Changing Classroom Practice

William’s article generally supports the research made in formative assessments ( Black & William,1998; Crooks, 1988; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Natriello, 1987; Nyquist, 2003). In his opinion, when formative assessment is implemented well, it can increase the speed of student learning (Williams, 2007). However, William cites Popham (2006) in saying that “there is no evidence at this time that such assessments increase student achievement”. Instead, he states that schools need to “implement the kind of formative assessment that research supports” (p.37). In his work with the numerous schools in the US, he learned that changes in classroom practice are “actually difficult to achieve” (p.38). However, if schools put the right supports in place, the changes in the classrooms are achievable and to bring about these changes, the schools will need to make “sustained investments in a new kind of teacher professional development” (p.38) – teacher learning communities. According to William, these teacher learning communities are perhaps the “most effective, practical method for changing day-to-day classroom practice” (p.39) and his article describes how teacher learning communities can be established.

As I read William’s article a few things stood out for me concerning teaching learning communities. The first thing that stood out was the composition of the community. Essentially, it was made up of volunteers who William found to be more trustworthy, are able to find ways around obstacles encountered and able to provide a “beaten path that the less enthusiastic can follow” (p.39). Having read William’s article, I now begin to question whether it is wise for schools back home to make it compulsory for every teacher to be a member of a professional development team or professional learning community (PLC) so as to bring about changes in the respective schools. From experience, anything that is made mandatory or compulsory may not achieve the desired outcome as compared to things being done on a voluntary basis. As William’s article has advised – start with volunteers. Having worked with volunteers, I have found them to be usually committed to the work undertaken and positive in outlook. Hence, the chances of seeing formative assessment being successfully implemented in the classrooms are more promising in those teachers who have volunteered to be a part of the teacher learning communities. William’s article confirms my belief that I would need to select teacher volunteers who would be willing to a part of my inquiry project in using self-assessment to help students overcome learned helplessness. As William has so correctly pointed out, “Formative assessment, like any reform, is a match you get to strike only once; make sure there’s enough kindling to allow it to catch” (p.39). It’s a good observation made by William and one that school administrators should take to heart when they want to implement or initiate changes in their schools.

The second thing that stood out for me was the importance of the PLC meeting structure or format. This, I realized, gave the meeting a purpose, direction and sustainability. In the past, when I sat in some of the professional development meetings chaired by my Heads of Department, I realized that the meetings conducted were not as effective as I would like them to be. How then, I asked myself, could the meeting’s effectiveness be improved? How could the teachers be made more engaged at these meetings? How could the meetings be sustained and be beneficial for the teachers? William’s article clearly answered these questions for me – have a structure. William’s suggested format or structure can, in my opinion, be adapted for use for department and curriculum meetings in my school as well. At a recent meeting which I had with a school administrator in Prince George, she concurred with me on the importance of abiding to the structure of the meeting. As school leaders, it is perhaps good to ensure that teachers who are facilitating these meetings follow the given format or structure so that the meetings can be sustained and effective. If the teacher facilitator is new, perhaps school leaders who are instructional leaders as well, can model the structure for them and William’s model is certainly a simple and practical model to use. Black et. al. (2004) state that “support from school administrators is essential” (p.20) for any innovation. I fully agree and modeling done by school administrators is a form of support that can be given to new teacher facilitator. The latter I believe will truly appreciate it.

The third thing that stood out was the duration and frequency of the meeting. William suggested that it should be held monthly for at least 75 minutes, if not two hours at most. Back home, schools have their PLC teams meet weekly. As I reflect on this, I realized this can contribute to the meeting’s ineffectiveness as “teachers would not have had the time to try out new ideas in their classrooms” (William, 2007, p.39). Hence, attending weekly meeting would simply be a sheer waste of time. In the light of William’s findings, there is a need for school administrators back home to rethink on how PLC should be conducted in order for these meetings to be beneficial to all who attend.

To conclude, implementing formative assessments in the classroom takes time. So does the raising of student achievement standards. While PLC is one of the best ways for teachers to develop their skills at formative assessments, PLC meetings should follow a set format and they should run for a two or three year period. Only then, can an observable change be seen in classroom practice.