Category Archives: Skills-based Learning & Assessment Curriculum

To Calm the Paralyzing Fear of Lesson Planning

Posted on by
Reply

I have thought of lesson planning and why it appears so difficult for so many teachers.  Aside from the obvious indications that, well, many teachers were never actually taught how to write a lesson plan, only to read and interpret them from a textbook “Teacher’s Edition,” the task can seem ominous.  I believe a logical reference to the burden of lesson planning lies within the military use of the “operations order.”  The operations order goes by several names and acronyms, i.e., operations plan, OPLAN, OPORD, five paragraph field order, etc.  It’s function is to identify an objective and explain how to accomplish it.  Consisting of five standard paragraphs it includes instructions for executing the mission.

  1. Situation
  2. Mission
  3. Execution
  4. Support
  5. Command & Control

The lesson plan is a miniature operations order.  It tells us what we want to do, how we want to do it, what resources we need to make it happen, and how much time we have to do it in.  The lesson plan gives us our objective and tells us why we are doing what’s in store.  We receive the intent of the activities, why they’re important, and, if conducted correctly, what we get out of them.  They tell us what questions to ask, when to ask them, and what you hope to gain from the answers.  They tell us how to determine whether or not we’ve been successful when it’s over.  We should look at a lesson plan like it’s an operations order.  Do a good job on this and just about everything else falls into place.

An operations order consists of five paragraphs.  Thus, unlike a lesson plan, it has a universal standard format.  The concept, when applied to a military maneuver, can encompass thousands of soldiers in a large scale mission or it can focus on a squad of eight scouts on a reconnaissance task.  For a teacher, the concept can direct the activities of 28 children in such a way that what we want them to learn becomes a deliberate venture focused on engaging students in discovery and leaving them eager for more.  An OPLAN is an amazing instrument, as is the much maligned lesson plan.

With an OPLAN the first paragraph tells us the situation.  With a quality standards-based lesson plan (SBLP) the situation refers to, first and foremost, the benchmark standard we’re going to teach.  But there’s more to it than that, of course.  The situation includes what pre-requisite skills might be needed to really learn the lesson before us.  What scaffolding skills, indirect supporting skills and knowledge, or less complex sub-tasks are involved in fully realizing the CRS, CCSS, or non-core state standard skill we are dealing with?  What is the current skill level of the students relative to the benchmark standard in question?  What supports are available such as specialized services, paraprofessional assistance, IT enhancements, etc.?  And what are the conditions under which the instruction is to take place?

Next comes the mission: who, what, when, where.  In essence, what are we trying to do?  The first paragraph, the situation, tells us why it’s important.  The first thought in preparing a SBLP ought to be the summative assessment.  Referring to the Task (benchmark standard), Condition (how to assess proficiency), Standard (assessment criteria) of the benchmark standard, we either know or can determine the problem-solving skill in question and how it is to be assessed.  Specifically, we know what we want the students to be able to do and under what conditions they will demonstrate proficiency.  This tells us where we focus our attention, where the weak spots might be (re: students), and what the metrics for success look like.  The mission is your objective.  It is short and to the point.

With paragraph three we think about what, exactly, are we going to do to get the students to proficiency and beyond.  The OPLAN will refer to this as the concept of operations.  In education we think of this much like our “learning activities.”  This is how we get from Point A (where student skill levels are now) to Point B (where we want their skill levels to be).  Whether we focus on DBQ’s (DBA, DBI, etc.), group discussions, transferring variables within or without context, or whatever, this is the method of instruction.  It will tell us what the engagement activities consist of.  It will also tell us how we plan to use the supports available.  The concept of operations will be the most deliberate and expansive of paragraphs and may involve scripting.  Like a screenplay to a movie director or like a recipe to a chef, paragraph three tells us “how.”

Paragraph three also includes our coordination/collaboration.  The indispensible coordinating instructions keep us both humble and cohesive.  For a traditionalist teacher whose professional requirements consist of a room, a class roster and a textbook, coordinating instructions are unnecessary.  For the rest of us, the instructional scheme includes other players.  We must continuously be conscious of relevance and alignment.  For an example, what has your grade level team determined to be the focus for your year group?  Are there cross-curricular projects which must be considered?  How does the benchmark skill track with regards to vertical alignment within the department?  Are specific grouping requirements in order?  Are there specific district or school directives to integrate into the lesson?  In short, we must deliberately consider the many variables of our students, our fellow teachers, and the system in which we practice.

