Achieving the Target Level on Your Teacher Evaluation System: It’s as Easy as a LoTi 3!

Executing a lesson at a LoTi 3 based on the LoTi Framework easily translates to either an Effective, Proficient, or Satisfactory rating on most teacher evaluation instruments used on the planet these days. Briefly, a LoTi 3 involves students engaged in higher levels of cognitive complexity (e.g., problem-solving, decision-making, inductive reasoning) relating to teacher-directed problems using the available digital and/or environmental resources This level seems to be a reasonable target for most teachers when the content they teach already lends itself to real world connections and rich uses of technology. But what about those days when the classic review lesson is used to help prepare students for an upcoming assessment—particularly at the high school level and specifically, in an Algebra 1 or Algebra 2 classroom?

This week I participated in a lesson modeling episode with colleagues at Camden’s Academy Charter High School in Camden, New Jersey, where the targeted concepts included rearranging formulas to highlight a quantity of interest, using the same reasoning as in solving equations, solving systems of linear equations focusing on pairs of linear equations in two variables, and comparing properties of two functions each represented in a different way (e.g., algebraically, graphically, numerically in tables, or by verbal descriptions). Hardly fodder for showcasing real world connections and student engagement!

Yet, integrating the protocol used on the Food Network’s Chopped series provided opportunity for students to apply the math content to a self-selected real world connection (e.g., representing one of the mystery ingredients) at a self-selected level of rigor (e.g., another mystery ingredient, if you are familiar with the Chopped format) while collaborating in small groups to find a solution—all the makings for a LoTi 3!

Often times, students lose themselves in memorizing isolated formulas while struggling with math fluency that cripples their progress and reduces any confidence or interest they might have in solving an open-ended or extended response math problem.

As we asked students at the end of the class period to complete an exit ticket, I proceeded to complete my own. My own "Aha!" moment was that most of these students struggle with the math because it is offered as a conglomeration of isolated, emotionally-void numbers and symbols. When do we allow kids to mix concepts like imagination, fun, and risk-taking into their everyday math learning? Achieving a proficient level on most teacher evaluation metrics means that we have provided opportunities for rich engagement, higher order thinking, and networked collaboration—all of which cannot be achieved unless we give students latitude to discuss, explore, and apply their math (or any other content) in a safe, playful, and high-energy-charged learning environment. This is the hallmark of a LoTi 3 as well as an achievable target for elevating the professional practice of all educators.

An Argument for Differentiated Instruction

Last week, while conducting H.E.A.T. walkthroughs in intermediate grade classrooms, I pondered how often we as educators actually adjust/tier/differentiate our instruction based on the readiness level or interests of our students. Though I witnessed both whole group and small group (i.e., centers/stations) instruction during these classroom visitations, the delivering of content as well as the small group learning activities were essentially the same for all students.

Whenever I observe whole group instruction, I inherently question the assumptions we often make indirectly about the learners such as:

• There is no significant difference academically among the students.
• All learners possess the same interests, modality strengths, and dominate multiple intelligence.
• The content delivery (using either whole group or small group instruction) targets each student’s intellectual wheelhouse.

Given the limited time available for instructional planning during the school week, it would be surprising if more than 5% of current practitioners even considered any of the above assumptions. In affluent zip codes, this may not matter; but in neighborhoods where students have fewer opportunities for enrichment, the quality of instruction does matter. Personalizing learning through differentiation can be the key factor that turns a struggling student into a successful, empowered lifelong learner.

Consider a Common Core Math Lesson where students are solving multi-step, real-life, mathematical problems posed with positive and negative rational numbers using strategically chosen tools. Traditionally, the teacher might have students participate in a game-like activity that requires them to review simplifying expressions using the distributive property and combining like terms. Now consider how students might respond to this same math standard, but this time, they have to locate a current article from the internet that contains numbers (e.g., article about fashion, sports, politics, business) and create an algebraic story problem based on the contents of the article, whether real or fictitious.

What if students had to determine the heat loss of one of the hot water tanks at their middle school and make a recommendation to either maintain the current water tank or replace it with a more energy-efficient model by first converting the “word” directions for determining heat loss into an algebraic equation? After creating the equation, students would have to choose three possible replacement brands from any website and compare their heat loss rating to the one on their campus using the heat loss equation.

All three examples required students to simplify expressions using the distributive property and/or combining like terms, but at different levels of cognition and related to different interests. By using the student’s individual and/or collective interests and readiness levels to drive engagement, students can better understand how content is connected to their own life experience.

Research has validated many of the practices associated with differentiation, among which are promoting student engagement, responding to learning styles, and teaching to a student's zone of proximal development (e.g., the distance between what a learner can demonstrate without assistance and what the learner can do with assistance). Addressing any one of these attributes of differentiation on a consistent basis can yield positive benefits in terms of achievement, self-esteem, and motivation. Sometimes, it’s the little things that we do that can make a big difference; and differentiated instruction may be one of those things.

