USING WOW TO IMPROVE INSTRUCTION
Tom Evans & Cecily Anderson
Baltimore County Public Schools
As a means of improving instruction, the faculty and staff of Catonsville Middle School (CMS) in Baltimore County have been implementing the “Working On the Work” framework developed by Dr. Phillip Schlechty, author of Shaking up the Schoolhouse and Working on the Work , and CEO of the Center for Leadership in School Reform (CLSR). Central to our implementation has been the involvement of our staff in a protocol driven, descriptive review process for analyzing student work. We began our implementation at the end of the 2001-2002 school year by asking our department chairpersons and interdisciplinary team leaders to read each of these two books. We have since encouraged all our staff to do so. We followed this with a series of open discussions and continue to implement the framework in our team and faculty meetings.
The main focus of this descriptive review process is for teachers to create better work for students to do. This is different from other protocol-driven approaches that specifically focus on improving the quality of the work produced by our students. While this is an important by-product of our efforts, we feel that by having our teachers focus on creating more engaging work for students, it will naturally result in students creating a higher quality product.
The faculty of Catonsville Middle School believes that students are volunteers in the learning process. Of course, we mandate student attendance and require them to follow a set schedule. These elements are not volunteered. But students do volunteer the effort that they make on a given assignment. And effort matters every bit as much as ability in determining student success. While we do not have control over much of the baggage that students bring to school from the outside and we have no control over parents and what does or doesn't happen in the home, we recognize that the work we create for students to do is the one thing that we, as teachers, have absolute control over.
The approach used by the CMS faculty to look at student work is a descriptive review process developed by the Center for Leadership in School Reform (CLSR). Each of our interdisciplinary teams uses this process to bring multiple perspectives to the analysis of student work in each of their weekly team meetings. The purpose is improvement. Our goal, while “Working on the Work” is to improve the quality of the work we present the students. As a result, we have decided to focus on work that needs some “polishing” in hopes that fellow team members can provide fresh ideas that will make the assignment more approachable and, therefore, more engaging to the students.
Each week, one team member is asked to bring a piece of student work to the team meeting for analysis. Selection of what to bring to the process is a critical decision. Early in our work, teachers generally brought student work of the highest quality. After all, there's a lot to be said for receiving a pat on the back from one's colleagues about the great work students are creating. What we discovered, however, is that while this helps teachers become aware of the work of other disciplines, it wasn't all that helpful in improving the overall quality of the assignment. So, now, the work presented is usually an assignment taught to students that did not go as well as expected.
Once work is identified, these steps are followed:
Step 1. Getting Started – First, the team sets up a schedule for teachers to bring completed, and often graded, student work for presentation. Before presenting the work, the teacher removes the student name from all pages to keep it anonymous and to ensure the focus is not on the student, but on the assignment and the student work. Each member of the team is given a copy of the work that may range from a one-page assignment to a multi-step, multi-page project, complete with rubrics and scoring tools. At the start of each meeting, the team chooses a facilitator to keep the group focused and moving at a reasonable pace. This role alternates around team members, allowing each of the members to experience it. Then, the presenting teacher distributes copies of the selected work or displays the work. At this point, the presenting teacher says nothing about the work, its context, or the student. We proceed under the assumption that the work speaks for itself and that it does not, at least initially, require an explanation from the presenter. The participants read and analyze the work in silence, making notes if they choose.
Initially, we found this to be a somewhat difficult and frustrating step. Our tendency was to want to hear from the presenter at the beginning of the process. It was also next to impossible to override the presenter's natural longing to “set the stage” of the assignment. As educators, we have an overwhelming desire to ensure that our readers/ students are aware of our intent before they even touch the work we present to them. We want to verbally and visually focus their learning towards very specific outcomes and predetermined answers.
Over time, however, we better understood the wisdom of following this step as presented in the protocol. We discovered that by explaining the assignment ahead of time, we were actually swaying the responses of the team members. Without the initial explanation, team members both looked more closely at the work presented and asked better questions. The end result was a deeper and more productive discussion, thus resulting in a more thorough examination and more powerful suggestions for revision.
