Читать книгу Best Practices at Tier 1 [Secondary] - Gayle Gregory - Страница 9

Introduction

As educational practitioners, authors, and consultants who have dedicated their careers to the professional advancement of educators, we know this to be true: response to intervention (RTI) is our best hope in providing every student with the additional time and support needed to succeed in school. The research and evidence supporting our claim is both comprehensive and compelling. In perhaps the most extensive study of the factors that impact student learning, John Hattie’s (2012) meta-analysis, based on over eighty thousand studies and one hundred million students worldwide, finds that RTI ranks second in the most effective influences, inside or outside of school, that can increase student performance. When implemented well, RTI has the power to help students improve multiple grade levels in a year (Hattie, 2012). Imagine for a moment the practical ramifications of these findings.

A student entering seventh grade at a fifth-grade reading level could, with effective RTI support, be approaching grade level by the end of the year.

A secondary student with significant foundational number sense deficiencies could, with targeted supports, improve to a point where he or she may be capable of completing the advanced mathematics coursework needed to successfully apply for college.

A student qualified for special education due to a significant learning discrepancy—over two standard deviations’ difference between his or her perceived IQ and current level of achievement—could close this gap and be redesignated as a general education student after only a few years of effective interventions.

While these ideas may sound unrealistically optimistic, they aren’t. The research we describe in this book is not reporting theory or results achieved under the ideal teaching conditions of a generously funded experimental program. We have had the honor of working with schools implementing RTI across all fifty states in the United States, every province in Canada, and many countries throughout the world. From Alabama to Australia and South Dakota to Singapore, we have seen these results firsthand in real-life schools facing diverse student needs, limited resources, restrictive contractual agreements, and challenging governmental regulations. At a time when success in school is no longer optional for economic and social stability, RTI provides the ongoing processes necessary to ensure every student learns at high levels.

Understanding Response to Intervention

RTI’s underlying premise is that schools provide timely, targeted, systematic support early, rather than delaying help until students fall far enough behind to qualify for special education (Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2012). Commonly referred to as a multitiered system of support (MTSS), the three tiers of RTI traditionally take the shape of a pyramid, with each tier representing a different level of support based on student needs. See figure I.1.

Figure I.1: Traditional RTI pyramid.

Tier 1 of the RTI model represents a school’s core instructional program, in which all students receive effective instruction on grade-level essential curriculum. While Tier 1 should meet most students’ needs a majority of the time, invariably some students will need a little extra help to succeed in core instruction. This is the primary purpose of Tier 2—to provide timely, targeted supplemental academic and behavioral interventions to ensure that those students also succeed in mastering their essential grade-level curriculum. For students who enter the school year with significant deficits in reading, writing, number sense, English, and academic or social behaviors, Tier 3 supports provide intensive academic and behavioral remediation in these foundational skills.

The goal of the RTI approach isn’t to move students from one tier to another; instead, RTI provides supplemental and intensive support in addition to core instruction. This approach recognizes that students who miss core instruction on essential grade-level standards in order to receive interventions are unlikely to catch up. This is because while these students receive interventions on previous learning outcomes, they miss the teaching of new content critical to future success—the proverbial “one step forward, two steps back.” With the RTI approach, however, the most at-risk students receive effective Tier 1 core instruction on grade-level essential standards, Tier 2 supplemental support in meeting these critical outcomes, and Tier 3 intensive instruction on foundational skills that the students should have mastered years ago. Collectively, these three tiers ensure that all students end the school year with the essential skills and knowledge they need to succeed the following year and beyond.

When RTI is viewed this way, one point becomes very clear: the entire RTI process is built on effective, grade-level core instruction. The foundation of a successful system of interventions is effective initial teaching (Shapiro, n.d.).

Recognizing Unrealized Potential

While federal law has promoted response to intervention since the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) in 2004, most schools and districts are struggling to secure the student achievement results that RTI is proven to provide. Many states, districts, and schools mistakenly view RTI primarily as a new process to qualify students for special education, with the tiers serving merely as new hoops a school must jump through in order to place students into traditional special education services. As a result, screening assessments, cut scores, and program decision protocols predetermine student identification, placement, and duration in each tier. Instead of providing students with multiple tiers of support, this misapplication of RTI moves students from tier to tier on their path toward special education.

