Working Smarter not Harder Making a Difference One

Working Smarter not Harder: Making a Difference One Teacher at a Time Larry Maheady, Ph. D Exceptional Education Department SUNY Buffalo State maheadlj@buffalostate. edu June 20, 2018 A presentation for the Georgia HLP/MTSS Summit, Middle Georgia State University, Macon, Georgia

Session Goals • Address commonly asked question from teachers & leaders • What can I do to improve student learning in my classroom(s) right now? • Describe three easy-to-use teaching practices that consistently improve student outcomes • Share evidence to support effectiveness from a variety of settings

What can I do to improve student learning in my classroom right now?

Challenges of Group Instruction • Group instruction, large & small, is most common teaching arrangement at Tier I & II levels • Five instructional challenges • • • Maintain attention Give students equal opportunities to respond Provide individualized feedback Monitor student learning Prevent & deal with disruption • So challenging that if students just pay attention & aren’t disruptive, we feel successful

Case Overview • Two Important Student Outcomes • Active student engagement during group instruction • Academic productivity (in class & homework) • Three “Low Tech” Practices • Response cards • Numbered Heads Together • Three Jars

Active Student Engagement (ASE) • ASE is critical to academic achievement (Hattie, 2009; Heward & Wood, 2015); (oral reading, writing, discussing, solving math problems versus listening and watching) • Some students (average & high performers) are easier to engage than others (low performers) during group instruction • Some existing practices may be widening achievement gaps in our classrooms

RESPONSE CARDS

Questions ? • If you are leading lesson & direct questions to whole class, what percentage of students would raise hands to respond? What % of HRs would be average or above average achievers? Low achievers? What are the long-term consequences of these response patterns?

Amy’s Class • Students & settings • 22, 4 th graders in small, urban setting • 12 Cau. 6 AA, 4 His. • 88% free & reduced meals • Problem • Low rates of active class participation • Poor performance on math quizzes • Goals • Get more students to participate • Improve math quiz scores on district-adopted measures

100% 90% Percent correct 80% 70% 60% Is a class average of 71% correct acceptable? Why or why not? 50% 40% 30% What will class average be next week, two weeks, or two months from now, if instruction stays the same? 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 Sessions 5 6

Baseline 100% Response cards 90% Percent Correct 80% Mean = 89% 70% 60% Mean = 71% 50% Was that amount of change important? Why or why not? 40% 30% How did math scores change? 20% What decision would you make about using Response Cards? 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sessions 8 9 10 11 12

100% Baseline Response Cards Baseline 90% Percent Correct 80% 70% M = 89% 60% M = 76% M = 72% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sessions 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

100% 90% Percent Correct 80% 70% M = 89% 60% 50% M = 76% M = 71% 40% M = 88% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Sessions

Pseudonyms Baseline Average Response Cards Average Gain Scores Jim* 60 85 +25 Shanequa 73 92 +19 Luis 82 88 +6 Sara 87 100 +13 Miguel 73 97 +24 Hayden 82 97 +15 Teoscar 95 100 +5 Didi 80 88 +8 Jasmine 67 88 +21 Ralph 60 83 +23 Kim* 56 85 +29 Tom 75 97 +22 Angelica 88 92 +4 La. Tesha 88 100 +12 Ivory 87 97 +10 Total 77 93 +16 How did individuals do baseline vs RC? How did highest performer do? How did lowest performer do? Use, adapt, or discard?

