East Schools

2017-2018: Brian Davidson will facilitate the East Schools (Big Lake and Likely) this year.

Big Lake: Focus: Ownership of learning through core competencies and school-wide culture of thinking
Checking: We made many changes to our physical learning environment to promote space for thinking and learning, including:

Pre-inquiry and post-inquiry self-assessment activity through ‘Cultures of Thinking’;

Funnel: to what extent does problem-solving move through the teacher (or other adult).

Post-inquiry self-assessments reveal that teachers and EAs see more problem-solving happening independently and with less teacher/aide involvement. The work is never done, and we do collectively agree that spending time working on the “language” of thinking with our whole staff to support students will be necessary learning for September and beyond.

We took photos and displayed images of student evidence of growth in independence and core competencies.

Students have increased the frequency with which they talk about their thinking, their learning and their independence.
At the year-end Celebration of Learning and Awards Assembly we recognized students for achievement in the areas of the 8 Successful Learner Traits. We emphasized the importance of being recognized as a thinker, a creative, strategic, industrious, etc.

Anecdotal feedback from students and parents support the changes we have made in our school environment and culture. One parent’s comment was, “You have changed the school. The students have had an amazing year and have had so many new learning opportunities connected to a new way of learning. Some kids have had the best year they’ve ever had.”

Reflection: This year, we have begun to transform our school by creating and promoting a culture of thinking. We have made thinking visible by displaying the process of thinking and development of ideas. In our physical learning environment, we have arranged the space to facilitate thoughtful interactions. We have focused on interactions and relationships by showing a respect for and valuing of one another’s contributions of ideas and thinking in a spirit of ongoing collaborative inquiry. We have worked as a good team, with purposeful intent. We are using a language of thinking that provides students with the vocabulary for describing and reflecting on thinking.

Next year, we intend to work towards transparency with students, so they are aware of the inquiry direction and can be involved in its ongoing development. We intend to provide structured thinking opportunities and provide purposeful activities that require students to engage in thinking and the development of understanding as part of their ongoing experience of the classroom. We seek to explore how the use of common language as a staff and school community (involving parents) about thinking and visible learning will increase achievement and continued individualization of learning for our students. We intend to explore how documenting learning through portfolio assessment can help make thinking (and student voice) visible, meaningful, shareable and amplified.

We are proud of the learning happening for staff and students in our school and intend to continue to network, share and celebrate our learning because we think it is meaningful and transferable to others in our school district.

Likely: Focus: To what extent will explicitly teaching the connection between reading and writing improve literacy skills in the multi-grade classroom?
Checking: The focus for the entire year has been on non-fiction reading, research skills, summarizing and evaluating what they read. We have completed a number of research reports across the grades and are currently involved in an inquiry project of their own choice. The hope is that the students will take some of the skills we have practiced and utilize them into completing their personal inquiry project.
Reflection: The move to a more unstructured, inquiry-based project has been difficult for some of the students. The general reading and comprehension level in the school is low and many of the students struggle with organizational skill. That being said, they have all eagerly finding out information on their chosen topic and trying to determine a way to represent and demonstrate their learning. We will have an Inquiry Fair during the final week of June.

2016-2017: The East Schools (Big Lake, Lac La Hache, and Likely) were self-directed this year.

Literacy: To what extent will explicitly teaching the connection between reading and writing improve literacy skills in the multi-grade classroom?
Analysis: By using Adrienne Gear Reading and Writing Powers strategies as well as implicitly teaching through mentor text and anchor books, we saw improvement in literacy skills and transference to greater independence in our students. Evidence of this includes an increase in written output and employment of strategies within writing by engaging readers through detail. Students show more confidence and engagement in the reading and writing process. For example, when teaching visualization, students were able to include vocabulary to allow the reader of their written work to visualize what they were trying to convey.
Reflection: The time that it takes to teach the reading and writing strategies is a slower process than what we originally thought but the product is a richer learning experience. It was very powerful for the students to recognize themselves as authors, which helped increase their desire to write. Students found it easier to grasp the reading strategies, but the writing strategies proved to be more complex for them. The Daily 5 and CAFÉ framework allowed for individualized instruction and conferencing in the multi grade classroom. The model of PLC classroom sharing and opening up our teaching practices with authentic classroom lessons, really improved our personal practice and understanding. This lead to rich discussions and collaboration within our PLC.
Numeracy: How will the use of “I can” statements and Freshgrade within the Guided Math Framework help improve students’ self-assessment and ultimately ownership of their learning?
Analysis: LLH – Use of Mathletics (Math with Technology) to increase student engagement in Math. Students built up stamina and by being able to see their results, they were able to self-monitor, check and re-check, and work independently. Students were engaged. The Guided Math Framework allowed teachers to target specific learning areas with individual students. More students were on-task and learning was more meaningful. Based on assessments of independent work and Mathletics reports, students showed improvement in the specific Math unit and with basic facts.

