Content uploaded by James Stigler
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James Stigler
Content may be subject to copyright.
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
The Teaching Gap
Best Ideas from the
World’s Teachers for Improving
Education in the Classroom
James Stigler and James Hiebert
The Free Press, 1999
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Improvement Through
a Focus on Teaching
School learning will not improve
markedly unless we give teachers
the opportunity and support they
need to advance their craft by
increasing the effectiveness of
the methods they use.
Stigler and Hiebert, p. ix
1
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
What Is the Gap?
We are not talking about a gap in teachers’
competence, but about a gap in teaching
methods.
It refers to the kinds of teaching needed
to achieve the educational dreams of the
American people and the kinds of teaching
found in most American schools.
The teaching gap becomes even more
significant when one realizes that while
other countries are continually improving
their teaching approaches, the United States
has no system for improving.
Stigler and Hiebert, p. x
2
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Making Higher Standards
a Reality
Making higher standards a reality for
students will require more than just the
status quo inside our nation’s classrooms;
curriculum, assessments, and—above all—
teaching must improve dramatically. In our
view, teaching is the next frontier in the
continuing struggle to improve schools.
Standards set the course, and assessments
provide the benchmarks, but it is teaching
that must be improved to push us along the
path to success. Stigler and Hiebert, p. 2
3
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Teaching Is Responsible
for Learning
We do not minimize the importance of these
(society factors that influence learning)... but
much of what our society expects children to
learn, they learn in school, and teaching is
most clearly responsible for learning.
Stigler and Hiebert, p. 3
4
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Our Past Practice
Policy makers adopt a
program, then wait to see
if student achievement
scores will rise. If the scores
do not go up—and this is most often what
happens, especially in the short run—they
begin hearing complaints that the policy is
not working. Momentum builds, experts
meet, and soon there is a new recommenda-
tion, then a change of course, often in the
opposite direction.
Significantly, this whole process goes on
without ever collecting data on whether or
not the original program was ever imple-
mented in classrooms, or if implemented,
how effective it was in promoting student
learning. Stigler and Hiebert, p. 8
5
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
The problem of how to improve
teaching on a wide scale has
been seriously underestimated
by policymakers, reformers, and the public
in this country. The American approach has
been to write and publish reform documents
and ask teachers to implement the recom-
mendations contained in such documents.
Those who have worked on this problem
understand that this approach simply does
not work. The teaching profession does
not have enough knowledge about what
constitutes effective teaching, and teachers
do not have the means of successfully
sharing such knowledge with one another.
Stigler and Hiebert, p. 12
A Gap in Methods for
Improving Teaching
6
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
A Summary of the Findings Related
to Teaching Techniques
(geometry lessons in 8th grade classes)
Analysis using videotapes, 50-80 samples
Germany: Developing advanced learners
challenging content, develop
procedures in class. Much attention to
content knowledge.
Japan: Structured problem solving, refining of
lessons.
United States: Learning terms and practicing procedures.
Present definitions of terms and demonstrate
procedures. Not interactive, not attending to
thinking, not engaging in technique, shallow
demonstration of content knowledge.
Stigler and Hiebert, p. 27
7
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Japan Has the Most Skillful
and Purposeful Teaching
When students are asked
to solve challenging problems,
teachers often build scaffolds
to help them. The scaffolds
come in many forms.
Sometimes they are the outcomes of
previous lessons, reviewed by the teacher.
Sometimes they are in the form of informa-
tion provided by lectures, and sometimes in
the form of mental tools provided through
memorization. What is constant is that
challenging problems are selected, and
scaffolds are provided so that students can,
at least, begin developing methods for
solutions.
Stigler and Hiebert, p. 50
8
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Content Coherence
Coherence is significant. Imagine a lesson
as a story. Well formed stories consist of a
sequence of events that fit together to reach
the final conclusion. Ill formed stories are
scattered sets of events that don’t seem
to connect... well formed stories are like
coherent lessons. They offer the students
greater opportunities to make sense of what
is going on. Stigler and Hiebert, p. 61
9
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Teaching Is a System
And here is a simple truth
about teaching... Teaching is a
system. It is not a loose mixture
of individual features thrown
together by the teacher. It works more like
a machine, with the parts operating together
and reinforcing one another, driving the
vehicle forward.
This is a very different way to think about
teaching. It means that individual features,
by themselves, are not good or bad. Their
value depends on how they connect to others
and fit into the lesson.
Stigler and Hiebert, p. 75
10
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
How Did We Get Here?
