EDU 6524 META-REFLECTION

EDU 6524 META-REFLECTION ASSIGNMENT       IAN LEWIS                 AUGUST 14, 2016

Prior to beginning this course at Seattle Pacific University (SPU) my experience in curriculum design was minimal. The experience I possessed was rather specific, tailored to the anthropology/archaeology department. To that extent, it was quite contextually limited. Because the curriculum was related to a very specific area of archaeology practice and research, it was aimed at a small, distinct audience. In contrast, I have also worked in the public school system, where curriculum design occurs across multiple subjects and diverse populations. In that setting, however, I was an emergency certificated substitute. This role does not require creating a curriculum, or even lessons. Lessons were normally carefully (and about equal parts haphazardly) provided to be quickly debriefed and put to use with a new population of learners daily. This exposure to a vast array of styles and levels of plans, across many varied students, has impacted my knowledge of lesson and overall curriculum design to a degree. With limited knowledge of current pedagogical literature and practice, the view of varied plans did provide certain examples of common pedagogical best practices, many of which are related to the various program standards at SPU.

Each of the eight program standards could certainly be discussed with regard to curriculum design, but based on much emphasis in certain areas, and in relation to the discourse and practice offered by this class (through literature review and evaluation, peer discussion, and creation of a curriculum), the four standards of Instruction, Differentiation, Content Knowledge, and Assessment will be addressed. Instruction refers to the ability of a teacher to effectively present information to students via research-based pedagogical practices in a way that all students’ needs (cultural, developmental, cognitive, etc.) are met. In order to meet the needs of all students, especially exceptional learners, teachers must practice effective differentiation, which entails knowing students on a deeper, culturally competent, embracing, and integrative level so that classroom instruction may include the unique background knowledge of many diverse students. Donovan, Bransford, and Pellegrino (1999, p. 10) discuss how if students’ initial perceptions of how the world works are not engaged they may fail to grasp new concepts and ideas, or they may learn simply to pass assessments/meet standards. Thus, teachers must also engage students. There is much literature regarding research-based, pedagogical practices and associated cognitive and development processes (Marzano, 2007; Medina, 2008; Pressley and McCormick, 2007) aimed at engaging students. In order to demonstrate content knowledge, a teacher’s practice will show an adept knowledge of content and pedagogy by putting successful teaching methods and strategies into practice in order to craft and teach to meaningful learning targets, design scaffolded, integrative, and engaging learning activities, and create coherent lesson and units. Finally, assessment also includes the competent practice of various pedagogical techniques in order to plan, inform, and modify classroom instruction and evaluate student comprehension of learning targets.

Throughout this curriculum design course the unit assignments provide examples of much pedagogical understanding put to practice. Additionally, the course discussion offered much time for self-assessment, reflection, and revision. As we begin to construct curriculum, first it is important to acknowledge what makes quality curriculum. Ritchhart (2007) details seven R’s of quality curriculum. One that is valuable for creating citizens for tomorrow is the idea that curriculum must be Real, or embody the work of actual adults in a discipline/profession. For example, as discussed online, one idea that was receptive among our group was the inclusion of comparing students to historians, and phrasing learning targets as what historians practice (Figure 1). Use of such a practice not only demonstrates competency in the content knowledge standard, but also the instruction standard. Through literature evaluation, we know it is ideal to prepare students by creating real, lifelike learning experiences for them to be engaged, so incorporating the use of terms for professionals in the learning target creates a parallel for the students to aspire to.

Figure 1: Screenshot of discussion module; aligning student learning targets with tasks of historians demonstrates creation of Real curriculum. 

With regard to constructing lessons, as practiced in the learning targets and lesson plans assignments, Whitehorse (2013) and Schuhl (2012) discuss how similar to lessons, learning targets should be engaging, but simple enough to remain within students’ zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962). Also, they should be scaffolded, as originally detailed by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), so that one learning target aligns and builds into the next, the language function and demand of which may possibly be higher than the previous with regard to Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956). Cognitive development, brain function, and basic evolutionary principles also dictate that people lose attention after approximately ten minutes (Medina, 2008, p. 74-75), thus, it is effective for teachers to construct lessons with distinct, direct parts that are related, but linked via entertaining and/or multi-sensory hooks that continue student practice of the learning target while transitioning to the next lesson segment or assessment portion. A major revision to my lesson plans came about based on the literature evaluation, discussion, and critique/feedback pertaining to segmenting lesson plans and learning targets.   

Additionally, while crafting lessons and receiving feedback for lesson improvements and revision, a stress toward constantly engaging students, especially exceptional learners through differentiation, and assessment were noted. Both common and accepted pedagogical practices, differentiation and assessment are quite closely related to each other, and an overall understanding of prior student knowledge and perception. For example, the benefits of creating engaging preassessments allows for a deeper understanding of the individuals within a class, and that knowledge can be used to craft a curriculum tailored to the needs of the student population. Continued assessment (informal and formal) and assessment of student voice, or understanding of the learning target, is essential for keeping account of student progress, which can then be used to further modify or reevaluate lessons. Keeping track of student data, or better – encouraging students to track their own data, allows for reflection and revision of lesson plans when necessary to allow for differentiation.

While the experiences in this class were but one lens for viewing curriculum design, in practice, upon entering an internship, the experience may be different, especially since we will have actual teaching resources at our disposal. However, from this course comes a deeper understanding of research-based content and pedagogical best practices for creating curriculum, the process of which includes achievement in the program standards of Instruction, Differentiation, Content Knowledge, and Assessment. 

References:

Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Walter, H., and Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational

Objectives.

Donovan, Suzanne M., Bransford, John D., and Pellegrino, James W. (1999). How People Learn.

National Academy of Sciences, Chapter 2, 18-23.

Marzano, Robert J. (2007). The Art and Science of Teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Medina, John (2008). Brain Rules. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.

Pressley, Michael and McCormick, Christine (2007). Child and Adolescent Development for Educators.

New York: The Guilford Press.

Ritchhart, Ron (2007). The Seven R’s of Quality Curriculum.  Education Quarterly Australia.

Schuhl, Sarah (2012). How Do We Write Learning Targets to Assess Students. Solution Tree.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wood, S.S., Bruner, J.S., and Ross, G. (1976). The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of

Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

Whitehorse, Lindsey (2013). How to Create a Learning Target. (youtube).