http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/ Donna's reflections on her CFG projects en Copyright 2010 Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:14:45 -0600 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss The interview that I did with Dennis Shirley is posted at http://www.houstonaplus.org/resources/bookshelf/mindful-teacher-interview-dennis-shirley http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2010/01/the_mindful_teacher.html http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2010/01/the_mindful_teacher.html Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:14:45 -0600 On December 7, our ACP CFG met at Challenge High School. All but one person was present. After opening the meeting and making announcements, we did the Warp Speed team-builder to work on learning everybody’s name. We then looked at the Zones of Risk, Safety, & Danger and talked about how the most productive place to be is the Zone of Risk. We spent the bulk of the meeting looking at student work. Ashley, Adam, and Makeeta brought work for us to examine. The questions brought before the group included “How do I improve vocabulary instruction?” “What can I do to improve the work that groups produce?” and “What kinds of grading policies and procedures will maximize engagement and achievement for essay-writing assignments?” I was very proud about how the group was very brave about bringing work and very engaged in the Tuning Protocol and Consultancy. This bodes well for the future of our group. Reflections are in the extended entry. http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2009/12/acp_cfg_december_2009.html http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2009/12/acp_cfg_december_2009.html Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:08:55 -0600 “Toward a Process for Critical Response” by Liz Lerman. We took 20 minutes to read the article and have a break and then we split into two groups to discuss the article using the “Save the Last Word for ME” protocol. Terri and I led our groups in slightly different ways. Terri kept very strict time—if somebody finished their response within the one minute or three minute allotment, the group waited in silence until the time was up. On the other hand, I interpreted the directions as up to one minute for the responses and up to three minutes for the last word. I allowed 3-5 seconds of wait time and then went on to the next person in the round. As a result of this difference, we got to have a discussion about the blessing of silence and appropriate wait time. Our next meeting will be on Monday, December 7. Adam, Makeeta, and Ashley all graciously volunteered to bring work to get feedback on. Reflections from the November meeting are in the extended entry. ]]> http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2009/12/acp_cfg_november_2009.html http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2009/12/acp_cfg_november_2009.html Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:12:47 -0600 After partaking in a light breakfast of warm coffee cake, fresh fruit, coffee, and juice, we rearranged ourselves to sit closely around one large table and started the icebreaker. Everyone thought about how to complete this sentence: When I am at my best as a writer, I am like a ________________. We drew pictures of our metaphors on name tents and then introduced ourselves and shared the meaning of our metaphors. For example, I shared that when I am at my best as a writer, I feel like a weaver. I love the feeling of being able to weave together many disparate threads into a seamless whole. Other images included a pressure cooker, an ocean wave, an unfinished puzzle, a sponge, a coffee percolator, and a medium. We then jumped in to the Wagon Wheel Peer Editing Protocol. Each participant is like a spoke on a wagon wheel, and each “spoke” concentrated on one aspect of the editing process. A couple of weeks ago, Mike and I developed a list of things that we wanted to be addressed during this editing process. The six spokes that I settled on were 1) Your job is to check for completeness: Does the piece sound like a story rather than a report? Does it describe the context? Clearly state the research question? Describe the group’s activities? Share some important lessons learned? 2) Your job is to check for transitions: Does the narrative move smoothly from one idea to the next? Does anything seem choppy or abrupt? 3) Your job is to check for awkwardness. 4) Your job is to check for evidence: Did the narrative include concrete examples of new thinking or changes in practice? How did the group collect evidence? Do you believe the authors? 5) Your job is to check for length: Is the piece around 800 words? Where might you suggest cutting? and 6) Your job is to look for two things that you really like: What parts of the narrative were really good? What would you like to know more about? During a round, you read one paper and give feedback on the one job that you’ve been assigned. After about 10-15 minutes, you pass the papers around the circle so that each reader gets a new paper to respond to but keeps the same editing job. The debrief and the reflections indicated that most people liked the protocol. Its major strength is that it allows a group to respond to a lot of material in a very short amount of time—seven of the ten CART essays got fairly extensive feedback in a little under two hours. Two participants even indicated that they will adapt the protocol for their own classrooms. If I ever do this again, though, I will be sure to post feedback norms. This was an aspect that I thought of the night before, but I didn’t write it down, so I forgot to do it on the morning of the retreat. Before we started reading the papers, the participants talked briefly about how to give and receive feedback, and I hope we sufficiently addressed the trepidation that some participants felt with sharing