Session 2: Train the
Trainers for
the Scaffolded
Inquiry Project
October 2008
Agenda
1. Welcome
2. What’s New on the Site
3. Brainstorming on a Posed Problem
4. Debrief on Leading a Team
5. What We Know About Implementation
6. Action Planning in Design Teams
7. Sharing Key Next Steps
8. Evaluation
2
Binder Materials
New Additions for Train the Trainers:
> Materials and Preparation
Checklists
> Outline
> Slides and Notes
> Action Planning Grid
3
Activity
Check Out What’s New on the Site:
> Filters for high school, middle school, and elementary
school are improved
> Abstracts will be grouped by the variable they address
> PDF issue resolved
> Scrolling on all pages reduced
> Selection of math abstracts now available
> Additional tools now open in new window
> Search “reset” feature added
> Research review document added
4
Debrief
Reflection and discussion on the site and tools.
5
Brainstorming Around a Posed Problem
ACTIVITY: Based on one of the following scenarios, how
might you use the resources from the Scaffolded
Inquiry Project to support the work of this
school’s Inquiry Team?
Use these additional resources as appropriate scaffolds:
> Considering Conditions of Learning
> Using the Maps—Guiding Questions
6
Activity: Based on one of the following scenarios, how might you use the
Scaffolded Inquiry Tools to support the work of this school’s Inquiry Team?
Inquiry Team #1
(Math, HS)
To be accepted at Gotham HS
students have to have an overall
average of 90% or better on their
report cards. Most students come
from private schools across the city.
As a policy, students are required to
take placement exams in the four
major subject areas—ELA, Math,
History, and Science.
Despite having, overall, an average
of 98% in math on their report cards
coming into Gotham, on the Math
placement exam, a majority of
students score below Gotham’s
standard of proficiency on the
constructed response component.
The Inquiry Team is considering
choosing Math as a school-wide
focus, with something specific
related to the constructed
responses. They think that students
may have missed key components
in their curricula before coming to
Gotham High.
Inquiry Team #2
(ELA, Special Ed)
New York Exceptional School serves about 400 Special
Education students. Most of the work they do with their
students is around ELA development, increasing
communication. The Inquiry Team administers Performance
Series in ELA to all 110 of their 12:1:1 (Learning
Disabled,mild to moderate Mental Retardation, and
Emotionally Disabled) students. After analyzing the
assessment results they see that 30% of their students fall
below the grade-level range supported by Performance
Series (below 2.0). They decide to focus on those students.
In an effort to get more information on their students, they
administer the Slosson Oral Reading Test (SORT) on which
21 students get less than 50% of the phonics-based
questions correct. They decide that these 21 students will be
the target population.
As a result of their analysis of the students’ learning
conditions the team determines that all of the students are
being given the same text and that the teacher is not
teaching phonics skills to those students. The team decides
that their instructional change strategy will be to have the
teacher explicitly teach phonics skill to those students during
the lesson.
Inquiry Team #3
(ELA, ES)
Apple Elementary School serves a very
diverse population. Its Progress Report
data indicates that in ELA 15% percent
of its 800 students are at Level 4, 20%
at Level 3, 40% at Level 2, and 25% at
Level 1. The Apple ES Inquiry Team
administers a DRA to help them get
more information on their Level 1 and
Level 2 students. The DRA shows that
most of the students have difficulty with
comprehension. The team selects 15 of
the students with the lowest reading
comprehension scores, according to the
DRA, and these students became the
target population.
They decide to gather information about
the students’ learning conditions. The
team takes low-inference transcripts in
the classrooms of the target population
students. They discover that these
students are not engaged in reading,
and most of the reading in the class is
being done by the teachers.
Debrief
Suggestions for Leading Teams:
8
What We Know About Implementation
Exploration
Installation
Initial
implementation
Implementation Stages
(NIRN, 2005)
Full
implementation
Innovation
Sustainability
Requires a team approach and effort.
9
What We Know About Implementation
Implementation is not
> Diffusion/dissemination of information
> Training alone, no matter how well done, does not lead
to successful implementation
> Implementation by edict alone does not work
> Implementation without changing supporting roles and
functions does not work
10
Supporting Implementation
Factors that can make or break an initiative:
>
>
>
>
Professional development
Leadership
Organization and school structure
Resources and support
Plan to balance a weakness in one area by intensifying
efforts in another to contribute to success and stability.
11
>What is the key to
the major project?
>What has to be done
in support of?
Quick Wins
Major Projects
Fill Ins
Thankless
Tasks
Impact
>What can make a
noticeable impact
right away?
high
Action Priority Matrix
low
>Somebody has to do
it….
low
Effort
high
12
Activity: Action Planning
>Open file that is
on the machine.
>Use it to plan
your strategy.
>Determine ways
to customize and
align with
ongoing efforts.
>E-mail or save
your file!
13
Report Out of Key Next Steps
14
Debrief Entire Scaffolded Inquiry Process
15