Now for paragraph four, this is where the administrative and logistical aspects of the operation (or lesson) come into play.   In a lesson plan this will take into account various external requirements to support the lesson.  Do you change rooms?  Is there need for special supports for diverse learner populations or MTSS/RtI Level 2 and 3 students?  What about student seating?  Does the school or district require specific resources for a particular lesson?  Are certain resources restricted or unavailable which must be supplanted?  Who takes attendance?  A variety of administrative/logistical issues may be routine, but they must be considered even if they are merely referenced in the SBLP.

Paragraph five of an OPLAN refers to command and signal.  Unless your lesson includes a field trip or other out-of-classroom experience, this part of the OPLAN/SBLP is cursory.  However, if an out-of-classroom experience is part of the objective, even if it’s just a trip to the school library or media center (and even for just a few students), this paragraph may be most important.  A substitute or “cover” teacher will undoubtedly find this information handy in case of crisis or just a matter of quandary.  Basically, it includes who does what to whom and how to get ahold of them.

So, there it is.  What goes into a standards-based lesson plan is pretty cut and dried.  It is ostensibly no different from an OPLAN.  Unfortunately for those of us short on time, it includes a whole lot of information we may not have consciously thought about previously.  But for the children to get the most out of any lesson, there must be thoughtful preparation on the part of the teacher.  And I will grant you that a good many teachers are on top of the situation.  But it should be obvious by now that “Review Chapter 16,” as Day 4 of your Week 27 Lesson Plan just won’t pass muster anymore.

Chasing our tails with CCSS

Posted on by
Reply

There is no need for us to chase our tails with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Since the publication of CCSS a couple years ago, educators have been trying to “unpack” and amalgamate the grade level skills and skill strands contained therein. But most appear to be chasing their tails by trying to assimilate performance standards into the established unit-driven, content-based instruction (CBI).

There are a couple plausible explanations for insisting that square, CCSS pegs should fit into round, content-based holes. The most obvious explanation is that CCSS, as a body, “appears” to be content-based. To be sure, CCSS is organized along a content related structure of English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Next Generation Science Standards. Another explanation lies within the formatted presentation of unit-type segments. Presumably the authors, themselves, were not entirely sure of how to teach standards (as opposed to content), only that performance standards were necessary. A third explanation acknowledges that instruction of skills is a seismic shift from imparting knowledge. The ramifications of this shift are frightening to those who may also acknowledge that very little from traditional, teacher-centered methods are effective in creating an environment wherein students learn to problem solve using their own skills as opposed to teacher merely showing them how.

Of course, there is the consuming notion that most teachers, themselves, learned their craft and trade through the very traditional methods which Standards-based Instruction (SBI) so willingly discounts. Often enough, the protests will encompass information which students just have to know, and that this information seems to be discarded in favor of basic skills. This is an invalid assumption. There is no aspect of SBI which negates subject area knowledge. Indeed, skills may not be developed to any level of complexity without an ever-increasing knowledge of the topic being investigated. But there is an inverse relationship. SBI allows the subject to be dealt with in a more critical manner as opposed to the subject being expanded for the student by the teacher. Whereas, in the latter case the teacher assesses student understanding by having the student repeat what what told, presented or assigned as opposed to the teacher assessing student understanding by allowing the student to demonstrate problem-solving skills within a subject area using the student’s own skills to show understanding of the material.

I don’t mean to imply that imparting knowledge is a bad thing. On the contrary, it’s a good thing. That’s what experts do. The primary difference between SBI and CBI lies in how students accumulate the knowledge. We must teach students how to gain information and understanding from a vast array of topical content; of content they, the students, must be allowed to select and investigate for themselves. We build their capacity for understanding by teaching them skills which allow them to think for themselves and to draw their own conclusions. The traditional method of CBI restricts their exposure to both content and thought processes and relegates them to the roles of note-taker and information regurgitator. The analogy here lies with the quote often attributed to William Butler Yeats, “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.”

A typical content-based high school course will have an established amount of content which (presumed) experts have determined make up the knowledge a student should digest in order to fill the pail and thus ordain him/her credit worthy. Textbooks are created which guide both teachers and students through the material in an orderly fashion, hopefully reaching the last chapter at the end of the school year. All necessary content is covered within this format. Periodic unit assessments test whether (or not) the students have been paying attention and/or doing their homework. By the end of the year (or semester or whatever) the teacher will have taught all the material and, presumably, the students will have “learned” it.