BL and Likely – the Guided Math framework continues to allow for more individualized instruction in the multi-grade class. Students are self-assessing more and overall more engaged in Math. Students enjoy rotating through the framework (Math with a Teacher, Independent, Technology and math games/partner math.) Students can move through the framework independently, while participating in meaningful Math activities. In our professional opinions – GM is the only way to successfully teach Math in the multi-grade classroom. See reflection for further evidence.

Reflection: LLH – for a multi-grade classroom, the GM framework is the only way to meet the needs of the individual students. Mathletics is an engaging program that connects with the curriculum, and allows the teacher to closely monitor progress and achievement. It is easy for students to access.

BL and Likely – too many “I can” statements linked to the content or math strands were overwhelming, which led to challenges with long term use of Freshgrade. Initial implementation was successful and students were engaged in the process, while using more Math language and self-assessing. However, the sheer number of “I can” statements was cumbersome. Next steps, could be to use the curricular competencies in Freshgrade. For example: I can use mental math…. I can estimate reasonably etc. The use of “I can” statements within the GM framework had a positive effect on student ownership, self-assessment, and independence. For example, students at Big Lake would refer to the “I can” statement to assess and enhance their learning. They noticed areas where they needed more practice and adapted their choices based on their individual needs and goals.

All schools dabbled with the use of Number Talks to expand Math vocabulary and build mental Math and computational skills. Verbalizing math helped students to visualize the fluidity of numbers and see that there are many ways or strategies to solve a Math problem. Number Talks showed making mistakes and working through a problem is a powerful process. The misconceptions can drive instruction. In terms of our learning, we need to practice more with facilitating Number Talks and encouraging Math language between students.

2015-2016: Brian Davidson will facilitate the East Schools (Big Lake and Likely) this year.

To what extent will combining and making connections between Adrienne Gear’s Reading and Writing Power improve student engagement and motivation in writing?

Big Lake:

Analysis: By linking and making connections between Adrienne Gear’s Reading and Writing Power lessons, student engagement and motivation in writing has improved greatly. Three types of data collected support this statement:

For example: during a story writing unit many conferring notes had the same comment: stay on topic. We ‘taught’ the importance of authors staying on topic so the reader is not confused. When tangents were discussed in conferences, students did not take offense to omiting writing that was off topic and actually were better able to identify ‘tangents’ in their own writing.

This consistent link between reading and writing instruction seemed to change the students’ attitudes towards revising their work. We observed the students viewing themselves as authors, determined to keep their reader in mind. This resulted in more motivation and ownership in the revision stage of writing. Identifying areas of improvement in student writing became easier as the student ‘read’ their writing from a reader’s perspective. As their motivation increased so did their success and need to share ‘proof’ of improvement.

The conscious gathering of data in this process resulted in our instruction becoming more intentional to connect reading with writing. This increased the relevance for the students, along with their motivation, engagement and success. Students want to write more!

Reflection: When we started this inquiry question I predicted positive results would be gleaned from reluctant writers; the inquiry would not be as relevant for established writers. I was pleasantly surprised that positive results were collected from all levels of writers via teacher observations, conferences and writing samples. All students, primary and intermediate, showed improvement in their engagement and motivation towards writing by making explicit instructional connections between reading and writing.

A writer in my class had no trouble with engagement and motivation to write. When suggestions were made to improve her writing, she seemed almost offended and that lesson were not really for her but for those that didn’t ‘like’ to write. Connecting reading lessons with writing goals help shift the focus from her to her audience. Making revision time more about how to reach her audience as an author, increased her engagement in lessons and suggestions made to revise her work. This was a surprise to me, yet it was observed at both the primary and intermediate levels with similarly-minded students.

Here is an example of the improvement in engagement and motivation I expected to see: A below grade level reader and writer was inhibited by not knowing how to spell, making her a reluctant writer. She became a fluent writer by early spring time by applying her great skill at decoding to her need to know how to spell words she wanted to write done. Our conferences were mostly about what a great decoder she was and how this skill would help her to read more words, learn new words and move up into more difficult books. She felt very proud to actually possess a reading skill, as she seemed to be aware she was below grade level. When she learned she could use these decoding skills to help her write, her writing was less fragmented as she could keep an idea in her head and didn’t have to ask how to spell words. She would speak proudly of how she could now “just write”.

