Using Classroom Conversation to Push the Thinking and Deepen Understanding

CC licensed photo  shared by Flickr user Alexander Lyubavin

I am a huge believer in Assessment for and Assessment as Learning. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that it is Formative Assessment practices that are the game changer in education. I think it is paramount that in the 21st Century, we help students to develop into critical thinkers who are able to assess their own understandings and abilities. When they can do this accurately, they can set goals for themselves and take steps towards deepening their understandings and skills.

That is why it is so important to reflect on the way we are currently giving feedback to our students and encouraging them to give feedback to one another.

I don't believe in formulaic responses, not for responses to reading (please, no more "A.P.E." or "Point, Prove, Comment") and not for responding to someone else's work. I think "two stars and a wish" might have been a good place to start, but the more I read students' "stars and wishes" for their peers' work, the more I feel we are straying from the point of the exercise.

I fully admit, I used "two stars and a wish" with my own students.  But over time I started to feel deep down that this wasn't achieving the goal I had set out for. It first really hit me when I was having my students do a "Write Around" which I had learned about from Harvey Daniels. (Click on link for full instructions).  In a Write Around, students write a response or an opinion to something they have read or viewed, and then they pass their response to the person beside them. That person must then comment on what the first person has written, and then pass the notebook on again. The notebook then gets passed to a third person, who must comment on both the original response and their predecessor's comment. It is a great way to teach your students to dialogue, to push one another's thinking through questioning and extending.

Unfortunately, my students were writing things like "good job telling the main idea, and your printing is so neat, next time try to add more detail." How was this pushing anyone's thinking?  I have seen this time and time again in my travels as a Consultant. Teachers teach their students to "assess" their peers' work and provide them with feedback using "hearts and arrows" or "stars and wishes" without really teaching students WHY exactly they are doing this. Isn't it to push one another's thinking?

One of the most difficult aspects of teaching is assessing student work, putting a name to what makes one piece better than another and giving feedback that truly tells the student what to do next to improve. I think it is important to help our students develop a nose for quality, and I think it is important that we teach our students self-assessment and peer-assessment strategies. But we must not confuse "assessment" with "evaluation".  We need to teach our students how to use DESCRIPTIVE words rather than EVALUATIVE words when giving one another feedback. That means WE as teachers need to learn the difference first, and monitor what WE say when we are providing feedback. To truly develop a community of learners that push and extend one another's thinking we will gain more if we focus less on asking students to give "hearts and arrows" or "stars and wishes" to one another and more on teaching them how to converse with and challenge one another.

I love this Ministry monograph on Grand Conversation in the Junior Classroom. We need to teach our students how to converse with one another in a way that pushes their thinking and makes their learning visible to themselves and others. We need to teach them to address one another's misconceptions, to question discrepant events and ideas, and to seek clarity from one another.

I would far prefer to hear a student say "That doesn't make sense to me, why did you put the decimal there?" than "Good job solving that problem, your graph uses a proper scale, just remember to use labels." Students need to challenge and build on one another's ideas. They need to be making comments that push their peers for clarity, "I can't tell who's talking in this paragraph, is it the mother or the kid?" or "I don't see how you went from this step to this one, I got a completely different solution, I think you missed a step." Instead of "Great job using humour" how about "I cracked up when I read the part about the dog in the spaceship, it was hilarious!"

The first step in teaching your students how to think critically and converse critically with one another is to sit back and listen to them; less teacher talk, and more student-to-student talk. What do you notice? What types of things are they picking up on?  What types of questions are they asking one another? Are they even asking one another questions?  Pay attention to how they converse, and then bring it to their attention, making their conversation visible. Try video-taping them, and then analyzing the video together. Challenge them, "Why did you say that to her?", "What else would you like to ask him?", "Do you understand his work now?"  Monitor what you say to your students, model for them by challenging them and seeking clarity from them. Teach them to paraphrase, "So what you are saying is...".  If you need help, read the monograph.  And then together, with your students, establish the criteria for having a critical conversation.

Let me know how it goes!

Making the Shift to “Conditions Necessary for Success”

From an historical perspective, our public education system is in its infancy, and inclusive education is something new. During the 17^th and 18^th centuries, the family was the basic unit where socialization and education took place.  Families were dependent upon the economic contributions of their children.  Any formal education in Canada during that time was the responsibility of religious orders and its focus was on catechism. In the early 19^th century, the idea of formalized schooling began to gain some popularity.  With the advent of new and massive immigration along with the move from a rural to an industrialized society during the mid-1800’s, the push for public education became more prevalent. Legislation for Special Education only began to take root in the latter half of the 20^th century. For more information, please see: "History of Education".

