2010-11+Archive

=This page contains archived artifacts from our first year of Transformation...2010-11= =Professional Learning Resources / Visible Learning Data Reports / Data Teams Files=

**September 15th, 2010 Resources:**
Agenda: [|9.15.10 agenda.docx]

Iowa Core/Common Core Graphic:

[|Iowa Core 9 15 10.pptx]

Linking Learning Targets with Standards: [|Linking Learning Targets with Standards.docx]

Iowa Core Curriculum Website: []

Iowa Core for Math and English/Language Arts (includes National Common Core): [|Iowa Core K-12_Literacy.doc] [|Iowa Core K-12_Mathematics.doc]

‍October 27th Resources:
==‍ [|PLCs and Data.pptx]==

[|Math Best Practices.pdf]

[|Reading-Writing-Science-Social Studies-Arts.pdf]

‍November 3rd Resources:
"The Write Way" - Article for review on 11/3 [|The Write Way.pdf]

Respond to 1-minutes assessment prompts on this document [|One Minute Assessment.docx]

[|11-3-10 PD Weds.pptx] Slide show designed by Luis Magallon

‍January 19 Resources: Iowa Core/Teaching for Understanding
In a small group, read either of these two articles on Teaching for Understanding [|Teahing for Understanding - Sherman.pdf] [|TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING - Perkins.docx]

Record your reflections before, during and after reading on this form. This form is yours to keep as a artifact of your growing understanding of the Characteristics of Efffective Instruction. [|Reflection Form - Teaching for Understanding.docx]

After completing the reading and the reflection on one of the articles, please complete the short survey found at this link. []

‍February 16 Resources: Iowa Core/Assessment For Learning
In a small group, read either of these two articles on Grading Practices [|The Case Against the Zero.pdf] [|Effective Grading Practices.pdf]

Record your reflections before, during and after reading on this form. This form is yours to keep as a artifact of your growing understanding of the Characteristics of Efffective Instruction [|Evaluation Form_Iowa Core Article Study.docx]

After completing the reading and the reflection on one of the articles, please complete the short survey found at this link []

‍February 23 Resources: Visible Learning
[|Meredith Middle School Visible Learning.pptx]

‍March 23 Resources: Iowa Core/Characteristics of Effective Instruction
With a partner or in a small group, read any one of these three articles. All three of them address the issues of prioritization and a student-centered focus on rigorous content. [|What Students Really Need to Learn.docx] - An international analysis of content and priorities [|Knowing Your Learning Target.docx] - Worth revisiting as this was our focus to start-off the year...timely new guidance included [|Worthy Texts-Who Decides.docx] - Raising the stakes for reading across the content area

Record your reflections before, during and after reading on this form. This form is yours to keep as a artifact of your growing understanding of the Characteristics of Efffective Instruction [|Evaluation Form_Iowa Core Article Study.docx]

After completing the reading and the reflection on one of the articles, please complete the short survey found at this link @http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/S8W2RLR

=Visible Learning Cause Data= [|Desk Arrangement Study.pdf] Study linking desk arrangements to on-task and off-task student behavior.
 * Student-Centered Learning Environments and Collaborative Learning:**

[|Strategic use of Classroom Seating.pdf] An even-handed appraisal of classroom seating approaches from Australia, suggesting flexibility based on the task at hand.

A new teacher reflects on classroom environment here.


 * Classrooms Visited || Classrooms featuring an interactive learning environment || % of Classrooms featuring an interactive learning environment || increase ||
 * 31 (Aug 26-27) || 18 || 58% || NA ||
 * ** 37 (Sept 22-23) ** || ** 30 ** || ** 81% ** || ** 23% ** ||

An "interactive learning environment" is one where desks or chairs are arranged in a way that students can easily and readily collaborate and where students can maintain eye contact with at least half the class when they are speaking and listening.

