Turning Up the H.E.A.T. on Teacher Effectiveness

How can school systems maximize the instructional benefits of their teacher evaluation system? Unfortunately, spending endless hours generating deposition-grade documentation for either a short or long observation does not necessarily translate into improved instruction. Too often, the goal during a post observation conference is not to discuss best practices pedagogy, but to ensure the highest summative score from the teacher’s perspective and to avoid any possible grievances from the observer’s vantage point.

High quality classroom walkthroughs that include targeted feedback can provide the pivotal bridge between formal teacher evaluations and improved  teaching and learning. Using the H.E.A.T. walkthrough protocol enables building/district-level administrators, supervisors, and instructional coaches to conduct brief 5-7 minute walkthroughs to document the amount of H.E.A.T. (Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, Authentic connection, Technology use) applied to student learning.

More importantly, documenting the amount of H.E.A.T. during a walkthrough also corresponds directly to the Danielson Framework as outlined below:

Higher Order Thinking

1-D: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources

1-E: Designing Coherent Instruction

2-B: Establishing a Culture for Learning

3-A: Communication with Students

3-B: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques

Engaged Learning

1-E: Designing Coherent Instruction

2-A: Creating an Environment of Respect & Rapport

2-B: Establishing a Culture for Learning

3-A: Communication with Students

3-C: Engaging Students in Learning

Authentic Connections

1-A: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content & Pedagogy

1-E: Designing Coherent Instruction

1-F: Designing Student Assessments

2-B: Establishing a Culture for Learning

Technology Use

1-D: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources

2-E: Organizing Physical Space

Reminding teachers that the goal is to turn up the H.E.A.T. on student learning, and not concentrate on isolated teaching behaviors (e.g., 1D, 3B, 1F, 2A) can ultimately position a school building to realize the benefits of collegial feedback leading to continuous improvement in the classroom.

Triangulating Your Teacher Evaluation Data

Most teacher evaluation protocols prescribe a fairly rigorous process for observers to establish an acceptable level of inter-rater agreement among their peers when rating the categories of their District’s teacher practice instrument. Though protocols may vary, a vast majority involve observers reviewing a series of video scenarios and ranking each video according to specific look-fors embedded in their teacher evaluation rubric.

Unfortunately, many school systems and states have witnessed inflated scores for the teacher practice portion of the teacher evaluation protocol even though observers had achieved “certification” with their chosen instrument. Why the inflated scores? Theories abound ranging from threats of teacher grievances to staged “dog and pony” performances during announced observations. Regardless of the theory, the net effect of the millions of dollars invested in teacher evaluation training to improve instruction has been negligible at best.

How can school systems establish an acceptable level of fidelity between the key “look-fors” of their teacher evaluation instrument and actual teaching behaviors? One method is to begin triangulating the teacher evaluation scores using additional sources. For example, districts using any version of the Danielson Framework for Teaching can triangulate their results using informal walkthrough data and teacher lesson plan submission data to determine the degree of alignment among the three data sources. Provided below is a sample triangulation that uses the empirically-validated LoTi (Levels of Teaching Innovation) Framework to triangulate Danielson Evaluation Practice scores, H.E.A.T. Walkthrough rating scores, and lesson plan submission scores.

LoTi Level Ratings	Danielson Evaluation Practice Ratings	H.E.A.T. Walkthroughs (LoTi Level)	Lesson Plan Submissions (LoTi Level)	Danielson Evaluation Practice Scores
Level 0 - Nonuse	Unsatisfactory	2%	0%	0%
Level 1 - Awareness	Basic	8%	6%	3%
Level 2 - Exploration	Basic	28%	26%	5%
Level 3 – Infusion	Proficient	46%	52%	72%
Level 4 – Integration	Distinguished	8%	12%	12%
Level 5 – Expansion	Distinguished	6%	2%	4%
Level 6 - Refinement	Distinguished	2%	2%	4%

 A cursory glance of this table reveals a dramatic gap between walkthrough and lesson plan submission scores and the Danielson Evaluation Practice scores based on the LoTi Framework. This scenario describes the majority of school systems during the initial year of formal implementation of their teacher evaluation instrument. Moving into Year 2 implementation and beyond, the goal might be to increase the alignment among the three indicators by 10% annually and over time begin to document increased fidelity between the instructional (How we plan instruction) and operational (How we actually teach) curricula. Only by following a model of triangulation can the teacher evaluation practice score possess any real clout in terms of quantifying growth as it pertains to improved professional practice in the classroom.

Elevating Questioning and Discussion Techniques in the Danielson Framework

When was the last time you heard a teacher utter, “Are there any questions?”  at the end of a instructional block or class period?  The dead silence that overwhelmingly results from this anti-question speaks volumes about the lack of meaningful questioning in K-12 classrooms.  One of the critical categories under Instruction in the Danielson Framework for Teaching addresses Questioning and Discussion Techniques and specifically students generating higher-order questions.

How do you go about raising the standard for student questioning in the classroom? Several questioning strategies exist that can easily blend into the rhythm of instruction of any teacher’s dominant teaching methodology ranging from whole group didactic instruction to small group Socratic Dialog. Some of these strategies include:

Quescussions:

This questioning strategy represents a shift from making statements to starting to wonder and ask questions. The participants make points as in a normal discussion, but the use of statements is forbidden.

Steps:

1. Provide a trigger (such as a poem, topic or theme). The trigger might be a problem

to be solved, a provocative question or statement, some text or a key word, a video clip,

a multimedia presentation, or a website to be analyzed or discussed.

2 Have students participate in a discussion that only contains questions. Have

participants yell “Statement” or make a sound if anyone makes a statement rather than asking a question

3. Open-ended questions are preferred to closed questions. “What?”, “Why?” “How?” rather than “Is it true that...?”

4. Try to ask questions about feeling as well as facts, try to ask simple knowledge

questions as well as sophisticated questions.

5. A question does not have to be directly related to the previous question.

Bloom’s Taxonomy-in Action:

This questioning strategy uses Bloom’s Taxonomy as the basis for students to generate questions at the higher levels of cognition.
Steps:

1. Spend time introducing questions associated with each of the Bloom’s Taxonomy

Levels in class.

2. Designate each day of the week to a specific Bloom Level (e.g., understanding, analyzing, creating).

3. Have students as well as the teacher only ask questions at the selected Bloom Level during the entire class period. If someone accidentally asks a different question, have them rephrase their question to match the Bloom Level.

Thesis Statements:

This questioning strategy uses collaboration to increase the quality and quantity of student-generated questions.
Steps:

1. As part of the writing process, have students write down a thesis statement on the

classroom interactive white board, white board, or chalkboard.

2. Next, have students take their interactive white board markers and generate two

questions relating to the thesis statement. If no interactive white board exists, then use

sticky notes. The questions can include any question type (e.g., clarifying, probing,

hypothesizing), but must relate directly to the thesis statement.

For example, if the thesis statement stated, "The $700 billion bail-out of Wall Street by Congress and the President was an ill-conceived plan to solve the major economic crisis of 2008." then possible questions might be, "What if the government had no other choice?", "To what extent will this plan help the everyday citizen living on Main Street?", and "What accountability measures are in place to ensure that the $700 billion loan is repaid?"

Getting students to generate well-crafted questions routinely does not happen overnight. For some students, their kindergarten experience was the last venue where they felt safe and supportive to generate original questions. The strategies mentioned above provide a solid foundation to get students engaged in the learning process by articulating authentic and meaningful questions at the highest levels of the Danielson Framework for Teaching Rubic.

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.