But without question, the most common reason that schools struggle to successfully implement RTI goes back to the foundation of the process—effective core instruction. Tier 1 instruction should successfully meet the needs of a significant majority of students most of the time. When it does not, the consequences manifest in multiple ways. Some schools, for example, find that too many of their students are failing after core instruction and need interventions, and the size of that need overwhelms their system of supports and its available resources. Similarly, some schools find that significant subgroups—such as English learners (ELs) or students with special needs—struggle disproportionately in core instruction. Instead of revising their initial teaching practices to better meet these students’ learning needs, many schools remove the students from grade-level core instruction and replace that instruction with remedial coursework. This decision virtually ensures that these students will never catch up. Removing students from the Tier 1 grade-level essential curriculum is nothing more than student tracking, a system that separates students into learning groups based on perceived ability. As Jeannie Oakes (1985) finds in her landmark study Keeping Track, this sorting continues to disadvantage those in lower-track classes. Such students have less access to high-status knowledge, fewer opportunities to engage in stimulating learning activities, and less engaging classroom experiences with teachers, peers, and learning. If the goal is for all students to learn at high levels, then all students must be taught at high levels.

When individual students struggle in core instruction, few schools begin the intervention process by assessing the effectiveness of the student’s core instruction. Instead, as special education expert David Prasse (n.d.) finds, schools traditionally operate as though “failure to succeed in a general education program meant the student must, therefore, have a disability.” In other words, the common assumption is that the student’s innate abilities are the cause of his or her struggles. Even if these students begin receiving interventions, they most likely will continue to receive ineffective core instruction for a majority of their school day. Supplemental and intensive intervention cannot compensate for ineffective initial teaching that does not differentiate instruction to meet each student’s unique learning needs.

Even when dedicated school staff members acknowledge that too many students are struggling in core instruction, the consensus and commitment to improve core instruction can be elusive. As a general concept, RTI is appealing to virtually all educators. Who, after all, wouldn’t want to provide extra support for students in need? But, too often, the enthusiasm for intervention wanes quickly when the focus turns to Tier 1, because improving this level of instruction requires a deep level of change that affects every aspect of the school day. It requires school staff to take collective responsibility for student success, collaborate regularly, agree on essential learning outcomes and pacing, differentiate instruction, abandon traditional teaching and assessment practices that were designed to create a bell-shaped curve of student success, and make significant revisions to the school’s master schedule and resource allocations—all actions required to meet each student’s individual learning needs. This level of change is exceptionally difficult. In the end, many schools struggle to improve core instruction because too many adults in the building are unwilling to accept the level of temporary disequilibrium and discomfort required to significantly change what they do all day.

Because schools have resisted efforts to revise their core instructional practices, many districts have responded by purchasing a research-based textbook series and then dictating that their teachers exclusively implement it as their core program. In the name of “program fidelity,” these districts often require teachers to utilize these programs’ lockstep lesson plans, assessments, and supplemental materials. Such an approach assumes that the curricular design and pedagogies in the textbook represent scientifically researched-based best practice, so classroom teachers should relinquish their authority to plan and differentiate instruction and instead serve as program facilitators. Yet, Hattie’s (2009) study finds that textbook series have a marginal effect on student learning. This is not to suggest that textbooks cannot serve as effective tools to assist teachers in core instruction or that educators shouldn’t implement research-based programs. The concern is that when the program dictates all elements of core instruction, it limits the results teachers can achieve. In the end, no silver bullet program can ensure effective teaching for all students.

If rigid adherence to textbooks and instructional programs is not a long-term solution to improve Tier 1 core instruction, then what is? The key is to ensure more good teaching, in more classrooms, more of the time (DuFour & Mattos, 2013). When students have access to classrooms that consistently provide a learning environment and instructional practices proven to dramatically improve student learning, more students will succeed. To achieve this outcome, one must answer a critical question, What is good teaching?

Identifying the Elements of Good Teaching

Good teaching is a dichotomy. It is hard to capture in a single definition but easy to recognize when you see it. To understand the point, consider a similar example when trying to define something that is both deeply complex but apparent to the eye. When attempting to define obscenity, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously stated: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced…. But I know it when I see it” (Jacobellis v. Ohio, n.d.). Stewart acknowledged the difficulty in trying to write a universal, all-encompassing definition of what constitutes obscenity because any particular example or case must be weighed by the relevance and circumstances of the moment. Yet, when one sees an example of true obscenity, it’s usually obvious and straightforward. Similarly, while it’s difficult to create an all-encompassing definition or model of good teaching, such teaching makes itself evident to even the untrained eye. Within any school community, there is often general consensus on which instructors teach well. However, if we dig deeper and ask what makes each teacher effective, we’re likely to receive a wide variety of answers. This dichotomy of what constitutes good teaching exists, in part, because effective instruction is a convergence of three critical factors.

1. The science of teaching: The very definition of a profession is that it encompasses research-based best practices that members are expected to know and implement on behalf of their clients. In the teaching profession, we have never had greater clarity and consensus on what is considered best practice, which we define as the pedagogies and methodologies that have the best chance of helping students learn at higher levels. We also know more than ever about the brain and the physiology of learning. As Mike Schmoker (2004) states, “There are simple, proven, affordable structures that exist right now and could have a dramatic, widespread impact on schools and achievement—in virtually any school. An astonishing level of agreement has emerged on this point” (p. 424). Likewise, we also have great clarity on educational malpractice—the practices that are unlikely to significantly improve student learning. As professionals, we have ethical obligations to utilize classroom instructional strategies based on sound science and research.

