Advancing the Three-Minute Walk-Through: Mastering Reflective Practice

Books

Carolyn J. Downey, Betty E. Steffy, William K. Poston Jr. & Fenwick W. English

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    About the Authors

    Carolyn J. Downey is professor emeritus of educational leadership in the College of Education at San Diego State University. She formerly was the superintendent for the Kyrene School District, Phoenix-Tempe, Arizona. Dr. Downey has written several books and numerous articles. She is the author of the training program “The Three-Minute Walk-Through and Reflective Feedback for Higher Student Achievement.” Her most recent book with the same authors as this book is 50 Ways to Close the Achievement Gap. She was the major architect of the Curriculum Management Systems, Inc.'s Individual School Audit using the 50 Characteristics for Higher Student Achievement. She is the author of several of the Principal-Teacher Series for Higher Student Achievement training materials. She received her MS from the University of Southern California and her PhD from Arizona State University.

    Betty E. Steffy is a retired professor of educational leadership and policy studies at Iowa State University. She formerly was a dean of a school of education at a regional campus of Purdue University and served as deputy superintendent of instruction in the Kentucky Department of Education. She served as a superintendent of schools in New Jersey and as a director of curriculum for a regional educational agency in Pennsylvania. She created the professional development model titled Life Cycle of the Career Teacher. She is the author/coauthor of 10 books in education and numerous articles and symposium papers at University Council for Educational Administration and American Educational Research Association. She earned her BA, MAT, and EdD from the University of Pittsburgh.

    William K. Poston Jr. is an emeritus professor of educational leadership and policy studies at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. Dr. Poston is the originator of curriculum-driven budgeting, and he has led over 75 curriculum audits in the United States and other countries. He has written 13 books and over 40 journal articles, and he served as a superintendent for 15 years in Tucson and Phoenix-Tempe in Arizona and in Billings, Montana. He is a past international president of Phi Delta Kappa. He received his bachelor of arts degree from the University of Northern Iowa and his educational specialist and doctor of education degrees from Arizona State University.

    Fenwick W. English is currently the R. Wendell Eaves Senior Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership in the School of Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Formerly he served as a program coordinator, department chair, dean, and vice-chancellor of academic affairs, the latter two positions in the Purdue University system at Fort Wayne, Indiana. As a K–12 practitioner, he has been twice a superintendent of schools in New York, an assistant superintendent of schools in Florida, and a middle school principal in California. He also had a stint as an associate executive director of the American Association of School Administrators, and was decade-long curriculum consultant to the National Association of Secondary School Principals. He also served on the University Council for Educational Administration's Executive Committee and was president of UCEA 2006–07. He is the author or co-author of over 25 books in education.

    Dedication

    We dedicate this book to all of our educators who have been using the Downey Walk-Through with reflective inquiry to help those we coach grow in their professional practice. Special thanks is given to our cadre of CMSi walk-through trainers who have adhered diligently to the basic premises and underlying philosophy of the Downey approach to change the paradigm of supervision of teachers.

    Thanks also to Dr. Carolyn McKennan, former superintendent of Morgan Hill Unified School District, California, for insisting in the 1990s that Carolyn Downey put her ideas in writing and provide staff development for the principals. We are so appreciative to our first trainers who provided great insights into the approach being used and how to convey it to others—Ms. Sharon Koonce, assistant superintendent for Professional Development, Houston Independent School District, Texas; Dr. Susan Villa, deputy superintendent, San Benito County Office of Education, California; and Dr. Roger Anton, superintendent of Salinas Union High School District, California.

    Finally, we dedicate this book to all of those who are implementing both parts of the model in an effort to change the culture of the schools in which they work.

    Preface

    Fenwick W.EnglishSenior Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    The Downey Reflective Conversation and Changing System Textual Architecture
    The Imitators Don't Get it (or don't want it)

    It has been said that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” With respect to the Downey three-minute classroom walk-through (Downey, Steffy, English, Frase, & Poston, 2004), this has certainly been the case. When one surveys the educational marketplace today, there are myriad look-alikes, copycat, and knock-off versions of the Downey classroom walk-through approach. Upon close inspection, they all incorporate the basic structure of the Downey model, save one particular and distinctive feature: the reflective conversation.

    There is a reason for this: The copycats and knock-offs have been done by those attracted primarily by the convenience of the walk-through concept—that is, a quick, truncated, postholed view of the classroom that does not require the time-intensive and often tedious methodology of longer versions of teacher evaluation and supervision encapsulated in legalistic protocols and clinical and scripted models of observation and formal follow-up conferences. The hectic life of most school site administrators today makes lengthy and intensive observational models increasingly impractical for typical teachers experiencing few problems, reserving longer approaches only for teachers who are really in trouble (see Frase, Downey, & Canciamilla, 1999).

