   
4. Implications for teaching this student. Having made the interpretations, teachers exchange ideas about where the teacher could go with the student, what other evidence of learning would be needed, what teaching strategies might work with this student and how the teaching and assessment could be better aligned with this students needs. (5 minutes)
5. Reflect on the process. The group reflects on the use and benefits of the process. The observer might have a thing or two to say at this point.

Whew. Having been a presenter at one point, I initially found it threatening but in the end the implications section resulted in some excellent ideas about how to extend the student. It will take a fair amount of trust to implement this with teachers back at school.

The final sessions looked the planning for the Action Research project we are undertaking this year. This is:

Project Questions:
What are the decision making protocols at formal meetings in our school?
Are the decision making protocols effective?

Steps we need to take:

1. Situation analysis - collect evidence at meetings, by observations, surveys, one-on-one interviews and /or using a focus group.
2. Source secondary information about models of effective decision-making protocols/styles and leadership styles
3. Analyse, evaluate and make recommendations on what we find.

What data/artefacts we will need to gather for our final presentation:

1. Process used
2. Summary of data
3. Recommendations

What will each group members role be in preparing our presentation?

1. Collecting data (AP and me)
2. Analysing data (me)
   
3. Research on models (AP)
4. Draft up recommendations (both of us)

Next meeting in October.

Using Blooms to improve the standard of the writing of senior students

During that interesting lesson I had with my Year 11 IT students, I was challenged to put down in writing some of the ideas I expressed in the class. Made me think about what the different levels actually mean and how they can be used to guide students to deeper thinking.
Anyway I came up with a grid that students might use to improve their responses to issues.
Here is it:

Example One: Writing about Issues

Bloom’s Taxonomy Level (including dictionary definition)	Explanation	Questions to answer when exploring issues	Example: all students should be banned from the school’s car park
Remember – “to recall or bring to mind again”	Involves simply remembering, listing, retelling, stating in your own words what the issue is.	What are the words, ideas and thoughts that immediately come to mind when you think about the issue.	P plates, speeding, reckless, showing off, noisy.
Understand – “to grasp the meaning of”	Involves trying to understand and summarise what the issue means.	Why this is an issue?	People could get hurt, cars and property might get damaged
Apply – “to put to use especially for some practical purpose”	Involves showing examples and illustrating the main points about the issue.	Give examples of the issue as you or others you know have experienced it	Two days ago, I saw a Year 12 student speed out of the car park and just missed a car coming up Surrey Farm Drive (more examples would be good).
Analyse – “separating or distinguishing the component parts of something (as a substance, a process, a situation) so as to discover its true nature”	Involves thinking more deeply about the issue by separating it into the different arguments about it, working out their importance and how they are different from each other.	Is this an important issue? Is it widespread? Are many people affected? What are the reasons why the issue occurs? What will happen if it is not dealt with?	18-25 year old drivers have the most accidents. Often drive powerful cars. Peer pressure to show off to others.
Evaluate – “to determine the significance, worth, or condition”	Using certain criteria or standards, make judgements about the significance of the issue. Make conclusions about the issue and how to resolve it.	After reviewing the above ideas, what do you think about the issue? Do you think it is important? Explain why.	I am concerned that somebody will get seriously hurt or even killed either in the car park or out on the road. Most young people are good drivers, but some are reckless and selfish.
Create – “to produce through imaginative skill”	Involves looking at the issue from a different angle. Is there some way that the causes and consequences could be used positively?	If you have identified that the issue is significant, can we solve it creatively? If it isn’t significant, can the concerns of others be used positively?	Organise a “show off your car” day at a racetrack. Use driving simulators to have races between student drivers.

I will give it to colleagues first to get their feedback but it was good to do to help clarify in my mind what exactly is involved in the analysis, evaluate and create steps -very challenging.

A new term...a new beginning

The new term has started and I find myself trying more of the Teaching strategies learnt at the AGQTP sessions.
For example, I met with my Year 11 IT class for the first time and got them thinking about how they might respond to an assignment on Computer Game addiction. This meant a brief introduction to Blooms taxonomy and then selecting part of the assignment and asking how they could respond to show: recall, understanding, application, analysis, evaluation, creativity in their response. This will help them understand why a simple recall response, though factually correct, may not be enough to get the higher scores.
My Year 11 Biology class used a see-saw activity to do some revision. In pairs, the first person was asked to recall as much as possible about the respiratory system for one minute. Then the second person was asked to recall as much as possible about the breathing cycle. Many commented that they felt they could not recall much. This was an opportunity for me to talk about the importance of regularly sustained revision - using whatever format suited them.
I am starting to explore wikis with my Psychology class. At this stage we cannot get on but at least they are interested in trying.

