data action model webinar 9.23.2014 - ascdfiles.ascd.org/pdfs/onlinelearning/webinars/webinar... ·...

9/17/14

1

Center for Authentic PLCs

Data Action Model A Teacher-Friendly, Systematic

Model for Reviewing & Responding to Student Data

Daniel R. Venables September 23, 2014

Executive Director Webinar Center for Authentic PLCs

www.authenticPLCs.com


Data Action Model

Going From Being Overwhelmed by the Numbers

to Actually Increasing Them



Contact 411 for Daniel R. Venables

[email protected]

www.authenticplcs.com 803 / 206-3578

@authenticplcs www.authenticPLCs.com

Copyright 2014 ASCD

9/17/14

2



How Teachers Can Turn Data Into Action

(ASCD, 2014)



The Practice of Authentic PLCs:

A Guide to Effective Teacher Teams

(Corwin, 2011)


Need for a

Process

Schools tend to be:

• Good at amassing data • Good at looking (or attempting

to look) at data • Bad at responding to the data • Bad at changing instructional

practice based on the data

www.authenticPLCs.com #data2action

Copyright 2014 ASCD

9/17/14

3


Data Action Model

Systematic, User-friendly

• Slows the process down • Avoids rushing to conclusions • Relies on evidence rather than “hunches” • Forces instructional change



At a Glance

(the Nutshellized

version)

Organized by Meetings

• Review Existing Data • Explore additional, relevant data • Identify Learning Gaps • Link to Instructional Gaps • Set a goal and Action Plan (that includes new instructional strategies) • Implement in Classroom • Evaluate Success



At a Glance

(the Nutshellized

version)

DATA MEETING 1 Reviewing Existing Data & Asking Questions

DATA MEETING 2 Triangulating the Data DATA MEETING 3

Determining Gaps & Goals DATA MEETING 4 Planning for Action

DATA MEETING 5 Evaluating Success & Next Steps


Copyright 2014 ASCD

9/17/14

4

4. Decide an Evaluation Metric


Data Meeting

1

Reviewing Existing Data and Asking Questions

1. Notice & Wonder Protocol 2. Ask Exploratory Questions 3.  Decide which artifacts are

needed & who will bring them



Notice &

Wonder

Notice Statements

• factual observations • free of inference and speculation • no mention of causality • reflect what is present (in the data) and not why this may be so


Copyright 2014 ASCD

9/17/14

5

District Teacher All READING(TRACKERSchool Grade 7 SUBGROUP(BY(STRANDDate Subject ELA Assessment6Date 3-Feb-13 FORM%G

PERCENT(OF(ITEMS(ANSWERED(CORRECTLY No.6of6Students 123

Subgroup Mean66

Gathering6Information6Skills

Organizing6Information6Skills

Analyzing6Information6Skills

Linking6Information6Skills

(No.6Students) Scaled6Score Literal6Level Interpretive6Level Analytical6Level Critical6Level

All6Students6(123) 757 70 58 73 80Female6(65) 760 73 11/15 71 5/7 78 7/9 80 4/5Male6(58) 754 67 10/15 43 3/7 67 6/9 80 4/5White6(47) 772 73 11/15 100 7/7 78 7/9 100 5/5Black6(32) 730 60 9/15 57 4/7 33 3/9 40 2/5Asian6(6) 812 100 15/15 100 7/7 89 8/9 80 4/5Hispanic6(26) 726 33 5/15 43 3/7 56 5/9 80 4/5Multiracial6(12) 743 80 12/15 29 2/7 44 4/9 80 4/5ED6(49) 728 53 8/15 57 4/7 33 3/9 40 2/5SWD6(22) 702 27 4/15 43 3/7 22 2/9 40 2/5ELL6(18) 712 27 4/15 14 1/7 67 6/9 40 2/5ED%=%Economically%Disadvantaged;%SWD%=%Students%with%Disabilities;%ELL%=%English%Language%Learners



