"Examining Student Work" - Part II

As written before, a significant chunk of our PD this year revolves around an "examining student work" framework.

In previous years, we have focused much of our professional energies around what teachers do in the classroom (how we plan, build projects, use technology, etc). However, this year we wanted to look at the work actually being produced by students and examine it for deep understanding of core concepts. While the two are intimately connected (teaching and learning) we believe that the most useful data to inform practice comes from carefully examining the work our students produce.

About a month ago, teachers worked through Part 1 of the framework which involved facilitated discussions with partner teachers. Overall, the discussions were very rich, and a number of common themes emerged from teachers:

• Assessment – our teachers saw a need for greater integration of feedback loops and checkpoints throughout a project. This included a need for more clear learning outcomes, stronger alignment between learning outcomes and assessment rubrics, and more chunking of projects into smaller, more assessable elements

• Exemplars – teachers are wondering hjow best to align CSS student work with provincial/grade level standards. How do we know if our students learning lines up with students in the rest of the province?

• Direct teaching versus student-driven research – narrowing the focus of large, complex studies so that students don't become overwhelmed with the amount of data available on a topic. How do we manage the tensions between "teacher-centered" and "student-centered" projects?

• Content knowledge building versus Performance/Presentation of knowledge – teachers are wondering how to limit the amount of time on presenting knowledge (iMovies, podcasts, etc) versus the development of core, subject-based understanding. While the ability to communicate clearly with a variety of multi-media tools is important for our students, we don't want to over-emphasize this at the loss of core understanding. Teachers are also wondering about the development of a scope and sequence of technology skills across grade levels.

This week we had Part II of the discussions. The goal of this second part is to share the outcomes of the first discussions across grades using "vertical sharing teams." We have arranged groups of teachers from grades 4-9 in one group, and they have a half day release time to work through short sharing sessions.

There are a few goals for these sharing sessions:

1) to celebrate projects across grade levels
2) to share reflections from part I
3) to get feedback, suggestions and support on how teachers can move practice forward
4) to look for common themes across grades

Our first sessions with teachers will be starting this afternoon. We're looking forward to the outcomes!

Below is the documentation created for both Part I and Part II:

The Benefits of an Arts Education

How Do We Know When Students Are Benefitting from the Arts?

A Personal Response Supporting Advancing Arts Programs

Dr. Shelley Robinson

After writing the literature review Promising Practices and Core Learnings in Art Education (Alberta Education, 2008) and then reviewing the K-12 Arts Education Curriculum Framework (Alberta Education, June 2009 Draft), I pose the following question: What is our essential goal as educators when offering the arts in public education? And, how do modular programs compare with advancing programs (that require some pre-requisite skills) in achieving this goal? What seems most natural for me when considering this question is to personalize my understanding of what both documents raise as key values in the arts. Although my personal experiences and conclusions are not generalizable of all who have experienced the arts in education, it may resonate with some.

The further I get away from my own experience as a student of the arts in my formative schooling (which was predominantly curricular and extra-curricular music, with some exposure to art and drama), the more I ask myself, “What did I learn and retain from my formative schooling in the arts? What was engaging and powerful enough for me to believe that I could enjoy and do it then; and in turn, have enough confidence to do and appreciate again throughout my lifetime?” I believe that this question of engagement and sustainability is woven throughout most of the research about successful programs and experiences in the arts.
Much of the literature around the arts concerns itself with its impact on cognition and the various learning domains (affective, connotative, spiritual and kinesthetic); and its benefits to learning as a whole:

[S]ocial scientists have postulated that students who participate in the fine arts tend to experience greater academic achievement and are less likely to have social, emotional, or behavioural problems…[M]usic, painting, dance and drama have been cited as essential to academic and emotional development. (Respress & Lutfi, 2006, p. 24)

There are many findings that indicate that the arts help to promote positive learning (critical and creative thinking) experiences across the subject areas. “The arts have an important role to play in refining our sensory system and cultivating our imaginative abilities…and provide a kind of permission to pursue qualitative experience in a particularly focused way and to engage in the constructive exploration of what that imaginative process may engender” (Eisner, 2002), p. 4). However, there is less research about how we teach the arts and which ways are most engaging and hold the greatest potential for achieving “indicators of success” now and into the future in the various disciplines (Robinson, 2008, p. 29).

