Engagement versus Involvement

Can students be involved, yet not engaged in the learning process? For many educators, the answer is a resounding "Yes." Involved learning represents any form of compliant behavior ranging from students responding to a question posed by their teacher to students smiling in their seats while conducting a silent monologue in their heads. Engaged learning, on the other hand, refers to students actively participating in the lesson such as challenging each other relating to the topic under investigation, losing track of time, connecting emotionally to the content, and, in some cases, working harder than their teacher.

How can classrooms elevate the amount of Engaged learning? Simple solutions to exist that require few materials, but do require a willingness to try something new. Dan Meyer, a high school math teacher, discusses specific ways of promoting what he calls "patient problem-solving" during a TEDxNYED talk video. Dan summarizes five simple solutions for engaging students in more rigorous activities that transcend mathematics, but apply equally to all content areas.

√ Use multimedia
√ Encourage student intuition
√ Ask the shortest question you can
√ Let students build the problem
√ Be less helpful

Following these simple solutions can help transform "involved" classrooms into centers of learning that elevate the level of student engagement in the classroom.

What Defines Technology?

In an effort to provide a level playing field for assessing effective Technology use in the classroom (the T in H.E.A.T.) , the new H.E.A.T. Walkthrough rubric has now softened the definition of Technology use to include both traditional technology applications (e.g., mobile devices, laptops, document cameras, apps) and environmental resources. This latter term applies to resources used in the classroom that are not technology-based nor a textbook such as manipulatives, murals, original photos, guest speakers, other classrooms, and even scientific equipment.

The purpose is to give greater emphasis on the first three letters in the acronym, H.E.A.T., namely, Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, and Authentic connections as well as provide a more balanced approach for schools that experience a continuing disparity among grade levels relating to access to digital tools and resources. Whether the resource is a web application or a paint brush, the pivotal question remains the same, "Did the use of technology and/or environmental resources help to elevate the amount of H.E.A.T. applied to student learning?"

H.E.A.T. Walkthroughs & the Danielson Framework

Many states are in the process of implementing new teacher evaluation guidelines resulting from (1) federal funding requirements (e.g., Race to the Top), (2) teacher tenure issues, (3) merit pay considerations, and/or (4) an overarching concern about the state of classroom pedagogy. Most school systems have adopted Charlotte Danielson's Frramework as the basis for revising their teacher evaluation process.

Upon reviewing the Danielson Framework, one can readily see connections between many of the components embedded in her teacher evaluation model and H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T. The Danielson Model supports both a constructivist approach to teaching and learning as well as 21st Century Skills and Themes. These constructs are also the pillars of H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T. As you scan the framework, recursive themes focusing on collaborative learning; engaged learning; and both horizontal and vertical differentiation of resources, instructional practices, and assessment measures permeate the document. In its purest sense, the Danielson Framework is a growth model for improving professional practice.

Using the H.E.A.T. Walkthrough protocol as a way of addressing/reinforcing the critical components of the Danielson Framework provides an efficient mechansim to promote continuous improvement to the teacher evaluation process. To learn a little more about the Danielson Framework, visit the link below for a Q&A segment with Charlotte Danielson on the genesis of her framework.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2011/06/straight_up_conversation_teacher_eval_guru_charlotte_danielson.html

The Impact of Classroom Walkthroughs

I was reading a dissertation published in 2007 by Guy Rossi at the University of Pittsburg entitled, The Classroom Walkthrough: The Perceptions of Elementary School Principals on its Impact on Student Achievement. His results are consistent from what research and data generated from our H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T. walkthroughs are revealing -- focused classroom walkthroughs do impact instruction.

Key findings of Rossi's study indicated that the classroom walkthrough did affect instructional
practices and student achievement from the perspective of the elementary school principals. The study showed that teachers were sharing and more aware of best practices, principals were more aware of what is occurring in the classrooms, principals have meaningful data to share with teachers, and principals were better-informed instructional leaders. The entire dissertation is located at the following URL: http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/8703/1/Rossi_ETD_7-29-07.pdf.

