The first topic was organizing professional development to emphasize the value of differentiated instruction. One of the common themes was using real world applications by modeling differentiation while teaching professional development. Just as with students, training needs to be engaging for all. There was repeated mention of the value of modeling differentiation, teaching the way teachers should teach, using real world, hands-on, experience based activities and offering reasons with the models of specific strategies and methods. These offer strategies to ensure the teaching of the curriculum to ALL students. This is one of Tomlinson’s essential principles for leaders seeking differentiated classrooms. “Leaders who model differentiation exemplify the kiknd of respectful environment needed in responsive classrooms.” (P. 111).
The second theme was more out of Glatthorn’s Core process to achieve high-quality learning through systematic professional development (P. 6). There was much mention of the need to have ongoing professional development that includes a variety of opportunities and multiple meetings over an extended period of time. One real advantage of a longer period of time is building on learning through time. Some suggestions including:
using instructional coaches on-site to support the training over time
starting small (Tomlinson)
building on what is accomplished over time
The third theme in the discussion was variety. In order to reach all staff, various types and means of training, including those using technology, need to be offered. Variety, in many forms, is really the heart of differentiation.
Ideas included:
identifying personal learning styles
book studies
giving the big picture first
using Professional Learning Communities
creating driving questions
having knowledgeable and authentic trainers
working through issues and concerns
using online opportunities using Web 2.0
observing each other
release time
collaboration with each other.
Also mentioned, but not discussed, was the value of setting a goal or having a vision of engaging students. This would have significance in the motivation for professional development and could increase engagement but was not truly discussed in the chat. This was an area that could have used more discussion and it is brought out in Tomlinson’s essential principles for leaders seeking differentiated classrooms (P 109).
The second topic was organizing differentiated professional development to use data to shape instruction.
The most common theme was cooperative, collaborative work. Nearly every answer included this aspect. Teams setting goals, disaggregating and evaluating to improve strategies that align to curriculum is productive. As Burrello discusses in the chapter on delivering instruction, cooperative learning can be effective in increasing learning of students (even adult students, based on this discussion). Time may need to be spent teaching groups how to use the data to discover areas of concern and how it can be used to drive instruction.
Once again using different approaches was key. Different types of groups evaluating data, various subgroups to consider trends or characteristics, disaggregate data, teams and subgroups, investigating data, teaching teachers how to evaluate data and self assess were all ideas mentioned. Glatthorn’s Core process to achieve high-quality learning, using data-based problem solving and decision making (P. 6) the National Staff Development Council’s standard of using student data
It is necessary to do all of this from the lens of what practice will impact these results and increase student learning. Many people mentioned evaluating the success of these and making decisions based on the results. Student data as the guide for planning professional development is a successful way to shape instruction. All of the National Staff Development Council’s standards are phrased based on the standard of improving the learning of all students.
One area not fully pursued was ensuring data is valid and reliable. That may be something worth discussing in more depth. It is not enough to be data-driven unless the data is accurate.
Another topic not dealt with thoroughly was the difference in types of data based on the type of assessment from which the data was collected (formative, benchmark, summative).
Finally, technology as a tool for disaggregation and application of data was not discussed at all, although it was mentioned.
The final topic was using technology to allow individual professional development that helps reduce the impact of issues such as time and money. There were many ideas mentioned. Most of these have been previously explore in the Web 2.0 document.
Second Life- simulations, http://blog.discovereducation.com/secondlife
Skype (especially with archived podcasts)
Moodle
Podcasting and vodcasting
Google docs
Wikis
Blogs
Videos
IVC
Groups (Nint)
Online courses
Webinars and archives of these
Bubbl.us
This went into a great and rather long but totally unresolved discussion of districts blocking various Web 2.0 tools that teachers striving to teach 21st Century skills often want to use with their classes or leaders could use with staff members. Explanations for this were given, questions raised, points made but no resolution could be offered due to the complexity of the issues.
