Clarifying Authentic Connections during H.E.A.T. Walkthroughs

The key to a successful informal walkthrough program is ensuring for a high level of reliability among observers relating to a pre-defined rubric or set of look-fors. In the H.E.A.T. Walkthrough model, each of the categories (Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, Authentic connections, Technology use) includes a specific rubric to gauge the level of H.E.A.T. applied to student learning.

One category in particular, Authentic Connections, includes a graduated set of statements that describes the degree of real world connections used during a lesson episode.  Since reliability is the “bread and butter” of informal classroom visits, let’s examine this element of H.E.A.T. in greater detail.

Authentic Connections

1  The learning experience is missing or too vague to determine relevance

Commentary:  There is no documented lesson plan and/or written/verbal objectives

to determine any degree of relevancy of the current lesson episode. Students are

unsure what they are learning or why they are learning the content.

2  The learning experience provides no real world application, or represents a group

of connected activities

Commentary:  Students are unable to make any practical or real world connections or

ascertain any common thread or theme linking one learning activity to the next.

3. The learning experience provides limited real world relevance
Commentary: The teacher as opposed to the students is the one making, sharing, or modeling how the learning experience(s) relates to the real world.

4. The learning experience provides extensive real world relevance
Commentary: Two way interactions among the students and/or the teacher and the students provide an open forum for all parties to make, share, or model how the learning experience(s) relates to the real world.

5. The learning experience provides real world relevance and opportunity for students to apply their learning to a real world situation
Commentary: Students are not just talking about real world connections, but are actively applying their learning to a real world context involving the transfer of skills and knowledge to a new and unique situation.

• The learning experience is directly relevant to students and involves creating a product that has a purpose beyond the classroom that directly impacts the students
Commentary: Students are self-motivated to apply their learning to a real world problem or challenge that impacts them personally involving themselves, their family, their local neighborhood, and/or the larger global community.

Rating the category, Authentic Connections, accurately and consistently along with other elements of H.E.A.T. is critical to generating reliable data that directly impacts the quality of professional development planning system-wide leading to ongoing continuous improvement.

Student Choice: The Key to Designing Coherent Instruction

The Danielson Framework for Teaching includes Designing Coherent Instruction as one of the categories within Domain 1: Planning and Preparation.  Critical look-fors such as standards-based instruction, differentiation, interdisciplinary connections, and student choice collectively define coherent instruction.

In the H.E.A.T.®/Danielson Evaluation Rubric, the degree of student choice embedded in the curriculum planning process represents the line of demarcation between a teacher evaluation rating of Proficient and Distinguished. What precisely defines student choice? In the planning process, student choice refers to students assuming an active role in their own learning by providing them with increased control, decision-making, and personal responsibility of the content, process, and/or product in the curriculum decision-making cycle. 

How can teachers promote greater student choice or student-directed learning when planning “coherent instruction?” Provided below is a small sampling of strategies.

PROMOTING STUDENT-DIRECTED LEARNING BY CONTENT:

• Providing students with sub-discussion topic options using Socratic seminars
• Allowing students to self-select their own topics for discussion

PROMOTING STUDENT-DIRECTED LEARNING BY PROCESS:

• Providing opportunities for students to arrive at self-drawn conclusions or generalizations within cooperative or collaborative learning groups
• Emphasizing student-generated questions that enable the learners to analyze, synthesize, or evaluate
• Providing opportunities for self-directed activities such as interest centers, learning contacts, and independent study

PROMOTING STUDENT-DIRECTED LEARNING BY PRODUCT:

• Self-selecting their own methods of assessment including self-assessments and peer reviews
• Providing choices or options relating to the medium for final deliverables (e.g., formal papers, multi-media, blog post)

As with any formalized teacher evaluation system, performing at a higher level in one category frequently elevates the rating of other categories.  In the H.E.A.T.®/Danielson Evaluation Rubric, performing at the Distinguished level within the Domain 1 category, Designing Coherent Instruction, will also increase the rating level of the companion Domain 1 categories Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources and Designing Student Assessments; the Domain 2 category Establishing a Culture for Learning; and the Domain 3 categories Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques, Engaging Students in Learning, Using Assessment in Instruction, and Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness.

Quantifying Your Professional Development Results

A 2011 article in Education Week (http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/professional-development/) provides a crisp summary of the current status of professional development among our nation’s schools. According to the article, one-shot workshops have gradually given way to more sustained professional development ranging from onsite peer observations and classroom-based coaches to inquiry teams (alias professional learning communities) and lesson studies.  Regrettably, the one variable determining the success or failure of most professional development efforts, student results, has offered little empirical evidence.

Using the H.E.A.T. (Higher order thinking, Engaged learning,Authentic connections, Technology use) Framework provides an alternative schema for evaluating the merits of professional development interventions impacting the teaching and learning process.  Each of the dimensions of H.E.A.T. yields an empirically-validated set of “look-fors” in which to gauge changes in instructional practices and their subsequent impact on student learning. Creating an action research study, for example, to assess changes in the amount of H.E.A.T. in student learning using data collected throughout the school year can provide a practical way of quantifying the impact of any professional development opportunity on the level of teaching innovation in the classroom.

As a conceptual model, H.E.A.T. represents Student Output while LoTi (Levels of Teaching Innovation) represents Teacher Input.  The LoTi framework has been the subject of over 100 research studies and dissertations worldwide primarily investigating the impact of professional development on teaching innovation in the classroom.  Using one or both of these matrices to quantify your professional development results can lead to systematic and sustained changes affecting continuous improvement at all levels of the curriculum decision-making ladder.

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?"