Saturday, March 19, 2016

3/18/16 Friday PD: ACT Aspire data, IPI + SAMR

This week, we spent Friday PD as a large group.  We went over ACT Aspire data and the results from our latest IPI-T data collection (Instructional Practices Inventory-Technology*) as well as comparing this to our previous data collection in September.  Then we were given a brief overview of the SAMR model* guiding tech use in the classroom.  (For those who do not know its Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition).  I can go into more detail on these, but even though I've been through trainings on both, I'm not an expert.  On either of these, just because it wasn't anything I didn't know already, but most of our staff had little to no experience with this before.

*Note: If you are viewing this and you don't know what IPI and SAMR are, you should look them up (it's ok, you're already on the Internet).  I don't claim to be an expert in this post and Google keyword searches are allowed in the real world.*

After all of this, we were put into groups and given roles, an IPI level, a SAMR level, and a random topic (ours was fruit snacks, others included donuts, coffee, reality tv).  We were tasked with creating a lesson to fit our given IPI and SAMR levels.  It was nice to work with a cross-curricular group and come up with something entirely off the wall.  It was refreshing to see a group of educators who usually exclusively sits for PD, up on their feet talking and sharing.

All-in-all, it good PD.  We learned some information and then did an activity to show our understanding.

Here are my take-aways:

1. Of a 60-minute PD, ten minutes of this was spent at a level 5 for IPI (student learning conversations). But this not being "new" material to many of us, this also could be argued as a level 3 (student work, teacher supervised), but err on the side of the higher score.  So as a PD, we spent 10 min/60 min = 1/6 = approx 16.7% at a level 5.  Which means...

2. Of a 60-minute PD, we spent 50 minutes at a level 4 (teacher-led instruction). So as a PD, we spent 50 min/60 min = 5/6 = approx 83.3% at a level 4.

3. If conducting IPI collections during PD at the same rate as classrooms, it is likely we wouldn't have scored our PD as "higher level thinking", but rather teacher-led instruction.

4. Remember, and I cannot say it enough:  Jerry Valentine stresses that there is need and room for all of the levels except  one (1 complete disengagement).  "3s and 4s are ok" is basically a direct quote from the man, who did my training last year.  We shouldn't feel like kids need to always be at 5s and 6s, we just want to try to get them there often.


Here are some take-away a from PD that I'm not sure were intended:

5. With reflection, I just took our PD to a 6! (Also using SAMR level Modofication because I am able to collaborate with others through the blog and build on these ideas, which could cross over into Redefinition of following up on a Twitter chat or Voxer group)...I know, I know, I just geeked out on you.  Sorry.


5. In ten minutes working with our peers, we came up with the start of an amazing lesson that is cool, but doesn't have any practicality in our respective classrooms right now (i.e., Except for a few select classes, we can't go in on Monday and use that lesson). BUT, imagine what we could do if we had all 60 minutes to make something that we could use in our own classroom.

In summary:
If the desired result is higher-level lessons in our classrooms, we need to spend more time in higher level professional development.



2 comments:

  1. Great thoughts! I work with teachers in delivering pd and this was a good reminder. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're welcome! Always good to know my reflections have helped others :)

      Delete