What Great Teachers Do Differently

[Karen Pedersen]

Whitaker, Todd. What great Teachers Do Differently; 14 Things that Matter Most.  Eye on Education, Inc. 2004.

 

Hello Everyone:

 

The great thing about this book is that the author, Todd Whitaker, really pin points the attributes and qualities of effective instructors.  The main idea of the writing centers around the fact that, "It's people, not programs that are effective in the classroom."  

With teacher accountability, budget cuts, and ever increasing demands on instructional time, rigor, and student achievement this book provides support and guidlines for "staying the corse" when it comes to effective instruction.   Whitaker uses longitudinal research created while studying effective teachers and then compares those strategies observed in effective classroom verses ineffective classrooms.   His comparisons provide a compelling argument for reaching out to families, parents, and community for support in reaching and teaching all learners to increase student acheivement.

 

The strategies I found most valuable were:  "It's people, not programs that teach", and ""What about these darn standardized tests?" 

 

1.  It's people, not programs that teach:  this section of the book really supports the fact that you can have all of the standards and curriculum in the world available to teachers, but the bottom line is it is the way the teacher teaches that makes the difference between achievement or not.

Now, most of us already understand this, but  instruction really matters.  Great teachers understand that their planning, ability to teach to their learners, relevancy, and deep understanding of what the students need to know and be able to do is of the upmost.  For me, this reinforces the time I spend creating lessons, activities, and projects that are rigorous and meaningful to my learners while maintaining the ever so important question, "What is it the students need to know and be able to do by the end of this lesson, unit, etc.?"   This section really supports the thinking out of the box teaching.

 

2.  What about these darn standardized tests?  As more and more of our PLC discussions center around tests, test taking strategies, AYP, MAPs, benchmarks, and the million other things that go with accountability, this book puts tests in perspective.  Effective teachers understand how to keep tests into perspective by focusing on the skills students need to know and be able to do.

I really work hard at not getting caught up in the "teaching to the test" thinking, so liked this chaper for that very reason.  I figure that if I am doing my job by teaching my students what they need to know and be able to do based on the standards, then they should be able to demonstrate understanding in any kind of situation.   If I have prepared and assessed their learning, the accountability tests should be great. 

 

Some discussion questions:

 

1.  What does teaching to the test mean to you?  

2.  How can effective teachers keep tests in perspective when the accountability tests become the school mantra if the school did not achieve AYP?

3.  When considering effective instruction and exploring middle/high school/college level classrooms, lectures are a common thread.  What is the difference between a "poor lecturer's classroom" and "effective lecturer's classroom"?   

 

[Jennifer Reynolds]

1. My idea of teaching to the test is not considering the relevance of what you are teaching. Will it apply to a student's life and interests. I always ask myself if I would be bored with something that I have to teach. If my answer is yes, I have found that it is because I need to consider relevance more throughly and revamp what I am teaching so it is something that is worth learning. Teaching to the test is not teaching things that are on a test; it is teaching them in a manner where they are only relevant on a test.

2. I think that in situtations where schools did not make AYP it is really important to understand the test and understand why AYP was not achieved before deciding on what to closely focus on. Last year the 8th grade CRT did not have a word analysis section, but I know a lot of teachers focused time on that even though the first page of the online prep material clearly outlined what would be assessed. I think way too much time is spent putting bandaids on the wrong things. There should be focus on deficiencies, but we need to closely consider what is an effective use of time.

3. I have rarely been in a lecture classroom that was effective for me as a learner (only on two occasions) and I have been in a lot of lecture classrooms. The difference in those two classrooms was that the teachers discussed a concept and then made analogies to engage me. I think if most people think back on a lecture hall that they enjoyed they will find analogies as a common thread. Stories stick with us. There are of course many other variables, but I think that this was the biggest difference for me.

[Stephen B. Duncan]

1. To me, teaching to the test is something that covers the material in a superficial manner. It is merely a way to justify doing the absolute minimum that is needed to look good on paper.

2. I think if a teacher understands what principles apply to the application of any given material, and a student is given the chance to actually engage and apply those principles and processes, then not only will he learn and retain the material at hand, but he may be able to deduce reasonable answers for unfamiliar material. By including test material as part of the application process of those base principles, then it should be second nature to meet the requirements of the test. (Just theory of course)

3. To me, a poor lecturer is one who does not engage his students, choosing to regurgitate information without giving his students a chance to apply that information in someway, whether cognitively (in writing say, or as with Jennifer's comment about relating through an analogy) or hands on. If a lecturer gives his students some information, and then challenges them to apply it, they will not only retain it better, but will actually understand why it is important to have it and use it.