AGQTP Day 6 2007

Today was a very satisfying day in many respects.
We further trialled the Final Word protocol (see previous post) and it worked much better and seemed to engage people more in what the article was trying to say. The process allows you to cover the essentials of the article but gives you different perspectives. It enriches the conversation on the topic and enables quieter members to have a say.

I would suggest that it may also be useful to sit for 2 minutes in silence to write a reflection on the main points of the discussion after going through the protocol. The other thing to consider is: Groupthink. How do you prevent like-minded individuals from agreeing with each other just so you don't rock the boat. Need an outside party to review the discussion. Also, you could have one person act as an outsider who reviews the process.

We discussed an article on the new Professionalism of teachers where the focus is now on measurable student outcomes. Part of the way that this can be achieved is through professional development that is self-directed, continuous and systematic. Excellent stuff!

Success analysis protocol
Another way to listen more professionally to what people have to say is this protocol. It goes like this:

1. Everybody think about and note down some key points about a recent professional success (5 minutes).
2. One person outlines what was successful in as much detail as possible. (5 minutes)
3. The others in the group ask clarifying questions (defined as questions that help the questioner understand the situation) as opposed to probing questions (defined as questions that help the respondent think a little more deeply about their situation). (3 minutes).
4. The rest of the group then discuss the success story. The story teller says nothing but writes notes as the rest of the group speak. (8 minutes).
5. The story teller then gives their reflections on what was said in step 4. (2 minutes)
   
6. The group then discusses the process and try to sum up together what elements of the story led to it being a success. (2minutes)

This was also interesting although it was hard to stick to the protocol properly. Once again, it allowed one person to speak at length about a topic that was important to them. The others had to listen and only ask clarifying questions. Then the storyteller was forced to listen.
This would be good with students or to debrief after a key event. We could use it in our PL teams to talk about our successes in teaching.

We then tried a Tuning protocol. Similar to the above but used when evaluating policy and fine-tuning it's contents. We did it once as a big group but I will wait until the next session in August before reporting back in detail.

We did have a long discussion about a Teaching Australia document on what it is to be a teacher. It was good that such a document is being developed and would be useful for me in my quest to develop the Professional Learning Policy for the school.

The next session: we must bring samples of student work, a policy document of some sort and should try some of the protocols before the August meeting.

AGQTP Day 5 2007

We met all day today down at the Yacht Club, no less, and went through a range of strategies.

Some that might be worth following up:

• Using the Extended T-Chart [KW(H)L(D)] to help plan a unit of work.
• Use the SACSA outcomes to set the standards of assessment. That is SACSA outcomes along the side of the page, and levels of achievement (ie introductory, satisfactory, mastery) across the top.
• Help students remember to use the assessment rubrics by making bigger versions and place them around the classroom.
• Getting students to use summative assessment rubrics for formative tasks as a test run -either by assessing their own work or by using it to review other students work.

Some of the good ideas expressed on the day were:

Students learn best when:

• they understand what the expectations are for the task. This includes understanding of the language used.
• the get feedback about the quality of their work
• they are advised how to improve their work (this needs time)
• the are involved in deciding what needs to be done

Authentic Questions are those that have addressed:

• Content - what is required and is it useful
• Context - what situation are we talking about
• Quantity - limits placed on time, length and general boundaries of the response
• Depth - is higher order thinking required?

For example: You are about to plan a trip to the Flinders Ranges National Park. You will be there for three days. You will need to be self-sufficient.

• What areas will you go to?
• What resources will you bring?
• What will you do when you are there?
• What impact might you have on the environment and how can you minimise that impact?

or
If your hair straightener stopped working, how would you find out why?

What makes a fertile question? It should be

• open - not one correct answer
• unsettling - challenges assumptions
• rich - has depth
• connected - relevant to learners and the community to which they belong
• charged - involves ethical, social and political decision making
• practical - a question that can be researched by students

Finally, a very interesting way of a group of people analysing key ideas in a text called The Last Word. It uses the following process:

1. All read the text to be analysed. As each person reads, they highlight important points (5 minutes)
2. One person reads one of their highlighted points and say why it is important (2 minutes). No one else is to speak during this time.
3. The next person responds to the first speaker on their own for one minute.
4. Repeat step 3. for others in the group.
5. Person one has the final word by responding to what has been said for one minute.

