Analyzing Your Walkthrough Data

By Spring, many building leaders have literally conducted hundreds of H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T. walkthroughs of their teachers. Though giving thoughtful and reflective feedback to individual staff members is critical to the process of continuous improvement, one should also consider the benefits of analyzing the aggregate data that has been collected during the year.

In the LoTi Lounge, administrators are able to view a summary of their walkthrough data by first selecting Access Online LoTi Observer Walkthroughs from the Main Menu and then choosing Observation Administration & Reporting. This feature enables you to inspect the aggregate classroom walkthrough results for your entire campus or for individual teachers. The table displays the mode LoTi and CIP score for each teacher or school as well as the number of walkthroughs completed. Selecting the View Charts in the upper right corner lets you view a bar graph of each data set.

A common question asked at this time of year is "Has there been improvement in the LoTi (Levels of Teaching Innovation) and CIP (Current Instructional Practices) scores of my staff?" An easy way to answer this question is by comparing your Fall H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T. walkthroughs (September - November) with your Spring H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T. walkthroughs (April - June). Clicking on the Time Period (e.g., Jul 01, 2010 - Jun 30, 2011) and changing the dates (e.g., Sep 01, 2010 - Nov 01, 2010) will let you view the LoTi and H.E.A.T. walkthrough data for just that time period. Repeating this procedure for the Spring (e.g., Apr 01, 2011 - Jun 01, 2011) will let you compare the amount of growth in innovative teaching (i.e., LoTi) and current instructional practices (i.e., CIP) over time.

Analyzing Fall/Spring data can give you valuable information for assessing the benefits of your existing staff development program, and where needed, make changes. Research has demonstrated that elevating innovative teaching in the classroom positively impacts student academic progress.

Clarifying Cooperative Learning

The H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T. walkthrough form includes several references to cooperative and collaborative learning. What are the key attributes of cooperative and collaborative learning? Does students assembled in clusters of three or four chairs in a classroom always constitute cooperative or collaborative learning?

First of all, cooperative or collaborative learning requires some type of group goal. Both cooperative and collaborative learning involve students working together in groups toward the completion of this goal or task as well as sharing and comparing procedures and conclusions. However, the end goal can only be reached when every member of the group contributes effectively. Students working together to solve an open-ended math problem or to find a solution for reducing energy consumption in their classroom illustrates the foundation of cooperative or collaborative learning.

A major distinction between the two forms of small group learning is that cooperative learning tends to be more teacher-centered than collaborative learning; meaning, students in a cooperative learning configuration typical respond to a teacher-generated question or problem to solve. The teacher gives the students an assignment, often helping them to divide up the work that needs to be done so that each individual in the group has a certain role to play.

Collaborative learning gives students opportunity to create their own connections among information sources and develop networks. A network may be a community of learners (e.g., a classroom), a digital environment, or a social structure where ideas are shared with others, thereby “cross-pollinating” the learning environment In this context, collaborative learning empowers students to find solutions to their own self-generated problems, make inferences, and draw conclusions, even though they may be different from their teacher's perspective.

When conducting classroom walkthroughs, simply viewing students in clusters does not necessarily guarantee either cooperative or collaborative learning. Listening to students’ interactions with one another or asking either a student or the teacher a clarifying question about the lesson objective can give you the needed insight to determine the presence of small group learning.

MassCUE & METAA Technology Leadership Symposium 2011

SESSION: Engaging the Unengaged—Using Digital Age Best Practices to Elevate Achievement in the Core Content Areas

Support Links:
- Monster Exchange
- Make A Police Sketch
- Thumb War
- H.E.A.T. Framework
- LoTi Lounge
- LoTi Classroom
- LoTi Connection
- Digital Age Best Practices Flyer
- Digital Age Best Practices White Paper
- LoTi Implementation Model
- Stage 1: Building Capacity Checklist
- Stage 2: Implementing Change Checklist
- Stage 3: Sustaining Independence Checklist
- Sample LoTi Digital Age School Report
- Sample Custom Online Course Project Report