Best Available Evidence • 23 studies in math, social studies, & science (Randolph, 2007) • Pupils make about 15 times more active responses per class versus hand-raising • 75 Xs per week • 300 Xs per month • 2, 700 Xs per year • Student quiz scores were 1. 5 letter grades higher & disruptive behavior decreased by 40% • Most students prefer RC over traditional methods

Game-based learning platform (Norway); multiple-choice quizzes; use with any age, grade, or skill levels, & subject matters; & any device with internet connection & web browser

NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER

Kagan Structures • developed in the 1970 s by Spencer Kagan • “easy-to-use” structures that involve cooperative goals & rewards • 4 primary types of structures • mastery • thinking skill • information sharing • communication

Student Assignment to Teams 1 13 2 14 3 15 11 23 10 22 12 24 4 16 5 17 6 18 9 21 8 20 7 19

NHT Procedures • Step 1. Students sit in small groups w/numbers • Step 2. Teacher asks questions, provides think time, & students privately write answers on white boards • Step 3. Students put heads together (show & discuss answers) teach as necessary • Step 4. Teacher calls random number (1 to 4) & students with number answer simultaneously • Step 5. Classmates applaud students who responded

Cindy’s Class • Students & Setting • • • 9 th grade biology class in small urban, low SES setting 26 year veteran teacher with training in Kagan structures 18 students (13 F, 5 M) 9 His. 7 Cau. 2 AA 1 students with IEP, 3 ELLs • Problem • Poor performance on new “challenging” science content • Low class participation • Pupil Outcomes • Percent correct on weekly science quizzes taken online using i. Pads • Interventions • Hand Raising vs. Numbered Heads Together (NHT)

Baseline NHT Percent Correct Heads Together 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Weeks 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Students Baseline M NHT M Gain Scores A 38 52 +14 B 37 71 +34 C 48 53 +5 D 57 73 +16 E 55 90 +35 F 43 53 +10 G 78 96 +18 H 78 84 +6 I 90 98 +8 K 83 88 +5 L 37 46 +9 M 44 73 +29 N/O 56/60 71/74 +15/+14 P/Q 43/23 73/63 +30/+40

THREE JARS

Target Behavior Target students & Criteria What? Contingent Rewards Who? Wow!

7 th Grade Math Inclusion Class •

Work = tion e l p m Co 95% WHAT? What outcomes/behaviors would you like to improve? uracy c c A k r o W = 90% n= o i t e l p m Co 100% y= c a r u c c A 80% Work n= o i t e l p m Co 80% = y c a r u c Ac 85%

Interdependent group contingencies: All group members are rewarded based upon their collective performance (Litow & Pumroy, 1975) Entire class WHO ? Row 1 Chris Row 2 Ashley Row 3 Lauretta Dependent group contingencies: All group members rewarded based on performance of one or few rmembers

What are some preferred items and activities for your students? WOW! 5 m in ea dism rly issa l Tea dres cher ses u p! No wor dots k N hom o ewo coup rk on Mys Mot tery ivat or P

M =. 64 C M =. 59 A M =. 65 C M =. 64 A M =. 95 Completion M =. 86 Accuracy

Students Baseline Average Correct Three Jars Game Average Correct Gain Scores A* 51 81 +30 B* 47 76 +29 C* 51 88 +37 D 71 92 +21 E* 61 87 +27 F 67 90 +23 G* 40 . 79 +39 H 68 82 +14 I* 11 83 +72 K* 32 70 +38 L* 84 97 +13 M* 87 99 +12 N 79 95 +16 O 76 87 +11 P 82 96 +14 Q 63 84 +21

Closing The Gap Percent Completion Percent Correct 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 10 Students without IEPs Students with IEPs 0 Baseline Intervention

Takeaways • Students do well when teachers use effective practices. • These practices are used infrequently and by too few practitioners. • Teachers need good PD & support to use these practices well. • Avoid politics of distraction (e. g. , class size, vouchers, charter schools, grade retention, & summer school)

References • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Taylor & Francis. • Kagan, S. (2010). Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Resources Inc. • Randolph, J. J. (2007). A quantitative synthesis of response card research on student participation, academic achievement, classroom disruptive behavior, and student preferences. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 9, 113128. • Rhode, G. , Jenson, W. R. , & Reavis, H. K. (2010). The tough kid book (2 nd. Ed. ). Eugene, OR: Pacific Northwest Publishing.