[Karen Pedersen]

Hello Jennifer:

The relevancy piece in instruction is really a major key to engagement and understanding. In addition, an instructions knowldege of content guides purpose. Great comments.
I agree with your concept of teaching to the test. So many times I hear comments from colleagues regarding the in the box instruction focused only on test content. This becomes frustrating because the focus should really be on what our students need to know and be able to do. Once students understand the concept and skill, they truly should be able to replicate it under any circumstance including tests. Understanding this eases the drive to teach to specific test questions, formats, etc.

When considering effective instruction and exploring middle/high school/ college level classrooms, successful lecturers have the ability to engage, make connections, and bring tremendous relevancy to the material.

Jennifer Reynolds said:

1. My idea of teaching to the test is not considering the relevance of what you are teaching. Will it apply to a student's life and interests. I always ask myself if I would be bored with something that I have to teach. If my answer is yes, I have found that it is because I need to consider relevance more throughly and revamp what I am teaching so it is something that is worth learning. Teaching to the test is not teaching things that are on a test; it is teaching them in a manner where they are only relevant on a test.

2. I think that in situtations where schools did not make AYP it is really important to understand the test and understand why AYP was not achieved before deciding on what to closely focus on. Last year the 8th grade CRT did not have a word analysis section, but I know a lot of teachers focused time on that even though the first page of the online prep material clearly outlined what would be assessed. I think way too much time is spent putting bandaids on the wrong things. There should be focus on deficiencies, but we need to closely consider what is an effective use of time.

3. I have rarely been in a lecture classroom that was effective for me as a learner (only on two occasions) and I have been in a lot of lecture classrooms. The difference in those two classrooms was that the teachers discussed a concept and then made analogies to engage me. I think if most people think back on a lecture hall that they enjoyed they will find analogies as a common thread. Stories stick with us. There are of course many other variables, but I think that this was the biggest difference for me.

[Karen Pedersen]

Hello Stephen:

Your comments really reflect the author of this book. The focus is the teacher. The teacher's knowledge of the content, purpose, and relevancy of the material to instruct. Keeping the focus on what a student needs to know and be able to do is vital.



Stephen B. Duncan said:

1. To me, teaching to the test is something that covers the material in a superficial manner. It is merely a way to justify doing the absolute minimum that is needed to look good on paper.

2. I think if a teacher understands what principles apply to the application of any given material, and a student is given the chance to actually engage and apply those principles and processes, then not only will he learn and retain the material at hand, but he may be able to deduce reasonable answers for unfamiliar material. By including test material as part of the application process of those base principles, then it should be second nature to meet the requirements of the test. (Just theory of course)

3. To me, a poor lecturer is one who does not engage his students, choosing to regurgitate information without giving his students a chance to apply that information in someway, whether cognitively (in writing say, or as with Jennifer's comment about relating through an analogy) or hands on. If a lecturer gives his students some information, and then challenges them to apply it, they will not only retain it better, but will actually understand why it is important to have it and use it.

[Melissa LiCon]

1. As a science teacher, I've gone from no testing at all in my subject (meaning no district or state-wide assessment) in the early years when I started teaching, to high stakes accountability measures. When the science CRT was first introduced, I served on an alignment committee that looked at whether the science assessment being used state-wide aligned with the science standards. We found that only about one-third of the test items were aligned with our science standards! My point here is that it is crucial that we design very high quality, valid assessments that actually test what we think is most important for students to know. Teaching to the test means that the teacher is not very concerned about student engagement, or relevance of the curriculum. Teachers that take this "low road" often have a difficult time answering those student questions such as, "Why do we need to know this?" These teachers also have a difficult time connecting each new concept or skill taught to those big ideas and meaningful themes that represent the kind of learning that stays with kids long after they have left the building.

2. I think the answer to this question can vary so much from school to school. One too many absences or one too many incorrect answers in one small demographic group can be the make-or-break data that results in a school not meeting AYP. In that case, the overall academic program may be very sound and effective at that particular school, so it wouldn't make sense to "throw out" what is working well for the majority of students as a result. I think the key is being able to sit down as a collaborative team and be able to go over the data objectively, to see what aspects of instruction can be improved. Sometimes this means bringing in a fresh set of eyes (data specialist or literacy consultant, etc) to lend expertise and objectivity to the discussion. Schools are now being expected to do so much with so little in the way of expertise or training. Identifying so called "failure" (not meeting AYP) is not enough - support, training and guidance must be offered in order for real improvement to take place.

