Instructional Rounds

A Collective, Systematic, & Formative Approach to School-Wide Supervision of Instruction at one Elementary School

Overview

Many researchers including Michael Fullan, James Stigler & James Hiebert, and Linda Darling Hammond have emphasized the importance and benefits of building collective teaching practice and quality above that of individual teacher practice and quality. During my education career pathway first as a teacher, then as an instructional coach, and now as a content expert I have always been drawn to this approach because it builds professional learning networks and communities of practice. In building professional learning networks and communities of practice I’ve used lesson study, action research with Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, the professional learning community (PLC) process, and recently cycles of investigation and enactment. These are systemic solutions to changing either grade or department level cultures or school cultures such that the emphasis is on group capacity and learning together.

IR Graphic

Instructional rounds serve as a vehicle for informing lesson study,action research, PLCs or any other cycle of inquiry focused on improving individual and collective teaching practice because evidence is gathered about a collective problem of practice. Instructional rounds, inspired by rounds in the medical field, are a set of protocols and processes for observing, analyzing, discussing, and understanding instruction that can be used to improve student learning at scale. Furthermore instructional rounds serves as a collective, systematic, and formative process for supervision of instruction where all who participate in the network, including teachers and school leaders, learn more about teaching and learning through a cycle of inquiry around the instructional core or interaction between teacher’s knowledge and skills, student engagement, and the cognitive demand of the task. Finally instructional rounds is grounded by a theory of action to address the collective problem of practice and thus gathering evidence through observations of 20 minutes allows for dialogue about the what students could predictably learn based on evidence around the instructional core and whether the theory of action effectively addressed the problem of practice. Instructional rounds end with the network discussing the next level of work, recommendation for the school and system to make progress on the problem of practice.

As a Common Core Math Expert supporting a network of schools under my Instructional Director, herself an expert at training and leading networks in doing instructional rounds, I participated in instructional rounds at one comprehensive high school, two middle schools, and on three occasions at one elementary school. For each of these instructional rounds (5 school-wide instructional rounds) I was asked to lead a small group of 3 or 4 people in the debrief process after observing anywhere from 2-4 classrooms together and submitting a report with recommendations for the next level of work for the classrooms we observed to both my Instructional Director and the principal of the school for their presentation of the instructional rounds data to the school. This I did each time more successfully and by the end of the year more efficiently thanks to the use of a Google form for group data collection and the data distillation report, which made dialogue for the debrief and next level of work more efficient.

Instructional Rounds at Roybal-Allard Elementary

Our first instructional rounds at Roybal-Allard Elementary took place in the early fall of 2014. I as part of my instructional director’s network support team participated in leading a team based on my own experience of leading instructional rounds under the tutelage of instructional director at out network of schools. Roybal-Allard Elementary’s problem of practice was effective comprehension strategy instruction implementation was not systemic, and there was a focus on teaching the strategy, as opposed to using the strategy to address the Common Core State Standards to deepen student comprehension of text. In addition, there was not a uniform understanding of how First Read lessons were to be delivered. Their school’s theory of action was, “If teachers effectively deliver a First Read, complex text strategy lesson based on the Common Core Anchor and Grade Level Standards, then students demonstrate deep comprehension of the text as evidenced by student talk, student work, and other assessment data.” In a team of three observers we observed a kindergarten and sixth grade classroom during a comprehension strategy instruction lesson. I used an observation template I created the previous year for scripting what the teacher said and did, what the student said and did, and cognitive demand of the task. I led the team in the debrief protocol through the describe, analyze, predict, and next level of the work steps. Our team shared what we discussed might be the next level of the work in relation to the problem of practice including providing PD on determining text complexity using a text complexity analysis tool which I emailed to the instructional coach, including a focus question which connects the strategy to the standard, and a revising the criteria chart in evaluating observation evidence to align more tightly with the addressing all aspects of the problem of practice.

