1400 N. Grant Amrillo, TX 79107

Palo Duro High School

2014 Spring Semester

Job-Embedded Professional Development Plan

ENGLISH

2

Rationale:

1. The complexity of the reading and writing workshop model requires a team of teacher-researchers that mixes expertise levels, comfort levels, and experience levels of teachers.

2. Teachers are the ‘front line’ of lesson delivery and so have an expert understanding of the needs of PDHS’ unique population.

3. Focused inquiry into best practices results in more efficient teaching and increased student achievement.

4. Research shows that when teachers have some choice about where/when/who they meet with, coupled with a say in what they’re meeting about, their professional development shows statistical gains in student achievement (Burke, 2013; Allen, 2006; Dana, 2010).

Overload and fragmentation are the enemies of success. - Robert Garmston and Bruce Wellman

Executive Summary of Proposal

• Alter the collaboration schedule by regrouping teachers into specialized teams using models of inquiry groups

• ALI I groups will become EOC focus groups • Allow resulting teams of teachers to create a research focus based

on need • Structure collaboration using research-based protocols developed

for maximum focus • This is a work in progress and subject to change as real life intrudes

on plans.

3

Delivery of Professional Development

Constructivist: our personal perspectives are shaped and changed as we engage in cooperative social activity, conversation, and debate with others around common purposes, concerns, and interests. This builds new knowledge and extends understanding (Garmston & Wellman, 1999) Experiential: members take part in a shared experience that becomes a catalyst for thinking and conversation (Lyons & Pinnell, 2001) Active: Live or videotaped demonstrations, samples of student work, transcripts of lessons or other artifacts will prompt discussion and lead to formulation of new questions and suggested strategies that are relevant to each teams’ needs (Horn & Little, 2010) Concepts introduced in context: techniques studied are being used in PDHS classrooms (Dana, 2010) Safe environment: attempting something new creates vulnerability so support is vital (Levine & Marcus, 2010) Conversation is structured to develop members’ conceptual knowledge based on shared experiences (Joyce & Showers, 2002) Opportunities for members to use what they know to build new knowledge (Nevin, et al, 2009)

It is not up to you to finish the work, but neither are you free not to take it up. - The Talmud

4

Overview of Proposed Schedule:

Mon/Tue: Meet in standard grade-level teams, as usual Wed: Department meeting (as needed)/modeling in teams/AP vertical teams (as needed), meetings of EOC teams (if needed) Thur: EOC teams Fri: Meet in small reflective groups chosen by members/Meet with grade level (if needed)

Definition of Terms: Grade level: grade level collaborative teams already in use. For example, the English I team. Department meetings/inquiry groups: whole group or small group meetings scheduled by administration or learning leaders with a specific agenda. EOC teams/focus groups: mixed groupings (by grade level, experience level) using successful inquiry protocols, ALI I & ALI II protocols, and other research-based methods to investigate best practices and deliver lesson plans for reading and writing workshop for End Of Course remediation classes. Reflective groups: teacher-chosen small groups organized around a micro focus of study chosen by its members. For example, a critical friends group (see Appendix) that investigates student behavior in workshop settings. AP vertical teams: teachers who teach pre-AP, AP and dual credit classes. These teams may invite and/or collaborate with content-area teachers outside their own department. For example, English and Social Studies.

I believe in teachers and their ability to direct, reflect, and facilitate their own learning - (quoting Allington, 112): No school with mediocre classroom instruction ever became effective just by adding a high-quality remedial or resource room program…We have added more support programs, more instructional aides, more specialist teachers, and more computers and software programs, while ignoring the powerful evidence on the importance of high-quality classroom teaching. – Jennifer Allen

5

Proposed Groupings of EOC Teams (teams meet in the room of person named first in each group)