How this relates to the difficulty in accessing and adopting CCSS lies in what the student can actually do relative to his/her own capacity for gaining knowledge independent of the teacher. Critical thinking, critical reading, problem-solving and metacognition are subordinated to “learning” a bunch of academic stuff. Relegating students’ minds to the back of the priority list in favor of all this stuff simply does not increase students’ capacity to think for themselves. This is where CCSS comes in.

When we talk about student independence and responsibility for learning (a la Charlotte Danielson and others) we should concern ourselves with our students’ capacity for independent thought. Lectures and other teacher-centered approaches do not challenge students to think for themselves on a daily basis. Sitting in a classroom while a teacher waxes on about whatever subject might be next on the agenda does not engage students in independent thinking or independent learning. We are not looking for parrots, particularly in elementary and high school. Although there is a certain amount of rules taking and memorization in the early elementary grades while children are developing their concrete operational base, there should be increasingly less direct, formula-based instruction as students begin to apply basic skills to increasingly real and relevant applications.

Students have to learn how to think for themselves. And teachers have to learn how to teach students to think for themselves. It’s messy, to be sure. I would imagine that for many educators the ideal classroom contains students who thirst for knowledge. This ideal situation is a rewarding experience for teachers and students, alike. But even if we have a classroom in which the students strive to do their best, without the skills needed to independently read, comprehend, analyze and evaluate information, the thirst goes unquenched. When students cannot fluently read the science texts, or intuitively relate math concepts, or rationally decipher op-ed primary source from fact-based reporting or literary prose they are just relying on what the teacher says. They decide whether to believe or not; they decide whether to care or not based entirely on the teacher-student dynamic. In the hand-holding culture of traditional instruction it’s really that simple.

Skills-based instruction such as that which is at the heart of CCSS gives all students a fighting chance to succeed. After X amount of content-based instruction about things students either don’t understand or don’t care about, what’s left? What can they do? As educators we cannot control parental involvement. We cannot control politics, budget, urban violence, or mainstream media and culture. But we can control what happens in the classroom. Being aware of external social forces may help us understand the problem and assist how we shape our students’ academic experience. But these external forces are not responsible for bad teaching. Requiring kids to sit through teacher-centered content-based lectures and do homework “because it’s good for them and they need the practice” has not worked for the mainstream student for forty years. At some point, educators have to get serious about the profession and quit taking the easy road and blaming others. We must stop chasing our tails by trying to insert CCSS into our content-based, teacher-centered formulae and begin restructuring our classroom instruction to skills-based, student-centered lessons which promote independent, critical thought. We need to start teaching students how to think for themselves. And so another quote seems appropriate, this from Plutarch, “The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.”

The Educators’ Guide to Skills-based Learning and Assessment Curriculum – 8: Lesson Planning

Posted on by
3

SBLAC 8:  Lesson Planning

Lesson Planning is sort of like letter writing.  Having received lesson plans from each teacher in my school as part of the classroom observation process, I can attest to the fact that while there may be two or three standard formats floating around the building, everybody has his/her own style.  Some are short and to the point while some are verbose and detailed.  Some use complete sentences while some reflect a more texting-like quality.  Some serve the purpose of identifying the lesson, its objective(s), the instructional activities, required resources and anticipated outcomes while others do not.  But I shall not go into standardization of lesson planning now (you can view a standards-based lesson template on the “wellspring” tab).  Suffice it to say that lessons must be planned.  Each lesson must have a lesson plan and each plan must include the Critical Benchmark Skill(s) being addressed in the given lesson.  If there are no Critical Benchmark Skills being addressed within a particular lesson, consider tossing the document and finding a new lesson.  Essentially, if what we do every day does not move us closer to our goal, we must somehow justify the activity or scrap it.

 Thus, what we are discussing here is not writing lesson plans.  We are discussing planning the lessons for which we will then write lesson plans.  A few culminating ideas may be useful.  In a standards-based curriculum, all instructional activities must focus on the standards being taught and learned.  Students (and schools) will be assessed on skill proficiency based primarily on the known and published College Readiness Standards (ACT, SAT, etc.).  Day Two of the Illinois PSAE includes two WorkKeys® tests, Reading for Information and Applied Mathematics, on which the students must, for all intents and purposes, receive a 5 or better to be considered as having met the Illinois state graduation requirements.  In essence, kids need a 20+ composite score on the ACT (Day One) and a 5+ on WorkKeys® (Day Two) in order to meet the minimal state requirement.  Currently, less than a third of our students do so.  Until a school achieves a preconfigured percentage of students meeting the state requirement, it will not meet AYP and will remain caught up in NCLB “interventions” until you-know-what freezes over (global warming does not bode well for the “wait it out” approach).  And this is not acceptable.  But it is neither the scores nor the NCLB threats which make the outcome unacceptable.  It is the failure to provide students with the tools they will need to be successful as adults, whether they go to college or not.

