LEAD DATA TEAM

Seminar 26

May 9 -10, 2018

Building an Action Research Plan Connecting Professional Learning and Student Success: Are

We Making a Difference?

Espace4Saisons - Orford

2

EBP PROJECT LEAD DATA TEAM SEMINAR 26

The Evidence-Based Practice Project offers seminars on evidence-based practices to designated school board and school administrators, professionals and teachers. The group, known as the Lead Data Team (LDT), comes together three times a year as an advanced professional learning community (PLC) to develop their own leadership capacities in guiding, informing, advising, and accompanying school teams in developing evidence-based practice to improve teaching and learning.

This is the 26th seminar to have been held since 2010 under the aegis of the EBP Project. These seminars have given participants opportunities for:

• Collaboration in a setting conducive to a reflection on system needs and practices, and an in-depth examination of research-based topics

• Access to relevant resources that feature research-based strategies that inform the school improvement process such as books and videos, and the time to appropriate these resources through reflection, shared readings, and discussion

• Sharing insights and strategies for transferring best practices to the broader community through coaching or by the modeling of effective PD practices

• Exchanging professional development ideas and tools that facilitate teamwork, strategic planning, data collection and analysis, and the monitoring and evaluation of the progress of school-based data teams or PLCs.

3

SEMINAR 26 Seminar 26, a two-day professional learning seminar for the LDT, was held from May 9 -10, 2018 at Espace4Saisons in Orford. Attendance included 12 people from 8 school boards, two professionals from the Ministry of Education, and members of the EBP Project team. Introduction Geneviève Légaré (GL) opened the meeting by greeting participants and introducing the EBP Project team. She thanked her team for their help in organizing the meeting. Participants were asked to note the date of the next seminar in their agendas: September 13-14, 2018. It will also be held in Orford. The agenda (http://ebpquebec.com/sites/default/files/Agenda_8.pdf ) and other documents for Seminar 26 were distributed. Participants were informed that all documents and artefacts from this seminar can be found at http://ebpquebec.com/connecting-professional-development-student-success-are-we-making-difference . Information relating to previous seminars can also be found on the EBP Project website: http://ebpquebec.com/. Feedback is always appreciated. GL explained that that Seminar 26 had a threefold purpose: 1) to allow participants to continue to build their action research plans; 2) to provide an opportunity for participants to exchange on their projects through networking; 3) to provide the time and the resources for participants to read and deepen their personal knowledge of Guskey’s work, action research, and standards for PD. Organization of Seminar (see http://ebpquebec.com/sites/default/files/Day%20Plan%20-

) %20LDT%20Seminar%2026.pdf During the seminar, GL said that participants would be working both individually and in groups, and would have the opportunity to share and view each other’s work. Everyone would have the opportunity to participate in a consultancy protocol session. GL requested that members participate in at least one networking session and spend some time in individual study over the two days. The two days of the Seminar were each divided into 4 time-blocks:

1) Consultancy Protocol Round 1 (all participants) 2) Knowledge acquisition, networking, or individual work 3) Consultancy Protocol Round 2 4) Knowledge acquisition, networking, or individual work

4

Knowledge Acquisition Three tables for individual study were set up. The following resources were made available (http://ebpquebec.com/connecting-professional-development-student-success-are-we-making-difference):

• Table 1: Guskey’s Evaluating Professional Development; • Table 2: Documentation on Standards for Professional Learning: NSCD: Innovations

Configurations Volume 1; Learning Forward: Standards for Professional Learning, Quick Reference Guide, Standards Assessment Inventory, Information Packet, Innovation Configuration Maps, Handouts for Self-Assessment from Standards for Professional Learning, The State of Professional Learning. The scales are really useful for evaluating teacher practices.

• Table 3: Action Research: The Action Research Guidebook: A Four-Stage Process for Educators and School Teams by Richard Sagor; Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development by Joellen Killion; Action Research, A Guide for Associate Lecturers from the Open University, and Action Research by Eileen Ferrance.

The participants were informed that everyone would be required to complete the expected outputs before leaving at the end of Day 2:

1) The completed Plan to Do Template Plan: http://ebpquebec.com/sites/default/files/Action%20research%20project%20template.pdf or the In a Nutshell template: http://ebpquebec.com/sites/default/files/In%20a%20nutshell%20LDT%2026%20%281%29.pdf )

Included should be a clear theory of action, the specific components of the research, a clear research question(s), and topics, indicators, tools, data, etc.

2) An action research timeline that specifies certain key events, such as local PD meetings, data collection, etc.: http://ebpquebec.com/sites/default/files/Action%20research%20timeline.pdf

GL announced that she had met with each LDT member on the planning of their project since the January seminar and, as a result, changes to projects have been made, i.e. change of project itself, paring down of projects, etc. There are presently 12 projects in different stages of incubation. Templates have now been developed by Roseann to guide participants in structuring their projects. These templates are available either electronically or on paper. An ‘In a nutshell’ version of the template is also available. GL said that a case needed to be made for why we are doing action research. Firstly, the research must be described and communicated. Then, the research results must be shared, and information provided on how these results will be used to make improvements.