What seems most valuable to me is to get to the essence of the arts and how true and deep fine arts experiences do what Eisner has been writing about for almost three decades: The arts “…provide permission to engage the imagination as a means for exploring new possibilities. The arts liberate us from the literal; they enable us to step into the shoes of others and to experience vicariously what we have not experienced directly” (2002, p. 10). When we are “authentically engaged” (Schlechty, 2000) in the powerful rush of the “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) of the experience, we encounter something very special. We embody creativity in new ways and become present, intentional, and in some cases lost to the incredible focus required of the experience. When here, we can lose track of all time, and external distractions. This experience may be foreign to some who have not (for various reasons) experienced this intimacy with a fine art, but to those of us where this was possible, we got “hooked”.

Therefore I have found myself asking, after being in the grips of playing the piano (where I achieve flow best), “Hey, I like this experience! How do I do it again?” And as an educator, “How can I re-create this special state of mind and spirit with my students through the arts?” It is here where I get to the crux of my point that I wish I had expanded upon more in the Promising Practices research (2008). These curricular and extra-curricular experiences where I 1) participated fully; 2) rigorously; 3) creatively; 4) with a solid skill based; and 5) ongoing feedback from significant “connoisseurs” (Eisner, 2003); as well as 6) having multiple opportunities and time to learn the language of the discipline; is where I was most influenced by the arts. It is also here where I have returned again, sometimes, as a pianist, accompanist, composer, audience, and now, the mother of a musician.

In contrast, where I had only fleeting and very rudimentary “arts and crafts” experiments with fine arts “technicians”, (I have a couple of awkward memories working with clay, oil painting and acting), I remember being entertained for the duration of the enterprise. However, I came away from these classes feeling, at best, unsatisfied, and most often, just a little bit inadequate. It has only been where I had substantial skill and confidence where I was/am able to get carried away by the flow of the experience. When I stumble over rudimentary skills, it breaks the flow. Some might argue that music is/was where my talent lay, and therefore, I am passionate about music because of it. I would respond by saying that there have been other disciplines where I had less “talent”, but with sufficient mentorship, was capable of moving into a higher learning state (flow), such as, writing, and drawing, etc. Again, it was only where I was able to develop a working level of competence and confidence through 1) sufficient engagement; 2) repetition and rehearsal; 3) an ever-expanding gradation of learning targets and 4) multiple forms of feedback, that I became “sold” that I was an aspiring artist (or at the least participant) in that discipline. Creative thinking (Gregory, 2005) and creative problem solving (Sousa, 2003) can be taught.

Therefore, I would postulate that authentic, rich, ever-advancing fine arts programs provide students with the opportunity to love the arts. We may not ever be able to teach students the love of the arts as we experienced it, but we can foster creative environments for it, model it, hook students into it and embrace all aspects of it (Robinson, 2009). At the least, we need to encourage a respect for the arts so that the students will be at the very least, “ritually engaged”, and this can lead to “authentic engagement” (Schlechty, 2000). By having a strong art foundation with proper training, students who may initially be reticent to learn, might open their creative doors in the future when they find their own meaning and voice.

Finally, students can sense when they are in the presence of real artists. There is an awe and wonderment that captivates them differently than when they are exposed to a series of curriculum outcomes inserted into isolated islands of experience (modules), which lack continuity and breadth. They appreciate the passion and the critical eye/ear/voice of the real artists who know the discreet and sophisticated language of the discipline. Pseudo-arts experiences with teachers only hosting programs, hold less magic and less potential for students to truly love the arts.

Therefore, we need to help schools do both: We need to foster multiple entry points in solid school arts programs as described above, as well as developing programs that allow students to pursue higher levels of achievement over time. These programs need to be done with capable fine arts teachers who can also knowledgeably collaborate with other fine arts and content area teachers to build the profile of arts in the school, and as well, begin to seamlessly infuse the arts into all areas of teaching and learning.

Flickr Image from Marquette University

Guest Speaker at MRU

This morning one of our staff, Neil Stephenson, was a guest speaker during an Education Course at Mount Royal University. Neil was asked to participate in a course on inquiry-based learning, and he Skyped in to respond to questions generated by the university students.

