The Changing Classroom

One of the best parts of my job as principal is the opportunity I have to visit classes. These visits give me the chance to really see teachers and students in action, and helps me better appreciate the full scope and sequence of what we offer. During the course of this year, I have visited every academic teacher’s class at least once. New teachers and new courses typically merit multiple visits, as a means of providing support and guidance to the overall academic program.

 

What a pleasure it is to see these dynamic teachers in action. Their enthusiasm for their subject matter stands out in every classroom.

 

Even more evident are the positive and productive relationships teachers are fostering with their students in grades 9-12. Now in my 14th year as Upper School Principal, I have seen some interesting developments in classroom practice, not the least of which involves the use of technology. (Yes, I even remember a time when smartphones didn’t exist!) Some of the key changes I have noticed over the past few years reflect the shifts in educational strategies overall. The “sage on the stage” approach that may have dominated my own high school years has given way to the “guide on the side” method, whereby teachers allow students far more time to roll up their sleeves and work on something rather than lecture to them.

 

That is not to say traditional direct instruction does not have a place; it certainly does. And I see tremendously effective examples of that happening all over the building. Whether a teacher is explaining new content at the front of the room, or leading a high-level discussion in seminar style, we still need to excel in these tried-and-true strategies. However, it is not the dominant mode of instruction anymore. I sometimes joke with the science department that everyone is finally catching on to what they have known for years: getting kids to do hands-on lab-style work creates a vibrant, collaborative learning environment. Research supports the fact that learning by doing connects with more students than passive reception of information.

 

Thus, teachers in all disciplines have had to get much better at what I often refer to as “cruising around the room,” checking in with kids who are working individually or in groups, nudging them along at times, clarifying concepts as needed, keeping them on task or (more often) talking them through a particularly knotty problem.

 

The math department is exceptionally strong in this area. Math teachers have learned that having students work out problems in front of them is superior to sending them off with a batch of problems to do at home. If a student hits a roadblock, the teacher — or frequently a supportive peer — is right there to assist him or her.

 

Another one of the key pedagogical areas I have been paying attention to this year involves what educators call “formative assessment.”

 

Simply put, this means that teachers are finding out regularly what students know and if the lesson of the day has been internalized. (Formative assessment co-exists with its better-known partner “summative assessment,” where students demonstrate what they know over a longer period of time via tests, projects, papers or presentations.) I have been interested in seeing what our teachers are doing in regards to formative assessment and trying to coach them beyond the well-established but not particularly effective strategy of asking the class questions like “Does everyone understand that?” Or “Does that all make sense?”

 

Again, research suggests that despite the head nods that students might give the teacher in response to such questions, unless we really ask a student to somehow demonstrate their understanding, we are short-changing them. If a student is confused, he or she may be reluctant to acknowledge that publicly, even when the teacher poses the slightly more encouraging “Does anyone have any questions?” Sometimes, a student can also be under the false impression of “getting it,” and a formative assessment can either quickly confirm or refute that notion. I am pleased to report that I saw many good examples of formative assessment going on in the classes I observed.

 

Teachers use all sorts of strategies like short on-line quizzes or “exit tickets,” for which a student might be asked to solve correctly one last math problem or answer one last analytical question before they leave class. Still, I think we can and should strive to do more in this regard, so this will be point of emphasis in the months ahead.

 

Up to this point I have focused on what I have observed in terms of teachers and their instruction. I would be remiss not to point out the most impressive aspect of my observations, which is the behavior I see from the students. Time and again, I am amazed at their high level of participation and focus.

 

Teenagers these days get a lot of negative press about their addictions to technology and/or their short attention spans, but I see no evidence of these problems when I am visiting classes. Students are zeroed in and engaged; often their ability to focus for a 65-minute class period outmatches mine.

 

Good teaching obviously helps create the environment in which this can happen, but so too do motivated, curious students. When I think about the fact that most students are asked to concentrate and perform at a high level for 4-6 class periods in a day, I marvel at their stamina and positive attitudes.

 

In all, my class observations reaffirm the strengths of a Colorado Academy education: dynamic and encouraging teachers, eager and diligent students, and a high level of academic offerings in a wide range of subject matter.