Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Writing Learning Objectives in the Social Studies Classroom
As I noted in class, the art of writing clear learning objectives is probably not essential to the work of teaching. As long as we are thoughtful about our purpose, concise formulations of how cognitive operations interact with specific subject-matter content are probably not going to make or break us as teachers.
On other hand, what Andrew and I noticed in class today was that by asking you to specify your cognitive operation, we tended to push you beyond simply asking students to “recall” or “know” the facts and theories of the social science disciplines.
This is a good thing.
It’s helpful to know about Turner’s “Frontier Thesis”—but it’s even more useful to debate whether or not that thesis really explains anything about the American character. That is, we must always recall there are many ways to interact with content—that true knowledge requires us to turn it about in our heads, and to ultimately decide on its significance and power.
It’s also really helpful, especially in world history, to get specific about content. Viewed in one way, all the material in a social studies courses are case examples about how humans act in certain situations. We should thoughtfully choose our case examples in order to broaden our students’ view of the world and to help them best understand the big ideas we are attempting to explore.
Teaching is not purely linear. In a good Socratic discussion, for example, we don’t always know where we will end up. We don’t know what the students will have learned. In this case, writing a learning objective is not even possible.
But the reality is that the current policies and trends require that we be able to formulate what we want students to do ahead of time. And that we be able to express these students performances in concise and technical language. Hence, the need for us to practice writing these learner outcomes and to include them on all of our public documents.
On other hand, what Andrew and I noticed in class today was that by asking you to specify your cognitive operation, we tended to push you beyond simply asking students to “recall” or “know” the facts and theories of the social science disciplines.
This is a good thing.
It’s helpful to know about Turner’s “Frontier Thesis”—but it’s even more useful to debate whether or not that thesis really explains anything about the American character. That is, we must always recall there are many ways to interact with content—that true knowledge requires us to turn it about in our heads, and to ultimately decide on its significance and power.
It’s also really helpful, especially in world history, to get specific about content. Viewed in one way, all the material in a social studies courses are case examples about how humans act in certain situations. We should thoughtfully choose our case examples in order to broaden our students’ view of the world and to help them best understand the big ideas we are attempting to explore.
Teaching is not purely linear. In a good Socratic discussion, for example, we don’t always know where we will end up. We don’t know what the students will have learned. In this case, writing a learning objective is not even possible.
But the reality is that the current policies and trends require that we be able to formulate what we want students to do ahead of time. And that we be able to express these students performances in concise and technical language. Hence, the need for us to practice writing these learner outcomes and to include them on all of our public documents.
TE 408 Assignments
Here are links to our TE 408 assignments for the spring 2017 semester:
Objective Exam assignment
Formative Assessment assignment
Formal Lesson Plan assignment
Objective Exam assignment
Formative Assessment assignment
Formal Lesson Plan assignment
Monday, November 21, 2016
All Children Need "Special Education"
The ideas behind UDL are, in some ways, pretty radical. As teachers, we “plan from the margins.” That is, we think about some of our most disadvantaged students as we contemplate our instruction.
I think we always have a student in mind when we plan our lessons. Perhaps this student is ourselves? While this is not a bad place to start—indeed, can we ever start from anywhere else but our own experiences?—I would argue that it is not enough.
For our own experiences as a learner only take on their full shape and meaning as we put them into dialogue with other experiences. In this way, I would argue for a type of “radical alterity” to be put at the heart of our planning.
That is, we should think about the children who might be most different from us in order to spot both commonalities and differences. To see what in our experiences is helpful for our teaching practice and to see where our own experiences might not actually be all that helpful as a guide to the learning needs for some of our students.
If we are always thinking about the “average” student, we risk treating all of our students as average—as typical, as not unique, as not a gift to the world.
But of course all children are gifts and carry with them gifts that the world is in desperate need of. When we plan from the perspective of those in most need of our assistance, hope and support, then we perhaps plan in ways that work harder to uncover those gifts.
