Harvard Graduate School of Education - Leadership: an Evolving Vision 2007

HARVARD INSTITUTE JULY 2007

Dr John Collins: Developing Writing and Thinking Skills Across the Curriculum

Although we did not expect to cover ‘technical’ issues during the Institute, John Collins presentation (in the entertaining but controversial style of a Woody Allan / James Stewart hybrid) was interesting from the perspective of a secondary head, struggling to develop a more cohesive approach to developing writing and thinking skills across the curriculum, without adding to the already considerable burden faced by teachers with respect to assessment.

The Strategy’s Potential?

Based on two decades of work in schools with practicing teachers, Collins’ system potentially has several benefits. Arguably the strategy has the potential to:
.
· promote writing fluency and literacy
· provide a vehicle for assessing prior knowledge.
· identify learning outcomes in writing / thinking for pupils and parents
· provide opportunities for self and peer assessment of writing and thinking.
· provide focussed and quality formative feedback.
· refine speaking and listening skills
· ensure that pupils read and reflect on their work.
· support pupils in taking more responsibility for their own learning.
· improve the pace of learning.
· increase pupil engagement in the learning process.
· promote collaborative and active learning strategies
· provide an effective means of differentiation
· support behaviour management (“it shuts up the highly verbal kids”)
· generate evidence for HMIe relating to a ‘language across the curriculum’ policy.
· provide a vehicle for quality assurance (in line with Elmore’s advice that the most effective means of quality assurance during a classroom observation is to check the level of thinking skills required in the routine writing tasks to establish how children and young people are being asked to engage with the content they are taught).
· provide improved communication with parents regarding their child’s strengths and development needs in writing and thinking.
· reduce teacher workload!

The Mechanics of the Strategy

The simple system outlines five different types of writing assignment, and the outcomes expected for each, to support and encourage pupils to ‘think on paper’. This is accomplished by using frequent, and usually short writing assignments, to increase pupils’ active involvement in lessons, check their understanding of concepts, or support thinking about content.

Parents are also trained to understand the system, to ensure they know what to expect of the teacher, the various types and purposes of assessment being used, and how to diagnose their child’s strengths and weaknesses.
The Rationale

In his book ‘Developing Writing and Thinking Skills Across the Curriculum: A Practical Program for Schools’, Collins explains that research indicates: “it is best to separate the creative (idea getting) and critical processes (idea evaluation) because the effective use of one, hinders the effective use of the other. The system…defines different types of writing and, by so doing, removes the psychological barriers to creativity by establishing times when it is all right to be “just creative” (Type One), times when a controlled progression of creative and critical thought are required (Types Two to Four), and times when the critical function is at its peak (Type Five)”. He continues: “It takes away one of the primary obstacles to good writing: fear – fear of evaluation by unknown or hidden criteria, and fear of failure.” (page 4)

Type One Writing

Type One Writing is defined as “ writing to get ideas in paper; in many ways it is analogous to brainstorming. It is the idea generating, recollecting, data gathering, exploring, or questioning phase in the writing and thinking process” (1) (Page 4).

These assignments are completed in class in less than ten minutes, where pupils are asked to write a specified amount (number of lines rather than number of sentences) in a specified time (eg 5 to 10 minutes). In all writing types (1 to 5), pupils are asked to use double spacing (to facilitate their own editing) and to note the type of writing task at the top of the page, to inform the pupil’s writing, and to clarify parental expectations of the teacher. Writing at all levels (1 to 5) can take any form: eg lists, imaginative or narrative essays, comparisons, analysis etc.
Type One Writing commonly precedes or replaces classroom discussion at the start of a lesson, and has the advantage of involving all children – even the silent majority. For example pupils may be asked to write a number of specified lines, depending on stage, ability and motivation levels, about what they know about a topic before a particular unit of study begins, or make reference in some way to learning outcomes of a previous lesson. The only check that is made by the teacher is, firstly, that the pupil completed the necessary length of piece, and secondly, that the pupil is engaged in the writing / thinking / learning process. Teachers can differentiate within the lesson by asking individual pupils to write fewer or more lines than the others.

Level One Writing, therefore, can be used to assess prior learning, understanding and engagement. In line with collaborative learning strategies it asks pupils to think and write first, and talk later. It requires only one draft, can take any form and can mix fact and opinion.

Collins also highlighted the strategy’s efficacy in behaviour management, during his presentation, as “ it shuts up the highly verbal kids for a while”. It should be achievable for all.