Repeat for all other members of the group.
When we did it, it forced you to be quiet (and not interrupt) the speaker. I had to noted down points I wanted to make and then choose the most important. Everybody had a say and everybody had to listen.
Could be interesting with a senior class.
More ideas tomorrow.

Gardiner and Blooms...together

Today in Year 9 I started a unit on the Earth which brings together the Muliple Intelligences ideas of Gardiner and Bloom's taxonomy of joy.
The students got into groups of three and had to choose one of three units on the Earth.
They included:

• Rocks and crystals
• Inner Earth
• Earthquakes

Each unit also had a different style of intelligence that it appeals to. For example the Earthquake unit is for students who like the mathematical/calculating style of working. Plenty of worksheets, statistics and calculations. The Rocks and crystals is more of a hands-on unit with practicals on making crystals, making booklets and the like. The Inner earth unit is more interpersonal with presentations and discussions the focus.
It is the culmination of the last 18 months and the AGQTP work being done. I like it because it is student driven and planned. Once I have outline what is expected (took about 15 minutes) they had to sit and plan all the work for the next three weeks (including homework).
I am very much the guide rather than the teacher. It is a logistical nightmare though. Makes teaching interesting.

Current Developments

I have tried a few techniques recently and so I would like to share them with you all.

1. Y-chart with Year 11 Psychology. I was trying to introduce the topic of aggression to the students and thought that they Y-chart with "What does it look/sound/feel like" would be a useful way to get them thinking about the topic. It worked well and I shall try it again with some other aspects of the course that they have an experience of.
   
2. Round-Robin with Year 9 Science. I wanted them to generate ideas about acids and bases - their uses and dangers. They had a piece of paper and then passed it round 1 at a time, wrote ideas down and passed it to the next person. I needed to go over the idea of brainstorming because they spent too much time trying to get affirmation from each other about their ideas - however at least it got down on paper some of the ideas from all of the group.
3. I followed this up with Tournament Prioritiser where the students went through the ideas and omitted some and keep other depending on their ranking.
4. Finally, I then asked them to give members of the group a job. The jobs included: Organsier (overall coordination), Clarifier (had to make sure the point of the project was clear), Creative Genius (had to try and improve the creativity of the response), writer, andChecker (whose job it was to make sure the information was accurate from a scientific point of view). I need to work on this because this is the first time I have explicitly used the cooperative groups idea.
   

They will present their information as a radio play (ie read from a script with sound effects) and they rest of the class will listen in and assess them on their clarity and creativity. We have practiced this beforehand and so hopefully they will have enjoy being involved in the assessment of their peers.

Day 3 AGQTP or is it day 4

Came late to this session - too busy discussing constructive teaching strategies with teachers.
Spend some time using the extended T chart which involves unpacking objectives (eg SACSA) and then using the chart to say what you want the students to know, at what Blooms level, and what skills the students need to achieve it.
Could be useful with the all-day session next term with Margaret.
We also discussed trying to understand the different levels of Blooms using three cups.
Knowledge - they are cups
Understand - they are reasonably big and either plastic or clear in colour.
Apply - use them to drink with
Analysis - one might hold more liquid, but another might be safer in a bathroom
Synthesis - create a new use for the cups - as a hat.
Evaluation - just how good each cup is according to its environmental impact.

We then spent some time on rubrics. It was good to go over this again and to hear that you should avoid putting too many levels (ie good, fair, excellent), otherwise it becomes unwieldy.
It was also useful to hear that student should be taught how to use them to help organise and prioritise their work for an assignment.

Finally, we did a PMI on our presentation. Must get students to do that with their own efforts.

The next day, I used some of the Blooms information for the next set of meetings with our Learning teams. We were talking about SACSA and how we can use Blooms to create criteria that illustrate what a SACSA "A" looks like. The English/SOSE/RE teachers decided to try and clarify what an "A" was for them - other than an "X" factor and use it in an assessment task in the next term.
The Science/Maths/ITC people decided to come up with generic rubrics (using the reporting A-E) model for things such as tests, practical reports etc. and to try one of them in the next term. I noticed that Adam was pretty quiet in the meetings. Must try to find something for him to bring up at the next meeting.