In the winter of 2015 the Roybal-Allard Elementary Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) invited our regional support team back for another instructional round to evaluate their progress with comprehension strategy work after addressing the recommendation for the next level of the work previously provided in the instructional rounds from the fall of 2014. Roybal-Allard Elementary’s problem of practice remained the Instructional Core Graphic same, but this time their theory of action renamed a “First Read” as “Comprehension Strategy lesson” and effectively delivered this lesson meant that a gradual release of responsibility was achieved, complex text is purposeful and appropriate for students, and strategy selection and delivery is intentional. This time the categorical advisor and myself formed a team. We observed fourth classrooms including second, third, fourth, and fifth grade classrooms. Again I scripted the comprehension strategy lessons. After observations I facilitated the debrief process following once again as we described, analyzed, made predictions for the level of student work based on our observation evidence, and discussed what our team thought the next level of work would be for these four classrooms. The categorical advisor and I created an affinity chart with post-its of evidence in order to establish patterns so we could analyze the evidence based on a new criteria chart that was in fact more aligned with the specific aspects for addressing their problem of practice. This time there were five criteria components instead of fifteen. Our two-person team shared in the whole group about our recommendations for the next level of work based on the analysis of four classrooms comprehension strategy instruction. We shared the next level of the work, which included a recommendation for a specific training on text complexity in which grade level analyzes a text with a text complexity analysis tool. Moreover another recommendation was for lesson plans to be provided to inform our analysis protocol, as well as the instructional core as it related to the criteria for their theory of action, and to understand the context of what we observed since we could not stay for the entire lesson. I emailed the next level of work report to my instructional director and the principal so the Roybal-Allard’s ILT could present the data and next level of work to the entire staff. This eventually led to a decision to provide professional development on text complexity for each grade level.

In the spring of 2015 Roybal-Allard Elementary hosted the monthly principal’s meeting for another set of instructional rounds. This would be the last instructional rounds in addressing the same problem of practice for the current school year but with the help of 25 principals. The problem of practice and theory of action for Roybal-Allard Elementary remained the same. Ten teams, each with five members including teacher, teaching assistants, principals, and instructional service support team members observed two classrooms during a portion of a comprehension strategy lesson. The team I was on observed a second and fifth grade classroom and I scripted the lesson with a focus on the instructional core. My instructional director was originally assigned to lead the group I was in, but because she was facilitating the principal’s meeting she asked me to lead the group through the debrief and next level of the work protocols. Thus I facilitated as we described, analyzed, made predictions about the level of student work based on observation evidence, and collaboratively determined the next level of work. The debrief process was conducted differently this time as we were aided by the creation of a Google Form, which meant that one person, in this case myself, could enter the data based on the team’s dialogue for each part of the debrief protocol as well as the next level of work recommendations and or reflective questions. This Google Form included the Roybal-Allard's current problem of practice and theory of action, a suggestion I provided to my instructional director in its' creation. Our recommendations for the next level of the work focused on more opportunities for student-to-student interaction even in the modeling part of the gradual release protocol. In addition we recommended a quicker transition into guided practice in order to engage students in the comprehension strategy work much earlier especially at this point of the year where students should be more than familiar with the different comprehension strategies and in turn bearing a greater responsibility for using the strategies when appropriate depending on the particular text and comprehension challenge they are facing.

CAPEs Connections

CAPE 6- Evaluating, Analyzing, and Providing Feedback on the Effectiveness of Classroom Instruction to Promote Student Learning and Teacher Professional Growth.

Instructional rounds involve analyzing classroom observational evidence of the instructional core, specifically the interaction between the teacher, the student, and the cognitive demand of the task. Thus it connects to CAPE 6 through the observation of classroom instruction and also through using the lesson plans to support the analysis of instructional practice school wide. Moreover instructional rounds requires communicating feedback through providing both commendations and recommendations, which can be provided in the form of reflective questions around actions that can be take for the next level of the work as it relates to the problem of practice. A report provided by the network using all of the observational evidence for the entire school and the process of identifying patterns of practice based on that evidence along with predicting what students would learn based on the observational evidence of the instructional core allows for commendations and recommendations that really support school-wide movement towards the next level of work to address the problem of practice. This directly relates to CAPE 6 in analyzing instructional practice and in providing effective, equitable, and timely feedback, that is formative. My role in participating in these rounds and facilitating the debrief and next level of the work processes with evidence based feedback provided, contributed to the work of refining Roybal-Allard Elementary’s problem of practice and their theory of action over the entire school year. Thus it addressed several components of CAPE 6.

