There
is a fixation on trailing or lagging indicators that has become ubiquitous. In education, the obsession almost addiction
to “after the fact” or autopsy data analysis has generated absurd policy and
practices that work against the very ends we seek to achieve. I liken this practice to the basketball coach
who is extremely dissatisfied with their free throw shooting performance in
games but neither schedules time to instruct, practice, record or monitor free
throw shooting in practice.
As
I posted last week, End of Grade and End of Course results (trailing indicators)
have import and utility – but must be reviewed and used in context. The inability to understand ongoing
monitoring, “inspection” is probably the most misunderstood essential to using
data to inform decisions, making modifications or adjustments, and seriously
preventing failed learning.
I
am convinced that failed learning as well as the failure to learn must be
significantly disrupted if not eliminated.
And,
it can!!!
Though
far from a panacea, we have longed understood that frequent monitoring of
teaching and learning is key to individual as well as corporate success of
learners. Frequent monitoring as
suggested from the school effects research is examining leading as well as
trailing indicators of learning.
A
critical leading indicator of student learning is the design and implementation
of effective instruction. To do so
requires skill sets such as:
1.
Reflection and reviewing
what students already know and can do;
2.
What they need to
know and be able to do;
3.
Identification of
instructional strategies to achieve the desired learning;
4.
Selecting
available instructional tools or resources;
5.
Knowing and
articulating to students how they will demonstrate their learning; and
6.
Knowing what to
monitor during instruction to inform any and all adjustments or correction of
instruction.
Argumentatively
the aforementioned six (6) skills barely scratch the surface of what effective
teachers do consistently every day. They
do illuminate however leading indicators that are seldom systematically
monitored or measured. That is,
effective teaching requires effective planning.
Effective planning requires time.
How is this time monitored or measured?
As
a leading indicator of learning, the time and its’ use toward effective lesson
design needs to be monitored. I don’t
believe that simply requiring teachers to submit their lesson plans is
sufficient. Rather, it is the use of
time that becomes the opportunity to improve design and implementation.
Phil
Schlechty’s work on student or learner engagement remains seminal and as such
should be required learning for all educators.
Embedded in his work are leading indicators of learning (He has created
some very powerful tools to monitor and measure engagement).
The
level of engagement as well as the duration of engagement are both indicators
that inform both instruction and student progress toward meeting or exceeding
standards. Engagement is also one
indicator of effective lesson or unit design. Monitoring and measuring student
engagement is critical to student success. However, I venture to say that again, more or
often than not, we give lip service to student engagement but don’t
systematically monitor or measure it – daily!
Lastly
let me share that frequent monitoring requires SMART. Though obvious to some the concept and
construct of SMART is missing from monitoring and measuring leading indicators
of learning. The acronym SMART is specific,
measurable, actionable, relevant, and timely. Though there are variations to SMART –
sometimes its’ strategic rather than specific or attainable rather than
actionable, the idea here is being intentional about monitoring and measuring
leading indicators.
I
believe being intentional with respect to monitoring and measuring leading
indicators of learning requires a thoughtful, comprehensive examination of
time. In all likelihood, our educators
will continue to be expected to do more and produce more with less and less
time. Therefore, now more than ever
leadership must demonstrate courage, creativity, and commitment to thinking
differently about the use of time.
If
we treat the monitoring of both planning and engagement as two very important
leading indicators of learning we will see results.
Next week I will explore just how this can and
must be achieved –
No comments:
Post a Comment