Deep Dive Professional Development Activities

Outlined by Lisa B. Lauritzen, CFN 107

Deep Dive Professional Development Activities

For the Danielson Rubric Used by the

NYC Teacher Effectiveness Program 2012-2013

Attached are 4 outlines for activities for introducing and going deeply into the structure and language of the NYC Teacher Effectiveness Program’s 7 competency Danielson Rubric with teachers. The activities were borrowed and adapted from professional development conducted by the Danielson group and the Office of Teacher Effectiveness.

They are between 30-50 minutes long (timing depends on the facilitator and participants specific needs). A few can be linked together for a longer PD opportunity. The activities are:

Domain Bucketing of Effective Practice “Post Its” (30+ mins)

Purpose: To introduce the Danielson’s four domains as logical and interconnected.

Materials Needed:

• Power Point for Directions?
• Post Its (2” x 2”)
• Chart Paper (divided into four boxes). Each box is labeled at the top (1: Planning and Preparation, 2: Classroom Environment, 3: Instruction, 4: Professional Responsibilities), see example to the right.

Directions:

1) Prep Work:

1. Divide teachers into groups of 3 or 4
2. Give each group Post Its

2) PART A: Individual Brainstorming (5 mins)

1. Brainstorm as many answers to the question below
2. Put each answer on a separate “Post It”
3. Question: What makes a teacher effective?

3) PART B: Group Sorting into Piles (5 mins)

1. With your group, sort all of your “Post Its” into similar piles
2. Give each pile a Heading
3. Introduce Danielson’s 4 Domains: We are now going to see how our ideas fit with Charlotte Danielson’s 4 Domains of Teaching Practice.

4) PART C: Group Sorting to Domains (5 mins)

1. Put your group’s piles into the appropriate domain on the chart paper
2. Ask another group for help, if you are unsure where to put a pile.
3. Walk around and observe other group’s chart papers. What do you notice?

5) PART D: Whole Group Discussion (10+ mins)

1. Possible Discussion Questions:
2. Were there any that didn’t fit into one of the four headings? Why is that?
3. Were there any surprises?
4. Any obstacles to placing any ideas? How did you overcome them?
5. Is there one competency that is the most important?
6. Hear a few answers

6) Summary: (5 mins)

1. Charlotte Danielson’s four domains are interconnected. The most important one is probably dependent on the specific teacher’s practice.
2. Improving practice in one domain should have a ripple effect on improving practice in the other domains.
3. Domains 2 and 3 are the domains that classroom observations will focus on because they are visible during lessons.

Domains and Personal Experiences as Students

(Feeling = Domain 2; Content = Domain3) (30+ mins)

Purpose: To gain deeper knowledge around the differences between Domains 2 and 3.

Materials Needed:

• Power Point for Directions?
• Handout with Competencies for Domain 2 and Domain 3
• Chart Paper as T chart, one column labeled “Domain 2: Classroom Environment” and the other “Domain 3: Instruction”
• Post Its

Directions:

1) Prep Work:

1. Divide teachers into groups of 3 or 4
2. Give each group Post Its

2) PART A: Personal Experiences with Teachers (5 mins)

1. Ask teachers to think of the teacher who had the biggest effect on them growing up.
2. Write the teacher’s name (or a descriptor of him/her) on a Post It.
3. If the effect was positive, put a big plus sign on the Post It. If the effect was negative, put a big minus sign on the Post It.

3) PART B: Small Group Share (5-8 mins)

1. In groups of 3 or 4 share why the teacher had a big effect on you.
2. Listen for similarities and differences.
3. Encourage an individual to share later with the whole group.

4) PART C: Whole Group Share/Sorting to Domains (10 mins)

1. Ask a few individuals to share.
2. After each share, ask the participant if they thought the teacher’s effect had more to do with Domain 2 or Domain 3? Put their Post It under the appropriate label on the chart paper.
3. Ask the remaining participants to think about their experience and place their Post It on the appropriate column.
4. Ask: What are you noticing about the experiences under Domain 2 and the experiences under Domain 3?

5) Summary: (6-8 mins)

1. In general experiences dealing with students’ feelings belong in Domain 2, but experiences dealing with content or a subject area belong in Domain 3.
2. Ask, “Based on the data charting our experiences, what hypothesis might we make?
3. Usually Domain 2 ends up having more Post Its.
4. One hypothesis might be because it speaks to our human needs for respect, care, encouragement.
5. A second hypothesis might be that content knowledge might have less of a long term effect???
6. Positives and Negatives: There are usually a mixture of both in both columns
7. Ask, “What might this mean for our own practice as teachers?” Ask for a volunteer to share.

Descriptive Word Chart for HEDI Ratings(45+ mins)

Purpose: To gain deeper knowledge about the language changes in ratings from Ineffective to Highly Effective on the TEP Danielson rubric and to look specifically at two or three of the three competencies in the Chancellor’s Expectations 2012-2013.

Materials Needed:

• Power Point for Directions?
• TEP Danielson Rubrics
• Highlighters?
• Markers
• Masking Tape
• Chart Paper. Each group will receive one sheet. Decide how many groups you will have and which competencies you want to focus on (choosing the CIE focus 3b, 3d, 1e, is one way).