Step 2. Describing the Work – After the team members have had ample time to examine the work presented to them, the facilitator asks the question, “What do you see?” Participants respond without making judgments about the work. The presenting teacher begins to take notes at this time. He or she may want to respond to comments concerning the layout of the work itself and the initial comments concerning the student responses to that work. Note taking also helps the presenting teacher by developing a framework with which to work to improve the design of the work itself. The types of comments given by team members at this time do not include judgments. For example, members might say, “I see a three step writing process with a rubric” instead of, “This looks like a wonderful assignment, I don't know how anyone couldn't have gotten an A!”
Again, it has taken some discipline to not offer comments about the quality of the work in step 2. We feel that, before the quality of the work can be discussed, it must be analyzed in an objective way. In order to keep this process objective, we try to keep our focus on the layout of the work presented and on the progression of steps throughout the lesson. For example, a teacher may begin by stating that he sees the directions given in bold print at the top of the first page, or that he sees that directions for a certain part are not given. He may state that a box has been included for a diagram, or that scientific vocabulary terms and their definitions have been provided. This can be very difficult for teachers, especially if they are seeing a lesson that is formatted in a way that is new or different for them. The natural tendency may be for a teacher to think, “this is confusing, I would have added a word bank here,” but these comments are to be saved for later. Observing teachers often take notes on the work itself, allowing them a way to offer suggestions and a reminder of the questions they have regarding the assignment.
Step 3. Raising Questions – During this step, the facilitator asks, “What questions does this work raise for you?” The observing team members ask questions that will help them clarify the assignment. These are questions that may have been answered before the start of the process if the presenting teacher was allowed to talk. But, by saving the questions until after the work has been presented, the team members can use their own observations to clarify the work they have examined. The presenting teacher makes notes but does not yet respond.
Questions like, “How long did the students have to complete this assignment?” and “How was this graded?” are questions our teachers often have. If we discover that the questions asked by our team members could not be answered by the work itself, we may have to ask ourselves if the students had similar questions and were afraid to ask, or didn't know they should. Many of the questions provided during this stage allow the presenter to think deeply about the work he or she is assigning. By placing the answers to some of these questions in the assignment itself, we may be able to make the work clearer and more approachable to our students, thus raising the level of student engagement and performance.
Step 4. Speculating About the Work – After the questions have been asked and recorded, the facilitator asks, “What type of engagement (such as authentic, ritual, passive compliance, retreatism or rebellion) does this work best typify? What is the evidence?” Clarifying the type of engagement and the evidence found in the work is another reason we “erase” the name of the student. We eliminate any type of preliminary judgment, such as “this is typical of John's effort, he never tries,” and redirect the focus to the work itself.
Step 5. Presenting Teacher Responds – At the facilitator's invitation, the presenting teacher finally has a chance to respond by telling about the work, answering the questions raised, and commenting on any unexpected things that he or she heard in the group's responses and questions. At this point the presenter also describes the background information relating to the unit, the content standards being addressed, and the assessments used. The presenting teacher shares the level of the class assignment and the name of the student whose work was examined and may also respond to questions and comments heard earlier. The presenting teacher may agree with what the other team members saw as strengths and weaknesses of the lesson. The teacher may also ask for suggestions as to how to improve the work and for ideas for how to engage the students to perform better on this type of activity. This conversation leads naturally to the final step, an examination of design qualities.
Step 6. Discussing Implications for Designing Student Work and Student Learning – This step in our analysis of student work begins with the group and the presenting teacher identifying the Design Qualities evident in the assignment. Suggestions of ways the Design Qualities account for the level and types of engagement are observed. Also, teachers discuss how attention to different Design Qualities might enhance engagement. We believe this is the most critical step of the process for improving instruction. The teacher needs to reflect on the quality of the student work and how incorporating different Design Qualities or enhancing the ones already presented might improve it.
By discussing the work we give to students with team members who teach outside of our content areas, we are better able to offer suggestions of Design Qualities because we are looking at the subject matter presented in much the way our students look at it. History teachers, for example, may examine a math assignment and wonder, “what would the students need to understand this kind of material? How can I reshape this lesson?”
Sometimes, it may be the content. We may discover that the reading material is too difficult for a particular set of students. At other times, it may be the activity. For example, substituting a drawing activity for a stance question may be what some of our kids need. It may also be the set up of the lesson. As we have learned, some classes work well in partners, others don't. By understanding these factors, we are able to ensure more success in our lessons by gearing them towards the needs of our students.