 If our instructional activities are not directly focused on the skills our students need to be successful in life after high school, then we are merely running in place and we’re wasting their time.  What we must do to the lesson planning process is to take the subject matter content out of the equation – for now.  Lay out the curriculum map which is devoted to your 40 or so Critical Benchmark Skills (some of which may very well be purely subject matter depending on the department/discipline).  Imagine what it takes to get every child in each class proficient in each of these benchmark skills.  Remember, this is the long and short of passing your class.  You will notice that some of these skills may not be primary level of complexity and you will have to ensure certain prerequisite sub-skills are mastered as well.  You may notice that certain course content fits more perfectly with certain skills.  You may discover in the course of departmental and/or grade level collaboration that certain skills can be taught in tandem with another class, or that a certain basic skill can be introduced as preliminary to a follow-on course.  Remember the tool kit.  We are adding tools to the students’ mental tool kit so that they may solve problems, make decisions, and think critically as adults.  And remember that if a lesson does not advance that goal it probably should be scrapped.

 Once we have a firm grasp of the Critical Benchmark Skills to be mastered throughout the school year, we must ascertain the reality of teaching school.  Certain times of the school year are great for instruction, others are not so focused.  The week before Christmas, the last two weeks before the end of each semester, PSAE week and Homecoming week are not good times to introduce critical skills for which there has been no preparation.  Rearrange your CBSL if necessary.  There needn’t be one per week.  Some weeks will focus on two skills, and continue them through the next week or two.  Some skills will be worked on throughout a quarter, which is fine as long as students achieve proficiency by the end of the semester.  “Walk the dog” however you prefer.  Just remember that each batch of Critical Benchmark Skills must be wrapped up at the end of each semester.  These grades, as everyone knows, are permanent.

 As the plan for instructing the Critical Benchmark Skills is established on the curriculum map, the final big push will re-insert disciplinary content.  Used sparingly, as an emulsifier, content becomes the means to an end.  We want students to identify plot, theme, subject, and cause-effect relationships as skills.  We use literature of all types, fiction and non-fiction, classical and modern, plays, poems, historical texts and op-ed pieces to illustrate and instruct.  The editing requirements of the English assessment of the ACT should be fundamental to all Social Studies (art and music, too) writing assignments whether we are analyzing the fall of a great civilization or investigating the causes of social reform.  Basically, we should not teach the subject but use our expertise in the subject to teach the skill so that the student can manipulate the subject him/herself.  We want to make them better than we are.  We all know the cliché of “being the sage on the stage.”  Knowing more than they do does not impress children.  Teaching a child the skills you have opens interesting doors and causes even more interesting conversations in and out of the classroom.  “Walk the dog” with your specialized subject as the medium.

 Perhaps the greatest frustration lies in the standards-based instructional cycle.  Once the necessary skills are identified, i.e., the critically important skills which are to be instructed as course objectives, the task for the teacher is to determine how they will be assessed.  What constitutes proficiency?  What constitutes mastery?  How will a teacher know when a student has achieved proficiency or mastery?  Once these standards of performance have been established a teacher will then determine how to get students to these levels.  The assessments must come before the lesson planning.  A cynical teacher cannot dissociate the “teaching to the test” mantra humming through his/her brain by the idea of creating an assessment or test for which students are prepared to do well.  But there is no other way to fairly judge a student’s learning than to establish known objectives, how and to what standards of performance they will be assessed, and conduct instruction designed to meet course objectives.  Planning a course to simply cover an expanse of material is plainly and simply nothing more than story-telling.

 The five-phase lesson plan is a standards-based format for planning lessons.  A template can be found on the Wellspring page of www.sblac.com.   The five phases are; Inquire, an introductory phase of skills-based instruction; Gather, an opportunity to discuss what we know and what we need to find out; Process, the discovery by students of various methods of problem-solving using the Benchmark Skill in question; Apply, a facilitated classroom workshop wherein students apply the skill in a variety of content-centered contexts; Assess, the conclusion of the lesson where students demonstrate proficiency of the Benchmark Skill through analysis, evaluation and synthesis.