Teaching... is a cultural activity... Teaching,
like other cultural activities, is learned
through informal participation over long
periods of time. It is something one learns
to do more by growing up in a culture than
by studying it formally.
Stigler and Hiebert, p. 86
11
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Many U.S. Teachers...
seem to believe that learning terms
and practicing skills is not very
exciting... teachers act as if student
interest will be generated only by
diversions outside of mathematics.
Stigler and Hiebert, p. 89
12
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Different Perspectives Related
to Student Differences
U.S. teachers view individual
differences as an obstacle to
effective teaching... As the range
of differences increases, the
difficulties of teaching increase.
For the Japanese teacher, the differences
within a group are beneficial because they
allow the teacher to plan a lesson by using
the information that they and other teachers
have previously recorded about students’
likely responses to particular problems and
questions. Stigler and Hiebert, pp. 94-95
13
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
We Modify, But Don’t
Really Change
It has now been
documented in several
studies that teachers
asked to change features
of their teaching often modify the
features to fit within their preexisting
system instead of changing the system itself.
The system assimilates individual changes
and swallows them up. Thus, although
surface features appear to change, the funda-
mental nature of the instruction does not.
When this happens anticipated improve-
ments in student learning fail to materialize,
and everyone wonders why.
Stigler and Hiebert, p. 98
14
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Systems of Teaching Are
More Than the Teacher
Systems of teaching are much more than
the things the teacher does. They include
the physical setting of the classroom; the
goals of the teacher; the materials, including
textbooks and district or state objectives;
the roles played by the students; the way
the school day is scheduled; and other
factors that influence how teachers teach.
Changing any one of these individual
features is unlikely to have the intended
effect. Stigler and Hiebert, p. 99
15
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Reform Is Often Just Different
Activities With the Same Context
Reform documents that focus teachers’
attention on features of good teaching in
the absence of supporting contexts might
actually divert attention away from the
more important goals of student learning.
They may inadvertently cause teachers to
substitute the means for the ends, to define
success in terms of specific features or
activities instead of long-term improvements
to learning.
Stigler and Hiebert, p. 109
16
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Japanese Lesson Study Model
The lesson study is
used to focus work on
improving teaching.
• Is based on long-term, continuous
improvement model
• Maintains a constant focus on student
learning
• Focuses on the direct improvement in
teaching in context
• Is collaborative
Teachers who participate in lesson study see
themselves as contributing to the develop-
ment of knowledge about teaching as well
as to their own professional development.
Stigler and Hiebert, pp. 120-125
17
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
(These suggestions are not necessarily based on a district
having a common curriculum, common materials,
and comprehensive teaching/learning system)
1) Expect improvement to be continual,
gradual, and incremental.
2) Maintain a constant focus on student
learning goals.
3) Focus on teaching, not teachers.
4) Make improvements in context of the
teaching.
5) Make improvements in the work of
teachers.
6) Build a system that can learn from its
own experience.
Stigler and Hiebert, pp. 132-136
Six Principles for Gradual,
Measurable Improvement
(School and District)
18
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Initiatives for Change
Setting the Stage
(District Work)
• Build consensus for continuous improve-
ment.
• Set clear learning goals for students and
align assessments with these goals.
• Restructure schools as places where
teachers can learn.
Stigler and Hiebert, pp. 137-145
19
District Actions
to Support
Improvement in
Teaching and Learning
Presenter:
Betsy Eaves
Director, LEA Support Services
Reading First California Technical Assistance Center
LEA Session 3 (Round 1) - March 2003
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Reading First Districts:
Review of Session 1
• We set the stage for a system-wide effort by focusing on
a coherent model for improving academic achievement
in reading in our districts/schools.
• We proposed using a set of six key elements to frame
our work. These elements are key to our success and are
meant to be utilized as the basis to build a system for
academic improvement in reading in all Reading First
districts and schools.
• We reviewed the grant assurances as the foundation for
our actions. The assurances have key common elements
that connect the work of the district directly to the work
of the school.
i
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
ii
Reading First Districts:
Review of Session #2
• We focused on a system concern related to current
approaches to teaching and learning.
• In addressing this issue, we underscored the reality of
teachers’ and principals’ perceptions related to who is
responsible for learning.
• In her book, The Academic Achievement Challenge,
Jeanne Chall develops a case for the systematic imple-
mentation of specific, teacher-centered approaches to
instruction that hold the teacher accountable for effective
teaching of specific content and skills.
• The conclusion of the book calls on educators to meet
the needs of all students, effectively and systematically,
by using explicit teaching techniques designed to build a
strong foundation of academic learning.
