6. Submit a Log

When using the FRAME as an organizational tool for training prep, I find it to be a fantastic strategy for ensuring I cover the deeper understandings and essential questions rather than superfluous information.

The FRAMing Routine has served as an effective tool for content review and/or to emphasize content during PD sessions and follow up coaching.  I feel that I need to place more emphasis on the "E" step.  An example of use during PD: when we are discussing the 8 stages of instruction for a learning strategy, participants are divided into 8 groups and asked to read the introductory pages in the teacher manual.  They then record the main ideas and details from each on chart paper.  As each group provides their main ideas and details to the group, we transfer that information to a FRAME that they can then use to review.  We have done the same thing for lesson-based strategies.

I revised my frame to include an extension activity

The Frame was received well by the group.  Using the Frame encouraged dialogue amongst the teachers after each chapter.  Because the Frame requires essential details, teachers were required to dig deeper to pull out the parts of the training that were most important and helped to eliminate confusions .  The "So What" part of the Frame was a very nice way to wrap up the day with a succinct wrap up.   It did take longer with the routine embedded, but the level of learning that occurred with the addition of the Frame was worth the time. 

The framing routine has been one of our favorite routines to work with.  Teachers seem to like the clarity of the device and it helped to eliminate some of the confusion we have seen when running Module 10 trainings in the past. I do think that time is a challenge.  In order to really dedicate enough time to implement these routines,  it does mean sacrificing some of the content we need to cover.  The idea of summarizing each chapter was a great way to transistion and teachers enjoyed the time to process the information- I just wish there was a way to see these teachers again. I have thought about implementing this at a PLC level, maybe that is a goal for next year. 

The implementation of the FRAME with a group of teachers during a professional development session went well.  The teachers and I co-constructed the FRAME as a group.  The teachers did a great job generating the key ideas and details to populate the FRAME.  We debriefed the FRAME and also discussed how they could use it with their students.  Since it was a group of new teachers who were at the training, it was beneficial for them to share ideas of how the FRAME could possibly be used with a group of students.  The teachers were able to see the benefit of using the device with students and how it can benefit their learning.  Overall, the teachers seemed to respond positively to the use of the FRAME.  Some challenges that I had was that the group was all brand new teachers.  This was a challenge in a way because everything was so new to them including the content of the Charlotte Danielson Framework that was used to develop the FRAME.  I think they would be able to create a FRAME on their own as opposed to co-constructing one as a group if they had more background knowledge.

What went well? Why?
The students were more open to using the frame than I had thought they would be going into the lessons. Most willingly engaged and participated in completing their frames as we worked through the Talking Together lessons with minimal prompting.
What was a challenge? Why?
The transient nature of the student population in the setting I implemented the Framing Routine was a challenge. The setting was a seventh and eighth grade Comprehensive Therapeutic Emotional Support classroom at one of our campus schools. The students in the classroom often differed from lesson to lesson, with some coming into the placement, some leaving to return to their home district schools, and others leaving to be placed in more restrictive settings. Throughout the implementation of the Framing Routine through the Talking Together strategy, I had between 3 and 7 students in the room per lesson. It often took a lot of reviewing previous lesson concepts to be able to move to the lesson we were scheduled to complete each day.
What you will do next time:
Next time, I would like to have a more student-led completion of the Frame for Talking Together. I would introduce the frame and the main idea for the lesson and then go through the lesson with the students. Then, I would revisit the frame and have the students take a more active role in completing the points under the main idea for the day with guided questioning to allow for more thoughtful responses.
What adjustments you made:
I ended up drawing the Frame parts on the dry erase board to fill in with the main idea items because there was not a projector screen that the students could easily see to be able to complete their frames. Using the dry erase board took a little more set up time, however was much more effective for the students.

I incorporated the Framing Routine as Part of a three day SW PBIS training the universal training.  I created an example to Frame the training by day for the group and used the ppt attached to the evidence to instruct using the Cue, Do, Review, format.  During each of the three days the teams created a FRAME to detail the steps they needed to implement the steps of a universal SW PBIS system.  The feedback was offered to make sure that I include the extension activity.  Learners felt that the FRAME was a useful way to focus on the topic for the day, reveal the main ideas, ensuring they attended to each step of implementation, make so what statements and extend their learning of how the learning pertained to past knowledge and make connections between school climate and the implementation of SW PBIS.  I would next time detail the ppt more to ensure I explained each step with enough detail and make the connections building wide.