Directions:

1) Prep Work

1. Divide participants into groups of 3-5
2. Give each group a pre-formatted chart paper

2) PART A: Individual Work (8 mins)

1. Ask individuals to silently read the rubric for their competency and highlight key descriptive words for the rating levels written above the columns on their chart paper. Give an example, like “consistently.”

3) PART B: Small Group Work (15 mins)

1. Have the group select a scribe and facilitator. The goal is to record on the chart paper key descriptive words for their competency’s ratings.
2. Tape the chart paper up

4) PART C: Gallery Walk (5 mins)

1. Ask participants to walk around the room and look closely at each group’s work. They should be prepared to share surprises, connections, noticings, patterns, etc.

5) PART D: Whole Group Discussion (10 mins)

1. Ask participants to share anything they noticed from the gallery walk (surprises, noticings, connections)
2. Share out (Participants will find that much of the language used is similar based on the rating, regardless of the competency). Some of the words they are likely to come up with are:
3. Ineffective: lack of, unsafe, harmful, unclear, unaware, poor, unsuitable, poorly aligned, unrealistic, no variety, boring, little or no investment, low expectations, trivializes, socializing, no established, repressive, disrespectful, chaotic, helpless, low cognitive challenge, single correct responses, rapid, recitation, teacher mediates, rote, poor quality, global
4. Developing: inconsistent, partial, general, attempts, awareness, moderate, minimal, some, no differentiation, effort at some variety, uneven, limited, little commitment, completion, rather than quality, easy path, teacher tries, no apparent system, single path, few students, partially aligned, passive, compliant, facts or procedures, no choice,
5. Effective: aligned, consistent, frequent, successful, appropriate, clear, positive, smooth, varied, respectful, suitable to groups, reasonable time, generally , varied use of groups, variety, cognitively busy, teacher communicates, teacher demonstrates, expectation, good effort, some low level, promote student thinking, genuine discussion, most students, multiple possible answers, students talk, many, active engagement, scaffolding, some choice, aware, some engage, teacher elicits
6. Highly Effective: in depth, high level, differentiated, individual learners, clear, student choice, cognitively vibrant, shared belief, high expectations, hard work, students assume responsibility, helping peers, entirely appropriate, active role, sensitive, variety, challenge, students initiate, unsolicited contributions, all, virtually all, suitable, fully aligned, time needed, self assessment

6) Summary (5 mins)

1. You want to make sure to share some of the similarities. You might mention that Effective tends to be teacher directed and Highly Effective is student directive. Ineffective tends to suggest there is something missing where Developing suggests there is something there, but with gaps.
2. Regardless of the competency there is a similarity between the rating levels.

HEDI Practice and Mind Set for Specific Competencies(45+ mins)

Purpose: To get deeper knowledge about what teacher practice at the Effective and Highly Effective level might look like for specific competencies and the type of mindset a teacher has at these levels. (Note: This is the activity that we did at the summer PD for school leaders).

Materials Needed:

• Power Point?
• TEP Danielson Rubrics
• Markers
• Tape
• Group Chart Paper, Pre-formatted, see example to the right
• Facilitator Chart Paper, Pre-formatted for 1c, below.
• Facilitator Chart Paper, Pre-formatted for 3b, see example below.

Directions:

1) Modeling for Part A (5 mins)

1. Explain the 1st step is to record on the chart examples of what teacher practice would look like at each level for the competency assigned.
2. The 2nd step is describe in the second row of the chart the mindset or beliefs a teacher would have to have to achieve at the effective and highly effective levels. Do not fill in the “Mindset” for Ineffective or Developing Practice.
3. Model part of the activity by giving one highly effective practice and one mindset for it. An example for 4E might be:
4. Example of Teacher Practice at Highly Effective: Teacher presents his action research, articles read, lesson plans, students’ work, and his findings at a Network PD where he asks for feedback.
5. Mind Set: Teacher believes that he will improve his practice by conducting action research on his own practice and sharing it with others to get feedback.

2) PART A: Group Work (20 mins)

1. Divide participants into groups of 3-5. Give each group a pre-formatted chart paper
2. Ask groups to select a scribe, facilitator, reporter 1, and reporter 2. Reporter 1 will share the examples, Reporter 2 will share the “Underlying skills/mindsets”
3. Facilitator should start the discussion about what might be an example of practice at the ineffective level for the competency assigned.
4. When finished hang the chart paper up

3) PART B: Small Group Share Out (8 mins)

1. Each group should have two reporters, one should share the practices and the other the mindsets.

1. The Whole Group Facilitator should chart just the mindsets mentioned into a T chart, see below, capturing the mindsets needed for all competencies at the Effective and Highly Effective level. This is a good chart to hang up in the faculty room or principal’s office as a reminder.

4) Part C: Whole Group share Out (10 mins)

1. Ask participants to look at the lists of underlying skills/mindsets and to choose one that resonates with them because it is surprising, it’s something they need to work on, it’s something they do well or believe strongly in.
2. Turn and Talk to a neighbor about what you chose and why
3. Whole Group Share: Ask, “What can we do as a community to nurture these types of skills and mindsets?” OR “Why do these mind sets not exist already?” OR “If they do exist, what’s driving them?”

5) Summary: It is easier to cultivate effective practice if you know the mind sets and skills that need to be cultivated.

1