Archives for October 2019

Action Research Around Instructional Coaching and Evidence of Deeper Learning by Students

Presenters:

• John Hendron – Director of Innovation and Strategy
• Andrea Burton – Instructional Technology Coach, Goochland MS
• Krystle Demas – Instructional Technology Coach, Goochland and Randolph ES
• Morgan McMullin – Instructional Technology Coach, Byrd ES

Basic Idea

We used several models around learning and applied them through an observation instrument to define a score we called “depth of learning index.” This number would become an expression of “how deep” the learning, observed, was.

Our hypothesis was that the more a coach worked with a teacher, the more evidence we’d see of deeper learning (assuming that is the type of coaching that was being worked upon in their planning sessions).

The results tell us that a linear progression toward depth isn’t always what’s seen. More importantly than measuring depth for us, are the conversations our coaches, teachers, and building principals are having around deeper learning, about how to better-design for deeper learning, and how to better collaborate as a team.

Timeline

With the help of Ruben Puentedura as part of an Apple Action Research initiative, we planned in December 2017 and began work at Goochland Middle School in January 2018. We concluded our initial run in December 2018 and returned to California to report on our experience.

In January 2019, we began the same protocol at our three elementary schools: Byrd, Goochland, and Randolph. In November 2019, we begin again at GMS and also at Goochland High School.

Models Used to Define Depth

We used the following references together to create our depth index.

• Cubic Learning Model , William Rankin, Ph.D.
• Webb’s Depth of Knowledge, Norman Webb, Ph.D.
• SAMR (modified), Ruben Puentedura, Ph.D.
• Synthesis of Twenty-First Century Learning, Punya Mishra, Ph.D., and Kristen Kereluik, Ph.D.
• Elements of Learning, Apple Professional Development and Stanford Research Institute
• Harnessing Technology for Deeper Learning (includes the Four Shifts Protocol), Scott McLeod, J.D., Ph.D., and Julie Graber

The mathematical transformation we perform on these references are done to better model concepts around learning modalities (i.e., some elements are over-referenced) and to de-emphasize the impact of using technology. The belief is that when technology is used with high levels of teamwork, problem-solving, and critical thinking, it’s a multiplier, not something in itself that contributes toward deeper learning.

In discussing deeper learning, we have resonated with definitions and ideas by:

• James Pellegrino
• The Hewlett Foundation
• Elements of Learning by Apple

While many of our deeper learning experiences designed for students focus-in upon projects (PBL), use of the Four Shifts Protocol by McLeod and Graber help us envision work towards deeper learning, short of a large-scale PBL unit.

After our four sessions observing with teachers, we share the fruit of our data collection. We show them how the pathways compare between lessons, debrief with our notes, and discuss the next steps in helping them in their journey toward planning for deeper learning.

Elements of equity, inclusion, and diversity play a role in learning that is designed around the elements that help us define deeper learning: student voice and choice, significant amounts of student teamwork, and personalization of learning through student feedback and personal contributions.

Questions from MERC

After our presentation, two questions were asked by attendees. I will paraphrase them below with a summary of our responses.

Did you account for validity of your instrument so that different observers would consistently report the same data based upon an observation?

Within the scope of time we had, we did not prime our observers or test the instrument for inter-rater reliability. However, we used one consistent observer for each observation, and observation decisions were made in committee. Discrepancies between ratings got averaged in our computations for a depth index score. We’d love to work with a third party to assist us in this effort.

Thank you for the slides related to the topics of equity, diversity, and inclusion. Could you speak more about the connection and your work toward deeper learning?

The purpose of our action research wasn’t squarely focused on these important topics. Instead, our effort was focused on overcoming barriers to deeper learning. More specifically, how could we help our teachers plan for deeper learning and how could we help our coaches in their work with teachers?

Yet as we worked on these questions, the issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion were visible. For instance, our decision to go 1:1 in our school division was tied in part to helping eliminate the digital divide within a community with varied socio-economic levels among families; in some cases, students lacked the skills with technology that others did not. Our vision for 1:1 included a desire for students to experience deeper learning. Deeper learning should honor student voice and choice. By extension, classroom and group discussions should include the viewpoints and cultural richness that a diverse student body carries with them to school. Lesson design should honor student voice. And specific to our technology, the tools we use should bring equity to those with specific needs where the tool can level the experience toward learning via accessibility.

That said, there’s not a specific magic around deeper learning that will singlehandedly address the issues facing schools today around equity, diversity, and inclusion. We are however proud that a 1:1 program steeped in deeper learning does provide opportunities to address these issues through instruction and learning.

After our positive experience at MERC, we aim to look for more opportunities to discuss these topics in our coaching around lesson/project design.

---

For questions about our work, contact John Hendron | jhendron@glnd.k12.va.us