The students had utilized the Inquiry Rubric developed by the Galileo Educational Network as the framework for discussing Inquiry, and then used Neil's Cigar Box Project as a case study. In groups, the students had used the Rubric to assess Neil's project, and then came to today's discussion with questions about the project and designing inquiry-based learning.

Here's a recording of the Skype chat, with Neil responding to questions from the Education students:

Graph the Olympics!

Our grade 7 and 8 teachers recently finished a graphing and statistical analysis unit that was designed around the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. The essential questions for this project were:

• Can different graphs change the perception of data?
• Are there data sets that are more appropriate for certain graphs?
• How do we determine the rankings/seedings for countries/athletes?

You can view the planning document here. This contains the outcomes and descriptions of various parts of the project.

The project involved students moving through a number of different graphing assignments:

1) in groups, students were assigned a participating country in the 2010 games. Students began by collecting data on their country's previous Olympic record, and then chose a method to predict the number of medals that country would win this year. Student graphed a variety of methods before making their choice.

2) student choose a particular Canadian Athlete to follow. Using the "medal potential" data from the International Olympic Committee website, students created a number of probability experiments on the likelihood that their athlete would advance to the final round of their heats.

3) after the olympics, students imagined they were reporters for their country. In this role, students had to choose particular data sets that would make their country appear better in comparison to the 2 countries above and below them.

Much of the classroom discussion centred on the different ways to calculate which country "won" the Olympics. Students first looked at how the IOC organized the data and found that it is based on the number gold medals (and in the event of a tie subsequently looked at silver medals, and then bronze medals). Students then reorganized that data according to 2 alternate methods: by point system (that is, assigning a point for each colour of medal with the most points for gold) and by total medal count (that is, the sum of gold, silver, and bronze). Students then chose which method in their opinion was the "fairest" way of representing the top 20 countries.

Because of varying opinions on the matter, students had some rich, engaging discussions on this topic. A few students (about 8%) agreed with the IOC system of using the gold medal count. They argued that having a gold medal equates with winning an event and that should have more gravity than any silver or bronze medal as those types of medals do not mean that a country has won a competition or an event. Approximately 5% of the students believed that the total medal count should be used as it is often used by the media. They also argued that the type of medal athletes earn should not matter as it is a huge accomplishment to win any medal and so it should be celebrated regardless of the medal colour.

For the most part (about 86%), however, students argued that a point system is the fairest way of ranking. Using a point system seemed like a compromise between the previous systems: it does not ignore all the other medals but at the same time puts more emphasis on the gold as it is, students argued, the most important one to win.

Overall, the teachers were very pleased with the both the engagement and understanding demonstrated by students. They felt this project was a strong example of how to build mathematical understanding around authentic, real-world situations. Throughout the two weeks of the project, students were excited about both the classroom work and their ability to apply their understanding to the Winter Games.

This video is a discussion with two of the grade 7 and grade 8 teachers explaining how the project unfolded, and the impact that they saw on student learning:

This video captures some of the classroom discussions as students worked in groups to determine how to best represent their country's performance during the Olympics:

One of our grade 6 teachers also used parts of this project in her math classroom. This video captures an interview with one of the grade 6 students as he explains how he made his medal predictions for Germany:

This PDF contains the handouts used by teachers, and a collection of SMARTboard slides used throughout:

Grade 8: Renaissance Debates

As described in previous posts, here and here, our grade 8's have been working through a study of the Italian Renaissance, examining the conditions that existed, and then making comparisons with life in contemporary Calgary.

In order to help bridge the gap between the Italian Renaissance and contemporary Calgary, we made use of a number of local experts on various topics including arts, religion, science, technology, education and communication.

Some of the experts who worked with our kids over the last month included:

Taco van Leperen, Programmer for Smart Technologies
Pedro Sabarita, Former Calgary Art Gallery Owner, Energy Consultant
Stuart Crichton, C.A., Vice President Kinnear Financial Limited
Geoffrey Pradella, Vice President, Public & Government Affairs Calgary Chamber of Commerce
Dave Robinson, VP and Chief Geologist Temple Energy
Allan Dyer, Calgary Science Centre
Tod Hirsch, Senior Economist ATB Financial
Brian Pincott, City of Calgary Alderman for Ward 11
Rob Anders, MP Calgary West
Laurence Abbott, University of Alberta Instructor, PhD Student
Steven Engler, Professor Mount Royal University
Garry Mckinnon, Education Professor, University of Calgary
Terry Rock, Calgary Arts Development
David Scott, MEd, Humanities 8 Instructor Calgary Science School
Gord Ferguson, Sculpture Program Head, Alberta College or Art and Design
Keith D'Eall, Pastor, Varsity Bible Church
Zak Paschak, Alderman Candidate for Ward 8, Calgary