their work. However, I know that I should have modeled CFG “best practice” and been more deliberate about establishing and posting feedback norms. Also, I am wishing that one of the spokes of the feedback wheel had focused on looking for if the authors set the context for their work. It really hooks the reader to immediately know more about the school or workplace where the action research took place. I also struggle with using both the term “report” and “narrative.” I think I’ve probably caused confusion by using both terms. My early communications used the word “report” because that is what was used in the RFP two years ago. However, the term “report” seems to limit the piece of writing to an accountability document. What we truly want is a “narrative” that tells the story of how the group progressed and what they learned. Perhaps better spokes for the Wagon Wheel protocol in this case would have looked specifically at the building blocks of a good story: Setting—Can you tell where the research took place? What is special or unique about that school? Characters—Who was involved in the action research? Do they come across as real people? Conflict— What does the group value? What was their question? What tensions surfaced? Why? What did your group do about the conflicts? Plot?—What did your group do? What were your CFG meetings like? How did you collect evidence? How did you analyze it? What was the climax of the group’s work together? Was there a resolution? Do you have any further questions? Will you sustain this work? Point-of-view—Is the narrative written in first person (I and we)? Theme—Is some sort of lesson learned clearly stated? There is still a lot of work to be done to get these narratives into shape, but I think the CART Writing Retreat was an important step towards developing a compendium that A+ will be proud to publish. Excerpts from the participant reflections are in the extended entry. ]]> http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2009/06/cart_writing_retreat.html http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2009/06/cart_writing_retreat.html Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:23:08 -0600 Why Teach Music? . . . from the Southwestern Musician/Texas Music Educator, March 1990 Music is mathematical. It is rhythmically based on subdivisions of time into fractions which must be done instantaneously, not worked out on paper. Music is a foreign language. Most of the terms are in Italian, German or French; and the notation is certainly not English—but a highly developed kind of shorthand that uses symbols to represent ideas. The semantics of music is the most complete universal language. Music is physical education. It requires fantastic coordination of fingers, hands, arms, lip, cheek and facial muscles, in addition to extraordinary control to the diaphragmatic, back, stomach and chest muscles, which respond instantly to the sound the ear hears and the mind interprets. Music is science. It is exact, specific and it demands exact acoustics. A conductor’s full score is chart, a graph which indicates frequencies, intensities, volume changes, melody and harmony all at once and with the most exact control of time. Music is all these things, but most of all Music is art. It allows a human being to take all these dry, technically boring (but difficult) techniques and use them to create emotion. That is one thing that science cannot duplicate: humanism, feeling, emotion, call it what you will. THAT IS WHY WE TEACH MIUSIC! Not because we expect you to major in music. Not because we expect you to play or sing all your life. Not just so you can relax. Not just so you can have fun. BUT— so you will be human so you will be sensitive so you will have something to cling to so you will have more love, more compassion, more gentleness, more good—in short, more life. Of what value will it be to make a prosperous living unless you know how to live? THAT IS WHY WE TEACH MUSIC! ]]> http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2009/05/why_teach_music.html http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2009/05/why_teach_music.html Fri, 22 May 2009 11:39:25 -0600 http://web.mac.com/iajukes/thecommittedsardine/Sardines.html At the close, she passed out cans of sardines to remind the group members to swim against the group, and eventually the group will change. ]]> http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2009/05/committed_sardines.html http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2009/05/committed_sardines.html Thu, 14 May 2009 12:08:06 -0600 Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. The restricted professional has the following characteristics: 1. A high level of classroom competence. 2. Child-centredness (sometimes subject-centredness). 3. A high level of skill in handling children and in understanding them. 4. Derives a lot of satisfaction from personal relationships with pupils. 5. Evaluates performance in terms of own perceptions of changes in pupil behaviour and achievement. 6. Attends short courses of a practical nature. On the other hand, the extended professional has all the qualities of the restricted professional, plus: 1. Views work in the wider context of school, community and society. 2. Participates in a wide range of professional activities (subject panels, teachers; centres, conferences). 3. Has a concern to link theory and practice. 