5

A participant asks for clarification on the networking components of the Seminar, to know if the EdCamp model is being followed here. GL answered that this is the model being followed. GL outlined some of the expected learning outcomes. The learning would take place through a community of practice: questioning, exchanging, studying, and reflection. Consultancy Skills would be developed through the use of the consultancy protocol. GL then asked members to take a few minutes to write down their goals for the Seminar and what they hoped to achieve. Activity 1: Creating an inventory of project work to date Introduction: GL asked participants to set up their project’s artefacts collected to date. The inventory should include the question(s) that are driving the project. She said this is also a warm-up to get participants back into their projects. Purposes: Warm-up. To carry out an inventory of project work undertaken to date. To provide a means of sharing and reflection through the illustration of the project work done to date. Method: Teams or individuals develop their inventory and post artefacts of the work done to date on the project. Outcome: A gallery walk by participants to view the work done to date by teams or by individuals (see Annex 1). Activity 2: Consultancy Protocol Rounds Introduction: GL introduced the Consultancy Protocol (see http://ebpquebec.com/sites/default/files/ConsultancyProtocol.pdf) activity. She explained that over the 2 days of the Seminar, 4 time-blocks would be set aside for consultancy protocols to take place, allowing for 8 problems of practice to be presented and discussed. For each protocol round, participants will be divided into different groups. An extra time period has been reserved for an additional consultancy protocol, if needed. For each consultancy protocol, Roseann and Lynn will act as facilitators, focus monitors, and time keepers, and will be taking notes on the Padlet App. This will allow the notes from each protocol to be instantly shared among all participants. Participants may also add their own comments to the Padlet on what took place during networking sessions, or on what individuals found interesting during their personal reading time, e.g. salient quotes from Guskey, PD standards or Action Research. Purpose: To present a problem of practice or a ‘burning’ question regarding an individual’s project, i.e. How can I scale up PD to other teachers in the Board? or How do I integrate the Action Research project into my working day? Method: The participants divide into two groups and follow the Consultancy Protocol as directed by the facilitator.

6

Outcome: 9 Consultancy protocols were completed over the two days. Among the problems put forward were:

• appropriate data collection on the implementation of RTI; • improving results in Secondary IV History; • measuring effectiveness at the classroom level; • Is the PLC affecting teacher practice and how will it be evidenced in the classroom?; • the logistics of managing a research project across a vast school board territory; • sustainability of PLCs under a new principal; • what long-term PD model can be used to maximize gains in teacher discussions; • clarification of research goals; • difficulty in selecting a target audience for PD; • helping teachers plan their time on pedagogical days for a RTI PLC;

Conclusion: After the first consultancy protocol round, GL asked for feedback on the process. In general, people found it useful, but felt it was sometimes hard to keep the focus on the problem. Before lunch, participants were asked to finish posting their project’s artefacts or, if that was already done, to proceed with individual work. GL directed participants to the four articles on action research. The second round of consultancy protocols followed immediately after lunch. Then, participants either took time to network or to acquire knowledge through individual study. In closing for the day, GL asked for participants to note down on post-its some feedback to improve the day for tomorrow. Day 2, will start at 8:30 a.m. with a Consultancy Protocol. The remainder of the morning will be focused on learning. She underlined the expectation that everyone must have completed their action plans and calendar of landmark events before leaving. As some participants were only attending the seminar on Day 1, she suggested that some of the participants could use Triad Protocols, designed for 3 people on Day 2. Day 2 Welcome GL announced that, as there were still 5 teams or projects to present a problem of practice, the time blocks would be reorganized, and 3 consultancy protocols would run back to back during the morning.

7

Participants then regrouped for the consultancy protocols. Following the consultancy protocols, the participants took some time to record their reflections in their journals. Roseann then gave a short explanation of the Theory of Change, the Action Research calendar, and the Theory of Action, and the Guide to Action Research handouts. All are based on the improvement model: http://ebpquebec.com/sites/default/files/PDSA%20diagram%20%282%29.pdf . Following this, she presented the Action Research template: http://ebpquebec.com/sites/default/files/Action%20research%20project%20template.pdf and the In a Nutshell template: http://ebpquebec.com/sites/default/files/In%20a%20nutshell%20LDT%2026%20%281%29.pdf She said change does not necessarily lead to improvement, but all improvement requires change. More information on the improvement model would be provided on the shared Google Drive. On the Action Research template, some prompts have been included and linked to Guskey’s five levels. She asked participants to think about their measures and the different types of data that they could collect: What am I looking for? How will I know change has caused improvement? For the remainder of the morning, participants broke out into networking groups or used the time for individual study. PM The Nutshell Template and Calendar A quick tour de table took place to allow each person to explain their trifold project display:

• Team 1: Involves looking at how the RTI structure is being implemented in 5 schools. This afternoon we will complete the template and fill out the calendar.

• Team 2: Developing teacher competency to facilitate classroom discourse. Completing the template this afternoon.

• Team 3: Looking at what are the winning conditions for formative assessment. At drafting stage.

• Team 4: To support the implementation of formative assessment and interventions in early numeracy using SeeSaw - a research-based digital portfolio that allows students to independently document their learning and allows for a review of their progress over time.

• Team 5: The implementation of Math PLCs as a necessary condition for a change in practice. Will use the afternoon to plan for the Fall.

• Team 6: Understanding the use of assessments at the secondary level. Plans to finish how to collect assessments.

GL then asked that the following documents be completed before 3 p.m. and handed in: In a Nutshell template or the full Action Research template, and the calendar.

8

Wrap-Up GL asked participants to answer three feedback questions on the seminar:

1) What worked well…. and Even better if….. 2) Aha moment – a new understanding 3) At the next seminar I would like to…..

The display of the inventories will be kept and brought back to the next seminar. In the meantime, the panels will be analyzed. Reminding participants of the dates for Seminar 27, GL said that for members of the LDT team who were not able to participate in Seminar 26, an update session is being contemplated. This will allow everyone to be on par when the September seminar takes place. The seminar in September will take into account the feedback from Seminar 26 and will probably be organized along similar lines. The calendars for each project will be analyzed, to enable the EBP Project team to factor in their time to give support. GL closed the meeting by thanking the participants for their commitment and their investment of time in the projects. She also thanked her team for their work in preparing for the Seminar. The Seminar closed at 3:30.

9

Annex 1 Presentations of the Action Research Project Inventories

10

11