    The convenience of the Downey model was a real breakthrough on this increasingly turbulent landscape. Here was a way to gather short, time-lapse classroom snapshots and create a collage that then could be committed to paper when required by the formal, legalistic institutional requirements for traditional teacher evaluation practices. But the copycats and knockoffs bypassed the importance and radicalness of the reflective conversation, which is the heart of the Downey approach. They did so because embedded in the reflective conversation was a threat to traditional managerial authority and to the existing administrative power structure.

    In short, resistance to the Downey reflective conversation can be visualized as a way to nullify any substantive change in the role of the classroom teacher in schools today and, hence, to preserve existing administrative hegemony. By hegemony, we mean the peculiar shape of power and power relations in schools and in the larger society.

    Hegemony is a focus of constant struggle around points of greatest instability between classes and blocs, to construct or sustain or fracture alliances and relations of domination/subordination, which takes economic, political and ideological forms. (Fairclough, 1992, p. 92)

    Thus, without the reflective conversation the walk-through, walkabout, learning walk, management by walking around, instructionally focused classroom walk-throughs, the Learning 24–7 walk-through, informally developed classroom walk-through, or whatever name has been given to the diluted version of the Downey model, are exercises in mere technical managerial efficiency. They are in the main, educational versions of the ideology developed by Frederick Taylor at the turn of the last century and called appropriately, scientific management. The purpose of Taylor's work was to give management more power and to rationalize the reduction of the costs of skilled labor by breaking tasks into more minute parts so that cheaper labor could be hired. In fact, this has been the approach used by many of the “pro-profit” models of schooling now employed in some of the nation's inner cities. This is what is meant by technical efficiency. The result was the reduction of the power in the labor force and the acquisition of a more permanent managerial authority in the workplace—in short, the domination of the workplace by management.

    This book has been written to argue with greater clarity the importance, difference, and criticality of the reflective conversation not only as a way to improve teaching practice in classrooms, but as a way to democratize relationships within schools between teachers and administrators. We argue that it is in everyone's interest to further professionalize the work of classroom teaching in the nation's schools. Professionalization is the key to improved and enhanced competencies, skills, and understanding of students and learning on the part of teachers as our schools become increasingly diverse—culturally, linguistically, and economically. But professionalization involves greater equalization of authority in schools as well as independence on the part of practitioners in them.

    We proffer that teachers need increased latitude to determine instructional approaches to their work, and we see the reflective conversation as providing the means to that end. While none of the copycat and knock-off versions of the Downey model advocate increased administrative hegemony within schools outright, it is our contention that a failure to incorporate the democratization of relationships within the schools as embedded in the reflective conversation promote that end, even if unwittingly. We think it is a significant difference in the original Downey model and premise that the imitators have ignored because it is usually the administrative workforce that seizes the initiative with a walk-through model and begins to use it. Rarely has a walk-through model been proposed by teachers or their associations or unions. We think there is a reason for that, which will be explored next.

    Considering the Ghosts in the Closet
    Hegemony and Conflict Regarding Supervision and Evaluation in Schools

    Walk-throughs in schools do not occur in a vacuum. Schools are contested places in our society. Such contestation occurs at the policy levels, administrative levels, and in schools on a daily basis. It is naïve to believe that schools and school systems are monochromatic politically. The resistance offered by teacher unions in some school systems where models of walk-throughs have been implemented or were proposed to be implemented, attests to the fact that something critical is going on. The Downey model is the only one out there that has been sensitive to this fact. Contestation is about power and control. When the classroom walk-through is reduced to scripted checklists to be tabulated at some future point to become a sort of summative judgment “laid on” a classroom teacher, the power and control of what teachers do in schools becomes a flash point. Because they represent an extension of administrative power in the traditional top-down model of imposed, authoritarian supervision (sometimes called “snoopervision”), walk-throughs can be visualized as a more efficient way to play the game of “gotcha.” In such situations, the emphasis is on what is going wrong, rather than the data from the walk-through becoming the fulcrum for a change in relationships and the elevation of the teacher into a professional role with much more independence in the school (and from the administration) as a result. This essential distinction is effectively erased in the knock-offs and copycat versions of the Downey Walk-Through model. It attests to the fact that the “quickie” imitators see no change in the relationships between teachers and administrators in schools and have no agenda to promote the professionalism of the classroom teacher, nor do they see it as an objective of implementing a walk-through approach in the schools.

    Examining the Classroom Walk-Through with Reflective Inquiry as a Discursive Practice

    One reason that learning how to engage in the professional, reflective conversation is difficult for administrators is that the language of professionalism and true collegiality is largely missing from the lexicon of contemporary administrative practices. These practices have been thoroughly captured by business and military metaphors. Such metaphors and models eschew professionalism and espouse and impose managerial hegemony (see Cuban, 2004; Emery & Ohanian, 2004). In short, the Downey imitators have shed the reflective conversation as important because it just doesn't fit into the dominant ideology at work in most school systems.