4. Has a commitment to some form of curriculum theory and mode of evaluation The extended professional has an inquiring attitude to the profession and to personal performance, and a broad understanding of curriculum. (Stenhouse 1975 in McKernan, 1996) “The late Lawrence Stenhouse (1975:144) argued that the outstanding characteristic of the professional teacher (or administrator is ‘the capacity for autonomous professional self-development through systematic self-study, through the study of the work of other teachers and through the testing of ideas by classroom research procedures’” ]]> http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2009/03/the_extended_professional.html http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2009/03/the_extended_professional.html Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:34:24 -0600 Houston ISD Superintendent Abe Saavedra announced that he will be stepping down within the year. The Houston Chronicle article had a great observation: "Gayle Fallon, spokeswoman for the Houston Federation of Teachers, put it this way: Houston's schools chief has to work with a strong internal and citywide African-American political structure to run a district that's 60 percent Hispanic on a tax base that's largely white. Not to mention the fact that many of those white folks don't send their children to HISD schools. 'It would take a damn fool to think you don't have to be a political shark to get around that,' she told me." (Falkenberg, Lisa. Deficiency in political skills spelled doom for Saavedra. Houston Chronicle. February 5, 2009. pB7) That sums up my main complaints about Dr. Saavedra. As a parent and a taxpayer, I was often dismayed by his assertions that he was "taking politics out" of decision-making. To me, that just sounded like he was taking the public voice out of decisions about school closures, rebuilding schools, etc. http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2009/02/saavedra_steps_down.html http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2009/02/saavedra_steps_down.html Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:41:25 -0600 http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2008/06/summer_institute_planning_sess.html http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2008/06/summer_institute_planning_sess.html Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:26:51 -0600 “How can I improve student learning through the implementation of several strategies related to reflective practice?” by Jennifer Sztramko. This source of case studeies was highlighted in McNiff and Whitehead’s book All You Need to Know About Action Research (2006). There are dozens of case studies available at the "Passion in Professional Practice" website. It’s worth exploring this site to get more examples of how an action researcher can write about their findings and provide evidence. After reading the article quietly, we split into three groups and used the “Three Levels of Text Protocol” to discuss and enlarge our understanding. Some of the issues that came up in my small group were the challenges of consistent reflection, modeling reflection for students, timing, and looking for evidence that we have changed. We debriefed as a large group and then looked at the CART Grant Interim Report and Request for Renewal Funding. This report is due on or before July 31, 2008. I want to read the story of each grant team. I really want to have a narrative of learning rather than just a dry report. The text that we read can serve as a model—What was your original idea? What needed improving? What did you think might work? Did you try it out? What happened? Did it work? What is the evidence? How will you modify your plan for next year? Download Interim Report Please note that you should share your evidence—reflections, excerpts from journal entries, transcripts of conversations, samples of student work. What else can you use to show a change in practice and a change in results? The reflections are in the extended entry. ]]> http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2008/05/cart_meeting_5608.html http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2008/05/cart_meeting_5608.html Fri, 09 May 2008 14:26:23 -0600 The CFG As Research Team (CART) awardees met for our second support session on February 5, 2008, at Stovall Academy. Present were Debbie, Sharon, Mandi, Acquenette, Sonia, Robin, Cheryl, Terri, Ruby, Nichole, Carolyn, Tim, Chong-Hao, Denise, Michaelann, Lauren, and Donna. The objectives of the meeting were to build community among the CART Grant groups, serve as each other's accountability group, and determine next steps for support. After Connections and reviewing the ground rules, we did the icebreaker "Self-Disclosure: What's In Your Wallet?" We each chose an item from our purses or wallets and shared what that artifact might reveal about us. My favorites were the high-tech immigration identity card and the trinkets from students that teachers valued so much. We spent a little time taking care of administrative announcements and reminders, and then moved to the main part of the meeting. We asked each team to create an artifact that described where they were in the research process and acknowledged any changes they'd like to make. Besides chart paper and markers, we also brought the leftover craft supplies from the CFG Reunion including tinsel, pom-poms, chenille stems, and glitter glue. When I tried a similar activity three years ago with the Teacher As Researcher groups, they ignored the fun supplies and just made posters. I was very pleased that several CART awardees utilized the unusual materials to describe their research teams' work! We then did a Gallery Walk where everybody had an opportunity to both explain their artifact and get feedback as well as rotate around the room to find out more about the other projects and give feedback to their peers. Click on the thumbnail photos to see a larger photo. The Reflections are in the extended entry. http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2008/02/cart_meeting_2508.html http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2008/02/cart_meeting_2508.html Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:04:21 -0600 http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2007/12/tampa_winter_meetingday_two.html http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2007/12/tampa_winter_meetingday_two.html Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:52:06 -0600 work. We started with a 3-2-1 icebreaker. In pairs, we shared three things about ourselves, two AHA's that we had from the opening session, and one burning question that we brought with us. We introduced our partners to the group, shared the burning questions, and debriefed the process. Next, Phil led us through the Passions Profiles Protocol. This was one of the most popular activities of the day. I had never used it before, and now I am itching to use it in other contexts. After lunch, we recorded the norms that we were already using and added some to help us think about how we would help each other do powerful work.]]