The work campus administrators do as instructional leaders cannot be underestimated. Teachers want to hear what their administrators have to say especially after completing a walkthrough. My hope is that this study provides one more piece of evidence as to the efficacy of classroom walkthroughs for improving teaching and learning on your campus.

Clarifying Practice versus Problem

In the Engaged Learning section of the H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T. rubric, two of the look-fors reference a "teacher-directed problem." When considering this type of look-for, the observer needs to distinguish "teacher-directed practice" versus a "teacher-directed problem." A teacher-directed problem possesses the following characteristics:
• invites multiple solutions
• possesses a real-world context
• requires higher order thinking (applying and above)
• elicits student's natural curiosity

Teacher-directed practice is just the opposite. These learning episodes focus on single solutions (e.g., worksheet), hover around the remembering and understanding levels of Bloom's taxonomy, and typically provide students with repetitive problems in which to solve. Teacher-directed practice is often associated with lower levels of engagement (students reporting only what they have learned).

Recognizing the difference between these two constructs can increase the reliability of your H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T. walkthroughs and provide staff with a more accurate indicator of the level of teaching innovation in the classroom.

90/90 in a Nutshell

The target goal for successful H.E.A.T. Walkthroughs is 90/90 whereby 90% of staff are (1) indicating that they are getting some face-time feedback from their administrator(s) after a walkthrough and (2) acknowledging that the feedback is conducive to their professional growth. In many of our LoTi Digital-Age Schools, both of these numbers are climbing!

As a professional development provider over the past 20 years, I am hard-pressed to find a better way of promoting continuous improvement than through the Classroom Walkthroughs with H.E.A.T process. Why? Though other forms of P.D. (onsite, online, blended) have their obvious strengths and corresponding weaknesses, the walkthrough experience is targeted, timely, and highly personal. Above all, it is efficient. Think about it for a second. Classroom Walkthroughs do not require:

• substitutes

• time away from the classroom

• scheduling

• consultants

• a budget

• a workshop agenda

What better way to improve professional practice on your campus? Imagine the impact on your school's instructional program if you spend 15 minutes per day conducting one or two walkthroughs. Hitting the 90/90 mark does not guarantee improved test scores, but used in conjunction with digital-age best practices, a well-defined benchmarking system, and a standards-based approach to instruction and assessment, you can seamlessly build the necessary capacity to achieve both your student achievement and professional growth targets.

Teacher Feedback from H.E.A.T. Walkthroughs Revisited

During the 2011-12 school year, the vision for the H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T. Walkthrough process continues to be 90/90; meaning, 90 percent of the teachers will document receiving face-to-face feedback from every classroom walkthrough and 90 percent of the teachers will indicate that the feedback was meaningful to them in terms of improving professional practice. According to Hall and Hord (2000), “Classroom walkthroughs that include focused one-on-one feedback is the most powerful staff development approach available to impact and change behavior.”

Given the multitude of activities (or distractions) occurring during a typical school day, how can one meet the tenets of the 90/90 plan while still addressing a myriad of other and often times, non-instructional priorities? Provided below are suggestions that can help increase face-to-face contact following a H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T. walkthrough.

1. Block out a time period on your office calendar each week to provide one-on-one feedback resulting from the H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T. walkthroughs.

2. Arrange a neutral venue away from your office, but on campus to meet with individual teachers so as to decrease possible interruptions.

3. Plan to meet with the teacher briefly in his/her classroom during or after class.

4. Send a note to the teacher to meet with you by a certain day so as to give flexibility to the teacher to decide when and where for their follow-up feedback.

5. Send an invite message inside a card for the teacher to meet with you at a specific time.

6. Arrange a brief chat over coffee before or after school.

7. Have your office assistant schedule the follow-up meetings with teachers receiving a H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T. Walkthrough.

These follow-up sessions are critical and pivotal to the success of your instructional program and can provide a solid foundation for improving school climate, instruction, and most importantly, student academic progress throughout the year.


Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2000). Implementing change: patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.