The data collected by the core curriculum results report helps me to make decisions about how to deliver lessons more effectively. The data showed that lesson three (career values card sort) was much less effective than the other two lessons highlighted in this section. This data showed that there was a small improvement or no change on several areas, in both perception and outcome (achievement) data. This lesson focused on two mindsets: on development of the whole self and on motivation to pursue goals. After looking at the data, it became clear to me that this lesson was too dense, and that it would be better split into two lessons: one on the career card sort and one on using the card sort to process motivation to pursue career goals. When I taught this lesson, I felt the debrief section felt rushed even though was probably the most impactful part of the lesson. When I teach this lesson again (in two parts) I’ll be able to take more time to debrief giving each mindset standard more time. I believe that this change would improve both the perception and outcome data of this lesson.
The data from the results report helps me to make decisions about collecting data more accurately in the future. Lesson 1 (academic skills breakout box) was a highly effective lesson, showing significant progress in most data points. Collecting data for this lesson was difficult: the perception survey covers many academic skills and then the collaboration and critical thinking skills highlighted in this lesson. This data made for a perception survey that covered too many areas. To alleviate this, the timing of the lesson may have been better suited elsewhere in the curriculum. This lesson used a review academic skills as clues to get through the box, however the mindsets and behaviors targeted were on critical thinking and collaboration. Looking at the results report alongside the curriculum action plan, it looks like this lesson is better suited to be delivered in April (teamwork unit.) I could still use the theme of the box (academic skills) because it would be good timing in the year to spiral back to the academic skills taught in December but would still only be assessing critical thinking and collaboration. Changing the timing of the lesson could help me gather more accurate data because it would put the perception data in the ‘Working Together” perception survey. This is a more effective place to group this data than in the “My Learning Profile” perception survey.
The core curriculum results report data helps me to better target ASCA mindsets and behaviors. Lesson 2, Humans vs Robots, showed positive impact on perception surveys and on outcome data/behavior. This lesson focused on only one behavior standard (self-discipline/self-control.) After reviewing the report, I saw that focusing on one mindset and behavior standard (plus the community building circle) was more effective than focusing on two or three mindsets and behaviors. Many of the lessons that focused on one standard had better perception and outcome data than the lessons with two or three standards. Learning this helps me to more carefully plan next year’s action plan to focus on the mastery of less standards as opposed to diluting my lessons with more learning targets.
The results report helps me to make decisions about which lessons to continue, adjust or discontinue. I had to make a hard decision about community building circles. These are standard for my school counseling lessons: I feel like it ends classes on a positive note, helps me to create and maintain relationships with all students at Weatherbee School and it is the base building block to our school’s restorative practices (other restorative practices like academic circles, problem-solving circles and restorative justice circles do not work without doing regular community building circles first.) I see all of these benefits for my students but unfortunately the data for the community building circles did not improve over the year (both fall and spring surveys were at 91%.) I had to reflect on this inconsistency: how could I see such benefits of doing this but the data not improve? I decided that I needed to continue to do the circles in the 2018-2019 school year, but add a closing the gap goal to look at the 9% of students who reported less than mastery on the belonging to school survey and look at the school data profile and outcome data to see what describes this population.