IPI (Instructional Practices Inventory) is part of the CCSD Strategic Plan under Focus 3. The goal is that 30% of our IPI observations will reflect higher order, deeper thinking. In the IPI model, a code 6 or 5 indicates higher order thinking. One of the big concepts of IPI is that even though the observations are very short (5 minutes or less) the sheer number of observations will reveal a clear trend of what kids are experiencing. Just a couple of important reminders regarding IPI:
- IPI is NOT evaluative of individual teachers in any way. All the data is aggregated. No one looks at individual classrooms or teachers. We don’t care which classrooms or teachers were revealed with specific codes. It’s all about looking at the overall trend of the big picture.
- IPI is not a hierarchy. With the exceptions of codes 1 and code 2 — which we should do our best eliminate: disengaged students and teachers — the rest of the codes are all valuable and good practice. We don’t want to see an elimination of codes 3 or 4 — the lower order thinking codes. Kids need these types of experiences to fully and deeply learn. The big question is what proportion of codes 3, 4, 5, and 6 do we think is optimal…?
Here are some of the highlights when I look our data:
- During the winter district IPI window, we were able to get in just under a thousand (989) observations. This data represents all buildings except Edge and Delta.
- We had 25.5% of our total observations reflected students engaged in higher order, deeper thinking. In the fall window, we had 22.7%. So, there was an increase of 3.5% in students engaged in higher order, deeper thinking.
- Of the 989 observations, 325 of them captured students using digital tools. This about 34% of all observations.
- In observations with students using digital tools, 33.6 of these observations reflected students engaged in higher order, deeper thinking. In the observations without technology or digital tools, students were engaged in higher order, deeper thinking in 20.4% of those observations. This is a difference of 13.2%
- Code 4 represents direct teacher instruction and code 3 represents independent (lower order) practice. Students not engaged with technology/digital tools were coded at 59.5% Students that were observed using digital tools were at code 3 51.7% of the time.
I think there’s a good bit celebrate. The fact that we have a pretty comprehensive and useful number of overall observations is great. Our total percentage of students observed engaging in higher order, deeper thinking has increased from the fall observation cycle. In addition, we are over our stated goal of 30% of students engaged in higher order, deeper thinking when students are engaged with digital tools (33.6%). That’s really powerful!
I think there are some “grows” in this data as well. I’d love to see the percentage of kids observed using digital tools go up from 34%. Looking at the data, it’s pretty clear that when our kids use these tools, they are significantly more likely (13.2%) to be engaged in higher order, deeper thinking.
I looking forward to our final observation cycle later this spring. I hope that all teachers get a chance to engage with this powerful data for your building. While it’s really interesting for me to analyze it, it’s really only useful or meaningful as a conversation starter amongst teachers and building leaders about how to shift the experience of our students.