Notice &

Wonder

Wonder Statements

• “I wonder {why, if, how, whether}” • may be speculative, inferential • may reflect possible causes • may be comparative • should include statements about instruction (and not merely about student performance) • may or may not be linked to Notice Statements


District Teacher All READING(TRACKERSchool Grade 7 SUBGROUP(BY(STRANDDate Subject ELA Assessment6Date 3-Feb-13 FORM%G

PERCENT(OF(ITEMS(ANSWERED(CORRECTLY No.6of6Students 123

Subgroup Mean66

Gathering6Information6Skills

Organizing6Information6Skills

Analyzing6Information6Skills

Linking6Information6Skills

(No.6Students) Scaled6Score Literal6Level Interpretive6Level Analytical6Level Critical6Level

All6Students6(123) 757 70 58 73 80Female6(65) 760 73 11/15 71 5/7 78 7/9 80 4/5Male6(58) 754 67 10/15 43 3/7 67 6/9 80 4/5White6(47) 772 73 11/15 100 7/7 78 7/9 100 5/5Black6(32) 730 60 9/15 57 4/7 33 3/9 40 2/5Asian6(6) 812 100 15/15 100 7/7 89 8/9 80 4/5Hispanic6(26) 726 33 5/15 43 3/7 56 5/9 80 4/5Multiracial6(12) 743 80 12/15 29 2/7 44 4/9 80 4/5ED6(49) 728 53 8/15 57 4/7 33 3/9 40 2/5SWD6(22) 702 27 4/15 43 3/7 22 2/9 40 2/5ELL6(18) 712 27 4/15 14 1/7 67 6/9 40 2/5ED%=%Economically%Disadvantaged;%SWD%=%Students%with%Disabilities;%ELL%=%English%Language%Learners


Copyright 2014 ASCD

9/17/14

6


Exploratory Questions

Exploratory Questions

• are derived from Wonders • reflect past practice or results • provide the compass for gathering artifacts/more info • focus the team (and filter out extraneous information) • address issues worthy of investigation • lead to identifying gaps



Exploratory Questions (examples)

How are we assessing our students’ mastery of making inferences from text? Is it in a manner consistent with the depth of mastery expected by the PARCC assessment? How are we presently teaching modeling with quadratic functions, and why do our students do so poorly on them?



Data Meeting

2

Triangulating the Data

• Review of artifacts • Focus Exploratory Question • Track Learning & Instructional Gaps


Copyright 2014 ASCD

9/17/14

7


DATA ACTION MODEL © 2012 Daniel R. Venables

ARTIFACT TRACKING SHEET 2.0

for use with TRIANGULATION Step

Artifact(Type!!•!data!table!!!!!•!!student!work!•!!teacher!lesson!plan(s)!•!!teacher!instruction!calendar!•!!test!items!!!!!•!!unit!plan!

Observed(Learner(Gap((as!evidenced!by!artifact)(!

OR(Observed(Instructional(Gap((as!evidenced!by!artifact)!

Relative(Significance!!(if!Learner!Gap!observed)!!!How$important$is$this$

skill/concept?

Prominence!!(if!Learner!Gap!observed)!!

Speculate$as$to$how$widespread$this$gap$is$with$all$the$students?

LG!!!!!IG! 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5

LG!!!!!IG! 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5

LG!!!!!IG! 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5

LG!!!!!IG! 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5

LG!!!!!IG! 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5

LG!!!!!IG! 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5

LG!!!!!IG! 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5

LG!!!!!IG! 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5

LG!!!!!IG! 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5

LG!!!!!IG! 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5

LG!!!!!IG! 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5 1!!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5


Data Meeting

3

Determining Gaps & Goals

1. Identify Learning gaps 2. Identify Instructional gaps 3.  Set a Target Learning Goal 4.  Decide an evaluation metric



Between DM3 and

DM4

Strategies Search

• Einstein’s Insanity • Something old, new, borrowed, blue


Copyright 2014 ASCD

9/17/14

8

PLANNING PROTOCOL v2.1 Rubric Only

A protocol developed by Daniel R. Venables with contributions by Cari Begin to help teacher teams plan quality lessons together. © 2013

As a team, the PLC discusses and evaluates each instructional activity/lesson component the PLC members brought to

this meeting. The PLC uses the following questions as a guide in scoring the activities/components. [Note: During this

step, teachers refrain from making suggestions to improve the materials.]

