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).
No comments:
Post a Comment