Pickerington’s Synthesis of P4P Stakeholder Feedback Leads to Refinement of Theory of Action and Development of Instructional Model Drafts

The Pickerington Schools Digital Convergence Steering Committee began their instructional models strategy session by reviewing Plan for Progress (P4P) stakeholder survey feedback data to inform the refinement of their Theory of Action statements. The P4P surveys included internal and external district community feedback to help inform the district wide strategic planning process. The team wanted to review the data gathered through the survey to inform the refinement of their Theory of Action statements so there would be direct alignment between the strategic plan and the work of Digital Convergence.

The team divided up into four groups with each group reviewing the current draft statement and offering opportunities for revisions. You could feel a synergy amongst the team as they arrived at a consensus for the refined statements.

 

 Pickerington team members Julie Novel, Todd Stanley, and David Hayward collaborate in their small group to review and revise Theory of Action draft statements.

Pickerington team members Julie Novel, Todd Stanley, and David Hayward collaborate in their small group to review and revise Theory of Action draft statements.

 The team came back together as a whole group and collaborated to come to a consensus on the final draft statements.

The team came back together as a whole group and collaborated to come to a consensus on the final draft statements.

The refined Theory of Action statements led the team to reflect on a series of prompts to help the team narrow in on the key elements they would like in an overarching instructional model for modern learning. The prompts asked the team to identify: 1) key elements of the Theory of Action they wanted to pull into the new instructional model, 2) current priorities that would lend to a modern learning environment, and 3) instructional aspirations they would like to see implemented through the new instructional model. The team worked within their four groups to develop aesthetically pleasing digital representations of their instructional model drafts. While each group presented a different spin on their graphic depictions of the instructional model, the content developed across all groups was very similar and had a blend of key elements from the Theory of Action as well as current priorities and modern learning practices already in place throughout the district.

 Jena Cooper and Erik Barbon engage in an Affinity Mapping activity to flush out their major components and big ideas from the prompt responses.

Jena Cooper and Erik Barbon engage in an Affinity Mapping activity to flush out their major components and big ideas from the prompt responses.

 David Hayward begins to draw a visual representation of his group’s instructional model. Julie Novel and Todd Stanley review other district instructional models for ideas.

David Hayward begins to draw a visual representation of his group’s instructional model. Julie Novel and Todd Stanley review other district instructional models for ideas.

 Brian Seymour explains the first of his group’s two instructional model draft graphics to the steering committee.

Brian Seymour explains the first of his group’s two instructional model draft graphics to the steering committee.

The Pickerington team walked away from the strategy day with several solid instructional model graphics to synthesize into one draft model.