Another surprise from the data collected was the realization of how much the kids love to share what they have learned. Having specific reading and writing goals helped students to be more aware of their learning. The resulting pride they felt effected more than just their level of motivation; it was like they needed to share.

The process of visiting these teachers and seeing the work in the classroom was a change that I would love to repeated next year. Having to demonstrate how I linked reading and writing instruction for my students made me more accountable. I think my students had deeper learning form this accountability and consistency that resulted. The grouping with other multi-grade teachers to collaborate with was very valuable. This collaboration lead to my highlight of the year: M.O.V.E. This acronym stands for Meaning, Organization, Voice and Edits. It was developed into a rubric to guide, self-assess and teacher assess both ‘walking’ stories and ‘climbing’ stories. It was designed to meld with C.A.F.É. used in reading. The writing outcomes included in the rubric allowed students to ‘declare’ writing goals in the same way students declared which reading strategies they were to focus on. The use of one-on-one conferences in writing time mimicked the how we conferenced during reading time, deepening student ownership of their strengths and improvements. The framework in assessing reading transferred over smoothly to assessing writing by applying the M.O.V.E. rubric. Student’s comfort with the reading framework helped them easily adopt the M.O.V.E. rubric to the point of looking forward to the revision time in writing to ‘prove’ the achievement of declared goals. This latest discovery has been ‘the icing on the cake’ as they say!

Likely:

Analysis: By combining and making the connection between Adrienne Gear’s Reading Power and Writing Power we noticed that student engagement and motivation to write was greatly improved. This was first evident when the students started asking to write more visualization pieces. Although the volume of writing didn’t increase substantially, the content became more descriptive and interesting. This was due to explicitly teaching specific writing strategies and allowing the students time to practice these. Students learned the individual strategies and through multiple writing pieces, learned to combine them. For example, the School Wide Write at the beginning of the year showed minimal details, was short, list like, and was not engaging for the audience. Our most recent School Wide Write showed awareness for the audience, with students using the strategies they have been learning, and creating more in depth brainstorms, which transferred into longer and more detailed pieces. Another observation we had was when creating the criteria as a class for the most recent School Wide Write, the students were more involved and able to verbalize the writing strategies they were to include and established higher expectations for themselves. Earlier in the year, when creating the criteria for their visualization write, they had troubles thinking of the strategies to include and had low expectations for their writing. Through all of the writing activities students showed more pride in their writing and were eager to share with the class.
Reflection: At the beginning of the year I came into my class with certain expectations and learned quickly that my expectations did not align with where the students were. By altering my expectations to be more individualized to my students and teaching specific writing lessons, the students gained the tools to write stronger pieces. These types of writing activities are very successful for multi-grade schools as there is opportunity to create a common language throughout the school as well as provide individualized instruction to students. We noticed this language transfer into other subject areas as the students were making connections and using the language they learned. The ability to collaborate and plan together allowed for more consistency between the teaching and learning, and ultimately more engagement and motivation from students. Adrienne Gear’s resources were easy to follow and became even more powerful when combining the lessons from both the Writing Power and Reading Power. Finding anchor books for lessons required minimal work as Adrienne Gear sets up lessons with wonderful books that are engaging. In addition, working with teachers from another rural school in the same multi-grade setting was a valuable process. Visiting each other’s schools, watching demo lessons, debriefing and planning were the key components of this process.

2014-2015: The East Schools (Dog Creek, Big Lake, Likely and Wildwood) will be working together this year, supported by Brian Davidson. Their inquiry question is:

To what extent will individualizing instruction improve reading skills?
Analysis:

Big Lake: Individualizing instruction has improved students reading skills. PM benchmarks provide quick and easy evidence of Reading level and growth. However, it’s the conference notes that provide more specific and effective evidence. In the past our Reading instruction was delivered to the class as a whole and lessons focused mostly on the needs of the middle-leveled group. We have seen more improvement across all levels of reading in our classes after applying strategies for individual instruction.

With individual instruction the basic categories of vulnerable, middle and advanced become more varied and based upon need rather than general grouping. We are now teaching all the levels of reading in our classes beyond the basic three groups to include individual needs, no matter how many there happen to be. We believe that the ‘framework’ of reading instruction allows for the individualization to happen. Knowing these individual needs allows the teacher to guide her teaching practice to meet the needs of the students.