3. Good lecture vs. bad lecture... hmmmm... kind of reminds me of the Seinfeld episode on "good naked" vs. "bad naked" - remember that one? Seriously, I think small amounts of information can be effectively delivered in the form of lecture, although I think it is better to call it "teacher presentation" in your classroom. My rules about this are: 1) Only give 3 - 5 minutes of information at a time, then give kids a breather; a chance to discuss it, respond to it, work with it. 2) If possible, give new information via lecture right before you are going to have the students actively work with that information, solving a problem, using it in a hands-on activity, writing something creative using it. That way the relevance of the information is clear to the students, because they use it right away to do something meaningful. 3) Make your lecture as funny, entertaining, theatrical, unexpected, crazy and creative, musical or artistic as you can manage. Boring kids to death is not a good way to convey important ideas. Use stories, songs, visuals, film and music to make lecture come alive for kids.

[Karen Pedersen]

Hello Melissa:

You bring up many great points. When instruction focuses on what a student needs to know and be able to do, the assessment becomes secondary. And, if done correctly, teachers are able to find the vast connections between the content standards and teach smarter rather than longer. I do feel many instructors focus on the details of the strands within the standard trying to cover all of the expected instruction while missing the bigger point of the learning.
In regards to lectures, I think you hit it on the head when you mentioned, engaged. Strong lectures truly engage the learners. This engagement can be in many different forms. You mentioned you are more engaged when the lecturer uses analogies, where as other learners might be engaged when the lecturer provides relevant connections, activities, visual aides, and humor. The key is that the instructor uses his/her knowledge of his/her learners to engage the students to the content.

See you Friday.
Karen


Melissa LiCon said:

1. As a science teacher, I've gone from no testing at all in my subject (meaning no district or state-wide assessment) in the early years when I started teaching, to high stakes accountability measures. When the science CRT was first introduced, I served on an alignment committee that looked at whether the science assessment being used state-wide aligned with the science standards. We found that only about one-third of the test items were aligned with our science standards! My point here is that it is crucial that we design very high quality, valid assessments that actually test what we think is most important for students to know. Teaching to the test means that the teacher is not very concerned about student engagement, or relevance of the curriculum. Teachers that take this "low road" often have a difficult time answering those student questions such as, "Why do we need to know this?" These teachers also have a difficult time connecting each new concept or skill taught to those big ideas and meaningful themes that represent the kind of learning that stays with kids long after they have left the building.

2. I think the answer to this question can vary so much from school to school. One too many absences or one too many incorrect answers in one small demographic group can be the make-or-break data that results in a school not meeting AYP. In that case, the overall academic program may be very sound and effective at that particular school, so it wouldn't make sense to "throw out" what is working well for the majority of students as a result. I think the key is being able to sit down as a collaborative team and be able to go over the data objectively, to see what aspects of instruction can be improved. Sometimes this means bringing in a fresh set of eyes (data specialist or literacy consultant, etc) to lend expertise and objectivity to the discussion. Schools are now being expected to do so much with so little in the way of expertise or training. Identifying so called "failure" (not meeting AYP) is not enough - support, training and guidance must be offered in order for real improvement to take place.

3. Good lecture vs. bad lecture... hmmmm... kind of reminds me of the Seinfeld episode on "good naked" vs. "bad naked" - remember that one? Seriously, I think small amounts of information can be effectively delivered in the form of lecture, although I think it is better to call it "teacher presentation" in your classroom. My rules about this are: 1) Only give 3 - 5 minutes of information at a time, then give kids a breather; a chance to discuss it, respond to it, work with it. 2) If possible, give new information via lecture right before you are going to have the students actively work with that information, solving a problem, using it in a hands-on activity, writing something creative using it. That way the relevance of the information is clear to the students, because they use it right away to do something meaningful. 3) Make your lecture as funny, entertaining, theatrical, unexpected, crazy and creative, musical or artistic as you can manage. Boring kids to death is not a good way to convey important ideas. Use stories, songs, visuals, film and music to make lecture come alive for kids.