CAPE 7-Demonstrating Understanding of the School and Community Context, Including the Instructional Implications of Cultural/Linguistic, Socioeconomic, and Political Factors

Instructional rounds at Roybal-Allard Elementary addresses CAPE 7 in two ways. First because its focus is on the instructional core it requires supporting effective instruction for diverse learners including English language learners (ELLs) and students with disabilities (SWDs). Our debrief dialogues involved talking about cognitive demand of the task as well as access to the task for different student populations through teacher questioning and discourse moves in order to support oral language development and student cognitive engagement throughout the teaching of the task, in this case the use of comprehension strategies to understand complex text. This directly connects to CAPE 7. Secondly, because our team and the other teams in the instructional rounds network understand how classroom structures, school and class scheduling, and group practices can affect student learning the feedback we could provide commendations and recommendations based on evidence that would address these factors in refining either the problem of practice and also possibly the theory of action to address this school-wide problem. For example one recommendation for the school was to use think-pair-share and other structured talk opportunities throughout comprehension strategy lessons, which do involve different group practices. Instructional rounds addressed this component of CAPE 7.

CAPE 8- Communicating With the School Community about School wide Outcomes Data and Improvement Goals

Instructional rounds at Roybal-Allard at various points throughout the year measured the school’s progress with addressing problem of practice based on the school’s use of comprehension strategy instruction as well as the theory of action in support of improving the comprehension strategy instruction school wide. The instructional rounds schoolwide commendations and recommendations, which include those from the teams I led, along with observation scripts for every teacher and a summary of the data in a graphical formats was presented by the instructional leadership team as a source of data in addition to other measures in order to inform decision making in various contexts including school wide staff meetings and governance council about professional development in relation to the problem of practice of comprehension strategy instruction. This directly led to professional development on the comprehension strategy instruction definition and delivery, anchor charts for comprehension strategy instruction, and analyzing text complexity using a text complexity analysis tool in order to determine appropriateness of text and matching of the text with a specific strategy or strategies. Thus instructional rounds as enacted at Roybal-Allard Elementary directly connected to CAPE 8 in the gathering of classroom observation data, analyzing this data, and using the network’s recommendations to inform decisions about improving comprehension strategy instruction school wide to the teaching staff in relation to teacher professional learning and student achievement as measured by student talk, student work, and other achievement data. Moreover the presentation of this data as it related to the school wide goal of improving comprehension strategy instruction, was provided to the school community in visual displays using tables, bar graphs, and pie charts that made it visible and more understandable for the teacher staff. My team’s data directly contributed some of this data including affinity charts, data distillate charts, observation scripts, and Google form responses. This directly addresses CAPE 8 and it supported the instructional leadership team in communicating slight refinements of the problem of practice and theory of action based on continued data analysis and reporting from the three school-wide instructional rounds conducted at Royall-Allard elementary.

CAPE 9- Working with Others to Identify Student and School Needs and Developing a Data-Based School Growth Plan.

From the beginning of the year our network team of my instructional director, myself as the Common Core Math Facilitator, and my ELA counterpart in collaboration with the instructional leadership team at Roybal-Allard Elementary determined that instructional rounds would be used as a practice to support the improvement strategies already in place. As a result instructional rounds provided an additional data source through the collection and analysis of lesson plans and classroom observations of the instructional core, which informed the school growth plan as it related to one of their instructional initiatives, reading comprehension. It specifically addresses CAPE 8 in the understanding and implementing of strategies, in this case instructional rounds, to evaluate a school change process and inform a data based school growth plan. Moreover three iterations of instructional rounds were conducted through the use of various networks composed of my instructional director and her team including myself, members of the regional support team, the instructional leadership team of Roybal-Allard, several members of the teaching staff from Roybal-Allard, and principals from 25 schools for the last instructional rounds. Thus CAPE 8 also was addressed by instructional rounds as enacted as Roybal-Allard because it included multiple constituencies in sharing and using data to assess instructional needs, and define staff goals for continuous improvement with regards to their school specific goal of comprehension strategy instruction.