That is going to be hard. But I think we have seen outstanding special education teachers over the past few weeks, ones who show us ways of teaching that we can adapt to make our classrooms more welcoming and more engaging for all students.
In this way, “special education” might become an education that recognizes what is special about all children.
I think we always have a student in mind when we plan our lessons. Perhaps this student is ourselves? While this is not a bad place to start—indeed, can we ever start from anywhere else but our own experiences?—I would argue that it is not enough.
For our own experiences as a learner only take on their full shape and meaning as we put them into dialogue with other experiences. In this way, I would argue for a type of “radical alterity” to be put at the heart of our planning.
That is, we should think about the children who might be most different from us in order to spot both commonalities and differences. To see what in our experiences is helpful for our teaching practice and to see where our own experiences might not actually be all that helpful as a guide to the learning needs for some of our students.
If we are always thinking about the “average” student, we risk treating all of our students as average—as typical, as not unique, as not a gift to the world.
But of course all children are gifts and carry with them gifts that the world is in desperate need of. When we plan from the perspective of those in most need of our assistance, hope and support, then we perhaps plan in ways that work harder to uncover those gifts.
That is going to be hard. But I think we have seen outstanding special education teachers over the past few weeks, ones who show us ways of teaching that we can adapt to make our classrooms more welcoming and more engaging for all students.
In this way, “special education” might become an education that recognizes what is special about all children.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Assessment: It's Simply a Way to Get to Know Your Students--And for Them to Get to Know Themselves!
Assessment is one of the trickier areas for us as new teachers to approach. For so long, assessment was done roughly the same way. On the high school level, at least, it was about grades, report cards, taking tests, and fitting oneself into a rank order.
Things have changed drastically over the past fifteen years, so it’s important to realize that our own experiences in this area may not be completely reliable guides for our professional actions in the future.
Take the issue of grades. We spent a bit of time in class trying to disentangle issues of grading from issues of assessment. While the two are no doubt linked, it is important that we do not let the current grading system totally determine our assessment practices.
At the end of the day, we will likely be required to give a student a single grade of either A, B, C, D or F. But that should not prevent us from providing that student and his or her family helpful and targeted information that will lead to a better appreciation for what needs to happen in the future.
It should not prevent us from communicating strengths and areas of needed growth, in the domains of knowledge, skills, interests, disposition, character, and leadership. It should not stop us from telling students whether or not they have met specific state-mandated standards.
Ben is an awesome example of a teacher who is continually refining and examining his assessment practices. He is currently playing around with a version of the “minimum fifty” policy—and he gives students a ton of choices and opportunities to play to their strengths and show what they know.
On the other hand, as we discussed in class, lots of choices comes with a downside: it means we can’t support students as much and that students are not, perhaps, gently nudged outside of their comfort zones.
Assessment can be one of the more inspiring areas for us as educators. It’s where we get to search out the hidden talents and gifts that each human being possesses. It’s where we help children connect what they can do—or what they are interested in doing—to the needs of the world. It’s where we help children discover their passions and help them reach out for them.
But it’s important that we don’t tell easy truths in this search for inspiration. We need to trust that kids can handle the truth. But to get to the truth, we need to be smart. We need to realize that no one instrument can tell us everything we need to know as teachers—even the best written test can’t do that.
So we need multiple forms of assessments, with multiple instruments: some project-based and some objective. With this rounded picture of summative assessment tools (and with the help of a ready stock of formative assessment strategies—something we will continue to talk about throughout the year), we, as teachers, can help take us out of the past of education and into its future.
Things have changed drastically over the past fifteen years, so it’s important to realize that our own experiences in this area may not be completely reliable guides for our professional actions in the future.
Take the issue of grades. We spent a bit of time in class trying to disentangle issues of grading from issues of assessment. While the two are no doubt linked, it is important that we do not let the current grading system totally determine our assessment practices.
At the end of the day, we will likely be required to give a student a single grade of either A, B, C, D or F. But that should not prevent us from providing that student and his or her family helpful and targeted information that will lead to a better appreciation for what needs to happen in the future.