- Engaging the Unengaged: Using 21st Century Skills/Themes to Elevate Student Academic Achievement PowerPoint PDF

SESSION: 21st Century Walkthroughs: Using iPad Technology to Improve Student Achievement and Digital Age Learning

Support Links:
- LoTi Lounge
- LoTi Classroom
- LoTi Connection
- Sample Monthly Walkthrough Report
- H.E.A.T. Walkthrough Form (Regular PDF)
- H.E.A.T. Walkthrough Form (Editable PDF)
- Custom Walkthrough Form Sample - H.E.A.R.T. ACBOE
- Custom Walkthrough Form Sample - H.E.A.R.T. Salina

- 21st Century Walkthroughs: Using iPad Technology to Improve Student Achievement and Digital Age Learning PowerPoint PDF



To view posts previously at this site as well as other LoTi Connection, LoTi Training and other LoTi Resources please visit http://loticonnection.blogspot.com/

Also consider visiting Dr. Chris Moersch’s blog—the LoTi Guy Speaks—at http://lotiguyspeaks.blogspot.com

Thank you for visiting!

Turning Up the "T" in H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T.

During a H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T. classroom walkthrough, it may not always be obvious where the strategic use of a website or Web 2.0 application within a lesson can elevate the level of engagement in the classroom. Provided below are web resources including a series of Web 2.0 tools that can be used by classroom teachers to turn up the "T" in H.E.A.T./H.E.A.R.T.

The web resources are organized by content area. You may want to consider one or more of these sites as you give feedback to your staff via the walkthrough process.

Math Resources
Interactivate
NLVM
Illuminations
Math Tools

Thinkfinity

ELA Resources
Read-Write-Think

Thinkfinity

Science Resources
Virtual LabsChemistry
Simulations

Social Studies Resources
270toWin
National Budget Simulation

Fine Arts Resources
The Audition Room
SFS Kids

Web 2.0 Resources
• GoToWeb20
• Web 2.0 Tool: Survey Monkey
• Web 2.0 Tool: Zoomerang
• Web 2.0 Tool: Survs
• Web 2.0 Tool: Dabbleboard
• Web 2.0 Tool: MyWebspiration
• Web 2.0 Tool: Wordle
• Web 2.0 Tool: TagCrowd
• Web 2.0 Tool: Blogger
• Web 2.0 Tool: 21 Classes
• Web 2.0 Tool: Writeboard
• Web 2.0 Tool: Wikispaces
• Web 2.0 Tool: ePals
• Web 2.0 Tool: Gaggle
• Web 2.0 Tool: GoogleDocs
• Web 2.0 Tool: Audacity
• Web 2.0 Tool: GarageBand

Recommendations/Commendations for Your Walkthrough Reports

After completing either a H.E.A.T. or H.E.A.R.T. Walkthrough, it is critical to balance your teacher feedback with at least one targeted commendation coupled with one specific, yet supportive recommendation. A colleague of mine, Ken Flood, who is Principal of Chelsea Heights School in the Atlantic City School District (New Jersey) shared with me some standardized feedback statements that he uses as part of the District classroom walkthrough process.

As you review these commendations and recommendations, please consider how you might create your own list. You might even want to borrow a few of the statements below!

Commendations:
• The components of the lesson are consistent with the Literacy Collaborative program adopted by the district.
• The components of the lesson are consistent with the 5E model adopted by the district.
• The lesson integrated social studies into the language arts curriculum. The students explored selected topics using the computer as a medium.
• The students are often provided the opportunity to utilize the computer lab where technology is directly connected to task completion.
• The students have benefited from the grants funds that have supported participation in the innovative and new program through Rutgers University.
• The lesson integrated cross-curricular content into the P/E curriculum.
• The students were engaged in the activity for the duration of the lesson.