The students collected information from these experts on wikis, which allowed students to share their research and findings on their own specific topics with all the students in the class. This is where wikis can become a powerful tool in the classroom, allowing students to collaborate and share their research from a variety of topics. You can view one of the class wiki pages here.

Using wikis in this way creates a knowledge building environment in the classroom, where students "participate in the creation or modification of knowledge - knowledge that lives ‘in the world’ and is available to be worked on and used by other people." (Scardamalia) The tool provides a platform for the work to be public - and in this particular project, that public audience was both other students in the class as well as experts across the city.

After completing the interviews with experts and documenting the results, the students participated in a final horseshoe debate as a way to synthesize the many parts of the project, including the findings on both the Renaissance and the conditions in Calgary.

The format of horseshoe debate we used was developed by the Galileo Educational Network. In these debates, students participate with 12-13 students at a time. Students sit in a horseshoe shape; their placement is random, not related to which side of the argument they are on. Each student delivers their 3-4 min opening speech, and all the speeches are delivered before students begin to respond to each other. This is a great opportunity to practice close listening and note taking during the debates.

After the opening speeches are all delivered, the second half is the open debate. Here students have the opportunity to earn extra points, by (1) asking other students thoughtful questions, (2) responding to questions, or (3) providing additional evidence in support of questions and arguments. This third element allow students to support other students who have taken their side of the debate, and to earn points for bringing forth specific supporting evidence. The debate facilitator moves around the horseshoe debate in order, allowing all students to contribute.

Leading up to the debates, teachers assisted the students in building effective arguments, supporting their ideas with specific details, and incorporating sources of knowledge into their speeches. One approach to designing clear and well supported arguments is the "Rule of Three" where students use a framework of (1) stating, (2) explaining and (3) supporting their arguments. Teaching materials on the rule of three are given below.

After completing the first draft of their speeches, students had the opportunity to peer edit as well as practice their speeches at home, before the final debates.

This is the rubric designed by Galileo for the Horseshoe Debates, with information on the Rule of Three and practicing their debate speeches at home:

Here's some sampling of the audio from the Renaissance Debates:

Finally, here's one of the opening speeches written by the students:

Making Sense of Inquiry: Metacognition

Dr. Shelley Robinson, Assistant Principal

An important part of inquiry-based learning is helping students to develop the ability to be metacognitive in their approach to learning. By definition, “cognition refers to the process of knowing. Meta, derived from the Greek, means ‘beyond’ or ‘from’. Metacognition, then, refers to knowing how we learn best and consciously controlling our learning…” (Foster, et al., 2002, p. 5).

Quite commonly, the work of teachers, when grappling with these metacognitive considerations in their school planning, often begins when they consider three guiding questions as a starting point to assist in self-understanding: “1. What do I find easy to learn? 2) What do I find difficult to learn? And 3) What conditions help me to learn challenging materials?”

It is important to think of “meta” being attached to other learning domains, such as the meta-affective (emotions); meta-conative (motivations); meta-kinesthetic (body); and meta-spiritual (inspirations).

Meta-questions or conversations could resemble the following (using fine arts as an example):

1. Metacognitive: What fine art strategy have I used? Is it working? If not, what alternate strategies could I use?
2. Meta-affective: What am I feeling most strongly about in this fine art learning experience? How are my feelings impacting my learning?
3. Meta-conative: What motivates me in the arts? What blocks me? How can I motivate myself?
4. Meta-spiritual: Where did the idea come from? What inspires me?
5. Meta-kinesthetic: Am I tired? How am I breathing? How is my present body experience influencing my learning in the arts? (Robinson, 2007)

Some educators incorporate a series of questions in journaling activities to help students reflexively prepare to create, before, during and after the activity. Inquiry-based learning involves considerable reflexivity, and these metacognitive teaching prompts help students to think about their learning.