THE THINKING BEHIND THE ANSWER

This past week I spent a full day observing in middle school classrooms, providing follow up coaching sessions to teachers and an overview to the school’s leadership. One teaching behavior emerged as a pattern when I observed teachers reviewing work with students. Teachers often explained why the “right answer was right” but not the thinking process behind answering the question.

My thought was that this practice leads students to believe they are suppose to KNOW the right answer rather than that they are to develop a PROCESS for solving the problem.

One example emerged in a science class. Students were reviewing for a test with this question on the smart board:

In what order bottom to top would the following items be found in sediment?

a) sand, clay, rocks, pebbles
b) pebbles, sand, clay, rocks
c) rocks, pebbles, sand ,clay
d) rocks, pebbles, clay, sand

Using white boards, students shared their decisions. Noticing a variety of answers, the teacher announced that she would call on someone who had it correct and have them explain the reason for their answer. The teacher then went on to remind students of activities that they had done in class (Water, clay and sand in a bottle that they shook and then observed). When she finished, it appeared that most students agreed that (C) was the correct answer.

What I felt was missing was a discussion of what thinking would be used to solve the problem. In other words how would one figure out the right answer?

What is the first question I might ask myself?

“What would influence the order in which the elements would settle?”

Deciding that weight would influence the order, I’d then ask, "What would settle first?". The heaviest.

Then, "What‘s the heaviest?". Rocks. Then, "What’s next and next and…".

I was concerned that students saw this question as one they should know the answer to rather than this is a problem I need a strategy to attack.

In a math class I observed a student tackling this problem:

If a recipe calls for ¼ teaspoon of salt, how much would be in 8 recipes?

When I looked at his work be had written ¼ X 8 =32/4. Then he divided 32 by 4 and arrived at 8 as an answer.

When I asked what he did he said multiply. A common teacher approach at that moment would be to work on the ¼ X 8 problem since that is the skill they were studying.

I asked the student to draw a picture of the problem. He really didn’t know where to begin. Through a series of my questions he produced 8 ¼ teaspoons. He realized that 4 of them made 1 teaspoon and soon arrived at 2 teaspoons as an answer. Then we went back to tackle the problem using multiplying with a fraction. He was delighted when he arrived at 2 teaspoons with a different math strategy.

I observed a very similar pattern as students in an ELA class were reviewing this question:

Which of the following words would be the best synonym for enthralled as it is used in paragraph 8 in the passage? There were four choices for the students to select from.

The teacher reviewing the question explained how students could rule out two of the choices and then select from among the two remaining.

What he didn’t model was, “What was the first thing you would do to solve this problem?".

I’d read the paragraph and ask myself, ”What do I think enthralled means?". Then I’d try putting in each of the words and realize two don’t work. Then I’d say, ”Of the two words that are appropriate, does one seem better?".

Let me know if you see a similar pattern in your classroom observations.

I am thinking that the same issue is important when coaches are modeling for teachers. Teachers need to hear the thinking process that the coach is using to determine the “next move”. This should be occurring in planning conferences; lesson debriefs, and even “live conversation” during the lesson when possible. The questions and thinking that lead to how to make the decision is the key teacher learning.

LEARNING ABOUT LEADERS

While at The Learning Forward Conference in Atlanta I had the opportunity to attend a pre conference session, Professional Development as a Tool for Transforming Schools. It was led by Phil Schlechty (Schlechty Center for Leadership in School Reform) and Cheryl Arabie (assistant superintendent) and Amiee Woessner (supervisor of instruction) from the St. Tammany Parish schools in Louisiana.

I mentioned Schelechty’s work in an earlier blog on learning organizations.

In the session we learned about how St. Tammany Parish schools, which were devastated by Katrina (three schools were lost and 17 heavily damaged), used the crisis as a time of learning. In order to meet the immediate needs of the families in the community they discovered that schools are about more than just an education. Lessons learned in that crisis are carrying forward strengthening the system and individuals. Here is a great video that communicates their experience. (Well worth the viewing time.)

Here are the shared beliefs from their current strategic plan. We believe that……
* We are a good school system and we must strive to be a great school system.
* Our core business is to create engaging work for every student, everyday.
* High quality schools and exemplary student achievement are the responsibility of the entire community.
* Teachers are leaders and designers who create engaging work for students.
* Students engagement is the key to learning.
* Effective instruction must meet the needs of all students so that every child can learn at expected high levels.

