Coquitlam.LIF teams.Collaboration


Published on

An elementary session, continuing the conversation with school teams of admin, support and classroom teachers, of school plans for inclusion, a focus on collaboration, frameworks for learning, and moving toward co-teaching,

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Coquitlam.LIF teams.Collaboration

  1. 1. 2013-­‐14  L.I.F.  Focus   Improving  Learning  For  All   Crea%ng  Schools  and  Classrooms     Where  All  Students  Belong   Faye  Brownlie    
  2. 2. Learning Intentions: •  We  have  reviewed  and  edited  our  school  plan.   •  We  have  grown  our  ways  of  collecCng  and  using   informaCon  on  our  students  to  make  class   learning  plans  from  class  reviews.   •  We  have  polished  our  mental  models  of  learning   frameworks.   •  We  have  new  ideas  of  HOW  to  collaborate  in  co-­‐ teaching.   •  We  are  leaving  with  a  revised  school  plan  of   acCon.  
  3. 3. Big Ideas…   As  a  school  community  we  want  to  work  together  to  meet   the  needs  of  all  students.   Inclusion  is  not  a  special  educaCon  model;  it  is  a  school   model.   As  professionals  we  want  to  constantly  examine  and  refine   our  pracCce.   CollaboraCve  problem-­‐solving  and  teaching  results  in  new   ideas,  new  products  and  a  feeling  of  connecCon.     Our  students  conCnue  to  change  and  learn  and  their  needs,   just  like  the  school’s,  will  change  over  the  course  of  the  year.   Brownlie  &  Schnellert    It’s  All  About  Thinking
  4. 4. C   Class  Review   -­‐gathering   informaCon   -­‐strengths-­‐based   -­‐acCon  oriented  
  5. 5. “You  can  see  what  the   teachers,  teams,  and   schools  value  by  what   actually  goes  on  in  the   classrooms.”     (Brownlie,  Fullerton,  Schnellert,   2011,  p25)   “Pedagogy  trumps  curriculum.”      (Dylan  Wiliam)  
  6. 6. Your  Plan   •  Examine  your  plan  from  last  year   –  What’s  working?   –  What’s  not?   –  What’s  next?  
  7. 7. Frameworks It’s All about Thinking (English, Humanities, Social Studies) – Brownlie & Schnellert, 2009 It’s All about Thinking (Math, Science)– Brownlie, Fullerton, Schnellert, 2011
  8. 8. Universal Design for Learning MulCple  means:   -­‐to  tap  into  background  knowledge,  to  acCvate   prior  knowledge,  to  increase  engagement  and   moCvaCon   -­‐to  acquire  the  informaCon  and  knowledge  to   process  new  ideas  and  informaCon   -­‐to  express  what  they  know.                        Rose  &  Meyer,  2002  
  9. 9. Backwards Design •  What  important  ideas  and  enduring   understandings  do  you  want  the  students  to   know?   •  What  thinking  strategies  will  students  need  to   demonstrate  these  understandings?                      McTighe  &  Wiggins,  2001  
  10. 10. Approaches •  •  •  •  •  •  Assessment  for  learning   Open-­‐ended  strategies   Gradual  release  of  responsibility   CooperaCve  learning   Literature  circles  and  informaCon  circles   Inquiry   It’s All about Thinking – Brownlie & Schnellert, 2009; Brownlie, Fullerton, & Schnellert, 2011
  11. 11. “Every  Child,  Every  Day”  –  Richard  Allington  and   Rachael  Gabriel   In  EducaConal  Leadership,  March  2012   6  elements  of  instrucCon  for  ALL  students!  
  12. 12. 1.  Every  child  reads  something  he  or  she  chooses.   2.  Every  child  reads  accurately.   3.  Every  child  reads  something  he  or  she   understands.   4.  Every  child  writes  about  something  personally   meaningful.   5.  Every  child  talks  with  peers  about  reading  and   wriCng.   6.  Every  child  listens  to  a  fluent  adult  read  aloud.  
  13. 13. Rationale for Collaboration:   •  By  sharing  our  collec%ve  knowledge   about  the  whole  class  and  developing  a   plan  of  ac%on  based  on  this,  we  can   be?er  meet  the  needs  of  all  students.  
  14. 14. Goal:   •  to  support  students  to  be  successful  learners   in  the  classroom  environment    
  15. 15. A Key Belief •  When  interven%on  is  focused  on  classroom   support  it  improves  each  student’s  ability  and   opportunity  to  learn  effec%vely/successfully   in  the  classroom.  
  16. 16. The Vision A  Shif  from…..        to   A  Remedial  Model   (Deficit  Model)   An  Inclusive  Model   (Strengths  Based)   ‘Fixing’  the  student   ‘Fixing’  the  curriculum   Outside  the  classroom/   curriculum   to   Within  the  classroom/   curriculum  
  17. 17. Transforma%ons  within  the     Inclusive  Model   Pull-­‐out  Support  /  Physical  Inclusion   •  sCll  a  remedial  model  –  to  make  kids  fit   •  In  the  class,  but  ofen  on  a  different  plan   Inclusion   •  Classroom  Teacher  as  central  support   •  Resource  Teacher  –  working  together  in  a    co-­‐teaching  model  
  18. 18. No plan, No point
  19. 19. Co-Teaching Models (Teaching in Tandem – Effective Co-Teaching in the Inclusive Classroom – Wilson & Blednick, 2011, ASCD)   •  •  •  •  •  1  teach,  1  support   Parallel  groups   Sta%on  teaching   1  large  group;  1  small  group   Teaming  