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
District Actions to Support
Improvement in
Teaching and Learning
Our work today will be to explore the
organizational components, methods,
and processes that we need to consider
as we work to build an accountability/
learning system across classrooms and
schools.
1
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
All classrooms deliver a coherent academic
program. This includes specific content
and an instructional system that is well
supported with high quality materials and
training.
Focus on Improved Instruction
Everyone is positively expected to fully
implement the agreed program and to
deepen instruction in this area using the
coordinated tools provided by the program.
All related content in this area is taught in a
high quality way to students. There are clear
standards for implementation and instruction
in the agreed program.
Key Element
#1
2
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Key Element 1:
Full
Implementation
Rubric
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
DRAFT - First Edition
All classrooms deliver a coherent, well organized, standards based, academic program in reading and language arts. This coordinated
program includes specific content, and a complete instructional system that is well supported with high quality materials, training, and
specific instructional strategies to address student needs across all populations of students.
All rooms are organized for instruction in the program, specifically to focus the students on the content and learning strategies
embedded in the program.
All teachers and school personnel are knowledgeable about all program components and understand the instructional design of how
the program meets the standards.
All classroom teachers have been trained to an advanced level of delivery.
The school is skillfully using the program each day in all classes.
All teachers have focused their efforts on building their classroom environment to focus on key elements of the program.
The amount of time spent teaching the program is standard across classes, and additional time is allocated for specific in-depth
teaching.
The pacing of lessons is similar from class to class and demonstrates skilled teaching of each different instructional design.
Special education and other programs utilize the standards based program and coordinate instruction to create a cohesive
instructional model.
All of the suggested instructional strategies designed to meet special needs of students are implemented.
Most rooms are organized for instruction in the program.
All teachers and school personnel are familiar with the program components and know the basic structure of how the program
meets the standards.
All classroom teachers have been trained.
The school is using the program each day in all classes.
All teachers have moved away from using conflicting material.
The amount of time spent teaching the program is standard across classes.
The pacing of lessons is beginning to be similar from class to class independent of teacher skill and preference.
Special education and other programs coordinate instruction with the standards based program.
Most of the suggested instructional strategies designed to meet special needs of students are implemented.
The classrooms show some evidence of organization related to the program.
Most teachers and school personnel are familiar with the program components.
Most classroom teachers have been initially trained in the program.
The school is using the program each day in most classes.
Some classes continue to use other material.
The amount of time spent teaching the program varies across classes.
The pacing of lessons is different from class to class depending on teacher skill and preference.
Special education and other programs do not necessarily coordinate instruction with the standards based program.
Most of the suggested instructional strategies designed to meet special needs of students are not implemented.
IMPLEMENTATION
3
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
ACTIVITY #1
With your district partner, review
key element #1 and use the rubric to
begin to create a picture of the status
of implementation in your district.
Work to develop three key actions that
could be taken in the next six weeks to
move forward on the rubric.
How would you use this tool to assist
schools in examining implementation
and taking improvement actions?
4
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
5
Everyone at each school uses a frequent
assessment system directly connected
to the content of the academic program.
This system is actively used to improve
instruction.
Focus on Improved Instruction
Use of data is seen as a positive activity.
Data collection is coordinated in an
efficient and timely manner.
Assessments connect directly to instruc-
tion. All teachers/leaders understand how
to interpret the data to improve instruction.
Assessments are used by everyone to
inform instruction and as a basis for action
to improve instruction.
Key Element
#2
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Key Element 2:
Use of
frequent
assessment
system
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
DRAFT
Everyone at each school uses a frequent assessment system directly connected to the content of the academic program. The data is collected
in an efficient and timely manner. Teachers and grade levels understand how to analyze, interpret, and use the data to improve instruction.
Teachers, to improve instruction and meet the needs of all students, actively and purposefully use this assessment system.
All teachers administer assessments at the end of each unit as suggested by the pacing guideline.
There is evidence that all teachers use agreed upon norms for administering and scoring assessments.
Data collection is always coordinated in an efficient and timely manner in preparation for use at grade level meetings.
All teachers see the use of data as a purposeful activity for the improvement of instruction.
All teachers and grade level teams demonstrate an understanding of how to analyze, interpret, and use the data to improve instruction.
The school demonstrates a consistent view of the importance of the assessment system.
Some teachers administer assessments as suggested by the pacing guideline.
There is evidence that some teachers use agreed upon norms for administering and scoring assessments.
Data collection is usually coordinated in an efficient and timely manner in preparation for use at grade level meetings.