> http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2007/12/tampa_winter_meetingday_one.html http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2007/12/tampa_winter_meetingday_one.html Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:34:12 -0600 Action Research by Jean McNiff and Jack Whitehead (2006). Click on the thumbnails to see some of the learning from the chapter. Since the snacks were late getting delivered, we took some time to simply go around and share what our initial questions are and what sorts of data we’ve already collected. Examples included chalk talk posters, summaries of peer observations, samples of student work, parent comments, written reflections, archives of student case files, email correspondence, personal journals, and many others. We refreshed ourselves with yummy sandwiches, wraps, fruit, cookies, and drinks from Jason’s Deli and then engaged in a new protocol dubbed “The Heart of the Matter.” Each group displayed an artifact that they brought with them and wrote a brief description of the artifact. We then quietly examined each other’s artifacts and wrote down clarifying questions. Each group responded orally to the clarifying questions, and then we again quietly walked through the room to re-examine the artifacts and add probing questions and connections. Tim debriefed the process and I wish I had audiotaped the debrief. We asked that people email any questions that they have about the grant and promised that answers would be posted on line where everybody could refer to them. Reflections are in the extended entry. ]]> http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2007/10/cart_support_1016.html http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2007/10/cart_support_1016.html Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:17:01 -0600 On Thursday, June 14, the CART Awardees met for the first time. The purpose of the meeting was to provide a forum for the recipients to meet and interact as well as share important information about budgets, ethical considerations, and strategies for collecting data. We started with the 3-2-1 icebreaker. The participants partnered with each other and shared 3 things about themselves, 2 things about their grants, and 1 question that they wanted to have answered. As the participants introduced themselves to the whole group, Tim and I scribed the questions. There were many questions about budgeting as well as concerns about getting the research started. Next, Tim and I reviewed the expectations of the Houston A+ Challenge for the CART teams. The recipients agree to 1) conduct the inquiry as outlined in their proposal, 2) complete an interim and final report, 3) present the findings at a public forum and submit the findings for publication, and 4) attend the CART support meetings three times a year. The dates for the 2007-2008 meetings will be set in early August. Catherine, Director of Finance for the Houston A+ Challenge, then answered many of the financial questions that participants brought. This grant has special challenges for our organization because of the variety of groups and the way they will get access to the funds. There are school-based groups, multi-school groups in a single district, a group with members from three different school districts, a charter school, and a university-based group. For most groups, the monies will be loaded with the school district and the grant recipient must follow school guidelines for making purchases. The multi-school group and the university-based group will leave the funds with A+ and must fill out expense reports to get reimbursed. HA+C will send each team a budget spreadsheet with drop-down menus for the object codes and function codes. These budgets must be checked and returned to HA+C for the monies to be loaded with the districts. Transfers from one category to another are allowed, but must be approved by Tim. All receipts should be saved, and they must be itemized. HA+C does not reimburse for alcohol or hardware. As we transitioned to talking about ethical considerations, Tim and I shared that we are doing our own action research around the questions “What is the role of an intermediary organization in supporting improved teaching and learning?” and “How can we best support the creation of sustainable, reflective, collaborative, professional groups in the Houston area?” Furthermore, Cheryl, a professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at U of H is investigating a project titled “Teacher Learning in Houston A+ Challenge Sponsored Groups: A Four Year Study.” We asked each participant to sign the “University of Houston Teacher Consent to Participate in Research” form and encouraged each group to consider ethical concerns in their own projects such as maintaining confidentiality and gaining consent of their research participants. We ended the meeting with the participants at each round table sharing their strategies for collecting data and then everyone wrote reflections. Excerpts from the reflections are in the extended entry. http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2007/06/cart_award_meeting.html http://donna.robreid.com/weblog/2007/06/cart_award_meeting.html Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:02:37 -0600