2. The art of teaching: Teaching is a human endeavor. While we can study elements of learning through the neuroscience of the brain, what constitutes good teaching is more than a cognitive experience—it also is rooted in an instructor’s heart and soul. People aren’t always logical or reliably predictable in their behavior and responses. Good teaching, therefore, must take into account relationships, motivation, nurturing, constructive conflict, and mutual respect. It requires reading both people and assessment data. A hunch or an intuitive feeling for what their students need often guides master teachers. How do you quantify a teacher’s passion for the subject, intellectual curiosity, or genuine concern for students? These attributes are powerful levers to inspire and connect students to learning. As Robert Marzano (2007) states in his book The Art and Science of Teaching, classroom instructional strategies should be based on sound science and research, but knowing when to use them and with whom is more of an art.

3. Differentiation for individual student needs: We know that all students don’t learn in exactly the same way or develop and mature at the same speed. Every student has unique learning needs based on his or her prior knowledge and experiences, cultural values, learning styles, and aptitudes. Because of these differences, no matter how well a teacher teaches a concept, some students will grasp that concept immediately, while others in the same class will fail miserably to understand it. Effective teaching requires time to differentiate instruction to meet each student’s individual learning and developmental needs.

In essence, good teaching is a convergence of all three of these factors, as each is required to achieve higher levels of learning for all students. So if a highly effective system of interventions begins with an effective core instructional program, then all students require good teaching practices on a daily basis. Therefore, good teaching requires every teacher to have knowledge and skill in the most effective teaching practices, the empowerment to practice the art of teaching, and a deep understanding of daily differentiation to meet each student’s individual learning needs. That’s what this book is all about!

Using This Book

In this book, we investigate the essential elements of good teaching in regard to Tier 1 core instruction. In the process of that investigation, we’ll explore the science, art, and essential strategies, as well as the intuitive and affective elements, of teaching that result in powerful student learning. Specifically, here is how we have organized this book.

Chapter 1, “Shifting to Collaborative Core Instruction,” provides a big-picture exploration of what constitutes good teaching. The chapter begins with a discussion of some previous initiatives to improve core instruction and why those efforts have failed. The chapter also challenges the prevailing view on core instruction, which emphasizes what individual teachers do for their students, by offering an alternative view that emphasizes what teachers do collaboratively with their students.

Chapter 2, “Creating Brain-Friendly Learning Environments,” investigates how educators can orchestrate an optimal climate and environment for learning. The chapter outlines the fundamentals of a brain-friendly classroom based on powerful research in educational neuroscience. The chapter also illustrates that instructors can ensure that instructional best practices are most successful by implementing them in an environment that supports trial and error, risk taking, and collaboration, while also including meaningful and relevant instructional tasks.

Chapter 3, “Finding Each Student’s Learning Sweet Spot,” describes a wide array of strategies teachers can use to identify and understand the unique abilities of every student. The chapter explains how creating a student profile and determining the student’s learning preferences are helpful when selecting which best practices to use. The chapter also briefly reviews multiple intelligences—the many types of intelligence humans demonstrate—to help broaden the types of best practices and strategies educators can choose to implement first.

Chapter 4, “Developing a Powerful Core Curriculum,” looks at the basic question, What do we want students to know and be able to do? The chapter suggests strategies collaborative teams and professional learning communities (PLCs) can use to identify the essential power standards the Tier 1 core curriculum must include. The chapter also explores methods for clearly communicating learning targets to students. Finally, this chapter introduces the 4Cs of 21st century skills (communication, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking) as key aspects of good problem- and project-based curriculum design.

Chapter 5, “Differentiating Instruction Through Pluralized Teaching Strategies,” stresses the transition from teacher-centered to student-centered instruction. This chapter is filled with practical suggestions and examples, as it explores daily differentiation—an instructional model that emphasizes effective, research-based, high-impact, and pluralized teaching strategies. The chapter also outlines dozens of classroom-tested teaching strategies that can increase instructional variety, including creating flexible groups, integrating technology, and enhancing academic vocabulary instruction.

Chapter 6, “Using Data to Inform Instruction,” emphasizes the power of assessments in instructional planning and their role in helping both educators and students more clearly identify and understand learning challenges and opportunities. From creating student profiles to screening for prerequisites and conducting preassessment diagnostics, ongoing formative assessments, and summative assessments, this chapter reviews the kinds of student data educators gather. Because data are only valuable when teachers use them, the chapter also discusses a number of best practices and strategies for adjusting instructional approaches, such as scaffolding and extending learning tasks, to adapt to information revealed through assessment. The chapter also explores key elements of creating adjustable assignments, also known as tiered lessons.