So while education often looks to be a static institution, it is actually an evolving entity that responds to the changing cultural forces in society.  As we move forward in the 21^st century, it is my firm hope that we will no longer require a distinction for “Special Education” but rather, the focus will be on accessible learning for all students; i.e. the focus will be on “equity” rather than “equality”.

Note: This image was adapted by OEHR from the original graphic:
http://indianfunnypicture.com/img/2013/01/Equality-Doesnt-Means-Justice-Facebook-Pics.jpg

Currently, to support and guarantee just treatment for our identified students we use Individualized Education Plans.  But educators of the 21^st century must acknowledge the uniqueness of all individuals and recognize that instruction and assessment should be tailored, or individualized, for ALL students.  Hattie’s research indicates that labeling students with an identification actually impacts their achievement negatively.  How much better education would be if we could do away with labels, and start focusing rather on the conditions necessary for success for each of our students!

Teaching and learning in the 21^st century is shifting to a focus on Assessment FOR Learning and Assessment AS Learning practices.  With this shift to formative assessment, education will be learning-driven as opposed to achievement-driven.  21^st century teaching and learning will be student-centered and begin with student assets and needs, thus making the IEP and formal identification superfluous. 21^st century teaching and learning will make accessible to students the technology and teaching practices necessary for learning to take place and for all students to meet, and yes, even exceed their current potential. 

Empowering Students Through Blended Learning

Last year, I used the Ministry's Learning Management System to teach my Grade 6 class through a Blended Learning format. It was the most exciting and inspirational year of my teaching career to date. 

Next week, my friend and colleague, Penny, will be joining me to present our experiences in using the D2L Learning Management System with our Elementary students at the On The Rise K-12 Conference. Preparing for this presentation has fired me up once again with the excitement that I experienced last year.  

I think Education is one of the most exciting professions that exists.  My motto is: If I'm not having fun, then my kids are not having fun.  And if my kids are not having fun, they are not learning to their potential.  If they are not thoroughly engaged and inspired, if they are not "lost" in the learning, they are not learning deeply enough.  

When I began to use the D2L with my students, incredible things started to happen.  My students began to take ownership for their own learning!  Having a Science background, I approach every new experience as an experiment.  I have often commented on the fact that I see the classroom as a laboratory.  Using the D2L then, was just one great big experiment, and as is always the case in Science, in order to learn, we need to make observations and collect data to definitively determine the impact of the changes we make to the environment.  

I had hypothesized that using a Blended Learning format would positively impact student achievement as measured by report card marks and EQAO scores.  For the vast majority of my students (but not all), this was the outcome I achieved.  But what I hadn't anticipated, was the impact the tools in the D2L would have on my students' Learning Skills.  With the exception of one student, the kids in my class became more self-directed and took greater ownership for their learning using the tools found in the D2L.  

When I began to notice this shift in their Learning Skills, especially their collaboration, communication and self-regulation, I had to pause and think why is this change happening? 

What hit home for me was the the impact of the Assessment For and As Learning practices, (or what I prefer to generally refer to as Formative Assessment practices), that we implemented in the classroom and how the tools in the D2L supported those practices. 

Last year, I really tried to change the format of discussion in my classroom from Teacher - Student - Teacher to Teacher - Student - Student - Student.  But we found old habits are hard to break.  It was easier to develop this flow of discussion using the Discussion tools in the D2L.  Not only that, but we could go back to the Discussion threads and USE THEM as formative assessment.  We could look at our conversations, and talk about how could we have said that differently to extend our peer's thinking or to gain a deeper understanding into their thinking, or how we could have expressed our thoughts more clearly.  As a teacher, I could look at the conversations my students were having and know so much more about what they understood and what they didn't understand so as to tailor my instruction more expertly to meet their needs.  I was able to find patterns in their misconceptions that I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. 

I think the other thing that led to the change was the fact that I could provide my students with more immediate feedback.  They used the paging tools regularly to let me know when they were struggling with concepts.  Students told me that they were more comfortable asking me questions through the D2L than aloud in class because no one but me knew that they were struggling.  However, as the year progressed, and they saw the positive impact their questioning was having on their learning, they began to ask the questions in class as well, and more excitingly, they began to answer one another's questions while I sat back and took on the role of observer rather than expert.

They started to pay greater attention to what helped them learn and what didn't help them learn.  Their communication to me changed from "I don't get it" to explaining to me exactly what they were having difficulty with "I don't get how you know whether you have to multiply or divide the decimal when converting to different units" to eventually saying "I watched the video to see how you solved it, but I solved it a completely different way, and my way is easier and works too because I got the same answer as you did". 