It should not prevent us from communicating strengths and areas of needed growth, in the domains of knowledge, skills, interests, disposition, character, and leadership. It should not stop us from telling students whether or not they have met specific state-mandated standards.
Ben is an awesome example of a teacher who is continually refining and examining his assessment practices. He is currently playing around with a version of the “minimum fifty” policy—and he gives students a ton of choices and opportunities to play to their strengths and show what they know.
On the other hand, as we discussed in class, lots of choices comes with a downside: it means we can’t support students as much and that students are not, perhaps, gently nudged outside of their comfort zones.
Assessment can be one of the more inspiring areas for us as educators. It’s where we get to search out the hidden talents and gifts that each human being possesses. It’s where we help children connect what they can do—or what they are interested in doing—to the needs of the world. It’s where we help children discover their passions and help them reach out for them.
But it’s important that we don’t tell easy truths in this search for inspiration. We need to trust that kids can handle the truth. But to get to the truth, we need to be smart. We need to realize that no one instrument can tell us everything we need to know as teachers—even the best written test can’t do that.
So we need multiple forms of assessments, with multiple instruments: some project-based and some objective. With this rounded picture of summative assessment tools (and with the help of a ready stock of formative assessment strategies—something we will continue to talk about throughout the year), we, as teachers, can help take us out of the past of education and into its future.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
The Many Paths of Curriculum
Broadly speaking, traditional methods courses like TE 407 and TE 408 are divided into three broad areas: curriculum (the what of teaching), instruction (the how of teaching), and assessment (how we know they learned what we taught).
Throughout the year, we will consider each of these three areas in some depth. But as you no doubt noticed, as we have started the year, we have given our greatest attention to curriculum.
Defining curriculum as “the what of teaching” works for everyday purposes. But it is also helpful to step back and think about curriculum in its broader meaning. The origins of the word come from the Latin, currere, which means “to run.” Its meaning was eventually extended to the track or course on which one runs. Curriculum can therefore be thought of as a journey—as the journey one takes throughout life.
In the state of Michigan, as in the rest of the world, there is content that is assigned to each year of the schooling experience. For the past twenty-five years or so, this content has been organized into learning standards. Michigan’s newly proposed standards for k-12 social studies can be found here.
When teachers plan their instruction, they begin by consulting the relevant curriculum documents. These include standards documents and the local textbook that is assigned to your course.
What we have been practicing is the art of gathering multiple types of resources (written, visual, online, etc.) that can be used to teach the required content in a way that is both engaging and inclusive of multiple perspectives. But gathering is only the first step!
For it is how we ask questions that “pull out” all that a resource offers that is the true art of teaching. Indeed, one of the most important resources for your students is you! Think about how you can maximize the unique talents you bring to the classroom.
It is a question of how we can open up a space in which thinking and feeling and caring can happen.
Ultimately, as we leave this first unit of TE 407, we want you to understand that all of life has the potential to become curriculum. Indeed, as we prepare to assist Ben and the other teachers from Haslett Middle School on their field trip tomorrow, it is a great time to remind ourselves that true learning happens when the learner is able to organize their life experiences so as to go on growing in the future.
Our job as teachers is to learn how to take advantage of whatever the school day brings—a textbook reading, a guest talk from Mike Lupica, a lockdown drill, a school dance, or a field trip.
Great job through our first unit of the year! Andrew and I look forward to reading your curriculum resource assignments, which are due up on your website by Wednesday, October 5.
TE 407 Course Resources: September
Here are links to the course syllabus, the curriculum resource assignment, and the Michigan Social Studies standards.
TE 407 Syllabus
Curriculum Resource Assignment
Michigan Social Studies Standards
Google Earth Tours Presentation Schedule
Teaching in Ben's Class Schedule
TE 407 Syllabus
Curriculum Resource Assignment
Michigan Social Studies Standards
Google Earth Tours Presentation Schedule
Teaching in Ben's Class Schedule
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)