    Fairclough (1992) defines ideology as

    The significations/constructions of reality (the physical world, social relations, social identities), which are built into various dimensions of the forms/meanings of discursive practices, and which contribute to the production, reproduction or transformation of relations of domination. (p. 87)

    The term discursive practice, taken from the writings of Michael Foucault (1972), means attention to how language and linguistic practices embedded in social contexts involving subordination and domination are used to produce and reproduce those forms in the larger society. And schools are time-honored social mechanisms for the reproduction of the social order, warts, inequalities, prejudices, biases, and all (see Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Katz, 1973). Conversation between principals and teachers occurs with relationships that are structured and uneven. The principal/teacher conversation involves the construction of social identities carefully crafted, legally defined, and reproduced again and again in school practices. In this sense, the roles and social identities of principals and teachers constitute a discursive practice— that is, a consistent way of talking, thinking, and acting within existing modes of subordination and domination in schools and in the larger society.

    Understanding the Three Stages of Transformation with the Downey Approach

    Moving to the Downey model of classroom walk-throughs usually occurs in stages. These match the normal “learning curve” of school administrators, who are not only learning a new language but also a new way of thinking about working with teachers as well. Figure P.1 illustrates the traditional and well-established top-down model of classroom observation and supervision that is dominant in nearly all public school systems today.

    Figure P.1 Traditional Teacher Supervision Model of Top-Down Observation and Evaluation

    Social practices are constructed routines and relationships and encapsulate expectations as well as obligations and interactions. They make up the fabric of the macro social structure in which schools function in any society. In turn, schools incorporate constructed identities such as student, teacher, principal, and superintendent. In turn, these identities are cast into hierarchical relationships within roles that are arranged on continua of power. The concept of discursive practice includes the idea of forms of discourse, of which within institutions such as schools the practice of classroom observation and evaluation occurs. This form of the discourse is a kind of text, both spoken and written, and a form of a social practice. And in one sense, as Fairclough (1992) notes, “Discourse is a mode of action, one form in which people may act upon the world and especially upon each other, as well as a mode of representation” (p. 63). We examine the practice of the reflective conversation as a form of discourse and as a text.

    The language school administrators typically use at the juncture of their relationships with teachers reveals assumptions about their role as the “boss” of the subunit in which teachers work. It usually reflects a one-way, minimalist, and institutionalized vision that views teaching primarily in terms of its adherence to generally accepted social norms and modes of action/reaction. Observations are primarily about gathering data to show conformance to existing or prevailing rules or procedures of the day. The principal's visit to a classroom is about managing conformance and is seen, and correctly so, as a measure of institutional control over what teachers are allowed to do and to think about in their work spaces known as classrooms. Classroom walk-throughs that do not include or emphasize anything other than a new way to gather “dip-stick” data at one point in time reinforce administrative and bureaucratic control of teachers' work.

    This is a contested juncture in the discursive practice of schools, and it is why teacher unions usually seek to control and limit administrative access to classrooms. Unions know that they can't eliminate administrative incursions outright. But they can regulate them by limiting the nature and extent of the incursion and control them by forcing the administration to provide formal notification of when they may occur. Thus, informal and unannounced visitations such as walk-throughs represent a source of uncontrolled expansion of administrative power. Hence, as walk-throughs are seen not as a vehicle to advance teacher professionalization and independence but as subversion of the existing form of contractual control of administrative hegemony, they will be resisted. We see this as a miscalculation of the persons introducing the walk-through process to bypass the importance of the Downey reflective conversation as part of the total walk-through concept.

    Figure P.2 illustrates the point at which the Downey reflective conversation occurs and begins to open up the process of administrative observation of teaching to the point where both the principal and the teacher are talking jointly about professional decisions in classrooms without engaging in “gotcha” or in the usual “you could do this better” notation, which translated means, “this is what you are doing wrong.” The observation-evaluation-correction cycle of typical traditional supervision is very hard to change. It is deeply embedded in ways of thinking, socializing, and acting in schools. This is why learning how to do a true reflective conversation is so very difficult for both principals and teachers. It not only involves learning how to speak differently but how to act differently. And it means initiating challenges to the prevailing institutional norms and related discursive practices that have been operational for very long time periods.