The teacher does not formally assess this writing. He or she simply checks that the pupils has completed the length of piece required (however reading the piece will provide valuable information on prior learning). Pupils are therefore given the opportunity to write freely with no risk of failure attached. The teacher, or another pupil will tick the work if it meets the required length.

One example in a History lesson, may be to ask the pupil to write all they know about the Egyptians before the unit begins. If they do not know much, then they can simply write questions. Collins then sometimes asks a few pupils to read their responses aloud to the class and asks them to categorise the ideas in three columns: facts about the topic, questions about the topic and miscellaneous. The advantage here is that the pupils start talking, listening, and thinking about the topic they will study.

Some other examples noted in Collins book include: “Here are two statements about sportsmanship (quotes from two sports figures). Tell how they are similar and different. Give a five to ten line summary of last night’s reading. List five materials you will need to conduct an experiment to prove ……” etc.

Type Two Writing

Type Two Writing is designed to test pupils’ understanding. This encourages pupils to write what they know about a topic, or how they feel in response to a prompt. It is a type of ‘quiz’ that asks for a correct answer to a teacher’s prompt. The only evaluation criterion in this case, is that the content must be correct. “It asks for definitions, facts, explanations, or opinions, supported with details” (p8). . This type of writing supports the pupil in making the distinction between padding a response, and using writing to develop and elaborate ideas.

Instead of asking one pupil in class to provide an oral answer to a question, the teacher may ask all pupils to provide a Level Two response. The teacher could also issue several tasks of this nature in a lesson, but only choose to assess one. The pupil will be unaware which tasks will be graded.

Examples of Level Two Writing tasks include: ‘List three possible causes for this chemical reaction’; ‘Define three of the five terms on the board.’ ‘Explain two main points from yesterday’s lesson’ etc.
The teacher can evaluate this exercise relatively quickly. If for example a child is asked to list ten facts about Siberia, the child is instructed to underline the facts to facilitate quicker marking.

Type Three Writing

Type Three Writing is writing that has “substantive content and meets up to three specific standards called ‘focus correction areas’ (FCAs). At this point the pupil moves from simply producing and recording ideas (Type Two) to refining the way they present ideas” (p15).

This Type is also differentiated from Type Two writing, as pupils must complete two other steps on completion of the writing task: These are oral reading / editing of the passage, and ‘focus correcting’.

The pupil reads their work aloud to themselves (in a soft voice) and then asks themselves three key questions: Have I completed the assignment, produced readable work, and met the focus criteria? Pupils then revise their draft in the double spacing if necessary. The reading aloud allows pupils to ‘feel’ if a sentence works well. This ‘institutionalises’ the process of review and reflection, as it forces the pupil to read their work before they hand it in for assessment.

FCAs will change over time as the pupil refines their writing and thinking skills. Examples relating to assessing writing style include: no unnecessary words; use of powerful verbs; no long confusing sentences; no passive voice etc. The assessment of content and critical thinking skills may include: technical vocabulary used; comparisons and contrasts made; examples used to support opinion etc. The assessment of organisational skills may include; introduction tells reader what the writer intend to say, and how it will be done; conclusion reinforces thesis; transitions helps reader move from point to point etc. The assessment of narration may include: character physically described; sensory details used; uses dialogue to establish characters etc.

Pupils are asked to write the FCAs at the top of the page at the start of the exercise, to maintain their focus on the assessment criteria / skill, inform teacher evaluation, and inform parents and other audiences what skills the paper should demonstrate. They should also note the number of points awarded for each tasks. This type of writing is formally evaluated by the teacher, and returned for redraft. However pupils again support the teacher in this task (eg 50 points allocated for ten underlined facts on the subject, and 20 points for the use of correct vocabulary, each word circled by the pupil). This enables the pupil to evaluate which of the FCAs were met, and which weren’t, before handing the piece in for teacher evaluation.

Type Four Writing

Type Four Writing is “Type Three writing that has been read aloud and critiqued by another. It requires two drafts and is the most effective and efficient of all of the types, at improving writing skills” (p23).
On this occasion the pupil reads their work aloud in a soft voice to support editing. They then however read it to a neighbour, who will help them to critique the work according to the FCAS. They can edit on the paper or attach a redraft for filing. Spelling is best addressed as an FCA in type four writing where peer assessment can assist

Type Five Writing

“Type Five Writing is of publishable quality. It can go outside the classroom without explanation or qualification (requiring several drafts)”. For example, a type five piece of writing may begin with a type one exercise to generate ideas. This may then become the basis of a type four assessment that demands appropriate contact, organisation and sentence variety. After a second draft of type four, self and peer review, with oral reading, teacher feedback and multiple revisions, the type five piece will be completed

Further Information

Further information about publications, workshops and consultancy services can be found on the web site at collinseducationassociates.com

Having had the direct experience of undertaking the various types of writing tasks during Collins lecture, I was impressed by the simplicity of the strategy, which could be used in all departments, and the effectiveness of reading work aloud, to oneself and to a neighbour, in particular. I will feel more secure in my evaluation of this strategy however, when I speak to the specialists in my English department!