Some teachers see the use of data as a purposeful activity for the improvement of instruction.
Some teachers and grade level teams demonstrate an understanding of how to analyze, interpret, and use the data to improve instruc-
tion.
The school is beginning to share a common view of the importance of the assessment system.
Teachers administer assessments at various times.
There is no evidence that teachers use agreed upon norms for administering and scoring assessments.
Data collection is not accomplished in a timely manner to be used at grade level meetings.
Few teachers see the use of data as a purposeful activity for the improvement of instruction.
Few teachers and grade level teams understand how to analyze, interpret, and use the data to improve instruction.
ASSESSMENT
6
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
ACTIVITY #2
With your district partner, review key
element #2 and use the rubric to begin to
create a picture of the status of the use of
curriculum-embedded assessments in your
district.
Work to develop three key actions that
could be taken in the next six weeks to
move forward on the rubric.
How would you use this tool to assist
schools in examining the purpose and
use of the assessment system and taking
improvement actions?
7
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
8
All persons work in collegial, collaborative
school and grade-level teams that focus on
developing successful, program-specific
strategies to improve achievement for all
students.
Focus on Improved Instruction
All work by the team is coherent to the agreed
program. Collaboration assists all teachers to
improve instruction. Instruction is actively
coordinated.
There is frequent and positive communication
and specific goal setting.
Active use of data leads to collaborative im-
provement, planning, and co-accountability.
Key Element
#3
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Key Element 3:
Collegial and
collaborative
grade level teams
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
DRAFT
All teachers/leaders engage in collegial, collaborative school and grade level teams that focus on developing successful, program specific
strategies to improve achievement for all students.
Work by grade level teams is always coherent to the agreed program.
Established norms are always followed to ensure focused and productive grade level meetings.
Grade level collaboration is well focused and assists teachers to improve instruction.
Grade level meetings are scheduled on a regular and frequent basis.
Grade level meetings are attended by all teachers.
Preparation and pacing for instruction is coordinated by all team members.
Assessment data is shared and analyzed by all teachers.
Data analysis is always used to plan and improve all components of instruction.
There is evidence that team meetings always result in goal setting for improved instruction.
Information from the team meeting is always shared with leadership.
Work by grade level teams is somewhat connected to the academic program.
Norms are variably followed to keep grade level meetings focused on academic learning.
Grade level collaboration is variably focused on the academic program and assists some teachers to improve instruction.
Grade level meetings are infrequent but do occur at scheduled intervals.
Grade level meetings are attended by most teachers.
Preparation and pacing for instruction is coordinated by some of the team members.
Assessment data is shared and analyzed by some teachers.
Data analysis is sometimes used to plan and improve some components of instruction.
There is evidence that team meetings sometimes result in goal setting for improved instruction.
Information from the team meetings is sometimes shared with the leadership.
Work by grade level teams is not necessarily connected to the academic program.
Norms are not used to focus grade level meetings.
Grade level collaboration is poorly focused and does little to assist teachers to improve instruction.
Grade level meetings are scheduled on a sporadic basis.
Grade level meetings are attended by few teachers.
Preparation and pacing for instruction is coordinated by a few team members but not all.
Assessment data is shared and analyzed by a few teachers.
Data analysis is infrequently used to plan and improve components of instruction.
Meetings seldom result in goal setting for improved instruction.
COLLEGIAL TEAM MEETINGS
9
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
ACTIVITY #3
With your district partner, review key
element #3 and use the rubric to determine
the status of collegial/collaborative, grade-
level teams in your district.
Work to develop three key actions that
could be taken in the next six weeks to
move forward on the rubric.
How would you use this tool to assist
schools in examining the purpose and
use of grade-level, collegial teams in
improving instruction.
10
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Key Elements Needed in a District-Wide/School Specific Effort to
Improve and Sustain Academic Achievement for All Student Groups
All classrooms deliver
a coherent academic
program. This includes
specific content and an
instructional system
that is well supported
with high quality
materials and training.
Everyone at each
school uses a frequent
assessment system
directly connected to
the content of the
academic program.
This system is
actively used to
improve instruction.
All schools work in
collegial, collabora-
tive school and grade
level teams that
focus on developing
successful, program
specific strategies to
improve achievement
for all students.
All schools engage in
content specific, site-
based professional
development with
coaching and technical
support. Activities at
each school are devel-
oped using the data
generated by the ongoing
program specific
assessment system and
are focused on improving
instruction for all
students.
