Is Curriculum a Guide or a Script?

It has been a while since my last post.  Actually, it seems like a lifetime ago.  I will diverge from my normal discussion of science curriculum for a moment, but will bring it back around.  Just stay with me.

Last July, my father was diagnosed with an extremely rare form of cancer undoubtedly from exposure to Agent Orange during his year of service in Vietnam.  He was a helicopter pilot and was tasked with spraying the herbicide.  He told me that due to the prop wash, he would come back soaked in it.

My father just prior to deployment in 1968.

I was out of the office almost all of November due to the complications he has endured through this process.  I've learned more about the science and art of medicine in these last few months than I ever wanted to know.  At one point, I found myself sitting at my father's bedside with my mother and the oncologist as we discussed treatment options.  The Mayo Clinic was consulted and a treatment regime was prescribed which had been deemed effective for most patients.  I say "most" because my father has a rather complex medical history.  Complex enough that it should qualify him for a season of "House".

The oncologist read through the recommendations with us and reviewed  my father's most recent test results.  Based on these results, he decided to follow a slightly different regime.   As of this posting, my father has seen a 70% reduction in the "bad cells" and we are hopeful that by the end of January to be in remission.

What are the lessons to be learned here?

• A set of treatments was prescribed.  
• Test results prior to treatment indicated a modified, more individual course of action.    
• The treatment is proving to be successful. 
• There is an art and science to treatment.  

Let's get back on the topic of this blog.  My primary job, at the moment, is developing curriculum based on the Next Generation Science Standards for the throngs of teachers in my system. This curriculum is a suggested course of action.  It provides many of the components needed to assist teachers in developing mastery of the standards in students.  Now, I'm not comparing myself to the Mayo Clinic, but the expectation is that I am the local expert on the NGSS.  Now I could complete this analogy but I think you know where I am going.  Teachers are the doctors and students are the patients.

What is the purpose of curriculum?  As a teacher, I lived two very different realities when it came to curriculum.  As a kindergarten teacher, I had no curriculum.  I based my instruction on the end of grade level expectations.  I had to make up curriculum on my own.  As a high school science teacher, I received curriculum from my supervisor.  A three inch thick binder.  Blue with a green cover as I recall.  I remember looking through it and realizing that, while it had good lessons it did not meet the needs of my students.  Once again, I had to make up my own curriculum, but at least I had a starting point.  

The idea of following a curriculum, chapter and verse, never occurred to me. I always viewed curriculum as a guide developed by people who have a pretty good idea about what most kids need.  We'll call this a science.  It was then my job as a teacher to find the best fit for my students. That takes a little science and a lot of art to make that happen. Great teachers are almost poetic.

As I discussed back in October (Articulating Expectations into a Personalized Learning Environment), I outlined a new set of curriculum expectations developed by my school system.  In summary,  through pre-assessment, we formatively use data to diagnose where students are before instruction starts.  The result is multiple groups of students consuming instruction based on their instructional need in the same room.

 I would hope that the merits of small group instruction are self-evident, but consider this.  In one of my prior jobs, I worked with "gifted" students.  How many of these students coast through instruction they have already mastered?  Conversely, how many students endure instruction for which they are not ready?  

The question is, then what.  How do you logistically manage a class like this. At the secondary level, there are more options.  Students can take different classes.  At the elementary level, it is more self-contained.  A reality lost on many people outside (and some inside) education.

So, I am opening a dialogue to discuss these ideas.  I am going to host a webinar on February 2 (Ground Hog Day) to develop some concrete strategies for all of us.  Click on this hyperlink at 7:00 PM (EST).  The rough agenda will be as follows.

• I will discuss the specifics of the curriculum framework I developed   (I am open to other ideas.)
• Start building a set of management strategies for teachers
• Think beyond the current realities of classroom instruction.  Do we need a different concept of what a classroom is?  What does the field of  educational technology need to offer us?  Do we need to "Amazonify" how students access content? 

I look forward to talking with you at the webinar!

Articulating Expectations into a Personalized Learning Environment

I missed my monthly update so I guess I will have to do two in October.  I wanted to talk about some new attributes to my curriculum that have really altered how teachers and students engage in answering the age old question “Where am I?”.  I touched on this idea in July when I discussed "I can" statements.

Once we have the “I can” statements established, they are then used to form a proficiency table.  These table have filled an important void that existed in my previous curriculum.  We have always offered pre and post assessments to teachers.  Ostensibly, the resulting data was to assist teachers in differentiating the curriculum.  However, it quickly became apparent that most teachers did not have a clear view of how to make that happen.  The proficiency tables are a way to fill in that blank.      
Shown below is an example for grade 3 :