 Inquire.  When planning lessons teachers must be aware of sub-skills and other prerequisite skills necessary for students to fully comprehend the concepts involved in the lesson being planned.  We must also be aware of preconceptions and naïve theories.  When a new skill is introduced in the Inquire phase of a five-phase lesson, diagnostic assessment has to be paramount in order to ensure 1) that students have the conceptual capacity to move to this next higher level of complexity, and 2) that students will not be confused by conflicting assumptions and suppositions.  Another good reason for diagnostic assessment is to ensure that you’re not wasting everyone’s time on a skill at which the students are already generally proficient.  But basically the need for the early assessment at the beginning of a lesson helps the fidelity of the lesson, itself.  There are few teachers who have not had to stop a lesson (whether content-based or standards-based) because the majority of students were incapable of prerequisite skills necessary for the task at hand.  The lesson, needing to be interrupted in order to go further, has now been lost.  The prerequisite skill is given short shrift and not really “learned” while the main lesson is impeded by the interruption.  I’ve been there myself.  It’s always a bad scene, particularly when you discover the blank spot in your students’ conceptual understanding actually happened a couple days earlier.

 Gather.  While gathering information in the Gather phase, we assist students in determining what we need to know about completing the task at hand.  Because most (if not all) standards of CRS, CCSS, ILS, etc. can be converted into “I can” statements, the discussions with students should focus on questions like, “What do I need to know about a situation if, at the end, I can . . .” and “What earlier skills and knowledge which I already possess will help me if, at the end, I can . . .”  It is important to keep in mind that our goal is to further expand a student’s skill base.  We will, of course, utilize course content as the means to accomplish our goal, but the goal is for the student to be able to implement the skill independently.  Because many of our students (and some teachers) operate in a selectively concrete operational realm, the Gather phase is where we introduce critical thinking characteristics into the learning process.  Students must discuss the information available and determine its value relative to the task at hand.  Not all data is usable data.  Not all written articles are valid.  Not everything we hear, see, or read can be taken at face value and/or be of equal importance or relevance.  The focus here is on what we know for sure and what we need to know to accomplish the task.

 Process.  When we process the information we’ve received, we apply the skill as a way to solve a problem using that information.  In the sense of Bloom’s Taxonomy, we accumulate knowledge of the skill and conceptually relate it to what we know and need to know (Inquire).  After gathering relevant information about the problem or task at hand (Gather), we discuss various methods for accomplishing the task.  In discussing various processes we allow students to delve into a problem or situation which will require the skill being addressed.  This is where student comprehension of the standard (CRS, CCSS, ILS, etc.) takes hold.  It is crucial during this phase (and all phases, really) that students be allowed to discuss methods, points of view, abstract reasoning and a variety of approaches.  Telling students how to solve a problem in a sterile high school classroom environment does not deep seat a skill.  Students must come to internal conclusions about applying skills as problem-solving tools.

 Apply.  Having crawled through a situation wherein a particular skill (or skills) has been demonstrated, discussed, and practiced in a prearranged, content-centered context, the Apply phase allows students the opportunity to demonstrate, to themselves and each other, that they have internalized a process for accomplishing the task at hand.  Benjamin Bloom calls this Application, as well.  This is a critical learning stage wherein students are presented, as a class, in groups, and individually, a variety of situations in a variety of contexts which require application of the new-found skill with content-centered circumstances but which present new angles, different information, or information presented in a different manner.  The complexity level of these various applications should be minimally at the level of the Benchmark task, but should present challenges which, when completed successfully, demonstrate mastery of the skill at a particular level.  This provides students the opportunity to not only deep seat the skill a one level of complexity, but prepares them for continued work using the same skill at the next higher level of complexity.

 Assess.  Assessment is much more than test-taking.  Assessment should never consist merely of a teacher testing whether or not students “get it.”  The Assess phase provides students the opportunity to analyze, evaluate and synthesize.  Analysis of a situation, wherein their own work and the work of others is scrutinized to determine validity of arguments and conclusions, is central to critical thinking.  Evaluation of their own work and the work of others provides tremendous insight into reflection and self-efficacy.  Synthesis of processes and conceptual understanding gives students access to creativity within the classroom.  Techniques for assessing are as varied as a teacher’s imagination.  Rubrics for assessment should offer students clear expectations of what right looks like.  There is little worse than an assessment, exam, quiz, assignment, or worksheet for which a student is not made aware of the performance standards beforehand.  Not far behind are the assessments which are “graded” but do not allow a student to learn from errors, as if a students made mistakes and must live with these learning flaws forever.  Assessments should be designed so that students learn.  And the Assess phase should provide students an opportunity to do that.  If we simply assign a grade to a test for which a student did not demonstrate proficiency (or mastery) and record it as summative, we have certainly missed the point of standards-based instruction, indeed, of secondary education.