Chapter 7, “Building Cognitive Rigor, Depth, and Complexity,” offers ideas educators can use to increase dynamic instructional effectiveness by increasing their instructional rigor. The chapter also explores a variety of best practices for helping students build their own cognitive rigor by developing higher-level thinking skills, cognitive depth, and complexity. Developing learners’ cognitive rigor demands that educators adjust what they teach and increase their expectations in order to ensure that each student has the opportunity to grow in ways he or she may not be able to imagine. This chapter, therefore, describes how models such as Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy and Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) offer educators solutions for making those adjustments in the most effective way possible. The chapter also offers a number of techniques educators can use to integrate 21st century skills into the core curriculum in ways that raise the bar for all learners.

The epilogue, “Embracing the Journey,” challenges teachers to work collaboratively within their collaborative teams and PLCs. The chapter explains why ongoing efforts to grow their knowledge base and skill sets are responsibilities that educators cannot ignore. It also offers suggestions for sharing information about differentiated instruction with parents in order to gain their support and assistance in efforts to provide students with the most effective educational experience possible.

Beyond a thorough discussion of the research and findings surrounding the role of differentiated instruction in improving student learning, each chapter offers specific tools and techniques for implementing the ideas and processes it describes. At the end of each chapter, therefore, we’ve included questions, reflections, and exercises. These sections—Taking the Discussion Further—enable educators and their teams to deepen their discussion and understanding of each chapter’s content.

Finally, before we begin this journey into Best Practices at Tier 1, we would like to offer educators a few words of preliminary advice. We have conducted presentations on this subject for thousands of educators around the world, and while the overall response has been extremely positive, we often hear a few specific concerns.

“I already know that.” Few of the ideas in this book represent new, groundbreaking research. Instead, most of the ideas we discuss here are based on common sense and well-established practices. For example, in chapter 2, we discuss the traits of a brain-friendly learning environment. The idea that brains learn best in a safe classroom environment is neither new nor earth-shattering. We dig deeply into the topic, however, to explain that a safe learning environment requires more than order; it also must offer students clear goals for learning outcomes, specific techniques for demonstrating mastery, and the freedom to try, make mistakes, and try again. Students sitting quietly in orderly rows rarely demonstrate the high level of engagement that promotes effective learning. Yet, we find many teachers who view a safe and orderly classroom as just that—a place where students demonstrate passive compliance. Knowing that a safe and orderly classroom is critical to effective core instruction is not the point of chapter 2. Rather, the more important question is, Are all the elements of this characteristic of good teaching present in your classroom? Even when you find they are, there is still benefit in the material—it will validate your teaching and build self-efficacy that you are on the right track.

“That’s a nice idea, but it won’t work for the students at my school.” This response is common, especially among educators who teach a majority of at-risk youth. We also hear numerous justifications, such as “My students can’t handle cooperative learning” or “My students lack the basic academic skills and self-control to do that.” However, that pessimism is unfounded. The research behind our recommendations demonstrates that the educational approach we outline in this book is proven to work for all students, regardless of ethnicity, economic status, home language, or gender. Schools of every demographic makeup are successfully implementing these methods. In the end, our experience also has demonstrated that students will become whatever teachers believe them to be. If educators believe students are immature, irresponsible, and incapable of demonstrating scholarly, responsible behavior, eventually they’ll be right. They will treat students as such and, as a result, create classroom rules and procedures to support their assumptions. But if educators believe students are capable of working collaboratively, demonstrating intellectual curiosity, making good choices, and self-directing their learning—and they apply the effective teaching methods necessary to promote such behaviors—they, again, will be right in their beliefs. Instead of questioning whether students are capable of achieving successful outcomes, therefore, the ideas we present in this book ask educators to consider another question: How can we help students get to those successful outcomes?

“These are great ideas, but I don’t have the time to implement them because I have too much content to cover.” This is the most common concern we hear. As we discuss in chapter 4, there is an impossible amount of yearly state curriculum. However, if a school is committed to effective teaching and student learning, there is no research to support the proposition that the more content a teacher covers, the more students learn. In reality the opposite is true—the less curriculum taught to mastery, the more students achieve. There is probably not a teacher in the United States who can honestly say that he or she is currently covering all mandated material within the time constraints of the school year. It is unacceptable to deny students effective teaching in a misguided attempt to maintain the illusion that the school is covering the entire required curriculum.

Keeping these important cautions in mind, we offer a book full of proven strategies—tools that can help teachers differentiate instruction, provide engaging ways for students to learn, increase the chances for success, and avoid the need for additional intervention. Join us on a journey of continuous teacher improvement. We hope educators will use these strategies to enhance their repertoire and provide more good teaching to more students more of the time!