Thursday, 22 September 2016

Using Samples... Not Just Collecting Them

Years ago I read an article that caused me to wonder if I too was a human “doing”, rather than a human “being”. Like those described by the writer whose name I can no longer recall, I rarely just be. Mostly, I do. In early September, I shared an experience with my colleagues on the Louis Riel School Division Literacy Team in Winnipeg that reminded me of the value in taking the time to think deeply and collaboratively about things you’ve already done – before you DO something else.

In May of the last two years, this team asked schools in their writing project to do a school-wide write on various grade level specific topics, something many of you also do. Grade level teachers identified typical samples that were then deconstructed by teachers working in vertical teams. Charts were created that listed what was present in the work, and what the writer was able to do. In preparation for the session last May we discussed the purpose of the sample collection at the system level – our purpose as the team guiding the project divisionally.

   

Before jumping into the work of this year, we paused to review our assessment data and to consider what it might be telling us.  As you can see from the slide above, we collected evidence of both student and teacher learning. As befits a team whose role is support and not evaluation, we analyzed the samples from an assessment for learning stance.
  • What do you notice when comparing the 3 typical grade level samples from Year 1 to Year 2?
  • What might this mean for instruction?
  • What do you notice as you consider the typical samples across grade levels?
  • What evidence do we have of a year's growth between each grade?
  • How might this inform our classroom demonstration lessons this year?
  • How might this inform professional learning for the teachers this year?
  • What patterns and trends do you see in what teachers are noticing in the writing?
  • What might this tell us about next steps for teachers? 

We began with student learning and compared the three typical samples from a grade level after Year 1 of the writing project to those after Year 2.



What follows is a sampling of our learning based on discussion of the questions listed above:
  • As we compared the typical Grade 1 samples from the two years team members noticed students:
    • Were not afraid to make mistakes in their draft writing (Evidenced by the underlining of words they were unsure of spelling and continuing to write.)
    • Had greater sense of story (Evidenced by the presence of a beginning, middle and ending.)
    • Showed their thinking (Evidenced by re-reading, crossing out words and choosing others more interesting, clear, descriptive...)
  • After reviewing two grade levels we saw the value in the comparison and made a plan to dedicate more time to it. 
  • We recognized the power of the activity and decided to model it in an upcoming session for teachers. 
  • We noticed that our evidence consisted only of products. Knowing the value of evidence from conversations and observations, we made a note to discuss and plan for a way to broaden our divisional evidence.
  • Our second step was to consider the evidence from the vertical team conversations recorded on charts as the team analyzed the typical samples from one grade level. This time we noticed:
    • The vertical teams reviewing Kindergarten and Grade 1 samples noticed many characteristics that they categorized as conventions.
      • Is this evidence that it is difficult to see beyond conventions when looking at beginning writing?
      • Is this evidence of our instructions for the task?
      • Is this evidence that teachers need more "big picture" conversations?
    • Further discussion revealed that team members recalled the conversations connected to these particular lists of strengths and heard the vertical team talk about message, thinking about the reader, and revising to improve writing.

    • We made a plan to more formally triangulate the evidence of our learners - the teachers.
    • We noted that when we come together to do this again in May we would revisit criteria we co-constructed earlier about what writers do. We will use these criteria to really understand or change the categories we have been using to code the strengths we see in the writing. 
    ·     Just as classroom teachers around the country are gathering and reviewing assessment data from the end of last school year and the start of this one, we facilitators of professional learning and designers of district-wide projects apply the same principles to our own work. In this way, we all achieve the same end – baseline data that allows us to create learning destinations that meet the needs of our specific learners and to make changes in our own teaching.    

    No comments :

    Post a Comment