In terms of evidence, the framework allowing for daily assessment provides daily evidence. The evidence gathered is more specific than PM benchmarks as their ‘levels’ are just a snapshot. With conference notes, specific information as to time spent actually reading, ability to choose ‘at-level’ books, self-monitoring on task reading behaviours, ability to articulate and apply strategies, interests, challenges and personal reflections can be recorded. From a PM benchmark, we could not determine what it would take to improve the student’s reading skills, but with conference notes, we actually get more than one idea and this usually comes from the students themselves. Evidence from conference notes also guides instruction more authentically as they are connected to student need at the time, whereas past instructional practice was guided by overviews of a logical sequence but not always relevant.

A notable off-shoot of gathering conference notes was the development of stronger teacher/student relationships. The almost-daily setting of gathering conference notes lent itself well to an environment of trust. Over time, the feeling of safety enabled risk taking, allowing students to take ownership of their needs. We witnessed the power of this ownership in student motivation to improve. There was more ‘intent’ on the students’ part to ‘show’ improvement than witnessed with past teaching practice.

Likely: Individualizing instruction significantly improved students’ reading skills. We know this because, although, the final May PM Benchmarks are not yet complete, we have evidence of student improvement in reading through the PM Benchmark books that are currently in their book bins. Also, from notes in our conferring book. Reviewing the notes (data) in our conferring book, we can track what reading strategies, comprehension skills and supports given with reading. Students also relay their reading goals to us and are more verbal with the strategies they apply while reading. Overall, by providing a framework for individualized instruction, with time set aside for ‘read to self’ and picking good fit books, students spend more time reading and are engaged in this process.

Wildwood: Individualizing instruction has significantly improved reading skills. We know this because, we see results in running records. We have seen the improvement in the quality of conversations in conferring with our students about what they are reading. We have observed a great deal of progression from simple re-tell of stories to higher level thinking skills, such as making solid inferences, asking connected thick questions and clarifying meaning through connections. We have also noticed a great shift in reading behaviours and attitudes around reading. By tapping into student’s intrinsic value of reading and reading behaviours we have seen an increase in the responsibility students take, and an increase in the desire to participate in reading activities which has allowed for academic growth.

Reflection:

Big Lake: I’ve learned many things:

give myself permission to evolve like I give my students
taking time to collaborate and reflect with a colleague is essential to influence my practice
passing on the ownership and accountability to the students is more productive than my old way of teaching
my learning is an evolution so is my teaching practice-it’s not going to be perfect and it’s never going to look like what I read in a book or heard at a conference
students’ answers to open-ended questions take time to develop in terms of their ability to articulate
students’ ability to articulate becomes easier with explicit teaching of terminology related to their strengths and learning goals

Dog Creek: Individualizing instruction has the potential to fundamentally improve students’ reading skills. I use ‘potential’ advisedly, since PLC for me this year has been a journey from an intellectual belief that individualizing instruction, in whichever guise (Daily 5, CAFÉ, etc.), through the terrain of flagging energy and frustration with my own practice, to a professional conclusion that I need and want to change my teaching to reflect the undoubted efficiencies and strengths of individualized instruction. I know this because of the generous, pragmatic and insightful observations and information that my fellow PLC members have shared this year. To take me from professional interest to conviction is no easy road; I don’t think I would have made this journey without the humour and support of the PLC group, an invaluable resource and professional mainstay.

Likely: We have learned that collaboration is essential in a rural multi-grade setting. Katelyn felt it was beneficial to come to the meetings, participate in the discussion, then incorporate the inquiry into practice. We have noticed students enjoy the individualized instruction and conferring time. They also respond well to the framework because expectations are clearly defined. When we stray from the framework, there is less focus and learning time is lost. In fact, as willing participants they ask us if they can ‘read to self’ or ‘work on writing’ or when can we do Daily Five. We would like to strengthen the Daily 5 Framework and give students the opportunity for more choice within the structure. Often, because we co-teach and have established separate focuses (Sari – reading K-7; Kate – writing 3-7). As part of our repertoire, we would keep the framework and the conferring book. A future goal is to include formal assessments within the conferring notes. We would like to use the conferring book more and include students’ self-assessment. Moving forward, scheduling the conferences in advance will give equal assessments and instruction for all students. We also wonder what it would look like to co-teach all subjects, specifically LA.

Wildwood: We learned that individualized instruction really does have a large impact on the attainment of reading skills. It also allowed us to link the skills learned in reading to writing instruction. It gave us the ability to see the individual strengths and needs of our students, taking away the abstract age/grade barriers created by the curriculum.

We would keep the time in our schedule dedicated to conferring and running records. We would also really like to be able to keep the time in our schedule that allows for the overlap in teaching time so that there is an opportunity to collaborate with our colleagues.

Anecdotal notes were effective in guiding teacher practice, allowing us to see the individual needs of our students. The notes also allowed us to see the subtleties in progression of skill attainment, attitude shifts and independence.