Phil Schlechty provided some insightful comments concerning the courageous leaders that our schools need:

If you don’t have time to read; you don’t have time to lead. I’ve suggested that school leaders need to be lead learners. Continuous improvement requires innovation which requires continuous learning.

Courageous leaders practice transparency, integrity, and honesty. These may create a short term cost but have a long term payoff. Phil explained that those traits may slow you down initially making progress seem more difficult, but building that culture and history over the long term pays off.

I asked Phil to identify some specific signs of principals who were courageous leaders. He added:

The questions that they ask, more than the answers they provide. Frequent readers of this blog know that I focus lots of coaching training on developing questioning skills that promote thinking and dialogue. Questioning is also a critical practice for leaders to facilitate their teams.

They have great crap detectors. I am sure that questioning skills help here. Am I getting accurate information and feedback? Do unobserved actions match observed actions? Are people walking the talk?

They advance an outlandish notion…Meaning ideas that do not have proof that they will work. This risk taking is critical to innovation and must be modeled by leaders who want the same from their staffs.

As I look back over the five comments I’m thinking it gives a great description for the outcomes I’d like students to develop:

Readers and Learners
Honesty
Questioners
Crap Detectors
Innovators

MOVING TO HEAVY COACHING

I am currently attending the Learning Forward (NSDC) conference in Atlanta. I am presenting a session titled Verbal Skills for Heavy Coaching.

In an earlier blog,I discussed the definitions of light and heavy coaching as presented by Joellen Killion, Coaching Heavy and Coaching Light in Coaching: Approaches and Perspectives edited by Jim Knight.

Joellen states that Heavy Coaching requires high stakes conversation between coaches and ALL teachers that focus on teaching and learning.

She lists Coaches’ Beliefs that can Interfere with Coaching Heavy and their side effects.

I have seen coaches struggling with several of the seven beliefs from her list.

The work of coaches is to support teachers.

I have begun questioning what coaches mean when I hear that statement. My suggestion to them is that the job of the coach is to change teachers (Build Capacity/ Continuous Growth). As coaches are assessing “how their time is spent,” looking for teacher change causing increased student learning should be the goal. Just this week I was working with high school math coaches who were pulling students and providing scaffolding background for missing skill sets. They struggled when I asked them how the teachers would be changing/growing from their work. These coaches are working in several schools. They are very busy and working hard. Yet it will be difficult to show teachers becoming stronger from their work. I often find that these support activities are initiated to generate a sense of coach as a team member but have a way of becoming time consuming and comfortable.

Coaches can’t impose on teachers because they have no supervisory responsibility.

This has to begin by checking your meaning of impose: (2) to force (oneself, one's opinions etc) on a person
The headmaster liked to impose his authority on the teachers.

I guess if you take this definition, coaches do not have the positional authority to force a teacher to change. However the coach’s position to ask questions, present observational feedback, review student data, and model possibilities can impose “brutal facts” upon teachers. Coaches are in a position to make teaching a more public act. Using coaching conferences, professional learning communities, team meetings, and professional development coaches can impose a continuous teacher reflection of beliefs and decisions.

This week a coach shared that teachers are continually asking her to model instructional strategies in their classrooms. As soon as she offers to return and coach the teacher as she implements the practice, she is told,”No need. I’ll call you if I have a problem.”

When asked what she should do, I said let them know up front that you only model when there is a pre-agreement that you will be returning to coach. Design an observation form for the teacher to use during the modeling and return using the same form as the teacher practices. If asked why you impose that requirement, point to the research. The likelihood of change in teacher occurring from modeling alone is too small.

Coaches are not responsible for what teachers do.

I have often confronted this belief when doing initial coaching training and have suggested that the responsibility for “what teachers do” needs to be part of the coach’s job description. I have tackled this through the general concept of a “coach”. Coaches are evaluated by the performances of the people they coach. In too many schools, coaching has been introduced as an “invitational” activity. Coaches only work in classrooms they have been invited into. Administrators need to create an expectation among the staff that the coach is an investment the system has made in our school. It would be difficult to explain that professionals wouldn’t take advantage of that resource. Coaches should be working with grade level teams, departments, and PLCs to assume their responsibilities for “what teachers do.”

I suggest you pull Joellen’s beliefs list and use it with your faculty to explore everyone’s beliefs about the outcomes and responsibilities of your coaching program.