    Figure P.2 Initial Downey Reflective Conversation Approach Which Still Remains Within Dominant Discursive Practice

    Figure P.3 represents a transformational situation where the principal and teacher are working within a true collegial relationship and both questions and replies are initiated by each. The question of who initiates the reflective conversation is important as a bellwether as to how the relationship is progressing. In dialogic, hierarchical relationships embedded in structured subordination, usually the person with the most power initiates a conversation, especially in the workplace. The well-worn phrase, “It is better to ask for forgiveness than to seek permission,” is indicative of how one operates within a structured, bureaucratic setting if one must be “supervised” by someone else. It means that the questions teachers ask are about compliance with work rules and procedures and not queries about working in between the “spaces” of such settings in creative ways. To do so is to seek a likely rejection and to be told to conform. Most teachers learn such ways of conformance rather quickly in their orientation to the workplace. It is not only a structural but a major psychological barrier that has to be overcome when initiating the Downey reflective conversation.

    Figure P.3 Mature Downey Reflective Conversation Which Professionalizes and Equalizes Roles and Discursive Practice
    Examining the Text Analysis of the Three Transformational Stages

    We now shift to examine the Downey reflective conversation from the perspective of text analysis. Considering speech a form of text is a very old tradition in linguistic evaluation. In fact, writing is simply a coded speech form. Texts can be analyzed and grouped into four principal headings: vocabulary, grammar, cohesion, and structure (Fairclough, 1992, p. 75). Vocabulary refers to the selection of words. Grammar is about how words are grouped together. Cohesion includes how clauses and sentences are linked. Structure deals with macro organizational properties of texts. Fairclough (1992) has added to these dimensions such things as the “force” of the speech acts, referring to whether the textual utterance is a threat, promise, or a request. This would be revealed in the past relationships between the participants and the specific contexts around which previous interactions had occurred. The total interaction functioning within the histories of the persons, the procedures, the relationships, institutional settings, and situations may be referred to as the architecture of the exchanges in which a specific conversation as a text takes place.

    The conversation between principals and teachers occurs within defined social identities, role properties, and power relationships within a system of authority specified contiguous to these properties. For example, a typical comment after a principal's observation of a classroom teacher might be something like, “What were those students doing in the corner?” or “Why did you only call on students in the first two rows?” or “Are you following the textbook's sequence?”

    A textual analysis of these comments is that the question is posed within a judgmental posture that reveals that the person asking the question has the right to ask it and expect an institutionally correct (and usually prompt) reply; there is an implied “proper” answer that is determinative by past histories and precedents and even personal proclivities; the questions posed are about compliance and norms. This interaction is the “architecture” of power, privilege, and compliance. The principal is operating within implicit and explicit normative expectations. Normative expectations are almost always hierarchical. They include the role of one participant to make judgments of the other and demand responses to those judgments. This kind of architecture is embedded in checklists, observational write-ups that require a signature on the bottom of the page, summative evaluations, and directive memos.

    The second stage (Figure P.2) is representative of the time when the Downey reflective conversation begins to take hold as discursive practice in a school. This stage is one in which both the principal and the teacher are becoming more aware of how they interact with one another. The teacher becomes conscious that the questions asked by the principal are changing in that there is not always a “right” answer and even on occasion when there is no answer expected at all. But the principal is beginning to struggle with his or her own history and while he or she is trying to change the language patterns, it is still deeply embedded in the architecture of power and privilege. It is still almost largely the principal who initiates a conversation. In this state, it would not usually be the case that a teacher would seek out the principal to ask him or her a reflective question. Questions remain pretty much one way. The overall impression is that while the language used is “softer” and “gentler,” it is still embedded in the old architecture of power. Conversation as text still coheres to the lines of subordination in the process of interaction. Typical questions in this stage are (as the principal is learning a new language), “I'd like to talk with you about when you determine to use cooperative learning and when you would use a different type of grouping practice” or “I've noticed that you use a lot of different ways of checking for understanding with your students. I've been wanting to sit and chat with you about your thinking when you choose to use one method or another.”

    In the third stage (Figure P.3), the principal has changed his or her total interaction with teachers. In this transformation, the teacher is empowered by the principal's questioning to the point where the teacher initiates the conversation with the principal, and it is a continuing conversation as opposed to specified junctures in the formal evaluation process. In this stage, a question might be something like, “I've been in your classroom a number of times on my walk-throughs, and I have a question you may find useful to consider. Is there a good time for us to talk about it? I've noticed that you've changed the pacing of your lessons dependent upon the results you get for checking for understanding; what thinking has taken place that causes you to alter the pacing as you are delivering the lesson?”

    In this example, the principal does not expect or require an immediate response. The question posed could have many answers, and each of them could be very useful and appropriate, so there are no “right” answers in the conventional sense. The principal has made no judgment about what he or she has observed, except to focus on this particular feature of something observed in the walk-through process. In this situation, the walk-through interaction has been separated from the formal, legalistic evaluation procedures, and therefore, it is not lodged in the normative requirements of the institution. While the question is asked within the old authority structure, it shifts the dialogic nature of the relationship to one of colleagues instead of a superior-subordinate one. When the principal does not require or expect a “right” answer (and one would not even make sense), then there is not the kind of checklist-compliance mentality that is so hard to shake.