LEVEL	DESCRIPTION BASED ON PRE-ASSESSMENT RESULTS	UNIT SPECIFIC STUDENT EXPECTATIONS	SUGGESTED CURRICULAR PATH
4	Pre-assessment data which indicates students master prior knowledge/processes and current content/process (via performance) are level 4.	I can: Use scientific evidence to explain how a design solution reduces the impact of weight from a weather-related hazard such as a blizzard Design and build a structure to withstand the impacts (weight and wind of a hurricane and/or a blizzard.	Students at this level build  their own structure from scratch to withstand an additional weather-related hazard such as wind from a hurricane and/or blizzard.  They are given the parts to build the structure and may also bring parts from home to build the structure within the construction parameters.
3	Pre-assessment data which indicates students master prior knowledge/processes and on grade level content are level 3.	I can: Explain and interpret data presented in a table, graph, or chart Compare weather v. climate Predict weather based on information presented in a graph, table, or chart Evaluate information from print and nonprint resources Describe and explain how climates vary in different regions of the world Use patterns of change in climate to predict typical weather conditions in different regions	Students at this level should be given more time to conduct the investigations.   The teacher should spend less time modeling the investigation.  Students can also be given more time to design, build, and refine their structural designs.
2	Pre-assessment data which indicates students have mastered the prior content but does not demonstrate understanding of on grade level content and processes are a level 2	I can: Use print and nonprint resources Use data presented in a graph, table, or chart Identify and describe types of weather Identify and describe impacts from weather-related hazards Describe ways weather affects our everyday lives Work with other students to conduct an investigation	Students are ready for grade level appropriate content and processes with modifications as needed.
1	Pre-assessment data which indicates students who do not understand the prior content are a level 1.	I can: Not identify types of weather Not understand how weather changes from season to season Not identify weather-related hazards Not identify impacts from weather-related hazards Not understand data presented in graphs, tables, or charts	Students at this level should be given the opportunity to access digital data from the weather unit from kindergarten to build background knowledge about weather, climate, and visual data representations.

As you move from bottom to top, students expertise increases.  Ultimately, students should be ready for level 4 by the end of the unit (transferring learning to a new solving a new problem).  This idea is very new to me and to my teachers. It will take a lot of refinement over the next several years to get this process "perfected".

Here is the new problem that has developed.  While we are finally able to determine student levels of mastery after pre-assessment, the problem is "then what".  

To be specific,  imagine a classroom where you have students spread across all four proficiency levels.  Three students do not have the prior knowledge necessary to engage with the grade level content (Level 1).  There is one student who spent a summer at meteorology camp and is past level four.  Fifteen students are ready for the curriculum as is (level 2) and the remaining nine pretty much know the content (level 3) and just need time to work on their prediction skills.  That's a class of 29 if you are keeping count.  What do multiple needs groups look like in science?  It is very different than reading where we litterally have moving parts.  If we are working towards a personalized learning environment for students, we need to develop strategies for teachers to manage it.  Anyone have ideas or good references for what this might look like in the elementary classroom?

As always,  keep the comments and questions coming.  We are in this together.

  

Reflections on a Second Summer of NGSS Curriculum Writing

I'm happy to report that I survived the summer curriculum writing adventure.   I have to honestly say that this year's work went a lot better than last year's.   This is not to disparage last year's writers in any way.  I simply did not have the experience with the NGSS at that time.  A year of working on that curriculum coupled with a healthy infusion of evidence statements yields much better work.  I can't compliment my team enough.  They far exceeded my expectation.  Among the tasks completed:

• Unpacked standards using the evidence statements and converted them to "I can" statements.  
• Created performance assessments including rubrics
• Created "content assessments" and loaded them to our assessment engine
• Wrote every lesson for the unit using Understanding by Design and 5E (see previous post for lesson plan outline)
• Edited lessons within our learning management system
• Made partnerships with outside entities in order to provide students with local and realistic roles within our performances.
• Tested many of the hands-on aspects to the units. ( This is why we do this job.  Let's be honest.)

A few words about our assessment model.  You will see that I mentioned both performance and a "content" assessment.  Our units start by asking students to solve a problem using only their background knowledge.  This is a pre-performance assessment.  Whatever standards cannot be realistically assessed through the performance are assessed using the "content" assessment.  These usually assess more than content but I could not come up with another name.  "Leftover" assessment just would not work.  At the end of the unit, students are given a parallel set of assessments.  The performance is a chance for students to iterate their original design.  In between these two assessment events, every lesson comes back to solving the problem.  

#RelevanceIsEverything

Relevance, if you have not heard already, is of paramount importance to me.  To that end, one last comment about the evidence statements.  The team did a great job writing a curriculum that which assess the vast majority of them.  However, my charge to team was that if they could not make an evidence statement fit into the curriculum, they were not to use it.  Doubtless, this may come back to bite me whenever the assessments come out, but I would much rather have kids see their learning as meaningful to them.  

    

Once more onto the breach, dear friends, once more...

I have had a couple of request for my lesson plan format, and as I am about to embark on writing grades three through five, I suspect my postings will be limited for a while.  Our legacy curriculum was already based on the 5E model.  Happily, this integrates with Understanding by Design (UbD) fairly easily.  Keep in mind that UbD is more of a curriculum design framework rather than a just a lesson plan template.

