Doug Fisher Follow me: dfisherSDSU

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Nancy Frey and Doug Fisher San Diego State University
Advertisements

Bringing it all together!
INDEPENDENT LEARNER.
Collaborative Conversations Doug Fisher, PhD San Diego State University.
Implementing RtI 2 Douglas Fisher
Close Reading of Complex Texts
Productive Group Work Nancy Frey San Diego State University PPT at Click “Resources” Nancy Frey San Diego State.
Reading Newell-Fonda Ten Instructional Approaches That Matter for Adolescents Create Lessons that Include:Student Experiences: 1.Collaboration Students.
A Framework for Inquiry-Based Instruction through
Engaging Students: Speaking and Listening Standards.
Making Group Work Productive PowerPoints available at Click on “Resources”
Qualitative Measures of Text Complexity
Teaching Students to Read Like Detectives
Accountable Talk Malden Public Schools. What is Accountable Talk “Accountable talk sharpens students' thinking by reinforcing their ability to use and.
ACADEMIC CONVERSATIONS
Common Core Georgia Performance Standards Facilitating Student-Led Discussions, K-12 Part 1: Rationale and Discussion Formats Cynde Snider.
Inquiring Minds Want to Know: Using Inquiry to Build for the ELA CCSS COSA, Fall 2013
Collaborative Learning. (c) Frey & Fisher, 2008 TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY Focused Instruction Guided Instruction “ I do it ” “ We.
Ways to Assess Individuals During Group Work. Learning Targets Investigate strategies that promote individual accountability in group work. Discuss difficulties.
Comprehensive literacy and numeracy instruction begins with assessment for learning to determine students’ strengths and needs, and informs the level of.
Gradual Release of Responsibility. (c) Frey & Fisher, 2008 In some classrooms … TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY Independent “You do it alone”
Focusing on Purpose and Meaningful Work Douglas Fisher
English III team building. Team Training Camp Pick a mascot for your team Draw the mascot Add a team motto Add individual icons or symbols Come up with.
Better Learning Through Structured Teaching Douglas Fisher www
Collaborative Conversations
Doug Fisher Follow me: dfisherSDSU.
Bell Ringer: Write your own original example of each of the following: anecdote, dichotomy, imagery, and conceit. 1.
Impact of Instructional Strategies
TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY Focus Lesson Guided Instruction “I do it” “We do it” “You do it together” Collaborative Independent “You.
 Teaching and learning are “VISIBLE”- that is, when it is clear what teachers are teaching and what students are learning, student achievement increases.
Teachers that matter Effective teachers Gingerlee Lackey Graduate Student University of Alabama A presentation based on chapter 3, “The argument: Visible.
Supporting Literacy for Students with Developmental Disabilities Being a Literacy Partner.
 Hello. I want to thank you for the opportunity to interview for this teaching position.  In being a teacher, I am aware of the effect that I play in.
Socratic Seminar A Model for Civil Discussion. What is a Socratic Seminar? Teacher observes; students lead Students come prepared with notes and questions.
Common Core.  Find your group assignment.  As a group, read over the descriptors for mastery of this standard. (The writing standards apply to more.
Scaffolding Students’ Comprehension of Text
Reducing Ineffective Practices
Academic Conversations
Speaking and Listening in Grades K-2
Visible Learning for Literacy
Doug Fisher Engagement by Design.
Differentiated Instruction: The Differentiator’s Toolkit
Speaking and Listening in Grades 3-5
Better Learning Through Structured Teaching
FIT TEACHING The Framework for Intentional and Targeted Teaching
Collaborative Conversations
Building and Assessing Oral Proficiency in the English Classroom
Unpacking This Week’s ELA Standards
Close Reading adapted from work/research by D Fisher & N Frey
Visible Learning for Literacy
Debate Unit 1 Standards Comprehension and Collaboration
FACULTY MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 2017.
CCRS Implementation
What is a Socratic Seminar?
Socratic Seminars.
Visible Learning for Literacy
Common Core Georgia Performance Standards Facilitating Student-Led Discussions, K-12 Part 1: Rationale and Discussion Formats Cynde Snider.
How Do We Improve the Learning and Outcomes of our Students?
Cooperative Learning Students work together in small groups and learn through interaction with each other while the teacher coaches the process.
Introduction to Teacher Clarity
Copy the following list of words and write their definitions: Obstruct
D Impartial Neutral, fair, on neither side.
Objectives Participants will be able to:
Making Time for Feedback
Socratic Seminars.
Differentiated Instruction
Collaborative Learning
Socratic Seminars.
Socratic seminar Session #2.
COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN THE CLASSROOM
Presentation transcript:

Doug Fisher www.fisherandfrey.com Follow me: dfisherSDSU

Every student deserves a great teacher, not by chance, but by design.

0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.2 Medium 0.8 0.1 High 0.9 Low 0.0 1.0 Teacher effects 1.1 -0.1 Developmental effects Negative 1.2 -0.2 Reverse effects Zone of desired effects Standard error = Rank: /136 Number of meta-analyses: Number of studies: Number of participants: Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.2 Medium 0.8 0.1 High 0.9 Low 0.0 1.0 Teacher effects 1.1 -0.1 Developmental effects Negative 1.2 -0.2 Reverse effects Zone of desired effects Standard error = n/a Rank: 136/136 Number of meta-analyses: 7 Number of studies: 207 Number of participants: 13,938 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.2 Medium 0.8 0.1 High 0.9 Low 0.0 1.0 Teacher effects 1.1 -0.1 Developmental effects Negative 1.2 -0.2 Reverse effects Zone of desired effects Standard error = 0.016 (low) Rank: 125/136 Number of meta-analyses: 2 Number of studies: 92 Number of participants: n/a Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.2 Medium 0.8 0.1 High 0.9 Low 0.0 1.0 Teacher effects 1.1 -0.1 Developmental effects Negative 1.2 -0.2 Reverse effects Zone of desired effects Std. error = 0.027 (low) Rank: 88/136 Number of meta-analyses: 5 Number of studies: 161 Number of effects: 295 Number of participants: 105,282 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.2 Medium 0.8 0.1 High 0.9 Low 0.0 1.0 Teacher effects 1.1 -0.1 Developmental effects Negative 1.2 -0.2 Reverse effects Zone of desired effects Standard error = 0.081 (high) Rank: 58/136 Number of meta-analyses: 8 Number of studies: 674 Number of participants: n/a Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

This is the hinge point – a year’s worth of growth for a year in school.

0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.2 Medium 0.8 0.1 High 0.9 Low 0.0 1.0 Teacher effects 1.1 -0.1 Developmental effects Negative 1.2 -0.2 Reverse effects Zone of desired effects Standard error = n/a Rank: 136/136 Number of meta-analyses: 7 Number of studies: 207 Number of participants: 13,938 Retention: d = - 0.13 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.2 Medium 0.8 0.1 High 0.9 Low 0.0 1.0 Teacher effects 1.1 -0.1 Developmental effects Negative 1.2 -0.2 Reverse effects Zone of desired effects Std. error = 0.027 (low) Rank: 88/136 Number of meta-analyses: 5 Number of studies: 161 Number of effects: 295 Number of participants: 105,282 Homework: d = .29 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

Small group learning: d = 0.49 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.2 Medium 0.8 0.1 High 0.9 Low 0.0 1.0 Teacher effects 1.1 -0.1 Developmental effects Negative 1.2 -0.2 Reverse effects Zone of desired effects Standard error = n/a Rank: 48/136 Number of meta-analyses: 2 Number of studies: 78 Number of participants: 3,472 Small group learning: d = 0.49 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.2 Medium 0.8 0.1 High 0.9 Low 0.0 1.0 Teacher effects 1.1 -0.1 Developmental effects Negative 1.2 -0.2 Reverse effects Zone of desired effects Standard error = n/a Rank: 48/136 Number of meta-analyses: 2 Number of studies: 78 Number of participants: 3,472 Study Skills: d = 0.59 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.2 Medium 0.8 0.1 High 0.9 Low 0.0 1.0 Teacher effects 1.1 -0.1 Developmental effects Negative 1.2 -0.2 Reverse effects Zone of desired effects Standard error = Rank: Number of meta-analyses: Number of studies: Number of participants: 5,028 Repeated Reading: d = 0.67 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