We discovered that including special educators in our Working on the Work sessions has been a great success. They have knowledge of how to help content teachers reformat the work we give to our students in each of the content areas. A fresh pair of eyes, not directly related to a content area, is often just what our Working on the Work sessions need. This fresh approach has helped us analyze closely the way our work is formatted and examine how reachable it will be for our students.
Students and parents also play a vital role in the implementation of WOW at Catonsville Middle School. The incorporation of student and parent ideas into lesson design, a self-analysis staff survey, and a weekly article written by each of the department chairpersons and team leaders for publication in our faculty bulletin, The Weekender , have enabled us to use the WOW framework more effectively and to involve our students and parents.
To incorporate student ideas, teachers have utilized an “engagement survey” similar to an exit pass, to obtain from students their type of engagement for the given lesson. A second question asks students to inform the teacher as to what would have made the lesson more engaging for them. Students might respond with answers such as, “I would have liked it if we were able to work in a group on this assignment” (affiliation), “It would have been more engaging if I had been able to share my product with someone else before it was submitted” (affirmation), “It would have been more engaging if we had been able to choose our topic from a list of possible topics” (choice), or “I like it better when we do things that are real or current” (authenticity). This provides the teacher with some ideas as to how to engage more students when this assignment or a similar activity is completed in the future.
In addition, we have created both student and parent focus groups to determine which of the Design Qualities are most important in encouraging students to make a greater effort with an assignment. When asked the question, “If I were your teacher and I was trying to create an assignment for you to do that would make you want to give it your best effort, what should I include?” In response, middle school students (and their parents) have been unanimous in their opinions that qualities from the WOW protocol such as affiliation, choice, product focus, novelty and variety, affirmation of performance, and protection from adverse consequences for initial failures are the critical elements for teachers to incorporate in their lesson planning.
We have also asked our staff members to assess themselves in order to identify possible areas of school improvement. During our first marking period, our faculty worked in committees to assess our status relative to each of the 12 Process Standards of the WOW model. Process Standards include the ten Design Qualities as well as “Patterns of Engagement” and “Student Achievement.” Analyzing our strengths and weaknesses with each of these standards has helped our faculty, as Schlechty said so well in his book, “begin the conversation that must begin if Working On the Work is to move from interesting words and slogans to a program of action” (page 22).
In order to respond to the key elements of each standard, our committees developed their own assessment instruments, administered the instrument, collected and analyzed the data, and reported their findings in detail to the full faculty. Committee members continued our efforts for school improvement by identifying our strengths as a staff, analyzing our collective weaknesses and offering suggestions for school wide improvement. These recommendations have become the basis for continued dialogue and new planning for the future. Our committees continue to meet and work towards improving our quality of instruction.
In conclusion, we have found that being involved in the WOW process and listening to the dialogue and ideas presented by our faculty has become a quite rewarding experience. We have had the pleasure of watching the staff grow and become increasingly involved in school improvement and student success. We have become a faculty of professional learners who create our own unique instruments to use in assessment and who discuss the results at a high level prior to making recommendations. We have become a faculty who has grown increasingly closer and even more dedicated to generating high interest, high quality work for our students. WOW!
Authentic Engagement: The task, activity, or work students are assigned or encouraged to undertake has inherent meaning or value to the student.
Ritual Engagement: The task, activity, or work has little or no inherent meaning or value to the student, but it is associated in the student's mind with outcomes and results that are of value (e.g. entry into college.)
Passive Compliance: Students are willing to expend whatever effort is needed to avoid negative consequences, though they see little meaning in the tasks assigned or the consequences of doing those tasks.
Retreatism: The student is disengaged from the task, expends no energy in attempting to comply with the demands of the task, but does not act in a way that disrupts others and does not try to substitute other activities for the assigned task.
Rebellion: The student summarily refuses to do the task assigned, acts in a way that disrupts others and/or attempts to substitute tasks and activities that he or she is committed to in lieu of those assigned by the school and the teacher.
• Content and substance
• Organization of knowledge
• Product focus
• Clear and compelling product standards
• Protection from adverse consequences for initial failures
• Affirmation of performance
• Affiliation
• Novelty and variety
• Choice
• Authenticity
Catonsville Middle School in Baltimore County, Maryland, was a 2001-2002 Maryland Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. Tom Evans was principal of Catonsville Middle School from 1995 to 2003. He may be reached at tevans@bcps.org . Cecily Anderson is the English department chairperson at Catonsville Middle.