My students began to take ownership for one another's learning as well and truly became a community of learners to the point that they were letting me know which videos I had posted were helpful to their learning, and which ones weren't. They would search for alternative videos and additional links and urge me to share them with the class because they felt their peers needed to see them.  

Using the tools in the D2L, my students were making their thinking visible.  They became more metacognitive and paid attention to their learning.  The Blended Learning format gave my students a voice, and they learned to use that voice.  They were empowered, and teaching doesn't get any more exciting than that!

Why Are We Looking at This Data?!?

Percentage of Students at Level 3 and 4
EQAO School Report September 18, 2013

Last year was my first year back in the classroom after working as an Instructional Coach for two years.  I really tried to put into practice all of the strategies I had read and learned about.  It was a wonderful year, the best year of my teaching career thus far.  My students and I had a blast.  In comparing assessments from September to June, I truly believed that my teaching had had a positive impact on my students' learning. 

Then the EQAO scores came out.  I was crushed! I fully recognized that the Junior EQAO Literacy and Numeracy Assessments really are just one type of assessment and can't possibly validly assess all that my students had learned over the past year.  My students had learned to work collaboratively to solve problems, share their thinking, and connect with others outside of their classroom to learn authentically from the world around them.  How can EQAO possibly assess that?  But still, I believed that all of those experiences would have had a positive impact on their ability to be successful on the paper/pencil EQAO test. 

That's probably because one of my very favourite books is "Hooray for Diffendoofer Day" by Dr. Seuss (with the help of Jack Prelutsky and Lane Smith).  In fact, I have always read it to my Grade Six students on the first day of school.  In case you are unfamiliar with it, I've included a YouTube video of the story.  Basically, at Diffendoofer School, the students learn differently, and while they never prepare for the high-stakes test, they are more than ready for it because of their unconventional learning.  Oh - you've just got to watch it - it's still one of my very favourites!

So in my new role as a Curriculum Consultant I was recently at one of the schools I support conducting an Item Analysis of the EQAO data for the Primary and Junior Divisions.  Together with the School Improvement Team, we analyze the EQAO data to determine our students' needs because our student needs tell us where we, as teachers, need to focus our learning.  It is very public knowledge that the scores for Math in the Junior Division across the province are dismally low.  Why?  One of the teachers conducting the Item Analysis with me said "We've been asked to use the 3-Part Lesson in Math and to teach through Problem Solving.  When are we going to accept defeat and acknowledge that it doesn't work?"

And for the first time I had doubts.  I doubted the efficacy of teaching Math through collaborative problem-solving because of the low scores in my own school in Junior Math.  Had I been wrong?  Could everything I had been espousing been incorrect?  I couldn't answer that teacher's question; I couldn't blog - I felt like a fraud.

I needed to take a hard look at the data from the school in which I had taught. What could that data tell me?  What couldn't it tell me?  When we look at the data, we don't only look at the Achievement or Outcome data.  We also have to look at the Contextual or Demographic Data as well as the Perceptual Data.  That is why we shouldn't ever rank schools.  We have a Community Living Classroom in our school and those students are not physically able to participate in EQAO but they are still counted in the overall scores.  We also have a very high ELL population and sometimes have to exempt students who arrive from non-English speaking countries only weeks before testing.  When we looked at the percentages of participating students, our results were a bit better.  When I looked at the scores for my class alone the data looked even better still.  78% of the students in my class achieved benchmark levels in Math. Of course, when you are talking about only 22 students, it is difficult to talk in percentages, but I was relieved none the less. 

I am tired of hearing "these kids can't" and want to prove that these kids most definitely CAN! Last year I became convinced that Carol Dweck was correct in her theory on mindsets.  Basically, she says we can have a growth mindset, where we believe accomplishments are a product of hard work and dedication, or we can have a fixed mindset where we believe intelligence is a fixed entity that can't be changed.  Dweck's research demonstrated that teachers who have a growth mindset are better able to motivate and engage their students.   

Why do I pour over EQAO data?  Because it is one of the best tools we have in this province to reflect on our impact on student learning.  I think my class' EQAO data proves Dweck is correct.  Here's a concrete example.  I had one student who struggled all year in Math.  Early on in the year, she told me she didn't like Math (Perceptual Data).  When I asked her why not, she explained that when she had been in Grade One her teacher had told her she didn't have a brain for Math.  I told her her Grade One teacher was wrong, and I would prove it.  A couple of days ago, I called her at home to celebrate her level 3 on the Math EQAO scores.  She said, "So does that mean I am good at Math?"  I answered, "It means you can be good at anything you want to be!"