Recommendations:
• It is suggested that you continue to work in tandem with the BSI teacher to maximize supportive instruction for identified students.
• Where possible, you might want to utilize multiple software applications to accommodate the different level of learners in your classroom.
• Although no technology was used in this particular lesson, please continue to utilize technology that is relevant and directly connected to the completion of the task in the delivery of your lessons.
• It is recommended that you monitor very closely any student activities that require internet usage. This will deter students from deviating from the assigned task.
• Please continue to explore grants options to fund innovative and new programs that would benefit our children.
• It is suggested that you utilize benchmark results to identify areas of concentration and to drive instruction.
• Please continue to collaborate and work in tandem with the Health teacher and to develop cross-curricular lessons whenever possible. This is an excellent way to support other content areas.
• You are to encouraged to meet with at least two guided reading groups per day to remain consistent with the demands of the Literacy Collaborative program.
• Choral repetition will provide all students with the opportunity to practice pronunciation of the new vocabulary.

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

During the 2010-11 school year, the vision for the H.E.A.T. Walkthrough process is 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. 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. 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. 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.

Breaking down H.E.A.T. Walkthroughs

Conducting classroom walkthroughs using the H.E.A.T. framework can serve as a powerful staff development intervention for your teachers if accompanied by targeted and timely feedback. It is also critical that your assessment of the amount of H.E.A.T. generated by students during a classroom visitation maintains a high level of reliability based on each of the H.E.A.T. dimensions. Provided below are some practical suggestions for gauging the amount of H.E.A.T. in the classroom.

Higher order thinking

There is often a tendency to score the Bloom level slightly higher than what actually is taking place in the classroom. If students are completing an endless stream of repetitive math exercises, gathering information from an outside source to summarize in a PowerPoint presentation, or identifying the story elements in a book, there is an excellent chance that the Bloom level is at Understanding level.

Applying is another Bloom level that is often incorrectly measured in H.E.A.T. Walkthrough summaries. Keep in mind that Applying represents students’ ability to transfer key concepts, skills, and/or strategies to new, but similar situations. Students applying information to produce some type of result, using facts, rules, and principles (e.g., using the conventions of persuasion to create a persuasive essay), or solving a problem (using mathematical problem solving to determine the different outcomes for a new board game) are examples of Applying.

Engaged learning

The difficulty with engaged learning is that the concept is often used interchangeably with “involved” learning. Keep in mind that students can be involved in the learning, but not necessarily “engaged.” Engaged learning represents (1) a purposeful cognitive process involving one or more complex thinking processes (e.g., problem-solving, decision-making, inductive reasoning) and (2) student empowerment in the learning process.

The lowest level of engaged learning involves students reporting back information to the teacher using one or more available formats (e.g., multimedia, voice recording, blog, wiki). This level represents students completing any type of worksheet, responding to a teacher-generated prompt, or submitting a summary of their work in a Powerpoint presentation where the teacher serves as the primary audience.

A mid-range level of engagement would involve giving students limited options for solving a problem such as analyzing data from a teacher-generated experiment, completing a Venn diagram comparing two characters from a short story, or students finding a solution to a teacher-generated problem.

Authentic connections

What may be real and relevant to the teacher is not necessarily authentic to students. When appraising the level of authentic connections, a critical question to ask is “Are students applying or transferring their learning to a real-world situation with possible consequences?” If the answer is “Yes,” then the learning event can be viewed as authentic and should be documented as such.

It is important to note that students watching or discussing real-world events (e.g., voter apathy, eating habits) is not necessarily applying their learning. At a high level of authentic connections, students are solving real-life problems or making decisions in a real world context.

Technology use

Believe or not, there is a tendency to rate technology use lower than what is actually happening in the classroom because the activity either involves a low level of Higher order thinking (e.g., Understanding) or a low level of Engaged learning (e.g., reporting back information to the teacher). The culprit in these situations is not the technology use, but the lower levels of thinking, engagement, and authenticity embedded in the student learning experience.

If you do mark Technology use at a level below the following: “Technology use is directly connected to task completion…”, be prepared to provide specific concrete examples on how the technology use could have been expanded to elevate the other areas of H.E.A.T.

The above suggestions will hopefully assist you in promoting reflective practice and professional growth based on walkthroughs that contain both valid and reliable observation data.