Tag Archives: effective instruction

If You Are Lost in the Lesson, Call a Time Out, Kiddo. It’s Okay

Posted on by
Reply

“Time out! Stop, take a breather, and let’s take a moment to talk about this.”

In many games there are signals a player can make that says “Time out!” Athletes use their hands to make a letter “T” to stop play. When actors lose their line, they stop, look to the prompter, and get their cue and proceed. When kids play tag or other run-around games, they yell “Freeze” and everybody stops cold in their tracks. Children need a time out signal in the classroom; a signal that says, “Stop the action. We need to talk about this.” Or, to extend the sports analogies, kids need a time out for a breathing space and a chance to talk over what they are learning so that they get their lesson right.

The problem is that most children think saying “time out” in the classroom means that they are dumb. If other children are not needing a time out, they must be smart enough to be learning the lesson. Hence, if I need a time out, I am not smart – I am dumb. And, no child wants to draw “look at the dumb kid” attention down upon himself. They would rather not learn than appear dumb.

At first blush, one might wonder if learning time outs really are necessary or a good thing in the management of a classroom. Should children be allowed to stop the flow of a lesson? Would they abuse the opportunity? The answer to these questions should be viewed from the student perspective. After all, causing all students to be successful learners is the outcome of interest. With student learning in mind, heck yes, allowing any child the option to pause and review what the class is learning makes a lot of sense. We know that the usual and traditional teacher inquiry asking “Does anyone have a question?” usually creates no more than silence. And, we know that waiting until after children take a quiz or test to identify what they did not learn through initial teaching is not the most effective strategy for creating successful learning. Then correct answer is this – for children and their teacher to be responsible for learning both need to have the authority to call a time out and to assure that everyone is getting the learning right.

So, we need a “no harm, no foul” classroom time out signal. Maybe something like the red towel a football coach waves or throws to request a review of the last play. Perhaps a purple card will do. Purple is a noticeable and regal color. A child could hold up or casually flash a purple card at the teacher, a simple gesture that does not draw too much peer attention to a request a review of past instruction. On seeing a purple card, if a teacher only said, “Okay, let’s pause. Tell me what you (heard, saw, known, can do) at this point,” all children would have the opportunity to consider what they heard, saw, know and can do with what they have just learned. And, if the teacher asks several children to review their learning, the teacher can make corrections and add instruction to strengthen student learning and then proceed with confidence.

From the long view, how good would it be if at the end of a unit of instruction a teacher knew that all children were ready for an assessment because there had been enough pauses to create confidence that all children had heard, saw, know and can do what was taught. Not knowing if children learned really is not an acceptable option and not having a “time out” protocol increases the likelihood that we do not have confidence in what children learned.

Public Ed Is Focused on the Wrong End Game

Posted on by
Reply

Public education is focused on the wrong end game. For too long the leaders responsible for public education have focused on the graduated student in an adult-world context. For the purpose of daily and school-year instruction this traditional end game is too abstract and too distant to meaningfully connect with everyday teaching and learning. The end game should be to cause every child to successfully learn their annual curricula on a weekly or monthly basis regardless of their learning conditions. This new end game is meaningful, measureable, and accountable and directly connects teaching and learning in ways that schools, teachers and students, and communities can see and understand. Change the end game focus to change the end game outcomes.

There is nothing wrong with a big picture end game when you are willing to wait until the “end” to understand your success. It is like leading a life for the purpose of going to heaven when you die. Such a purpose provides excellent tenets for living, but you won’t know the success of your life’s mission until you die.

Or, hearing a pre-school child say “I will be a fireman when I grow up” and having the local fire commander write in the station log “In fifteen years, following high school graduation and technical school training Tommy will be sufficiently educated to enter our probationary program.” Maybe and maybe not.

A long distance end game is not a good strategy for ensuring a high quality education for every child every day of every school year. The end game must be shorter-termed with clearly stated end-of-instruction learning outcomes. And, the end game plan must drive instruction so that every child successfully learns their curricula.

Imagine how this works. The school mission reads:

This year your child will successfully learn her (grade or subject) curricula. To accomplish this, her teachers will use best instructional practices including frequent assessments and reports of learning accomplishments.

Another way to understand the end game problem is to ask “And, whose success is the measure of interest?” When the district’s end game focus is to prepare graduates for life after school, it is the district’s rate and degree of graduation preparation that is of interest. When the end game is each child’s successful learning of an annual curricula, it is child learning that is of interest. Child learning is an appropriate and better end game.

Once again, change the end game focus to change the end game outcomes. The management piece for this new end game includes:

  • analyzing and dissecting the curricula into instructional segments,
  • pre- and post-assessments of each segment,
  • necessary pre-teaching and re-teaching to assure every child’s success with each segment,
  • a combination of personalized and grouped direct and indirect instructional sessions within each segment, and
  • advancement to the next segment only when learning indicates readiness for that segment.
  • Learning accomplishments will be recorded and reported to parents at the end of each segment.

The upside to this new end game is that instruction is directly connected to the immediate and annual learning outcomes. The connection is clear, measureable and accountable. It is not like the goal in a traditional outcome in which children are taught a curricula of Civics in 8th or 9th grade for the purpose of making them better informed citizens as adults. Admirable goal, but its outcome is disconnected from its instruction.

An upside to this end game is that each child is a successful learner regardless of their learning conditions. Exceptions are not made. Children who are not English-speakers are taught the vocabulary and concepts of their curricula before and as they are taught the curricula. Children who need special education assistance receive it in conjunction with their curricular instruction not in lieu of or in addition to. Children who need more time for their initial learning get more time for their initial learning; it is more effective and efficient to assure successful initial learning than it is to remediate learning later.

An upside to this end game is that as every child successfully learns their annual curricula they also are progressing toward the district’s graduation goals of college or career readiness, responsible citizenship, economic productivity, and community contribution. The district’s success in causing these summative goals is ensured by every child’s success with their annual curricular goals.

A downside to this end game lies in its incumbent accountability. When the school says that “every child will successfully learn their annual curricula regardless of learning conditions” this becomes the school’s and the teachers’ annual commitment. Sadly, very few if any schools have ever fulfilled a commitment to assure the learning success of every child.

This raises a really large question of “Why not?” The answer is that the traditional end game focuses upon distant learning outcomes disconnected from annual teaching and learning and that obscures the reality that many children do not successfully learn their annual curricula. Most learn just enough to “pass.” Schools and teachers were and are seldom held accountable for student success on clearer and shorter-term learning outcomes. Our obsession with student and school outcomes on statewide and international academic assessments is indicative of the current focus on the big picture end game and not timely and locally-measured student learning

A downside to this end game is that educational leaders need to be so connected to the instruction of every teacher and the learning of every child in their school that these leaders can assist teachers to make necessary adjustments to instruction when children are not successfully learning. This requires a significant change in leadership and the skill sets of instructional supervision. But, this also is the most significant upside to the new end game. School leaders and teachers will be immediately connected to their teaching and child learning in their school. This is an upside that can and must be achieved.

It may be impossible for public education to implement all of the mandates for educational reform that are currently being demanded if its leaders continue to use the traditional end game focus. If we can change the end game, we can improve the learning outcomes for every child. The improved outcomes of the new end game will change the way in which everyone, include educational reformers, looks at public education. Change the focus now!