Finally, today I showed the Year 11 students a remembering technique. I can't remember what it is called but if you need to remember a series of facts then try to visualise the structure of your house - the rooms, the features and appliances. Link each fact to an appliance, feature of the room in a visual and literal sense. Then do a walk through the house trying to remember the idea as you walk through each room.
For example, the students were trying to remember the names of the key placental groups (eg rodents, carnivores, ungulates). I suggested that they put a representative animal in each room (eg rats [rodent] in the kitchen, bat [chiropteran] in the shed, whale [cetacean] in the pool or baht) and then write a story of their adventure through the house. They even included the animal doing something which illustrated their groups main features. For example, dog [carnivore] eat a leg of lamb [as meat-eaters do] in the bedroom. The really liked it and were intent on creating a story. The test will be tomorrow if they remember the rooms, animals but particularly the groups.

A big couple of days.

AGQTP Day 3 2007

Some more cooperative ideas:

• Transfer booklet. Give students a sheet and a question. Give minimal verbal input on how to do the booklet and how to answer the question. As the students get closer to what you want, give minimal positive feedback. If they say things that are irrelevant, ignore them.
  
• Donut strategy. Two circular groups - inner and outer. Inner talks about a point, then outer talks. Rotate outer circle for three people. Repeat tell and retell. Better in outside area.
• Acrostic introduction. Use the letters in a person's name to introduce them to others. It could be used to explain what key words mean as well. Or use an acronym to summarise a key point.

We spend most of the day planning a small input session explaining what TRIBES is. My limited understanding of the topic was that it was cooperative learning made explicit in ALL aspects of school life. So the key features such as caring for others, high expectations and an opportunity for all to participate are promoted in all aspects of school life - not just the classroom.
We decided that we TRIBES was very much like what Catholic schools are on about. So our first step was to present some key ideas about TRIBES as quotes and then ask the participants what activities, programs, people, processes etc., encourage and develop these values.
They then brainstormed by using the ABC graffiti method ie list all the letters of the alphabet. Then add the names of the people, programs and policies that reflect the values mentioned earlier.
Once that was done, they should they revisit the ABC graffiti and group them according to what TRIBES value was being met ie high expectations. We expected that they should see gaps in what they were trying to do in schools ie use it as an audit. We then encouraged them to try to fill that gap (in part) before the next day in June.
We were then reminded to journal our experiences. For me, this day remains a little fuzzy - typical of the approach used so far. There are so many things to consider that it becomes difficult to hold it in your head for the day.
The good thing is that we were reminded of some good teaching strategies and also could interact with some of the other teachers from other schools.

AGQTP Homework

Research cooperative learning

• Here are examples of what I know of cooperative learning not already covered in previous posts:
  Think, pair, share - one of my favourites for science. Get students to think carefully about a topic BY THEMSELVES. Tell them that you want them to write or draw their own ideas and share them later. Write what they think, don't worry if they don't know it.
  Then share it with another. Defend their positions but then come to an agreement about their understanding.
  Finally share with another pair and then write a list of their common understandings.
  Great for ideas such as "What is the smallest particle", "What are living things made of", "What causes disease", "How do plants get their food."
  
  Go ask an expert - put a question on the board. All students stand up. Put your hand up if you think you know the answer. Those that don't, go and ask the "expert". Get them to clarify the answer. Then go and ask another expert until you are satisfied by the answer. Then clarify the answer with the whole class - even asking one of the experts to answer it.
  
  Three Muskateers - go around the room and find three others at random. Number off from 1-3. Each number person given some part/information to summarise to the other two.
  
  ABC graffiti - List all the letters of the alphabet. In groups, brainstorm key ideas about a topic so that all the letters have at least one word after them. Then prioritise the most important three - this is where the analysis comes in.
  
  One minute write - write on a general topic for one minute - could be a review of the unit or just on a theme. Don't lift pen off paper. Count the number of words/number of words of three syllables (quantity v quality). Set a goal for the next minute of writing (ie more words, more 3 syllable words). Write. Did you achieve your goals? Share strategies for achieving goals.
  