CAPE 10-Implementing Change Strategies Based on Current, Relevant Theories and Best Practices in School Improvement

Instructional rounds are a systematic approach and can be described as an organizational process, learning process, culture-building process, and political process. It both informs and is informed by other improvement strategies at a school and that is exactly how it was enacted at Roybal-Allard Elementary to inform their improvement strategy of comprehension strategy instruction for reading comprehension. Thus everyone who participated in the rounds including administrators, teachers who participated in observing, the teachers who were observed, and all other participants who were on a team to support the school’s goal learned more about comprehension strategy instruction. Specifically we all learned by engaging in describing the implementation of comprehension strategy instruction through recording pieces of observation script and then analysis using patterns gleaned from classroom observation data which in the last instructional rounds conducted also were informed by the lesson plans provided for each classrooms lesson. Because everyone was involved in some capacity when the instructional rounds were conducted and the classroom observation data was shared with each teacher along with a presentation of school-wide data and recommendations for the next level of work it support the implementation of change and thus addresses CAPE 10. It is a best practice for school improvement because its purpose is to involve all in learning and to build system wide capacity towards continuous improvement.

CAPE 12-Instituting a Collaborative, Ongoing Process of Monitoring and Revising the Growth Plan Based on Student Outcomes.

Student achievement in reading comprehension was one part of the school wide growth plan determined by the instructional leadership team with input from the entire teaching staff. The improvement strategy was comprehension strategy instruction, which needed to be collaboratively monitored and refined based on multiple measures of data. Instructional rounds thus became a process for collaboratively monitoring comprehension strategy instruction as designed by instructional leadership team and teachers at Roybal-Allard. It also provided one of multiple measures for monitoring this aspect of the school growth plan. Every time instructional rounds were conducted the data and recommendations were provided in a presentation and report to all stakeholders especially teachers and parents. Thus due to how it was enacted, especially as a collaboration amongst many stakeholders including myself as part of my instructional director’s instructional support team, it addressed CAPE 12 in its entirety.

Reflection

I participated as a member of my instructional director’s team in leading instructional rounds for a team of 2-4 people for each of the three instructional rounds conducted at Roybal-Allard Elementary throughout the school year. I also produced the reports for my team, which included the data distillate or Google form entry, commendations, recommendations for the next level of the work, along with all the observation scripts from my team members and myself. This was provided to my instructional director and the principal, who along with her instructional team presented the school-wide report to the teaching staff and the report was also used to inform decisions about future professional development and implementation support and feedback on comprehension strategy instruction.

In reflecting on this project there were clear successes and only some small challenges. The biggest success was the steady school-wide improvement which could be seen in standards anchor charts for each grade level, professional development on text complexity analysis for each grade level, lesson plans that incorporated differentiated support for diverse learners and appropriated instructional strategies for this specific instructional activity such as the gradual release model. Moreover the school had a common language for comprehension strategy instruction and it was focused on addressing specific Common Core reading standards. Another success was that Roybal-Allard Elementary adopted instructional rounds as a process they would use internally as a school to collectively learn about and supervise instruction as a way to provide data and inform decisions related to the their school growth plan. By the end of the year my instructional director’s team, which included myself, had fully released the responsibility for planning and running the instructional rounds in addressing their problem of practice. One challenge for me was not being present for the principal’s presentation of the school wide data and recommendations as it related to Roybal-Allard Elementary’s problem of practice. In addition often the instructional rounds were scheduled for half a day which often time meant that the debrief and next level of work discussions were rushed, which affected the quality of analysis and the recommendations for the next level of the work.

In my role of leading teams in observing classrooms, debriefing, and providing recommendations for the next level of the work I would take more time to provide a picture of what the day would look like for my team as each time I led different people. This would save time in terms of needing to clarify the debrief process later during the process. Moreover I would ask more reflective questions of team members during the analysis to ensure high quality of analysis. In thinking about recording the data I think I would always use the affinity charting process to more easily identify patterns of our collected data and also create a spreadsheet to aggregate the data school-wide using separate data distillates.

Supporting Documents

Personal tools

Sections

Instructional Rounds

Overview

Instructional Rounds at Roybal-Allard Elementary

CAPEs Connections

Reflection