Factors Impacting Effective Technology Use: Small Group Instruction

After spending years conducting classroom walkthroughs, I believe I have witnessed most forms of small group instruction. I've seen everything from self-directed centers at the Pre-K-2 levels (and even on a few high school campuses) to a small cadre of middle school students engaged in an anchor activity quantifying results from an online survey about campus bullying. Research has shown that properly structured and well-managed small group configurations can generate powerful results in terms of student learning, retention, and overall college success.

As a former classroom teacher, I remember the first time I organized stations for my 9th grade students. Aside from the initial struggle, my high schools students encountered working collaboratively, conducting peer evaluations, and self-monitoring their own behavior. I did notice how natural it was for them to exchange ideas, develop their own voice, and tackle complex problems beyond what they were willing to do on their own.

As a technology consultant, I also recall one instance where we spent the entire summer working with teams of middle school teachers on Project-Based Learning (PBL) and the use of the 5E Model prior to the arrival of their grant-funded mobile devices. Similar to adding oil to a hot frying pan, as soon as the digital tools arrived in early December, the aggregate LoTi Level increased from a LoTi 1 to a LoTi 3/4 almost overnight.

Later this month, we at LoTi will be releasing nationwide the LoTi Digital Age Survey 20th Anniversary Edition that explores the connection between variables such as small group learning (e.g., learning stations/centers, cooperative grouping, and/or individualized instruction) and the Level of Teaching Innovation (LoTi). My hunch is that results will show a strong correlation given the elements embedded at the higher LoTi Levels (e.g., collaborative problem-solving, student generated questions, real world connections, rich uses of technology) and the fundamental structure of small group learning.

This blog post is the final entry in a series of fourteen online entries highlighting factors that impact the effective use of technology in today's classrooms. This series focuses on each of the research variables used to conduct comparative analyses as part of the LoTi Digital Age Survey 20th Anniversary Edition.

Getting It Right! — Arthur Elementary School

This past Saturday, I had the opportunity to spend a day working with the staff at Arthur Elementary School in the Oklahoma City School District as part of the U.S. Department of Education’s ConnectED initiative—a program that has provided 1:1 access for every student and staff member on campus. In the past, I have wondered how schools such as Arthur Elementary School are selected. What attributes made them one of only 114 schools nationwide, as well as the only campus in Oklahoma, to receive the iPads?

After facilitating the day-long session, which included staff members analyzing lesson plans, completing inter-rater reliability exercises, conducting self-assessments, and creating new learning experiences based on the H.E.A.T. (Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, Authentic connections, Technology use) instructional model, my question had been answered.

The professional manner in which individual staff members and grade level teams converse with one another—along with their collective vision and willingness to reach group-generated goals relating to 21st Century learning—was truly remarkable. Current survey results showed the majority of the AES staff at a LoTi 2 (Exploration), which makes sense given the quick turn-around for receiving the iPads and initial PD. Yet, a year from now, my bet is that the majority of staff will be on the cusp of a LoTi 4 (Integration).

The faculty's unified approach could even be seen as you walked the halls of the school, where each classroom door was adorned with its own H.E.A.T.-themed design. The doors serve as a daily reminder for students, parents, and staff of the school's vision for using digital resources to promote high levels of student engagement, collaborative learning, and authentic problem-solving.

It is rare to witness first-hand a group of dedicated teachers, along with their principal and District Tech guru, that are so much in sync. Hats off to the Arthur Elementary School staff, their principal, Rhonda Schroeder, and the District Executive Director of Information Technology, Eric Hileman. I so much look forward to their continued work with elevating teaching innovation and closing the achievement gap. Way to go Arthur Elementary School!  #lotiguy #connectED

Factors Impacting Effective Technology Use: School Climate – Shared Vision

How effective is the shared vision for using digital resources in the classroom on your campus? Consider the technology vision statement below for a sample school like many I have visited around the nation, ABC Middle School.

We envision using technology to further a learning community where: 

1. Students are engaged in a challenging curriculum that is focused on inquiry-based, hands-on learning, are comfortable and proficient using technology, and take responsibility for their own learning and educational success. 
2. Teachers use technology to support all learning across the curriculum through their role as coaches, mentors, advocates, and managers of information. Through on-going, comprehensive professional development, all teachers acquire the knowledge and skills to integrate technology into a challenging and interdisciplinary curriculum which addresses students' specific needs, developmental levels and learning styles. 

If I told you that after five-years of implementing the technology plan associated with this vision statement, the campus’ primary LoTi (Levels of Teaching Innovation) level was at a LoTi 2: Exploration, what conclusions might you draw? Clearly, the above vision statement aligns with a LoTi 6: Refinement implementation; not a LoTi 2.

What do you think could possibly have happened between creating and implementing the vision statement? Choose one answer.

1. The vision was most likely created by the building principal and/or outside vendor with little collaboration from faculty. 
2. Faculty members were not engaged in developing the corresponding technology plan that aligned with the vision statement. 
3. Decision-making relating to technology purchases and professional development seldom referenced the adopted vision for technology. 
4. PLC meetings seldom used the vision for technology as the platform for discussions about technology integration strategies. 
5. Campus walkthroughs and/or teacher evaluation rubrics did not integrate the key "look-fors" embedded in the vision for technology. 