Note: Though not every teacher has an EOC class, the lessons studied and planned by these groups will be beneficial to all students; therefore all English teachers are assigned a group. Group 1: Peeples, Hayward, Riesenberg, S. Langford, Sava, Evans Group 2: Wilcox, Basinger, Costilla, Blankenship, McMillian Group 3: McBee, Anthony, McAlister, Addudell, Cox, Goerz Group 4: Wilson, Lichtie, B. Langford, Jackson, Botello Group 5: Willis, Witt, Moore, Dominguez, Inskeep, Tittle [Hunt & Womack will move between Groups 2, 3, and 4] [Interns and paraprofessionals are invited and may choose which group they want to join, as are all administrators or other interested staff]

The illiterate of the twenty-first century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. - Alvin Toffler

6

Initial Focus:

Reading Workshop: how to set up and manage literature circles and/or guided reading groups as well as independent reading; and how to assess the reading. Focus Question: What is the teacher doing and what are the students doing during reading workshop?

Accountability & Protocols Teachers in each EOC team and small reflective group will complete a short , guided reflection based on the particular protocol being used. These reflections will be collected and turned in to Hunt and or Peeples. Random student surveys may be administered (short, paper-based, Likert-scaled from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) to complement quantitative data such as STAAR scores, teacher-created assessments, and district-based assessments. This accountability measure is based upon administrative discretion.

Do not despair. Your work will bear fruit in 700 years or so. - The Dalai Lama

7

The Flow of Information in Ongoing Teacher-Led Professional Development

In-class demonstration, coaching, and observation

Individual conferences

between literacy coach and teacher(s)

Analysis of teaching using videotapes and

other means

Reflection on progress across

the group of teachers

Lyons & Pinnell, 2000

Certain characteristics are critical for schoolwide literacy teams to work effectively:

1. Trust – Rapport with one another breeds a trust in the collaborative process as the most productive and efficient way to communicate.

2. Diverse leadership – Principals must acknowledge the collective knowledge and experience of group members and convey an attitude that building a community of diverse leaders is the most efficient and effective way to solve diverse problems. – Lyons & Pinnell, pg. 7

8

EOC/Reflective Group Frameworks

• Observe a clear demonstration by an expert teacher of specific instructional approaches of interest to them

• Discuss the demonstration and reasons for actions and decisions with the expert teacher

• Ask questions about the observation • Try procedures learned from the expert teacher several times, videotaping the

sessions • Analyze the videotaped sessions privately and determine strengths and

weaknesses • Select one of the videotapes to share and discuss with [team] •

(Lyons & Pinnell, 2001, pgs. 4-5)

“Research by Joyce and Showers shows that it took twenty to twenty-five trials in the classroom before new instructional practices became part of a teacher’s routine (Dole, 2004)

• Meet with [team] and design a plan for collaboration • Model strategy for the [team/use video to model for students] • Practice the strategy [in your classroom] • Debrief with the [team] • Repetition of modeling and practice to acquire mastery” (Allen, 100)

Our proposition is that if a teacher or a community of teachers engages, for a dozen days during the school year, in the formal study of a curriculum area or a teaching strategy that is useful across the curriculum areas, and regularly studies implementation and consequent student learning, then the odds are that student achievement will rise substantially. – Joyce & Showers, p. 4

9

Appendix A

EOC Team Protocol

Co-created by Blankenship, Goerz, Jackson, B. Langford, McAlister, & Peeples Purpose: To provide an efficient, repeatable, rigorous and engaging lesson cycle for other group members to modify for use in their own classroom. Directions: Designate a facilitator and first-time presenter. Decide on strategy to study – BE AS SPECIFIC & NARROW AS POSSIBLE. Topics that are too big/vague (e.g. “motivation” or “technology”) will frustrate everyone and cause you to waste time and energy. For example, we studied Socratic Circles and how to make them more engaging for students, both intellectually and behaviorally. Allow each member to voice concerns and questions. Hold each other accountable for beginning on time with necessary materials, and attempt to create a safe and supportive environment for each other. Dedicate yourselves to achieving collective success, not just showcasing each other to “look good” in front of the group. Be open to suggestions. Be committed to improving learning for everyone, students and teachers. Attempt to share failures and successes without fear, because no one has this figured out and we’re all learning together. Protocol [5-8 minutes] Designated presenter gives brief overview and explanation of process being studied. Presenter gives each member a handout containing this information:

1. Materials used 2. Goal of the lesson, strategy or technique 3. What you modified in planning for your specific classroom 4. [After first person has videoed himself or herself] What you altered from previous presenters 5. Basic outline of lesson 6. Problems/issues/difficulties 7. Reflection on successes, student understandings, what you will try next

[10-12 minutes] View video of students/teacher using lesson or process from presenter’s classroom [10 minutes] Debrief video by giving feedback on student successes noted. Presenter may share what wasn’t on video or other material “left on the cutting room floor.” [10 minutes] Discussion of lesson with suggestions for modifying, adjusting and improving the lesson, as well as planning for technical issues and/or other ways to structure for maximum success. [5 minutes] Decide on who will be presenting next and what they will video.

“Effective teachers take on the role of experts who see their students as apprentices (Wilhelm 2007; Schoenbach et al. 1999) and who must, themselves, ‘not only know how to read, write, learn, and converse as an expert, but must know how to assist and support students to do the same. Those who teach, must do!’ (Wilhelm, 2007, 29)” (Burke, 2008, pg. 4)

10

Appendix B

A Critical Friends Protocol

Purpose: To provide supportive time just for one person to air an issue and have colleagues discuss ways that the person might consider addressing their dilemmas. Directions: This is not a time to solve someone’s problems for them, but time to have dialogue as professionals around the issue. This protocol often leads to hard conversations, and many times the issues resonate with the other participants. DO NOT TELL WAR STORIES, but instead focus only on the person who is sharing and talk through different approaches to allow them to listen and hear what might work best for them. All participants must hold each other accountable to following the norms, monitoring the time (although often you want to continue on past the limit) and being a source of support, not criticism, around their dilemma. It is very acceptable to gently remind others in the group to watch their airtime, not tell war stories and stay on the task according to the time in the protocol. Protocol

• [2 min] Choose a facilitator and timekeeper – STAY ON THE TIME LIMITS STRICTLY SO THAT EVERYONE HAS EQUAL TIME TO RECEIVE SUPPORT! Read aloud the purpose and directions, as well as review the protocol.

• [8 min] Person presents dilemma, with as many details as possible. Be sure to present your issue so that the participants are clear about what you would like for them to consider.

• [2 min] Clarifying questions – Asking about factual issues that relate to your understanding of the issue. This is not a time to ask probing questions like “What if…?” but time to ask things like “What happened when?” or “Did you…?”

• [13 min] The presenter sits back, away from the group, and listens/takes notes while the group discusses the issue. The participants should not talk to the presenter at this time, even though it will be hard. If someone in the group has a clarifying question they may ask the presenter to address the question. They may share what new commitments/goals they will be attempting this [six weeks] as a result.

• [5 min] The presenter returns to the group and shares what was helpful, what resonated, any “A-Ha’s” they may have had during the conversation. It is appropriate to use the notes you have taken during this time.

• [5 min]Debrief the process…you can do a whip around to answer: How did we do with norms, the time limits, the protocol, staying on task…?

From Levine & Marcus, (2010)

If you have to follow a protocol you force yourself to dig into something sometimes that you don’t if you’re just talking …accept the notion that teacher learning is enhanced by more frequent and transparent access to colleague’s practices…Levine & Marcus, 2010

