Prewriting - Forsyth County Schools



Prewriting

✓ Capture key reflections about your staff that may help guide you in designing work for them. Identify their readiness and unique abilities and challenges. Reflect on the types of tasks that may speak to the motives they bring to work. What are their learning styles and specific interests?

✓ Consider key learning from last year’s professional learning plan. What worked best? Which sessions engaged the staff? What content was transferred to classroom practice?

✓ Thinking of the key reflections above, which Design Qualities should be emphasized and why?

| |

|Stage 1: Desired Results |Differentiate Content |Design Qualities |

|What do you want them to know and be able to do? | |Content and Substance |

| |Target essential knowledge, understanding, and skill for |Is it very clear what teachers are expected to know and be able to do? |

|What enduring understandings are desired? |all staff. |At what level do you expect the staff to learn what you intended? |

| | | |

|What are the big ideas? |Expect that all teachers work at high levels of thought and|Organization of Knowledge |

| |reasoning. |How were staff interests and engagement taken into account? |

|What essential questions will guide the professional learning| |Are professional materials available that will support teachers working on and with the |

|and focus teaching and learning? | |concepts, facts, skills, understandings, and other forms of knowledge that staff are |

| | |expected to deal with, understand, and master? |

|What key knowledge and skills will teachers acquire as a | |Are teachers encouraged to develop an interdisciplinary perspective? |

|result of this professional learning? | | |

| | |[pic] |

|Resources | |

|Georgia School Keys | |

|Georgia School Keys Implementation Resource Guide | |

|Survey Results Standards Assessment Inventory | |

|National Staff Development Council publications (see ) Note: all schools are annual members | |

|Georgia Staff Development Council and GSDC Academies (see ) | |

|Designing Power Professional Development for Teachers and Principals (Sparks 2002) | |

|Powerful Designs for Professional Learning (Easton 2004) | |

|Protocol Pause |

|Pair Share |

|Collegial Conversation |

|Stage 2: Assessment Evidence |Differentiate Product |Design Qualities |

|How do you want them to show you they understand? |Pre-assess staff readiness related to specified learning |Clear and Compelling Product Standards |

| |results to determine individual points of entry. |Are the standards by which the products or the performances are to be assessed clearly |

|Through what authentic performance task(s) will teachers | |articulated? |

|demonstrate understanding, knowledge, and skill? |Use ongoing assessments to chart staff progress related to|Are teachers provided with concrete examples, prototypes, or rubrics that illustrate what|

| |specified learning results and to plan instruction to |the finished product or performance should look like? |

|How will student work reflect change in teacher behavior and |support continued growth. |Are teachers able to assess their progress throughout the professional learning? |

|practice? | | |

| |Allow staff appropriate options for showing what they |Protection from Adverse Consequences |

|Through what unprompted evidence (e.g., observations, work |know. |Are teachers provided feedback throughout the year other than at Professional Appraisal |

|samples, etc.) will teachers demonstrate understanding, | |Cycle time? |

|knowledge and skill? | |Are persons other than the school leaders invited to give feedback affecting the teacher |

| | |performance? |

|How will teachers reflect upon, and self-assess, their | |When a teacher fails to meet the standards, is the teacher offered additional |

|learning? | |opportunities to complete the goal without the first effort affecting his or her |

| | |evaluation? |

| | | |

| | |Affirmation of Performance |

| | |Are the products made sufficiently public, i.e. observable by persons other than the |

| | |school leaders? |

| | |Do persons other then the school leaders inspect and affirm the work of the products? |

| | | |

| | |Choice |

| | |Are teachers provided with a wide choice in the means they will employ to produce the |

| | |product and the performance as well as choice of time, sequence, and order of the |

| | |completion of tasks? |

| | |Are teachers provided optimum choices with regard to the product to be produced or the |

| | |nature of the performance to be presented? |

|Resources | |

|Professional Appraisal Cycle | |

|Staff Engagement Measures (reference WOW) | |

|Evaluating Professional Development (Guskey 2000) | |

|Evaluation Forms | |

|Taking Charge of Change introducing the Concerns-Based Adoption Model or CBAM (Hord et al 2005) see | |

|Measuring Implementation in Schools: The Concerns-Based Adoption Model including Innovation Configuration (Hord et al | |

|2006) see | |

|Assessing Impact: Evaluation Staff Development (Killion 2001) | |

|Protocol Pause |

|Collegial Conversation |

|Sharing Development |

|Lesson Observation Protocol |

|Stage 3: Learning Activities |Differentiate Process |Design Qualities |

|How are they going to experience and learn the concepts? |Develop a learning environment that is safe and challenging|Product Focus |

|What sequence of teaching and learning experiences will equip |for each teacher. |Is the work assigned clearly linked to some product(s), performance, or exhibition? |

|staff to develop and demonstrate the desired understandings? | |Are teachers aware of the product toward which the work or activity is directed? |

| |Focus teacher tasks clearly on enduring understandings and |Do teachers care about or see meaning in the product they are being asked to produce? |

|How will the design – |ask teachers to use essential knowledge and skills to | |

| |achieve desired understandings. |Affiliation |

|W – help staff know where the professional learning is going? | |Are the tasks designed in ways that encourage cooperative action among staff? |

| |Adjust instruction to address staff readiness, interest, |Are the products difficult enough that they require cooperative action to complete? |

|H – hook all teachers and hold their interest? |and learning profile, including small group instruction, |When individual work is required, is the result of the work linked to products that |

| |time variance for learning, exploring and expressing |require cooperative action to complete? |

|E – equip the staff, explore the issues, and experience the |learning in a variety of modes, tasks at different degrees | |

|key ideas? |of difficulty, and varied teacher presentation approaches. |Novelty and Variety |

| | |Are the tasks teachers are expected to perform varied in kind, complexity, and length of |

|R – provide built-in opportunities to rethink and revise their|Work to eliminate factors that interfere with a teacher’s |time anticipated for completion? |

|understandings and work? |capacity to demonstrate proficiencies. |Are the tasks that teachers are expected to produce designed so that teachers are called |

| | |on to use new skills as well as new and different media, approaches, styles of |

|E – allow teachers to evaluate their work and its | |presentation, and modes of analysis? |

|implications? | |Is the information teachers are to process, consider, think about, and command presented |

| | |in a variety of formats and means? |

| | | |

| | |Authenticity |

| | |Are the products to which the tasks are related perceived by teachers to be “real”? |

| | |Are the conditions under which the work is done similar to the “real” world? |

|Resources | |

|National Staff Development Council publications (see ) Note: all schools are annual members | |

|Georgia Staff Development Council and GSDC Academies (see ) | |

|Designing Power Professional Development for Teachers and Principals (Sparks 2002) | |

|Powerful Designs for Professional Learning (Easton 2004) | |

|PLC Resources | |

|Protocol Pause | |Measuring Engagement |

|WOW Protocol |After Action Review |Assessing Staff Engagement |

|Descriptive Review |Principal’s Conversation with Designers | |

|Advanced Protocol | | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download