Resources and Examples Below In the past decade, there has been two separate movements for curriculum. One movement at the school level and one at the academic level. When I started teaching, schools either did not have a curriculum or handed me the textbook as the curriculum. Thankfully, we’ve progressed past that point; however, schools are still lacking in the development of a curriculum that will be effective for all teachers and in turn all students. Since the No Child Left Behind push, schools have become more advanced in assembling curriculum teams, reviewing curriculum, and evaluating fidelity to which teachers follow the curriculum. Unfortunately, some of the key aspects of an effective curriculum were taken too literally. Additionally, schools often, with a good purpose, try to solve things quickly. Many schools did and more importantly, still do use the standards as a curriculum. As you look at individual districts, large city district, or even countywide districts, the curriculum is usually some form of standards copied and pasted and handed to the teachers. Do a simple search of ELA or Math curriculum in any state or in the nation and you will find an abundance of examples to review. The school movement sought to provide a curriculum that, according to experts, needs to be based on standards to be effective. However, being based on standards is not the same as just being the standard. While schools continue to utilize this model of standards, even if split into topical units and spiraled to repeat, the potential effectiveness of their curriculum remains lower than developing a more research-based approach. The world of academia continues to utilize brain-based science and action research to produce better frameworks for curriculum development. Whatever model of instructional design that is being utilized in your school, universal ideas of curriculum might provide a better scope and sequence for teachers and students. Standards are the foundation for curriculum, but not its entirety. A collaborative team must review, engage in dialogue, and discuss the standards to turn them into learning strands and goals. These learning goals then become mastery scales. This is the key difference missing in curriculum design and one that starts the journey to differentiated learning and Response to Intervention programs. Without this piece to the curriculum puzzle, many teachers are left without clear guidance on how to systematically and effectively approach delivery within these schemes. These mastery goals and learning targets become embedded in units of suggested length under an umbrella of driving questions. To read more on this curriculum framework, visit DeFlitch’s Curriculum Website or purchase Marzano’s work on learning targets. Let’s remember that No Child Behind is over. The dawn of Every Student Succeeds Act appears on the horizon.
0 Comments
Thinking. An obvious standard that all classrooms in all grades state is a main focus. But is it? When asked about concrete and observable targeting and developing of student thinking, many teachers resort to their use of Bloom’s Taxonomy in developing questions. According to Dr. Kagan (2005), “Although Bloom's Taxonomy is very useful from a practical perspective, in three important ways Bloom's Taxonomy does not align well with recent findings of brain science Universities and district and push Bloom’s as the standard for thinking levels without considering alternatives or evaluating its effectiveness.” Additionally, most of the artifacts collected that target thinking often represent the concrete product of the thought or an elementary use of graphic organizers. Too little is being done that explicitly grows and documents the progression of thought for students, which means most activities are just that, subject-specific activities that target testing and not thinking. The irony is that more targeting of thinking ends up producing students who can retain and depict their learning in all settings. Ron Ritchhart, among others, worked developed a system of routines that target thinking in students in all grade levels. Through Project Zero at Harvard, numerous teachers expanded their whole to focus on whole-brain instruction and provided educational opportunities that translated beyond subject knowledge to transferrable knowledge. Teachers are modelers of the thinking culture. A culture of thinking in schools cannot be rote nor cannot be faked. It is a genuine and purposeful environment set with the students and modeled by the teacher. In the correct environment, thinking proliferates given the parameters and language of the teacher and the opportunities to document and reflect on thinking, situations designed by the teacher to include. List of Thinking Opportunity Routines |
Mr. Brenton DeFlitchStriving to provide unique and research-based strategies to modernizing the educational experience of students. Archives
February 2017
Categories |