So why are the Junior Math scores so low in our province?

I have a theory about the Math.  Traditionally, teachers have always taught the Math lesson to the whole class, then assign a set of questions from the text, and then take up the questions with the whole class.  This teaching strategy has a certain level of effectiveness.  I believe teaching Math through collaborative Problem-Solving is more effective BUT ONLY IF THE TEACHER IS GOOD AT FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT.  If the teacher is teaching through Problem-Solving but does not begin with Assessment FOR Learning, the impact on achievement is lower than the impact of teaching with the text book.  I was able to positively impact my students' learning because I started by finding out what they already knew and what misconceptions they had; then I worked toward closing gaps and correcting misconceptions.  This style of teaching does not work if you don't first teach your students how to communicate their thinking in Math. You have to ask the right questions to elicit their understandings.  You have to know the significance of what they are saying.  If you only ask for an answer, you have no idea how they got there!

During one of the Item Analysis meetings at one of my schools, two of the primary teachers were discussing the following exemplar from the released EQAO Math scoring guides.  

They were having an excellent discussion about whether or not this should be considered a level 3 response.  (By the EQAO scoring system, is was considered a level 30 response).  We ended up discussing what the work told us about the child's understanding of the Math concepts.  Did the child in fact use critical and creative thinking to solve this problem?  What does this child's solution tell us about his/her understanding of Math concepts?  Are we just looking for the right answer?  Or are we assessing the child's level of understanding?

We need to know the kids that we are teaching.  We need to know what they know and what they can do.  We have to give them multiple opportunities to explore Math concepts until they develop deep understanding of these concepts.  

As long as EQAO is out there, I will be pouring over that data, analyzing it, trying to determine what pieces we are missing and how we can do it better.  The current scores in Junior Math tell me that we still need to learn a lot more about how students learn Math.  

I have a fantasy that one day we will live in a world where no one ever says "Oh, I'm not a Math person, I've never been good at Math."

My Feet Hurt!

Well, the first week went smoothly and according to plan!  Yay!   I feel very lucky; my kids are adorable and very keen.

I gave them each a whiteboard and they are loving those.  (My friend and virtual teaching partner, Terri, gave me the idea of buying a sheet of whiteboard at Home Depot and cutting into into small individual boards.  The price was just over a dollar board!)  I am using them for formative assessment (as suggested in Dylan William's Embedded Formative Assessment,which Terri suggested I read) all day, but especially during Math.  I will frequently ask them a quick question that they have to solve on their boards, then hold up.  They will look at what others have put, sometimes change their minds, sometimes start defending their answers.  It has led to some great classroom discussions, but also quickly tells me who knows what.  I find that it has helped give the quiet ones a "voice".

I'm also using a "random name generator".  It is a free app called "Stick Pick".  I pass the IPad onto a student, and they click on "Stick Pick" which randomly names one of the students in the class.  I'm using this during class discussions.  The students are only putting up their hands to ask questions, not to answer them.  This way we get to hear from everyone.  We are only four days in and I think every single one of them is now comfortable saying "Well, I don't really know, but if I had to guess...."  The first few times I got a lot of "I don't know"s, but I used Debbie Diller's line "I know you don't know, but if you did know, what would it be?"  It's like magic.  I've also increased my wait time, (that is the hardest part), AND waiting AFTER the child has responded.  If I don't say anything after they comment or answer, they start feeling the need to elaborate.  Another of Dylan William's ideas that I am finding works wonders.

My classroom library still isn't opened yet, but it's almost ready.  I've been introducing about 100 books a day.   I am down to my last bin (out of 8).  The kids are practically salivating over the books, "Can I just keep this one in my desk", "Can I place a hold on this one", "Can I borrow a book to show my mother".   It is hilarious!  They even went to the librarian at recess and asked her if she would let them take some books out because they NEED to READ!  The funniest part is that I surveyed them on the first day of school and all but 5 said they don't like to read!

So all is going splendidly well.  On Wednesday I will start my formal diagnostic assessments.  In our Board we do a Reading Comprehension assessment and a Writing assessment.  I also like to use the PRIME Math Assessment Tool for Number Sense. 

Once the class library is officially opened, and each of the students has selected an appropriate text, I will begin building their independent reading stamina.  I use the Two Sisters' methods (from Daily 5).  Each day we will read for longer and longer periods of time.  Then, once they can read independently for 20 minutes, I will begin my Reading Conferences, meeting with 3 to 4 students per day to assess their reading and help them set reading goals. 

Yes, it is wonderful to be back! But man, do my feet hurt!!!!