Teacher-Student relationships: d = 0.72 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.2 Medium 0.8 0.1 High 0.9 Low 0.0 1.0 Teacher effects 1.1 -0.1 Developmental effects Negative 1.2 -0.2 Reverse effects Zone of desired effects Standard error = Rank: Number of meta-analyses: Number of studies: Number of participants: 5,028 Teacher-Student relationships: d = 0.72 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

Classroom Discussion: d = 0.82 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.2 Medium 0.8 0.1 High 0.9 Low 0.0 1.0 Teacher effects 1.1 -0.1 Developmental effects Negative 1.2 -0.2 Reverse effects Zone of desired effects Standard error = Rank: Number of meta-analyses: Number of studies: Number of participants: 677 Classroom Discussion: d = 0.82 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.2 Medium 0.8 0.1 High 0.9 Low 0.0 1.0 Teacher effects 1.1 -0.1 Developmental effects Negative 1.2 -0.2 Reverse effects Zone of desired effects Standard error = 0.079 (Medium) Rank: 3/136 Number of meta-analyses: 2 Number of studies: 30 Number of participants: 3835 Teacher Clarity: d = 0.90 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY “I do it” Focused Instruction Guided Instruction “We do it” “You do it together” Collaborative “You do it alone” Independent STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY

TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY “I do it” Focused Instruction “You do it alone” Independent STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY

TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY “You do it alone” Independent STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY

TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY “I do it” Focused Instruction Guided Instruction “We do it” “You do it alone” Independent STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY

TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY Focused Instruction “I do it” Guided Instruction “We do it” “You do it together” Collaborative “You do it alone” Independent STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY A Structure for Instruction that Works (c) Frey & Fisher, 2013

The established purpose focuses on student learning, rather than an activity, assignment, or task.

Three Questions What am I learning today? Why am I learning this? How will I know that I have learned it?

TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY Focused Instruction “I do it” Guided Instruction “We do it” “You do it together” Collaborative “You do it alone” Independent STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY A Structure for Instruction that Works (c) Frey & Fisher, 2013

Comprehension and Collaboration 1. Prepare for and participate in collaborations with diverse partners, building on each others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.

K-2 Features Following the rules of discussion Moving from participation to turn taking Sustaining discussion through questioning Adult support

3-5 Features Preparation for discussion Yielding and gaining the floor Posing and responding to questions From explaining own ideas to explaining the ideas of others

6-8 Features Using evidence to probe and reflect Collegial discussions include goals and deadlines Questions connect ideas from several speakers Acknowledge new information

9-10 Features Use prepared research in discussion Voting, consensus, and decision making Ensure hearing full range of opinions or options Summarize and synthesize points of disagreement

11-12 Features Civil, democratic discussions Questions probe reasoning and evidence Resolving contradictions Determine what additional info is needed

Group Work Examples TTYPA Think-Pair-Square Carousel Novel Ideas Only Opinion Stations

Productive Group Work Examples Conversation Roundtable Numbered Heads Together Literature Circles Reciprocal Teaching Jigsaw Walking Review Collaborative Poster

Difficulty v. Complexity A measure of effort required to complete a task. In assessment, a function of how many people can complete the task correctly. A measure of the thinking, action, or knowledge that is needed to complete the task. In assessment, how many different ways can the task be accomplished.

Marc Umile is among a group of people fascinated with pi, a number that has been computed to more than a trillion decimal places. He has recited pi to 15,314 digits.

Differentiate according to difficulty, not complexity.

Low Difficulty High Complexity High Difficulty High Complexity More Complex Low Difficulty High Complexity High Difficulty High Complexity Easy Hard Low Difficulty Low Complexity High Difficulty Low Complexity Less Complex

Thank you!