  20. 20. 1  Teach,  1  Support   •  most  frequently  done,  least  planning   •  advantage:  focus,  1:1  feedback,  if  alternate   roles,  no  one  has  the  advantage  or  looks  like   the  real  teacher,  can  capitalize  one  1’s   strengths  and  build  professional  capacity   •  possible  piNall:  easiest  to  go  off  the  rails  and   have  one  teacher  feel  as  an  ‘extra  pair  of   hands’,  no  specific  task  (buzzing  radiator)  
  21. 21. 1 Teach, 1 Support: Examples •  demonstra%ng  a  new  strategy  so  BOTH   teachers  can  use  it  the  next  day  –  e.g.,  think   aloud,  ques%oning  from  pictures,  listen-­‐ sketch-­‐draW   •  Students  independently  working  on  a  task,   one  teacher  working  with  a  small  group  on   this  task,  other  teacher  suppor%ng  children   working  independently  
  22. 22. Parallel  Groups   •  both  teachers  take  about  half  the  class  and   teach  the  same  thing.       •  must  be  co-­‐planned,  requires  trust  in  each   other,     •  must  each  know  the  content  and  the   strategies.   •  advantage:    half  class  size  -­‐  more  personal   contact,  more  individual  a?en%on  
  23. 23. Parallel Groups: Examples •  word  work.    At  Woodward  Elem,  the  primary  worked  together  3   X/week,  with  each  teacher,  the  principal  and  the  RT  each  taking  a   group  for  word  work.    Some  schools  have  used  this  with  math   ac%vi%es.   •  Focus  teaching  from  class  assessment.  Westwood  Elementary:   Came  about  as  a  result  of  an  ac%on  research  ques%on:  How  do  we   be?er  meet  the  needs  of  our  students?:     –  primary  team  used  Standard  Reading  Assessment,  highlight  on  short   form  of  Performance  Standards,  Resource,  ESL,  principal  involved,   cross-­‐graded  groups  2X  a  week,  for  6  to  8  weeks  driven  by   informa%on  from  the  performance  standards  (Text  features,  Oral   Comprehension,  Risk  taking,  Cri%cal  thinking  with  words,  Gecng  the   big  picture,…  ,  repeat  process   –  NOT  paper  and  pencil  prac%ce  groups…teaching/thinking  groups    
  24. 24. Sta%on  Teaching   •  mostly  small  groups,  more  individual  a?en%on,     •  can  be  heterogeneous  sta%ons  or  more   homogeneous  reading  groups.       •  each  teacher  has  2  groups,  1  working   independently  at  a  sta%on  or  wri%ng,  1  working   directly  with  the  teacher.       •  Requires  student  self  regula%on  (which  needs  to   be  taught)  and  planning  for  meaningful   engagement.  
  25. 25. Station Teaching: Examples •  Guided  reading:  4  groups;  RT  has  two  and  CT  has   two   •  math  groups  –  Michelle’s  pa?erning  (1  direct   teaching,  2  guided  prac%ce,  1  guided  prac%ce   with  observa%on)   •  science  sta%ons:  CT  and  RT  each  created  two   sta%ons;  co-­‐planning  what  they  would  look  like   to  ensure  differen%a%on,  teachers  moved  back   and  forth  between  groups  suppor%ng  self-­‐ monitoring,  independence  on  task  
  26. 26. 1  Large  Group,  1  Small  Group   •  advantage:      either  teacher  can  work  with   either  group,  can  provide  tutorial,  intensive,   individual   •  possible  piNall:    don’t  want  same  kids  always   in  the  ‘get  help’  group    
  27. 27. Station Teaching: Examples •  Guided  reading:  4  groups;  RT  has  two  and  CT  has   two   •  math  groups  –  Michelle’s  pa?erning  (1  direct   teaching,  2  guided  prac%ce,  1  guided  prac%ce   with  observa%on)   •  science  sta%ons:  CT  and  RT  each  created  two   sta%ons;  co-­‐planning  what  they  would  look  like   to  ensure  differen%a%on,  teachers  moved  back   and  forth  between  groups  suppor%ng  self-­‐ monitoring,  independence  on  task  
  28. 28. Teaming   •  most  seamless.       •  co-­‐planned     •  teachers  take  alternate  roles  and  lead-­‐taking  as  the   lesson  proceeds.   •  advantages:  capitalizes  on  both  teachers’  strengths,   models  collabora%on  teaching/learning  to  students,   can  adjust  instruc%on  readily  based  on  student  need,   flexible   •  possible  piNalls:    trust  and  skill   •  Most  oWen  in  whole  class  instruc%on  and  could  be   followed  up  with  any  of  the  other  four  co-­‐teaching   models    
  29. 29. Teaming: Examples •  Brainstorm-­‐categorize  lesson  –  1  teacher  begins,   other  teacher  no%ces  aspects  the  first  teacher  has   missed  or  sees  confusion  in  children,  adds  in  and   assumes  lead  role.   •  Modeling  reading  strategies:  two  teachers  model  and   talk  about  the  strategies  they  use  to  read,  no%ng   things  they  do  differently.   •  Graphic  organizer:  Teachers  model  how  to  use  a   seman%c  map  as  a  post  reading  vocabulary  building   ac%vity,  teacher  most  knowledgeable  about  seman%c   mapping  creates  it  as  other  teacher  debriefs  with   students;  both  flow  back  and  forth  
  30. 30. K/Grade  1  WriCng   Commons  &  Jakovac   Samples  from  June  7th,  2012  
  31. 31. •  Trust  your  professional  experCse   •  Collaborate:    2  heads  are  bemer  than  1   •  Follow  the  lead  of  your  children  –their   interests,  their  needs   •  NO  program  exists  that  can  replace  YOU!!!