11

Questions to Debrief Observations

Examples of good exploratory probing questions: What criteria did you use to…? How did you decide/conclude that…? How was_________different from ________? What’s your hunch about…? What do you think the connection is between __________and ____________? How might your assumptions about x have influenced your thinking about y? When have you done/experienced something like this before? In your heart, what do you feel is right? What evidence exists that…? How do you know that…? Do you think the problem is__________or ____________or something else? Do you know of any successes in the past in similar situations that could give you insight into this situation? Why is this a dilemma or problem for you/from your perspective? Is there something in this situation that raises some fear in you? What was your decision-making process? How did you decide to do it that way? If you were x, how would you see this situation? How is this situation different from…? Why do you think this happened this way? What do you think is the reason for…? What did/do you hope? Expect? Wish? What’s your perception or analysis of …? If time, money, etc., were not an issue…? Who (else) could help with this? What (else) could you try to help this situation? Why did you choose to do it this way? What was your intention when…? Examples of suggestive but still probing questions: What’s another way you could…? What sort of impact would there be if you…? What would it look like if you…? What might you see happening if you…? What would have to change in order for…? What would happen if…? What could you do that might cause x to …? Have you considered/explored/looked into/thought about…? Would it be possible to…? Is there a way to…? How would it work if you…? Do you think there needs to be…? From www.nsrfharmony.org

Appendix C

Teacher quality is unleashed when teachers' basic work is "renormed around identifying, striving to solve, and continually revisiting critical problems. – (Dana, 2010)

12

Appendix D

13

Two General Protocols for Groups

Structure #1 Purpose: To gain insight into what a person sees as successful and unsuccessful in teaching. Directions: Avoid using a judgmental or accusatory tone. Be objective: it is clearer and less threatening to describe behavior than to make judgments or inferences. Stay focused on important points and issues rather than unimportant details. Invite participants to back up their statements with evidence or rationales. Encourage individuals to bring problems to the group for shared problem solving. Protocol: [10 minutes] Write about your teaching in the classroom (last year or so far this year).

1. What are some high points when you really felt successful? 2. Were there any low points? What were they? Could these “lows” have been prevented or

handled better? 3. What tends to get in the way of your doing your best teaching?

[20 minutes] Partner share – Choose another partner and share all or any part of your answers to these questions from your writing. Switch after 10 minutes. [5 minutes] Debrief the process. Whole group share. [5 minutes] Identify commonalities and successes.

Structure #2 Purpose: To detect progress we are making in implementing new instructional approaches. Protocol, use above, with these questions:

• How is our group working together? Do we help each other? Do we collaborate? • What kinds of changes are taking place in practice? • What impact are these changes having on students? • What are we learning from our practice?

Appendix E

Adapted from Lyons & Pinnell

14

Appendix F

Constructivist  Protocol  For  Adult  Work    

Adapted  from  Daniel  Baron’s  Constructivist  Protocol  by  Jennifer  Fischer-­‐Mueller.  The  purpose  of  this  activity  is  to  gain  a  deeper  understanding  of  how  you  do  your  best  work.  With  this  understanding  and  heightened  awareness,  you  can  more  consciously  provide  what  you  need  to  do  your  best  work  more  often.    Timing  may  be  altered  as  needed.    Individual  writing  (5  minutes)    Write  about  a  time  you  did  your  very  best  work,  a  time  you  really  “nailed  it.”  Describe  the  work.  Use  the  following  guiding  questions  to  fully  describe  your  work:  •  What  was  it  that  you  did?  •  Why  were  you  doing  it?  •  Did  you  have  support?  What  did  that  support  look  like?  •  Did  you  work  alone  or  with  other  people?  •  Was  this  work  hard?  Risky?  Safe?  •  What  motivated  you?  •  How  did  you  know  your  work  was  good?  What  were  the  qualities  of  your  work?  •  Did  you  know  you  “nailed  it”  immediately  or  did  that  knowledge  come  to  you  later?    Paired  Sharing  (10  minutes)    With  a  partner,  share  what  you  wrote.  As  you  talk,  your  partner  will  be  listening  for  “working  conditions.”  Working  conditions  can  be  the  structures,  supports,  atmosphere,  purpose,  standards,  risk  level  etc.  that  you  describe  as  aspects  of  your  situation  that  led  to  your  success.  Partners  may  ask  clarifying  and  probing  questions  to  gain  a  better  sense  of  your  “working  conditions.”  Partners  take  notes  and  then  tell  you  what  “working  conditions”  they  heard  you  describe.  Check  for  accuracy  and  agreement.  Put  these  conditions  on  newsprint  to  be  posted.    Switch  roles  and  repeat  the  sharing  process  (5  minutes  for  each  person).    Full  Group  (12  minutes)  Post  chart  lists  of  “working  conditions.”  Graze  and  React  —  What  do  we  see?  Any  surprises?  What  does  this  mean  for  our  work  teachers?  How  can  we  bring  our  best  work  to  our  classrooms?  What  “working  conditions”  do  we  need,  individually  and  collectively,  to  do  our  best  work?    Debrief  the  protocol  experience  (5  minutes)    Extension  (5  minutes)  How  could  this  activity  be  used  in  our  EOC  teams?  With  students?

