As more and more teachers experience and embrace the collaborative setting of the Professional Learning Community (PLC), they yearn for processes that value student and teacher work.  At the same time, teachers want processes that surface information upon which to improve their work.  One such process is the Classroom Walk-Throughs (CWT) Protocol.

Because the approach is “appreciative” — building on what is already effective, and asking how to get even more effective learning — it increases the energy and excitement of the teachers who participate.

The CWT Protocol is also a natural bridge between the goals in school plans and the actions intended to achieve the goals.  Scheduled CWT's throughout the year guarantee that attention will be paid to the results the goals intend, as well as deepening understanding of how planned actions support the results.  The CWT Debrief provides real-time information about what students are learning, and allows the PLC to act on that information immediately.

Central to effective inquiry in a PLC is the trusting relationship of the participants.  The CWT Protocol facilitates that trust by providing a process and structure that grounds observations and conversations in inquiry, not judgment.  The protocol never asks “who” is effective.  Instead, it helps teachers determine “what” is effective for their students.  The teacher-generated focus question links student understanding to the instructional practices in which the understanding evolved.  Teachers strive to understand how students understand, so future lessons benefit from teacher learning about the efficacy of current lessons.  Patterns and trends in student learning that teachers want to see more of are the catalysts for professional development and instructional experimentation.  With each successive walk-through, the instructional actions taken result in deeper student understanding and higher achievement.

Classroom Walk-Throughs at Lancaster High School (Antelope Valley Union High School District) evolved from teachers’ curiosity about a question that many educators ponder: “What evidence do we see that students are engaged in the process of challenging learning?” While gathering data on this question, teachers, administrators, and students at Lancaster High School extended their thinking about what contributes to rigorous learning, and redefined their work and roles within their learning community. Through the use of a non-evaluative classroom walk-through protocol — focused only on students’ actions and words — they observed and recorded what students were doing, discussing, and producing in the classroom. This provided a school-wide view of “current reality” regarding student engagement in challenging learning.

How did the Classroom Walk-Through process start?
In collaboration with UCLA SMP faculty, the Lancaster HS Leadership Team and faculty initially learned key components of the UCLA SMP Classroom Walk-Through (CWT) protocol. During regularly scheduled meeting times, a brief overview of the process was provided.  The focus question was collaboratively determined by the faculty to ensure that the collected data was connected to their vision of high student achievement — “challenging learning” — and about which they had genuine wonderings and questions. During a series of walk-throughs during the Winter and Spring of 2007, many faculty members, with UCLA SMP’s assistance, participated in a walk-through and helped to gather observational data. To ensure that the process remained non-judgmental, teacher names and room numbers were not recorded during the observations.  A structured debrief process, facilitated by teachers, was conducted within the walking groups of 3-4 teachers outside of each visited classroom and with the whole group at the conclusion of the walk-through day.  All faculty were invited to the after-school debrief sessions and received copies of the collected data.  The goal was to ensure that the process was transparent, known to all, and focused on student engagement and learning — the results of instruction rather than teacher actions.

“The process of involving students was an overwhelming success. We found all of the students who participated in the discussions as well as the walk-throughs to be thoughtful and sincere about their comments. The students were open and honest about their thoughts on the school and this entire process … I believe this was a very important step in the pursuit of involving all stakeholders in an effort to improve student learning.”  Debby Chappell, Instructional Coach

How did student voices emerge? During the December 2006 classroom walk-through debrief, the participating teachers, department chairs, and administrators reviewed the collected observations, identified patterns and trends, asked questions regarding the themes that had surfaced, and started to identify next steps.  They noted that their own definitions of what was “challenging learning” for students varied considerably in terms of their expectations of what students would be doing, saying, and producing.  The group decided that an essential next step would be to ask the students, “What would challenging learning look like to you?  What is helping or preventing you from learning?”  The group enthusiastically endorsed this idea and two instructional coaches, Terry Jones and Debby Chappell, offered to organize student focus groups. Debby Chappell describes the process: Terry Jones and I decided to survey groups of random students.  We had the data tech select a random group of about 40 students from each grade level.  She did this by identifying students who had a particular digit in their phone number.  We sent out invitations to each of these students asking them to participate in a student focus group.  Meetings were arranged for each grade level of students (freshmen/sophomore groups and junior/senior groups) and we met with each group during a two-hour block.  There were about 80 students who participated in the meetings.  (Because students were selected randomly, each of the four focus groups included students at a variety of achievement levels.)  During this time we introduced and explained the classroom walk-through process.  They were also informed of the desire of the teachers and administrators to obtain input from them.  At each of the meetings, we administered a student survey addressing the following questions (download PDF sample survey questions):

• What is challenging learning?
• What does it look like when a student is engaged in challenging learning?
• What helps you learn best?
• What hinders you from learning at your best?

After they completed the surveys, we broke students into small groups to share their results.  We then came together as a group and charted the patterns and trends they discovered in their discussions.

During the focus groups, students consistently cited two elements when asked about what helps them learn best:  an environment that fosters cooperative learning and a trusting relationship with an engaging, caring teacher.  Furthermore, they defined what this entails:  collaborative learning opportunities; an environment where they could make mistakes and ask questions; and no “busy work” that did not foster understanding of the curriculum.  At the conclusion of each focus group, students were asked to indicate on their individual survey form if they would be interested in participating in an upcoming classroom walk-through.

How did student insights impact the process?
During the debrief session of the January 2007 classroom walk-through and subsequent faculty meetings, the instructional coaches shared key ideas from the individual student surveys and focus group discussions.  As a result, the focus question for the next walk-through was revised to the following:  “What evidence do we see that students are engaged in accessing the curriculum through cooperative learning?”

Additionally, about a dozen students had expressed interest in participating in the February 2007 classroom walk-through and were available to attend the debrief session after school.  Preparation involved both the students and the teachers.  Terry Jones and Debby Chappell met with the students and “trained them on the walk-through protocol, as well as reviewing the purpose of the walk-throughs.”  Concurrently, discussions were held during faculty meetings so that teachers could voice their concerns about having students participate in an observation process.  Group norms for respectful behavior while visiting classrooms and debriefing were discussed. The classroom walk-through focus question was refined further:  “What evidence do we see that students are engaged in activities requiring higher level thinking?” 

As Terry Jones states, “We needed to spend some time on educating and consensus building, but we used the (classroom walk-through) protocol. After the classroom walk-through, it was a real positive. Students saw other students involved with this, students working side by side with kids they don’t usually hang out with.  There is less of a divide.  We’re developing a culture where we’re all working together as a learning community, instead of us guessing what students need.”

At the conclusion of the debrief, next steps were outlined and included opportunities to define cooperative learning more fully, survey teachers to determine who has expertise and previous training in cooperative learning strategies, and provide additional training for faculty members.

The following comments from participating students convey the enthusiasm and learning generated from the focus group and walk-through experiences: 

“Having students participate is good because you can get our opinions.  We are the voice for the entire student population and it really does make a difference.  I think we should definitely keep on doing this for a long time.”

“This program lets teachers, along with students, see what certain classes need to work on, and how they can better the education of the students.”

“I was amazed when I went on the classroom walk-throughs how engaged the students were.  What was especially exciting was how the students were working in cooperative groups.  They were sharing ideas and taking ownership of their education.”

“Just fantastic.  That's how I would describe the CWT process.  Getting out of the classroom was a refreshing and inspiring experience.  I am looking forward to the next CWT.”

“The CWT's were a revelation to me.  I got lots of ideas and witnessed the Marzano strategies in action.  I came away from this day invigorated and excited to try new ideas in my classroom.”