• Find out about Tribes (from http://www.tribes.com/abstract_character_education.htm)
  
  

  CHARACTER VALUES	TRIBES PROCESS COMPONENTS
  Caring and Compassion	Four caring Agreements are used:
  		Listen with the heart as well as head.
  		Express appreciation/no put-downs
  		Mutual respect (for others, the school and environment)
  		The right to pass within a peer group
  Responsibility
  		Students maintain membership in small groups (tribes) to support learning and positive social behavior.
  		Teachers use cooperative learning methods for academics, transfer responsibility to students to help each other.
  		All members are responsible to each other and for group accountability.
  Justice and Fairness
  		Time is taken to reflect on tribe member's work, special qualities and skills after every group task.
  		Equal participation, fairness, open and honest communication is acknowledge.
  		Group issues and conflict are mediated within the peer group.
  		Teacher observations, instruction and modeling support the cooperation with the tribes.
  Trustworthiness
  		Peer support, respect and appreciation built with the tribes and classroom enables students and teachers to know each other well and count upon the affirmed individual virtues repeatedly cited throughout every day.
  Honesty
  		Repeated use of reflection and feedback (processing) by peers develops a high level of candor and honesty. The sense of belonging (inclusion) facilitates speaking the truth.
  Doing One's Personal Best
  		Setting goals, completing tasks on time, respecting others, living responsibly and loving learning becomes the norm.
  		Hundreds of cooperative learning studies have proven that students work more diligently on task and excel academically when in caring groups than individually.
  Social Skills
  	The Tribes process is recognized as a very successful cooperative learning model because it teaches and gives daily practice to important individual and team building skills:
  	Participate fully Listen attentively Express appreciation Reflect on learning experiences Value diversity of cultures / ideas Think constructively Make responsible decisions Resolve conflict Solve problems creatively Work collaboratively on tasks Assess improvement Celebrate achievemen

  
  
  
• Do a journal entry - done previous and this entry.
  
  
• T-chart of actual teaching practice - compared to the T-chart of beliefs. Audit your classroom.
  
  

Brilliant idea for Project

Here it is.
The project will be to help Middle School Teachers use Constructive Pedagogies to help integrate a unit of work across the six curriculum areas.
Background:
At our school, our middle school is structured so that two key teachers (called Learning Teams) are responsible for the teaching of six of the main curriculum areas for a particular class (i.e. Maths/Science/IT and English/SOSE/RE). There are 12 teams in all (6 for Year 8 and 6 for Year 9).
Currently, we are sporadically working on at least one unit of work together as a integrated unit. It is fairly haphazard and depends on the commitment of the people involved. We will hopefully report on this at the next Teams meeting. Our aim then is to get these teams to meet with Margaret Bishop to reflect on the process used so far and then plan a full unit for the second semester. We could use the Connectedness part of the Constructive Pedagogies as guide to the sorts of things we are aiming for (ie connections between subject areas, but also with students lives and with the "real" world).
My idea:
I work with Amanda (also doing the AGQTP project) on the planning of the day with Margaret. We use the Understanding by Design process to framework the day. Amanda can be the reflective partner and would help people understand the Cooperative and Cognitive methods that are used for each of the sessions (given that I will be involved with my partner). She could also take photos and get feedback on how the day went.
We aim that teams get the unit done in the third term and then feedback to the Middle school team sometime late in Term 3 or early term 4 (Term 3 would be better for us).
Then we report back to the AGQTP project - viola!

Understanding by Design:
This is a three step process which I am only beginning to understand, but hopefully will have a better understanding in Term 2. It goes something like this:

Step 1: Establish the goals for the PD day. Something like: Integrated units give students an opportunity to see how ideas are connected and how those connections can also be made with their own lives and the world around them.
Having decided that, we need to focus on: what key ideas will students understand as a result of doing the integrated unit. By understanding, I mean being able to transfer the knowledge to new and unusual situations.
Then we need to come up with some essential questions to provoke inquiry, understanding and transfer of learning.
We should then be able to come up with some statements that show: what students will know and what students will be able to do by the end of the unit.

Step 2: The next step is to decide on the authentic performance tasks that students will participate in to show they have these essential understandings. We will need to agree on criteria to judge the performance (a rubric might help here). We could also decide on tasks (tests, homework) that students need to do to demonstrate achievement of the desired results. Will we get students to reflect on their own learning and self-assess?

Step 3: The final step is decide on the learning activities to help students achieve the desired results.
These must:

• help students know where the unit is going and what is expected.
• get students hooked into the process
• give students the skills to succeed
• give students opportunities to think and reflect on what they have done
• allow students to evaluate their own work
• allow students to personalise their learning according to their needs and interests

Looks good.