Alignment. Which component of this lesson best aligns to the standards? Why? What do we think

mastery looks like for these standards?

Impact.How much learning is likely to result from this lesson? Is the gain significant? Where do

students typically have trouble with these concepts and why? Do the activities/components selected

work better for one group or another? Why?

Depth. Are students being pushed (and guided) to think on a high level? How do you know?

Which component(s) of this lesson pushes deeper thinking? Do the activities/components selected lend

themselves to differentiation? How?

Dimension 1 2 3 4

ALIGNMENT TOSTANDARDS

Barely Aligned or NotAligned

Somewhat Aligned Mostly Aligned Completely Aligned

IMPACT ONLEARNING

Low Impact Medium Low Impact Medium High Impact High Impact

STUDENTENGAGEMENT

Low StudentEngagement Likely

Moderately Engagingfor Some Students

Moderately Engagingfor Most Students

Highly Engaging forMost Students

DEPTH OFKNOWLEDGE LEVEL

Recall Skill/Concept Strategic Reasoning Extended Reasoning

TECHNOLOGYINTEGRATION

Opportunities toIntegrate Technology

are Overlooked

Use of SomeTechnologyis Present

Effective andProminent Use of

Technology

Effective andInnovative Use of

Technology

TEACHERFRIENDLINESS

High Maintenance(lots of materials and

prep-‐work)

Low Maintenance(few materials and/or

little prep-‐work)

RIGOR & RELEVANCE A: Teacher Works B: Students Work C: Students Think D: Students Think &Work


Data Meeting

4

Planning for Action

1. Review new strategies/activities 2.  Develop a Data Action Plan



ACTION PLAN TRACKING SHEET for use in Data Meeting 4

GOAL:

Instructional,Tactic!!(be!specific)!

What%will%be%done?

Tactic,Method,Specifically%how%will%it%be%done?

Acting,Party!Who%will%%do%it?

Frequency,How%often%will%this%task%be%

done?%

Completion,Date,

Verifying,Artifacts!What%artifacts%will%serve%as%evidence%that%the%%

Instructional%Tactic%has%been%implemented

! ! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

EVALUATION,METRIC ! !


ACTION PLAN TRACKING SHEET for use in Data Meeting 4

GOAL:

Instructional,Tactic!!(be!specific)!

What%will%be%done?

Tactic,Method,Specifically%how%will%it%be%done?

Acting,Party!Who%will%%do%it?

Frequency,How%often%will%this%task%be%

done?%

Completion,Date,

Verifying,Artifacts!What%artifacts%will%serve%as%evidence%that%the%%

Instructional%Tactic%has%been%implemented

! ! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

EVALUATION,METRIC ! !


Copyright 2014 ASCD

9/17/14

9


Between DM4 and

DM5

Implementation (where the “rubber meets the road”)

• 1 – 4 weeks • PLC continues to meet during Implementation Period • Looks at Teacher Work, Student Work, Issues & Dilemmas, Text



Data Meeting

5

Evaluate Success

• Use Evaluation Metric • Decide next steps



Questions?