Two significant studies (Qin, 1992; Johnson and Johnson, 1995) around individual vs. cooperative tasks found that “students who engaged in cooperative learning were more successful in four types of problem solving – linguistic, non-linguistic, well-defined problems and ill-defined problems.” An earlier study conducted by Johnson and Johnson also found that “cooperative experiences promoted more positive relationships among individuals from different ethnic backgrounds, and between handicapped and non-handicapped individuals.” In both of these studies, the positive effects of cooperative learning increase as students get older. A comprehensive guide to cooperative and collaborative learning can be found here (including critical voices): [] classrooms = 24% || 1 out of 33 classooms = 3% || 8 out of 33 classrooms = 24% || 8 out of 33 classrooms = 24% || 4 out of 33 classrooms = 12% || 4 out of 33 classrooms = 12% || classrooms = 26% || 1 out of 33 classrooms = 3% || 10 out of 34 classrooms = 24% || 6 out of 34 classrooms = 18% || 1 out of 34 classrooms = 3% || 7 out of 34 classrooms = 21% || Graph of the above data: [|Collaborative Learning data graph.xlsx]
 * || * || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 ||
 * 10/26-28 observations || 8 out of 33
 * 12/3 observations || 9 out of 34
 * || Students were attentive to teacher conducting whole-class instruction || No clear expectations of students were evident (unstructured down-time) || Students were doing independent tasks independently || Students were doing independent tasks with a partner || Students were engaged in collaborative work with a partner (one other person) || Students were engaged in collaborative work as part of a team (two or more other students) ||


 * Learning Targets:**

Our intentions for our students should be no secret. Sometimes those intentions are assumed, sometimes they are buried under academic language that students don't comprehend and sometimes those intentions are a cluttered bullet-point list of "things we cover".

Learning targets that are written in language our students understand, that are posted prominently and are referred to often give purpose, focus and direction to our students. What we call them, whether "focus statements", "learning targets", "KUD's", matters //less// than that they are in use in all classrooms __for each block and are derived from our priority standards.__

Consider this graphic organizer as you continue to work on learning targets that are derived from standards: [|Linking Learning Targets with Standards.docx]

See data graphed here: [|Learning Targets Graph.xlsx]

Learning Targets Observation Rubric target observed (one might have been shared with students earlier in the block, but was not visible throughout the period) || Abbreviated task for either students or teachers to complete (the learning target should be a focus for learning, not on completing a task) || A content focus or a skill focus is identified, but not both || A content and skill focus is identified but lacks an explicit connection || A content and skill focus is identified and is connected through a big idea (written for students to understand or an essential question that will provoke discussion ||
 * || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 ||
 * || No learning

Through the develoment and posting of student-centered learing targets, our intention is to remove any confusion among our students as to what is expected of them. By looking next at **student work**, we can examine gaps between what we are expecting of students (as communicated through the targets) and what they are actually producing for us.
 * Standards-Based Student Work:**

See data graphed here: [|Student Work Graph.xls]

classrooms = 27% || 0 out of 37 classrooms = 0% || 0 out of 37 classrooms = 0% || classrooms = 61% || 6 out 28 classrooms = 21% || 2 out of 28 classrooms = 7% || *work does not need to be polished, finalized products || Student work is posted that reflects students constructing meaning or demonstrating skills in original ways //and work is displayed along with the corresponding learning target// *work does not need to be polished, finalized products || Student work is posted that reflects students constructing meaning or demonstrating skills in original ways, is displayed along with the corresponding learning target //and includes a brief personal reflection from the student as to what this work represents// *work does not need to be polished, finalized products ||
 * || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 ||
 * 9/10-11 observation || 27 out of 37 classooms = 73% || 0 out of 37 classrooms = 0% || 10 out of 37
 * 10/14-15 observation || 2 out of 28 classrooms = 7% || 2 out of 28 classrooms = 7% || 17 out of 28
 * || No student work posted or work is primarily decorative in nature || Student work posted, but work is routine (worksheets, selected-response items) || Student work is posted that reflects students constructing meaning or demonstrating skills in original ways

Here is an interesting piece by Dr. Linda Henke, the superintendent of the Maplewood-Richmond Heights school district in St. Louis. She identifies what to her are the three most imporant messages we can give students and how posting their work reinforces these messages: []
 * This is work is important
 * You can do this
 * I will help you

Data Teams Files
This page contains information and documents relevant to data team efforts across all PLCs

Survey Summary from first Data Team meetings [|Data Teams Survey Summary.pdf] [|18 Week SMART Goal Results.docx]

Grade Distribution Data Team Meetings [|8th grade distribution week 12.xlsx] [|8th grade distribution week 18.xlsx]

[|7th grade distribution week 12.xlsx] [|7th grade distribution week 18.xlsx]

[|6th grade distribution week 12.xlsx] [|6th grade distribution week 18.xlsx]

[|Departmental and Grade Level Ds and Fs.xlsx] [|Departmental and Grade Level Ds and Fs Week 18.xlsx]

Integrated Curriculum - STARS Team [|STARS Plan for Interdisciplinary Connections.docx] [|STARS Interdisciplinary Data - BASELINE.xlsx]