    In the final stages of the Downey reflective conversation, the architecture of power and privilege has been recast to a more equalitarian, collegial one. The reflective conversation becomes the means to the enhanced professionalization of teaching. The teacher is recognized as an independent professional, still having to function within the trappings of corporate bureaucratization but with a very different immediate relationship with the building principal. It is an old rule in architecture that form follows function. When the function of observation is not bureaucratic compliance but enhanced professionalization of teacher decision making, we have the beginnings of a changed educational system, one teacher at a time. It is to this end that this second walk-through book is dedicated.

  • References

    American School Counselor Association. (2003). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA.
    Amulya, J. (2004). What is reflective practice?Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Center for Reflective Community Practice.
    Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
    Association of California School Administrators. (2008). WalkIn. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from http://www.acsa.org/news/news_detail.cfm?type=periodical&id=1587
    Bartunek, J., & Moch, M. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://jab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/23/4/483
    Belisle, T. (1999). Peer coaching: Partnership for professional practitioners. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from http://www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/ACIE/v012/May1999_PeerCoaching.html
    Bernard, B. (1993). Fostering resiliency in kids. Educational Leadership, 51 (3), 44–44.
    Berne, E. (1963). The structure and dynamics of organizations and groups. New York: Grove.
    Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (1998). Handbook of instructional leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2002). The dark side of leadership: Teacher perspectives of principal mistreatment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38 (5), 671–671.
    Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational objectives. Handbook I cognitive domain. New York: Longman.
    Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Education reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books.
    Burks, B. (2004). Conversations with Carolyn Downey in preparation of seminar on Mentoring the Reflective Principal for TASA/TASB convention.
    Cizak, G., Webb, L., & Kalhon, J. (1995, March). The use of cognitive taxonomies in licensure and certification test development: Reasonable or customary?Evaluation and the Health Professions, 18 (1), 77–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016327879501800106
    Classroom walkthrough. (2008). Teachscape. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from http://www.teachscape.com/html/ts/nps/classroom_walkthrough.html
    Classroom walkthrough for continuous improvement: Collect, analyze, reflect, and act to strengthen teaching and learning. The Charles A. Dana Center. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from http://www.utdanacenter.org/pd/cwt.php
    Collaborative evaluation of school-based or district-based initiatives. (2008). WestEd. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/serv/102
    Compton, J. L. (2007). Reflective thinking: How women professionals benefit from the act of reflection. Saarbrucken, Germany: VDM.
    Costa, A. (2001). Cognitive coaching. Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/cognitive_coaching/front_cognitive.htm
    Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. (1985). Supervision for intelligent teaching. Educational Leadership, 42 (5), 70–70.
    Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
    Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools (
    2nd ed.
    ). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
    Cotton, K. (1991). Teaching thinking skills. School Improvement Research Series, Close-Up #11. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu11.html
    Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York: Simon & Schuster.
    Cuban, L. (2004). The blackboard and the bottom line: Why schools can't be businesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Data in a day (DIAD). (2008). Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/scc/studentvoices/diad.shtml
    David, J. L. (2007–2008). What research says about …/Classroom walk-throughs. Educational Leadership, 65 (4), 81–81.
    Deming, W. E. (2000). Out of the crisis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
    Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
    Dewey, J. (1976). The relationship of thought and its subject matter. Reprinted in J. Boydston (Ed.). John Dewey: The middle works (Vol. 2, pp. 298–315). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1903)
    Donaldson, G., & Marnik, G. (1995). Becoming better leaders: The challenge of improving student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Downey, C. J. (2004a). Raising student test scores: A baker's dozen. Principal-Teacher Training Series for Higher Student Achievement. Johnston, IA: Curriculum Management Systems.
    Downey, C. J. (2004b). SchoolView: Gathering diagnostic trend data on curricular and instructional classroom practices. Johnston, IA: Curriculum Management Systems.
    Downey, C. J. (2006a). The three-minute classroom walk-through: A multimedia kit for professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Downey, C. J. (2006b). Walk-through trainer's colloquium. Participant's manual. October 2006. Johnston, IA: Curriculum Management Systems.
    Downey, C. J. (2007a). Mentoring the reflective principal. Participant's manual. October 2006 Walk-Through Colloquium, Johnston, IA: Curriculum Management Systems.
    Downey, C. J. (2007b). Walk-through trainer's colloquium. Participant's manual, October 2007. Johnston, IA: Curriculum Management Systems.
    Downey, C. J. (2008). Classroom walk-throughs. In L. B.Easton (Ed.), Powerful designs for professional learning (
    2nd ed.
    , pp. 95–95). Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