If you selected A, B, C, D, or E...you are correct. A carefully, worded mission statement or vision, if implemented without input and continuous feedback from all key stakeholders, will remain just that—a statement, rather than a living document for change.

In the LoTi Digital Age Survey 20th Anniversary Edition, a comparative analysis will be conducted to determine if a correlation exists between the variable, Shared Vision for Using Digital Resources, and the variable, LoTi Level. My hunch is that a strong correlation will exist between teachers/leaders who collaborated in all facets of their technology vision process and implementation, and the corresponding higher LoTi Levels.

This blog post is the thirteenth in a series of fourteen online entries highlighting factors that impact the effective use of technology in today's classrooms. This series focuses on each of the research variables used to conduct comparative analyses as part of the LoTi Digital Age Survey 20th Anniversary Edition.

Factors Impacting Effective Technology Use: School Climate – Teacher Voice

One variable seldom mentioned is the importance of teacher voice in the ongoing conversation about digital age teaching and learning. In the business sector, voice is frequently viewed as the lynchpin for ongoing business growth. According to a cooperative report from the Involvement and Participation Association (IPA) and Tomorrow's Company, Releasing Voice for Sustainable Business Success, employee voice "increases employee engagement, enables effective decision-making and drives innovation."

Relating the importance of voice to the classroom environment is fairly easy. Kahlenberg and Potter’s (2014) article, Why Teacher Voice Matters, provides a compelling argument about the connection between teacher voice and increased student achievement, lower teacher turnover, and the positive effects on school climate. From my perspective, the word, voice, can be easily substituted with the word, trust. When was the last time you heard someone on the job utter, "I don’t trust that person." What are they really saying? The interpretations are unlimited and unfortunately all negative.

As we move forward with elevating teaching innovation in the classroom using digital tools and resources, it is paramount that we consider the role of teacher voice at the operational curriculum level. The release of the LoTi Digital Age Survey 20th Anniversary Edition will pinpoint the correlation between teachers’ perception about their voice on campus and their corresponding teaching practices. If teacher voice proves significant, there are resources available to address the issue. Unfortunately, many of these solutions cannot be installed as quickly as a class set of mobile devices.

This blog post is the twelfth in a series of fourteen online entries highlighting factors that impact the effective use of technology in today's classrooms. This series focuses on each of the research variables used to conduct comparative analyses as part of the LoTi Digital Age Survey 20th Anniversary Edition.

Factors Impacting Effective Technology Use: School Climate – Communication

It is no secret that working in isolation is one of the historical trademarks of the teaching profession. Teaching from bell to bell, grabbing a quick lunch between conferencing with students or meeting with parents, or prepping for the next class period defines a typical teaching day. Regular PLC meetings and professional learning workshops afford teachers a chance to share and discover instructional technology strategies that have unlimited classroom potential, but teaching in isolation sometimes makes these new discoveries difficult to implement in practice. How many of us have concluded an inspiring professional development day with great intentions that fell flat upon returning to the classroom due to a lack of direction or continued support? What can be done to empower teachers and students to better integrate technology into everyday learning?

I recently read an article entitled, 7 Habits of Highly Effective Tech-leading Principals, that provided a fresh take on how to inspire innovation rather than simply require the use of classroom technology. The habits include:

1. Create an atmosphere that inspires innovation
2. Foster collaboration
3. Be open to new ideas
4. Be a connected learner yourself
5. Locate and provide adequate resources
6. Take risks
7. Have a visionary focus

Building leaders who were able to model these "habits" and engage in regular two-way communication with staff changed the way their teachers now perceive and use technology in the classroom. Asking teachers to collaborate, take risks, or innovate is futile if the school climate doesn't support a two-way feedback cycle that involves teachers and administrators listening, modeling, coaching, sharing, and supporting best practices beyond their face-to-face interactions. It seems absurd that we would expect teachers to have students collaborate online or provide targeted student feedback if they aren't accustomed to modeling these behaviors professionally.

In the upcoming 20th Anniversary Edition of the LoTi Digital Age Survey, we ask respondents to rate the following statement from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree:

I engage in a two-way cycle of communication and feedback with my school administrators. 

Determining teachers’ perceptions about the level of two-way communication with their colleagues as well as with building leaders may therefore offer a glimpse as to possible roadblocks impeding or obstructing the level of teaching innovation on campus. It is the intent of the LoTi Digital Age Survey to generate sufficient data points to determine the role of two-way communication in the change process. As Jane Ripley notes, “Genuine collaboration is an environment that promotes communication, learning, maximum contribution, and innovation.” Stay tuned!

This blog post is the eleventh in a series of fourteen online entries highlighting factors that impact the effective use of technology in today's classrooms. This series focuses on each of the research variables used to conduct comparative analyses as part of the 20th Anniversary Edition of the LoTi Digital Age Survey.