Each site principal
actively takes actions
focused on developing
and strengthening the
academic performance
of ALL students in
K-3 reading.
Everyone is positively
expected to fully
implement the agreed
program and to
deepen instruction in
this area using the
coordinated tools
provided by the
program.
All related content in
this area is taught in a
high quality way to
students. There are
clear standards for
implementation and
instruction in the
agreed program.
The district provides
content-based,
coherent, coordinated
support and leader-
ship that technically
assists the school
to focus work and
sustain specific
improvements in
reading achievement
over time.
Use of data is seen as
a positive activity.
Data collection is
coordinated in an
efficient and timely
manner.
Assessments connect
directly to instruction.
All teachers/leaders
understand how to
interpret the data to
improve instruction.
Assessments are used
by everyone to inform
instruction and as a
basis for action to
improve instruction.
All work by the team
is coherent to the
agreed program.
Collaboration assists
all teachers to
improve instruction.
Instruction is actively
coordinated.
There is frequent and
positive communica-
tion and specific goal
setting.
Active use of data
leads to collaborative
improvement ,
planning, and
co-accountability.
The following are
used to deepen and
improve instruction in
all classes:
• Lesson study
• Learning walks
• Practice-based
professional
development
• Active coaching,
mentoring
Co-accountability is
supported and
deepened as a
collegial expectation
that is supported by
site-based, high-
quality professional
development.
Leadership team
demonstrates specific
content knowledge to
others.
Leaders take equal
responsibility for the
success of the
students and model
co-accountability.
Coordinated meetings
by leaders at the
school actively use
data to plan needed
actions and monitor
the results throughout
each assessment
cycle.
All support to schools
is coordinated and
coherent with the
agreed academic
curricular focus.
The district works to
eliminate confusion
and to support the
specific actions of the
school.
The district is actively
engaged in monitor-
ing the work of the
school and providing
content specific
technical support.
Key Elements
Focus on Improved Instruction
11
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Teacher-Centered
Improved Teaching
Leading to Improved
Student Achievement
Assessment
Data from
Instructional
Program
Professional
Development
Action Plan
• Whole group
• Grade Level
• Individual
Classroom
• Groups of
Students
Professional
Development
to Support
Schools
• Special Topics
• Training of
Coaches/
Team Leaders
Analysis of Data/Plan
for Improvement to
Assist Schools
Analysis of Data/Plan
for Improvement to
Assist Teachers
Assessment
Data from
Instructional
Program
Improvement Cycle
Examining Our Systems for Actions and Support
Implementation of Core
Academic Program with
Action Plan
District Structure to
Support School
During Instructional Cycle
12
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
District Structure to Support School
During Instructional Cycle
Implementation of Core Academic
Program with Action Plan
1. How are we assisting schools with full implementation of the reading
program?
2. What are the explicit expectations for implementation, and how are
we communicating these?
3. What actions are we taking to support a teacher-centered approach and
to counter reaction based on a more student-centered perspective?
13
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Assessment Data from
Instructional Program
Assessment Data from
Instructional Program
1. How are we assisting schools with full implementation of the
assessment system for the reading program?
2. What are the explicit expectations for the administration, data tabula-
tion, and use of the assessment system? How are we communicating
these, and is there evidence that this system is informing both the
school and our district work?
3. What actions are we taking to organize the incoming data so that it
informs our work with schools?
14
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Analysis of Data/Plan for
Improvement to Assist Teachers
Analysis of Data/Plan for
Improvement to Assist Schools
1. How are we assisting schools to develop and nurture effective collegial
teams that result in teachers working together to improve instruction?
2. What are the explicit expectations for teamwork, planning, and im-
proved instruction? Collegial preparation? How are we communicat-
ing these? What services are we offering schools to support this
work?
3. What actions are we taking to support a teacher-centered approach in
planning and improving instruction? How can we develop structures
that counter reactions in schools that are based on a more student-
centered perspective?
15
Reading First
California Technical Assistance Center March 2003
Professional Development Action Plan
• Whole Group
• Grade Level
• Individual Classroom
• Groups of Students
1. How are we assisting schools to develop and nurture effective collegial
teams that result in teachers working together to improve instruction?
2. What are the explicit expectations and models for teamwork, plan-
ning, and professional development to improve instruction? How are
we communicating these? What services are we offering schools to
support this work?
3. What actions are we supporting at the school site to address diverse
student needs within the core program? What models are we developing
to assure that groups of students are supported to achieve at grade level
by the end of the school year?
Professional Development to Support Schools
• Special Topics
• Training of Coaches/Team Leaders
16