    Downey, C. J., & English, F. W. (2004). Examining student work for standards alignment and real world/test formats: Connecting resources to the Curriculum. Johnston, IA: Curriculum Management Systems.
    Downey, C. J., & Frase, L. E. (2000). Conducting walk-throughs with reflective inquiry to maximize student achievement: Basic seminar. Participant's manual and trainer's kit. Johnston, IA: Curriculum Management Systems.
    Downey, C. J., & Frase, L. E. (2001). Conducting walk-throughs with reflective inquiry to maximize student achievement: Basic seminar (
    2nd ed.
    ). Participant's manual and trainer's kit. Johnston, IA: Curriculum Management Systems.
    Downey, C. J., & Frase, L. E. (2003). Conducting walk-throughs with reflective inquiry to maximize student achievement: Basic seminar (
    3rd ed.
    ). Participant's manual and trainer's kit. Johnston, IA: Curriculum Management Systems.
    Downey, C. J., Frase, L. E., & Peters, J. (1994). The quality education challenge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Downey, C. J., Frase, L., Poston, W. K.Jr., Steffy, B., English, F., & Melton, R. (2002). Leaving no child behind: 50 ways to close the achievement gap (
    2nd ed.
    ). Johnston, IA: Curriculum Management Systems.
    Downey, C., & Steffy, B. (2005). Taking the mystery out of tests and textbook alignment. Principal-Teacher Training Series for Higher Student Achievement. Johnston, IA: Curriculum Management Systems.
    Downey, C. J., Steffy, B., & English, F. (2003). Conducting walk-throughs with reflective inquiry to maximize student achievement: Advanced seminar. Participant's Manual and Trainer's Kit. Johnston, IA: Curriculum Management Systems.
    Downey, C. J., Steffy, B. E., English, F. W., Frase, L. E., & Poston, W. K.Jr. (2004). The three-minute classroom walk-through: Changing school supervisory practice one teacher at a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Downey, C. J., Steffy, B. E., English, F. W., & Poston, W. K.Jr. (2009). 50 ways to close the achievement gap (
    3rd ed.
    ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Drucker, P. (1974). Management: tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York: Harper & Row.
    DuFour, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
    DuFour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community?Educational Leadership, 61 (8), 6–6.
    Elmore, R. (2006, July 6). Leadership as the practice of improvement. Paper presented at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development International Conference on International Perspectives on School Leadership for Systemic Improvement. Paris, France.
    Emmer, E., Evertson, C., & Worsham, M. (2000). Classroom management for secondary teachers (
    5th ed.
    ). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
    Emery, K., & Ohanian, S. (2004). Why is corporate America bashing our public schools?Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    EnglishF.W. (1983). Curriculum mapping: An aid to school curriculum management. Spectrum. Journal of the School Research and Information, 1 (3), 24–24.
    English, F. W., & Steffy, B. (2001). Deep curriculum alignment. Creating a level playing field for all children on tests of educational accountability. Landham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
    English, F. W., Steffy, B. E., & Downey, C. J. (2001). Coping with high stakes testing: Maximizing student achievement with the power of deep curriculum alignment. Participant's manual and trainer's kit. Johnston, IA: Curriculum Management Systems.
    Erickson, H. L. (2007). Concept-based curriculum and instruction for the thinking classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Evertson, C. M., Emmer, E. T., & Worsham, M. E. (2003). Classroom management for elementary teachers (
    6th ed.
    ). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    Evertson, C., & Harris, A. (2007). What we know about managing classrooms. Retrieved August 30, 2007, from http://mailer.fsu.edu/~slynn/evertsonharris1995.html
    Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    Ferreira, S. (2007). Reflective practice: Theory and art in action. IAP Course 11.965. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Urban-Studies-and-Planning/11-965January-IAP-2007/8E902B07-FC46-4C49-8C33-E24A9A5E2B34/0/lect1.pdf
    Ferraro, J. (2000). Reflective practice and professional development. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. Identifier No. ED449120.
    Fitzgibbons, R. (1981). Making educational decisions: An introduction to philosophy of education. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
    Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse of language. New York: Pantheon.
    Foltos, L. (2009). Peer coaching: Changing classroom practice and enhancing student achievement. Retrieved March 24, 2009, from http://anon.us.innovativeteachers.us/Documents/peercoachinglf.pdf
    Fosnot, C. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach to teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
    Frase, L. (2005). Purposes of teacher supervision. In F.English (Ed.), The Sage handbook of educational leadership (p. 432). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412976091
    Frase, L., & Hetzel, R. (1990). School management by wandering around. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
    Frase, L., Downey, C., & Canciamilla, L. (1999). Putting principals in their place: The classroom. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 28 (5), 36–36.
    Freedman, B. (2007). Looking for leadership: Increasing principal presence through classroom walk-throughs and the resulting influence on principal-teacher professional relationships. (Doctor of Education dissertation, University of Toronto [Canada]).
    Freedman, B. (2008, March 28). Gender matters: When principals purposefully increase their presence in teachers’ classrooms. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York, NY.
    Galbraith, P., & Anstrom, K. (1995). Peer coaching: An effective staff development model for educators of linguistically and culturally diverse students. Direction in Language & Educational National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved March 24, 2009, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/directions/03.htm