Eileen Brown

Roland Barth presented the final session of our Leadership Institute and I thought he managed to tie up many threads in his inspired presentation.

In the course of a three hour session he managed to elicit responses from the audience which enabled him to identify the most positive conditions under which we learn.  I’ll try to post later about the variety of presentation styles used in the course of the last ten days but Roland’s was a masterful display of someone who knows his business and knows how to engage an audience.

He started off by asking us to think of a time in our lives when we learned best.

The overwhelming features of our collective experiences were that we learn best:

1. when we take a risk; and
2. when there is a safety strap

Barth suggest that schools don’t take this approach - they play SAFE!!!

He argued that schools are information rich - but - experience poor.

He contrasted this with John Dewey’s assertion that:

We learn from our experience —if we reflect on our experience.

By collating all of the audiences reflctions upon situations when they learned best he separated them into idiosyncratic and generic conditions for learning.

The generic conditions for learning identified from the 150 people on our course were:

• Learn from mistakes
• Risk taking
• Urgency
• Self-reflction
• New experiences
• Emotional investment
• Support
• Fun/humour
• Curiosity
• Challenge
• Feeling respected
• Going into the unknown
• Given a reason for learning

He then asked us to think about how many of these conditions we meet in our schools - the answer was predictably few.

He summarised this by suggesting that learning in school can be:

Informative - (information)

or

Tranformative (changes you for ever)

He encouraged us to go for the GOLD standard which was -of course - the Transformative.

He slipped one little nugget in which I really liked but wonder how well it might go down in Scotland:

One district in the USA issued cards to all teachers and pupils which he described as a Permission to Learn card.

The card read as follows:

On one side : - this card entitles the holder to take one risk in their own learning

On the other side: - Today I took a risk - it didn’t go as well as I had planned but I learned that …………….?

The card does not give the holder the permission to place themselves or others at risk or danger.

Would it work in  Scotland?????

We were privileged to spend an hour with Kurt Fischer Ph. D. who is Charles Bigelow Professor of Human Development & Psychology and Director of the Mind, Brain, and Education program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Professor Fischer is exploring the inter-relationships between:

 Education—-Neuroscience—–Cognitive Science

He started out be exploding some of the myths which have built up around Neuroscience and learning.

“There is no such thing as someone who has a dominant side of their brain”

I was amazed to see people who had had one of the brain’s hemisphere’s removed by surgery and that contrary to all predictions for a “left brain” child he had become skilled at drawing.

Professor Fischer’s goal is to put cognitive science, biology and education together to enable optimal learning to take place.

The following video extracts show Prof. Fischer explaining this in more detail: (you will need to download Real Player to access all the videos)

Here Prof. Fischer provides an overview of this work, describing growth spurts in brain and cognitive development that occur within the same age periods during the school years.

Here he elaborates on measuring the growth in brain activity from childhood through early adulthood. He describes how EEG (electroencephalogram) techniques can be used to detect developmental patterns in brain connections.

In this clip, Kurt Fischer uses the example of children’s social role understanding to illustrate how simple representations are reorganized into more complex representations and then into abstract concepts. These new skills that emerge in children’s best performance are closely associated with growth spurts of brain activity. (view text)

Fischer’s point is that we suffer from a pervasive mataphor in our culture for learning and teaching which sees knowledge and ideas as objects  which can be exchanged, “I gave the idea to Sally” and the brain as a container “I can’t get this idea out of my mind”

Professor Fischer’s point is that we need active involvement for learning to take place.

He referred to the PLASTICITY of the brain - “it changes based on active experience” - see this clip where he explores how people are more than just their brains.

“There’s a misconception that we have to get rid of, a prevalent misconception in the English language and culture in general, that we are brains – that we learn with our brains as opposed to being people who have brains that help us learn.  We are not brains disembodied in the bucket sitting in the corner. And likewise, we don’t learn by having information stuck into our brains.

So by one image, I have a port up here on my brain – see that little mark right here on my forehead – and that’s where I plug in every morning, and the computer tells me the knowledge for today.

