H.E.A.T.: The Gestalt of the Danielson Teacher Evaluation

In psychology, the term, gestalt, traditionally signifies that the sum or whole are greater than the individual parts. In teacher evaluation, H.E.A.T. is the gestalt of the entire Danielson Teacher Evaluation process. The acronym, H.E.A.T. (Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, Authentic connections, Technology use) is embedded throughout the four domains of the Danielson Model addressing all of the categories in Domain 1: Planning and Preparation, Domain 2: Classroom Environment, and Domain 3: Instruction.

You may ask, “So what?” Well, for one reason: simplicity. Using H.E.A.T. makes it relatively easy to track teacher progress in the classroom using the standardized H.E.A.T. Framework and a mobile device. By collecting individual or campus aggregate H.E.A.T. walkthrough data to organize meaningful and authentic professional development interventions, the process of improving instructional practices becomes both targeted and achievable.

Since many of the Danielson categories are integrated with one another, attempting to build individualized professional development interventions by telling teachers that they need to work on isolated categories such as, Domain 1: Category 1D, Domain 2: Category 2A, or Domain 3: Category 3C is akin to mixing paint colors at a local Home Depot, not improving classroom instructional practices. H.E.A.T. provides the needed thread to tie together the entire teacher evaluation process.

Ultimately, what improves professional practice in the classroom is not a formal observation form that is completed two or three times a year, but the ongoing dialogue between campus leaders and teachers using common vocabulary in a non-threatening, collaborative coaching environment. Turning up the H.E.A.T. is not a buzzword, but an empirically-validated lens to view the impact of best practices research on student learning in the classroom.

80/80 Rule

During a H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T. walkthrough, how do you accurately gauge the indicators embedded in  the rubric? If one student asks a question in the higher cognitive zone, do you automatically score the level of student cognition for the entire class at the higher level based on one student's response? Conversely, do all students in the classroom have to demonstrate a particular level in order for you to score that category?

Using the 80/80 rule can help to minimize reliability issues and give the teachers an accurate picture of their classroom instructional practices. The 80/80 rule means that you are observing what 80% of the students are doing 80% of the time. This approach tends to eliminate outlier scoring and focus on the essence of the instructional dynamics between the teacher and the majority of students. The rule is particularly helpful when there is a wide continuum of learners in the classroom.

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.