    Garmston, R. J. (1997). The teacher is within. Journal of Staff Development, 18 (1), 62–62.
    Garmston, R. J. (2000). Why cats have clean paws. Journal of Staff Development, 21 (3), 1–1.
    Gilkey, R., & Kilts, C. (2007). Cognitive fitness. Harvard Business Review, 85 (11), 53–53.
    Glasser, W. (1992). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York: Harper & Row.
    Glickman, C. D. (1981). Developmental supervision. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
    Glickman, C. D. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
    Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2001). SuperVision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    Good, T., & Brophy, J. (2000). Looking in classrooms (
    8th ed.
    ). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
    Gray, P. (2003). An exploratory study of the relationship between principal walk-throughs and the work of teachers and principals. Unpublished study, Claremont Graduate University.
    Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
    Grubb, N. W., & Flessa, J. J. (2006). A job too big for one: Multiple principals and other nontraditional approaches to school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42 (4), 518–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06290641
    Harris, A. (1998). Effective teaching: A review of the literature. School Leadership & Management, 18 (2), 169–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632439869628
    Harford, J., & MacRuairc, G. (2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (7), 1884–1884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.010
    Heider, K. L. (2005). Teacher isolation: How mentoring programs can help. Current Issues in Education [Online], 8 (14). Retrieved January 21, 2009, from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume8/number14
    Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work (
    2nd ed.
    ). New York: John Wiley.
    Hesse, H. (1956). Journey to the East (H.Rosner, Trans.). New York: Picador.
    Hoffman, E. (1988, September). Abraham Maslow: Father of enlightened management. Training, 25, 79–79.
    Hoffman, E. (2009). Abraham Maslow: Father of enlightened management: Alfred Adler Institutes. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hstein/hoff2.htm
    Hunter, M. (1979). Teaching is decision making. Educational Leadership, 37 (1), 62–62.
    Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53 (6), 12–12.
    Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through professional development. In B.Joyce & B.Showers (Eds.), Designing training and peer coaching: Our need for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
    Katz, M. (1973). Class, bureaucracy, and schools. New York: Praeger.
    Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal, 112 (4), 496–496.
    Killion, J., & Todnem, G. (1991). A process for personal theory building. Educational Leadership, 48 (6), 14–14.
    King, P. (1992). How do we know? Why do we believe? Learning to make reflective judgments. Liberal Education, 78, 1. Retrieved January 22, 2008, from http://dhc.ucdavis.edu/fh/aa/king.html.
    Kitchener, K., & King, P. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 89, 116.
    Kochan, F. K., & Reed, C. J. (2005). Collaborative leadership, community building, and democracy in public education. In F.English & G.Anderson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory (pp. 68–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412976091
    Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
    Kopelman, R., Prottas, D., & Davis, A. (2008). Douglas McGregor's theory X and Y: Toward a construct-valid measure (2009). Access My Library. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34704110_ITM
    Krovetz, M. L. (1999). Fostering resiliency: Expecting all students to use their minds and hearts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Ladyshewsky, R., & Ryan, J. (2009). Reciprocal peer coaching as a strategy for the development of leadership and management competency. Retrieved March 24, 2009, from http://www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/tlf/2002/pub/docs/Ladyshewsky.pdf
    Lashway, L. (1997). Leadership styles and strategies. In S.Smith & P.Piele (Eds.), School leadership: Handbook for excellence (pp. 39–39). Eugene: University of Oregon. ERIC Clearing House on Educational Management.
    Mager, R. (1975). Preparing instructional objectives. Belmont, CA: Lake.
    Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R. W., & Barney, H. (2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
    Marshall, K. (2006). What's a principal to do?Education Week, 26 (4), 34–34.
    Marsick, V. J. (1990). Action learning and reflection in the workplace. In J.Mezirow & Associates, Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
    Marzano, R. J. (2000). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. ASCD, USA.
    Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (
    2nd ed.
    ). New York: Harper & Row. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
    McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    McKibben, S. (2004). The power of student voice. Educational Leadership, 61 (7), 79–79.
    McLymont, E., & daCosta, J. (1998, April). Cognitive coaching: The vehicle for professional development and teacher collaboration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. ERIC Document ED420637. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/15/91/8b.pdf
    Mezirow, J., & Associates. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Miller, R. (2001). Greater expectations to improve student achievement. Retrieved November 2007, from http://www.greaterexpectations.org/briefing_papers/ImproveStudentLearning.html
    Newcomb, A. (2003). Peter Senge on organizational learning. Interview in The School Administrator. May 1, 2003. Retrieved December 5, 2008, from http://www.aasa.org/publications/saarticledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=2915...snItemNumber=...tnItemNumber=