Well, it doesn’t work that way. We have to learn more actively than that.
So it is not true that you can plug the world into the brain and thereby know everything. Instead, knowledge has to built.”

Kurt Fischer

For me this linked very well with what Richard Elmore had been syaing about the importance of the “instructional task” which must challenge and involve the learner.

This will be a key area of research for me over the coming months - see -http://www.imbes.org/ - for more information

This morning we have been talking about the professionalisation of teaching! Of making teaching a real profession and moving away from what Elmore describes as a school being a group of islands of private practices.

To ensure real teacher leadership Kitty Boles advocates 3 pathways:

1. Rounds - promoting collaboration through the sharing of successful practice
2. Lesson Study – Promoting collaboration through improving content knowledge
3. Teacher Action Research – Promoting collaboration through systematic and intentional inquiry

Within Scottish education we are all working towards this culture in our schools and with our teachers but I wonder do we as Head Teachers take the opportunity to practice what we preach? Do we engage in action-based research to develop our practice? Do we engage in frequent conversation with each other about our work? Do we have easy access to each other’s schools? Do we take it for granted we should observe and comment upon each other’s work?

How do we nurture and engender the sense of belonging amongst all those involved in education that would allow this to take place effectively? And how do we create an environment where we can all work together, adopt a truly collegiate approach and share our practice?
 

One of the things whch struck me in Professor Richard Elmore’s presentation today was his recurring use of the term “instructional practice”.

I know teachers in Scotland would be horrified by such a term - “we are not technicians” would be their immediate response. The other difficulty in the term is its association with the verb to “instruct “- to tell/direct, which for many teacher smacks of didactic and authoritarian methodologies.- “instructions are something that you get when you board a plane”

Yet one of the themes which have jumped out for me over the duration of the course has been the need to separate the classroom practice from the person if we are going to be able to have a true dialogue about the quality of that practice.

The problem with the word teaching is that is is associated with the noun - teacher, i.e. if you comment on my “teaching” you are commenting upon me as a person.

If we take heed of Elmore’s words there is an undeniable need to clarify a body of knowledge and skills associated with teaching - perhaps by using the concept of instructional practice it might be possible to step back from evaluation of the person - to an evaluation of the practice -which is surely where we want to be?

Professor Richard Elmore claims that “education is a profession without a practice”.

He justifies his assertion through reference to an absence of a clear body of knowledge and a clear body of practice.

For Elmore the weakness of the profession is the mistaken notion that:

autonomy = professionalism

Yet such a relationship is essentially anti-professional - “Within a true profession an individual does not have autonomy over it’s body of knowledge and it’s practice” - which would appear to be the case for education. Yet other professions such as medicine, law, dentistry or accountancy have a body of practice and knowledge, which must be learned, mastered and implemented within agreed and non-negotiable norms.

Professor Elmore proposes that there is no unified agreement on what constitutes high performance/high quality instructional practice. Such a situation results in “the deep and central pathology” which afflicts education i.e. we change “readily and promiscuously in response to the environment”. Yet surgeons don’t change the way they carry out a heart bypass operation because the government has changed - so why do we in education change our practice everytime we face a shift in political administration - the differnce is that surgeons’ practice changes in response to research - wheras the majority of teachers are essentially divorced from research and are quite happy to support such an assertion..

Elmore went on to call for the profession to begin to take control over its practice and knowledge. The however, is that IF we were to agree a body of practice and knowledge then, just as with other professions, there would have to be an expectation that there would be less varation in practice from one classroom to another.

The reality, however, is that there is enormous variation from one classroom to another. In fact research proves that the major factor in determining pupil success is the difference between the teachers. For example, if a pupil has one teacher who has poor instructional skills - the pupil will take over 3 years to recover; of the same pupil has two consecutive years of being taught by a teacher with poor instructional skills they will take 5 years to recover; and if they have three consecutive years they will never recover.

So how do Head Teachers currently address such problems?:

They either move teachers around to ensure that pupils don’t get two consecutive years of poor instruction; or

they attempt - all to rarely - to remove such teachers from the system;

Elmore expanded upon these when he suggested there were only three ways to improve the quality:

1. Change the role of the student;
2. Raise complexity of content through more challenging instructional tasks; or
3. Increase the knowledge and skills of the teachers; this would necessitate

*you cannot do one without the other

I’m certainly taken by these ideas, particularly the notion of establishing unambiguous, consistent, shared and rigorously upheld norms of instructional practice which permeate a school and an educational system.

Inspirational!