Copyright 2014 ASCD

4. Decide an Evaluation Metric

NOTICE & WONDER PROTOCOL -‐ Data

A protocol for analyzing data both descriptively and inferentially developed by Daniel R. Venables

TIME: 40 minutes

Roles: Facilitator, Timekeeper, Scribe

I. Participants are presented with a table and/or graph of data pertaining to their practice. The data may be displayed on a screen for all to see, or it may be given to each PLC member in hardcopy form. (I prefer the former, since graphs and sometimes data in table form are often illustrated in color.) II. Each participant is given a 5 x 7 index card. Quietly and individually, participants write 3 or 4 observations evident in the graph or table. These observations must be free of inference or speculation; they are factually based from objectively examining the display. Each observation starts with the phrase “I notice that…” (5 min) III. Round 1. In turn, each participant reads aloud one new observation that has not yet been shared, each time beginning with the phrase “I notice that…” The scribe records the responses on chart paper or in a Google doc. After the last participant shares one new observation, the first participant offers a second new observation and the process continues until all observations have been shared aloud, without discussion. (5 min) IV. Each participant turns over his index card and quietly writes 3 or 4 speculations or question-‐statements based on the observations heard in Round 1. These speculations attempt to offer possible explanations for the observations, or pose suggestions for pursuing additional data. No attempt should be made to solve the problems that surface; the intent is to gain insights into what the data suggest, how the data are connected and what the data imply. Each speculation starts with the phrase “I wonder why…”, “I wonder if…” “I wonder how…”, or “I wonder whether… (5 min) V. Round 2. In turn, each participant reads aloud one new speculation that has not yet been shared, each time beginning with the phrase “I wonder…” The facilitator records the responses on chart paper. This process continues as in Round 1 until all speculations have been shared aloud, without discussion, except in cases where the facilitator chooses to ask follow-‐up questions to a teacher sharing a Wonder statement or to the team. (10 min) VI. Discussion. The PLC discusses what has been shared and possible causes, connections and links to classroom instruction and notes other additional data that may be needed. (15 min) Adapted from: The Practice of Authentic PLCs: A Guide to Effective Teacher Teams by Daniel R. Venables (Corwin Press, 2011). Reprinted with permission.

Available from

FROM STATE AND COMMON CORE TESTS TO FORMATIVE AND SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS IN THE CLASSROOM, TEACHERS ARE AWASH IN DATA. Reviewing the data can be time-consuming, and the work of translating data into real change can seem overwhelming.

Tapping more than 30 years’ experience as an award-winning teacher and a trainer of PLC coaches, Daniel R. Venables, author of The Practice of Authentic PLCs: A Guide to Effective Teacher Teams, soothes the trepidation of even the biggest “dataphobes” in this essential resource. Field-tested and fine-tuned with professional learning communities around the United States, the Data Action Model is a teacher-friendly, systematic process for reviewing and responding to data in cycles of two to nine weeks. This powerful tool enables you and your teacher team to

• Identify critical gaps in learning and corresponding instructional gaps;

• Collaborate on solutions and develop a goal-driven action plan; and

• Evaluate the plan’s effectiveness after implementation and determine the next course of action.

With easy-to-use templates and protocols to focus and deepen data conversations, this indispensable guide delineates exactly what should be accomplished in each team meeting to translate data into practice. In the modern sea of data, this book is your life preserver!

AuthorDANIEL R. VENABLES is founder and executive director of the Center for Authentic PLCs (www.authenticPLCs.com), an independent consulting firm committed to assisting schools in building, leading, and sustaining authentic PLCs. Daniel has been a classroom teacher in both public and independent schools in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Connecticut for 24 years.

2014 ASCD Book, 7” x 9,” 149 pgs.

ASCD Members $18.95

List Price $24.95

Stock #114007

ISBN 978-1-4166-1758-7

www.ascd.org/browse-booksCall toll-free: 800-933-ASCD or 703-578-9600

ORDER NOW!Print edition is also available from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other bookstores.

E-book editions are also available from Amazon.com, BN.com, Kobo.com, and selected other distributors. See full list at www.ascd.org/epubs.

How Teachers Can Turn Data into Actionby Daniel R. Venables

data action model webinar 9.23.2014 - ascdfiles.ascd.org/pdfs/onlinelearning/webinars/webinar... ·...

Documents