    Newman, F., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. (2001). School instructional program coherence: Benefits and challenges (Improving Chicago's schools). A report of the Chicago Annenberg Research Project. Consortium on Chicago School Research. ERIC Document ED451305. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/e7/fa.pdf
    Norcross, J., & Prochaska, J. (2003). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis (
    5th ed.
    ). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
    On-site staff development: Peer coaching. (2009). Retrieved March 23, 2009, from http://webserver3.ascd.org/ossd/peercoaching.html
    Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory X. New York: Avon Books.
    Overview of cognitive coaching. (2008). Highlands Ranch, CO: Center for Cognitive Coaching. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from http://www.cognitivecoaching.com/overview.htm
    Payne, R. (2008). Walk-through rubrics notepads, aha! process. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from http://www.ahaprocess.com/store/Materials.html
    Peer coaching. (2009a). Retrieved March 23, 2009, from http://www.canteach.ca/elementary/fnations17.html
    Peer coaching: A process for improving instructional practices for children with autism spectrum disorders. (2009b). ICAN. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from http://www.autismnetwork.org/modules/academic/pc/index.html
    Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row.
    Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA. Corwin.
    Reagan, T., Case, C., & Brubacher, J. (2000). Becoming a reflective educator: How to build a culture of inquiry in the schools (
    2nd ed.
    ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Reshef, Y. (2000). Elton Mayo and the human relations movement, 1880-1949. Retrieved February 10, 2009, from http://www.business.ualberta.ca/yreshef/orga417/mayo.htm
    Resnick, L. (2008). Improving teaching and learning in our schools. University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from http://www.pitt.edu/~excelres/research_areas/pdf/improving.pdf
    Resnick, L., Hall, M. W., & Fellows of the Institute for Learning. (2001). The principles of learning: Study tools for educators [CD-ROM]. Pittsburgh, PA: Institute for Learning, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
    Revans, R. W. (1971). Developing effective managers: A new approach in business education. New York: Praeger.
    Revans, R. W. (1980). Action learning. London: Blond & Briggs.
    Revans, R. W. (1982). The origin and growth of action learning. Brickley, England: Chartwell-Bratt.
    Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
    Rowe, M. (1974). Relation of wait-time and rewards to the development of language, logic, and fate control: Part II rewards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11, 291–291http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660110403
    Sanders, J. (1994). The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Sanford, C. (1995). Myths of organizational effectiveness at work. Battle Ground, WA: Springhill.
    Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
    Schön, D. A. (1996). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. E.Stake (Ed.), Perspectives on curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–39). Chicago: Rand McNally.
    Scriven, M. (1981). Summative teacher evaluation. In J.Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 244–244). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
    Singleton, G. E., & Linton, C. (2006). Courageous conversations about race: A field guide for achieving equity in schools. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (2000). A national plan for improving professional development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
    Steffy, B. (1989). Career stages of classroom teachers. Lancaster, PA: Technomics Publishing Company.
    Steffy, B., & Wolfe, M. (1997). The life cycle of the career teacher: Maintaining excellence for a lifetime. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi, An International Honor Society in Education.
    Steffy, B., Wolfe, M., Pasch, S., & Enz, B. (Eds.). (2000). The life cycle of the career teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25 (4), 423–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737025004423
    Sugrue, B. (2008). Problems with Bloom's taxonomy. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from http://www.performancexpress.org/0212/mainframe0212.html#title3
    Teddlie, C., Kirby, C., & Stringfield, S. (1989). Effective versus ineffective schools: Observable differences in the classroom. American Journal of Education, 97 (3), 221–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/443925
    Thorndike, E. L. (1932). The fundamentals of learning. New York: Teachers College Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10976-000
    Toppo, G. (2004, December 7). U.S. teens have weak practical math skills. USA Today. 7D.
    Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44 (3), 519–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306859
    Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley.
    Walberg, H. J., & Waxman, H. C. (1983). Teaching, learning, and the management of instruction. In D. C.Smith (Ed.), Essential knowledge for beginning educators (pp. 38–38). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
    Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
    Work 4 NC Schools. (n.d.). Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/work4ncschools
    Zimmerman, D. (1998). A fissure in the second order: A new look at change and school reform. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED420080&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED420080

    The Corwin Logo

    The Corwin logo—a raven striding across an open book—represents the union of courage and learning. Corwin is committed to improving education for all learners by publishing books and other professional development resources for those serving the field of PreK—12 education. By providing practical, hands-on materials, Corwin continues to carry out the promise of its motto: “Helping Educators Do Their Work Better.”


    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website