During stage 1, we spend a lot of time unpacking the standards and making sure we understand exactly what students are asked to know and be able to do.  This process was made significantly easier by the addition of the NGSS evidence statements.  These really clarified what the writers had in mind and doubtless signal what and how students will be assessed.

Now, I will say the release of these statements drove me mad.  They came out on the day we wrapped up grades K-2.  A quick analysis of what we wrote showed that we were close, but some work will need to be done after our field test next year.

Back to stage 1.  These evidence statements will be converted to "I can" statements.  For my purposes, I define these as a restatement of the evidence statements in student friendly language.   A task I am dreading when it comes to my rewrite of Kindergarten.

• I can push
• I can pull

These might be the limits given the reading ability of most Kindergarten students.  I have seen some "I can" statements based on the NGSS.  These, however, are a restatement of the performance expectations.  These are far too coarse for my purposes.

Once we understand the standards, it is time to move on to stage 2.  This is the assessment development portion.  Here is where we dip into problem based learning and develop a performance based assessment.  For our units, these problems are locally relevant and attempt to tie as many of the "I can" statements together as possible.  These are also the basis for our storylines.

I am of a firm believe that a good curriculum should tell a story across each lesson.  It is our goal that at some point during the lesson, students are asked to apply what they have learned to the problem in the unit.  By the end, these individual applications become the basis for a final iteration of their original solution. Whatever does not fit into this performance assessment is assessed through more traditional means using our learning management system's assessment engine.

The assessments form the bookends of the curriculum.  For each unit there is a pre-performance assessment.  Here students are given the opportunity to solve the problem with whatever background knowledge they bring to the unit.  By the end, their new iteration is a measure of how much they have grown across one unit of study.  An important feature in our new era of teacher accountability.

At stage 3, we carve individual lessons plans.  Just so we are on the same page, a lesson is not necessarily built on a specific amount of time.  It is built on whatever it takes for students to accomplish the "I can" statement (formerly known as an objective).

The next page shows the lesson plan format we are using and was discussed above.  I look forward to your questions and suggestions. 



Standards-

For NGSS use the specific coding you were given.  Copy and paste.  USE HYPHENS IN PLACE OF BULLETS

Look for opportunities to integrate CCR and P21 as well. 

Description: Gives the teacher a brief summary of what the lesson is about and what students will be doing.  Finishes with estimated time to implement the lesson expressed in number of 60 minute classes.(Two-60 minute classes) 

Stage 1- Desired Results

Essential Question: Avoid yes or no questions or those with a “Google-able” Answer.  Should drive instruction during the lesson.  Conveys the big idea to the teacher.

Enduring Understandings:  Students will understand that:  -What specific understandings should students have after the lesson?  There can be multiple items.  USE HYPHENS IN PLACE OF BULLETS

Objective:  STUDENT FRIENDLY LANGUAGE which starts with “I can”

Stage 2- Assessment Evidence

Assessment Type	Description	Criteria
Summative:	What tool will teachers use to collect the evidence that students have mastered the “I can…”?	What is the evidence of mastery?
Formative:	What should a teacher observe during the lesson in order to make modifications along the way?	What specific evidence should guide teachers to making modifications?

Stage 3- Plan

Lesson Background:

What would be helpful for the teacher to understand about the content of this lesson? Include link

Lesson Prep:

What will a teacher need to prepare before the lesson?  This is copied to the Advanced Preparation section of the previous lesson.  USE HYPHENS IN PLACE OF BULLETS

Materials:

For the teacher:  What materials will the teacher need?  Include the physical and digital assets. For each group of students Group work is essential to 21st century skills. Groups should be no larger than 3-4 students. Materials kits will be built for a max class size of 32 (8 groups of 4). For each individual student: What materials will students need?

Lesson Planner with Differentiation:

Components	Brief Description
Engagement	How will you capture students attention and focus them on the “I can..”? What do students already know (or think they know) about the phenomena? Have students make a claim when appropriate. USE HYPHENS IN PLACE OF BULLETS Each stage should be written with enough detail to guide instruction, but IT IS NOT A SCRIPT.  Be sure to include suggested questions to assist teachers in guiding discussions.  Highlight critical points in the lesson if a teacher must absolutely follow the lesson or else a teachable moment may be lost.
Exploration	How will students interact with the phenomena? What evidence will they collect to support their claim? USE HYPHENS IN PLACE OF BULLETS
Explanation	How will students explain the evidence?  How will they express their understanding?  In science, students should not be limited to only written explanations.  USE HYPHENS IN PLACE OF BULLETS
Elaboration	How does understanding the phenomena help students solve the problem? USE HYPHENS IN PLACE OF BULLETS
Evaluation	What tool will teachers use to collect the evidence that students have mastered the “I can…”?  (Summative Assessment) USE HYPHENS IN PLACE OF BULLETS

Advanced Preparation for Next Lesson:

Will be pasted in from the Lesson Prep section of the next lesson. Complete after finalizing next lesson.

Grade		Unit		Lesson
Developers