Adapted from nsrfharmony.org

15

Bibliography

Allen , J. (2006). Becoming a literacy leader: Supporting learning and change. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Blankenship, J.M. (2014 February 5). Interview by S.F. Peeples. Inquiry group feedback. Burke, B. (2013). Experiential professional development: A model for meaningful and

long-lasting change in classrooms. Journal of Experiential Education, 36(3), 247-263.

Cary, V. (nd). The constructivist listening dyad. Retrieved from http://www.nsrfharmony.org/protocol/doc/dyad.pdf Dana, N. F. (2010). Teacher quality, job-embedded professional development, and school-university partnerships. Teacher Education and Practice,23(3), 321-325. Garmston, R.J. (2004). Group Wise. National Staff Development Council, 25(3), 65-66. Horn, I.S., & Little, J.W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181-217. Jackson, C. (2014, February 5). Interview by S.F. Peeples. Inquiry group feedback. Joyce, B.R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Levine,T.H., & Marcus, A.S. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers’ collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 26, 389-398. Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Systems for change in literacy education: A guide

to professional development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. McAlister, R. I. (2014, February 5). Interview by S.F. Peeples. Inquiry group feedback. Nevin, A.I., Thousand, J.S., & Villa, R.A. (2009). Collaborative teaching for teacher

educators – What does the research say? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 569-574.

Shank, M.J. (2006). Teacher storytelling: A means for creating and learning within a collaborative learning space. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 711-721. Walpole, S., & McKenna, M.C. (2004). The literacy coach’s handbook: A guide to

research-based practice. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

16

From Dr. Cooper’s in-service at PDHS Nov. 6, 2013: Problems with teacher talk:

• Making tacit knowledge explicit for the group • Confrontation avoidance • Avoidance of disagreement • Making assumptions/granting assumptions power • Urgency (time squeeze)

To help with these issues:

• Listen to cues/notice nonverbals • Use these as springboards to learning that’s applicable to the conceptual base of teaching • Normalize problems – it leads to deeper conversations • Don’t blow off concern – this creates feelings of isolation • Use an incident in someone’s class to explore the bigger conceptual learning

Ø Deep learning requires learners to look for patterns and underlying principles

Ø Learners understand the process of dialogue through which knowledge is created

Caveats from Robert J. Garmston, as shared by Dr. Cooper, Jan. 29, 2014

Leaders must clarify the group’s role at the outset by giving members all the steps in a process the leader envisions and clarifying the group’s role at each step Anticipate issues – address common obstacles to productivity Provide protocols – especially for topics that are hard to talk about. Protocols determine the type of thinking required, place boundaries around conversations, and provide psychological safety. Paraphrase passport, in which each new speaker must paraphrase the preceding speaker as a passport before he or she can speak, is a protocol designed to assist listening. Explain processes – tell everyone why you are using a particular process. It focuses on the content or purpose of the group’s work. Build understanding – Ask: What are some factors contributing to this problem? Follow meeting standards – Try:

1. One topic at a time 2. One process at a time 3. Balanced participation 4. Safe engagement in cognitive conflict 5. Understand meeting roles

Generate compelling conversations – use visuals – seeing helps people think; when you’re tired, auditory systems are the first to fade

(Garmston, 2004)