Curriculum Leadership Institute

Pathways to School Improvement

student engagement

Keeping Students Engaged Systematically Using the Instructional Planning Resource

by

Enter button on keyboard is replaced with Learning button in green
Click here for a printer-friendly version.

Virtual teaching is a challenge. Many teachers were not ready to conduct instruction using the internet. Much had to be learned to make the new medium work for students AND teachers.

And if that challenge was not enough, teachers were also asked to use what is known as a hybrid model. A term that means teaching occurs in BOTH classroom and virtual settings.

Back and forth.

Which is hard, especially when teachers learn students do not have computers or are not connected to the internet. Or both. And when parents do not allow their children to attend school for fear of catching the virus.

Meeting such overwhelming challenges has resulted in major disruptions in the continuum of student learning. Chances are good that conditions, while not as bad as the first stages of the pandemic, will be unsettled for months or years.

Therefore, contingency planning by curriculum councils should be vigorous and ongoing. Subject area committees, operating under the auspices of councils, should stay ready for any eventuality. The old idea that we can depend on a single medium for teaching public school students is no longer valid.

Client districts using CLI’s Instructional Planning Resource (IPR) can connect contingency planning to intentional forms of instruction. The IPR does not overcome the lack of personal computers, home-based internet availability, or willingness of parents to risk their children getting sick. But it does give structure to how teachers plan for variable instructional settings.

The IPR contains everything necessary for thinking-through and planning instruction, virtual or not. In clear and specific phrases, it includes the mastery purpose of the course, well-constructed unit outcomes, and their components. It provides information on how to formatively assess student performance. It describes teaching methods, student activities and resources to be used. Alternative or “differentiated” instructional techniques are inserted.

And the summative assessment is not just a one-off pencil and paper test, but a clearly described method to determine if students have indeed met criteria in each component.

Client districts using the IPR model know it to be challenging to create for teachers accustomed to writing and using daily lesson plans. It requires training wordsmith intentions for student learning accurately and comprehensively, and considerable imagination to project all possible variations as to possible methods, student activities, and resources to use.

But developing skills to write IPRs is worth the effort on many levels, not the least of which is a teacher’s cognitive engagement with the curriculum to be taught.

First, the IPR can be saved in a digital databank and used repeatedly. Because it is saved in a computer, it can be modified any time conditions require.  Portions of it can be shared virtually with students or on a classroom screen.

Second, an IPR eliminates the need to create elaborate daily lesson plans. Teachers can keep track of where they are in the margins. They can also code the IPR for use in pacing guides or individualized instruction.

Third, the IPR provides a quick glance at the amount of curriculum to be covered in a standard classroom setting, thereby giving teachers a clear indication of how much seat time is necessary. If the class is being taught virtually, the teacher can get a sense of how quickly students are progressing.

If instructional conditions are poor because of the medium being used, as in virtual formats, the teacher may need to delete part of an intended curriculum. Having to skip parts of an intended curriculum inadvertently happens now. The difference when using an IPR is that the portion deleted can be done intentionally instead of just “running out of time.” Having that option available is important for two reasons: (1) a deleted portion may be selected because it is the least essential element, and (2) knowing what was deleted can be revisited later when more time and opportunity are available.

The pandemic has taught us to be ready for almost anything. In addition, it is teaching us that virtual or hybrid forms of instruction do not need to be inadequate stopgap measures. They may not be perfect but, as with many other things in this “new normal,” those instructional settings can work if we plan ahead more thoroughly and precisely.

Teaching for Reflective Learning

by

Portrait of smart female college student with books and a light bulb above her head as a symbol of bright ideas
Click here for a printer-friendly version.

As anyone working in education can attest, a greater emphasis is placed on criterion-referenced high stakes testing than in the past. In response to this reality, including reflective thinking in a teacher’s toolbox of instructional strategies can help students think about their learning and ensure that applications are meaningful and relevant in an increasingly demanding world. Using CLI processes prompts for reflective learning can be written into unit outcomes and components. They can be explicitly addressed in the instructional planning resource in the context of methods, activities, resources, and assessments.  Proficiency scales also allow students to practice reflective learning as well as tracking their learning.

Proficiency

Measuring the quality and extent of reflective learning is more challenging than measuring simple recall. Therefore, the criteria for implementing reflective learning must be more extensive than past approaches.  When such criteria are met, however, the results have intense and long-lasting meaning.

In their reflection on learning, students will:

  • describe their personal strengths and weaknesses in the context of the skills and understandings required,
  • identify and question underlying values and beliefs in the context of the skills and understandings required,
  • acknowledge and challenge possible assumptions on which expressed values and beliefs are based,
  • identify and describe feelings of bias or discrimination, and
  • acknowledge fears and inadequacies in attempting to improve.

The reflection required to meet the above challenges is designed to improve self-awareness, the first step to positive change.  It defines learning as being something more than the cognitive accumulation of facts and processes, placing it within a student’s life in ways that make scholastic growth a part of meeting personal, professional, and vocational goals.  It gives students emotional tools to positively weigh what they do, so they can identify approaches that work well and reinforce good practices over time.

Methods that Encourage Student Engagement in Reflective Practice

Educational researchers, such as Robert Marzano, Benjamin Bloom, Thomas Good, and Jere Brophy, referred to reflection as being a means to stimulate higher-order thinking. Many authors who advocate the use of cooperative teaching and learning, as well as constructivist approaches, also consider individual reflective behaviors to be valid behavioral outcomes. Research suggests that extensive student writing and speaking (based on solid inquiry activities) are the best vehicles for allowing student expression that is reflective of engaged thought, beliefs, and emotions.  A Subject Area Committee (SAC) can write unit outcomes and components that are specific to this type of writing and speaking.  On an Instructional Planning Resource (IPR), or other lesson planning structure, teachers can include such methods as reflective journals and other self-evaluative tools, peer critique, debriefing techniques, and dynamic feedback in group settings.  These can show up in the IPR methods, activities, resources, and assessment blocks. 

Reflective Learning versus the Negative Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

We all know that students who are otherwise engaged in their surroundings reject subjects they “don’t like” or find “too hard.”  Consequently, they either fail those courses or just get by well enough to keep teachers and parents mollified.  For whatever reason, they simply don’t learn the subject well enough to make any kind of personal and lasting difference.  Without the personal connection to learning, assessment with formal exams or application assessments, a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy kicks in and they fail.  They justify performance with “I knew I’d fail because I’ve always hated that subject” or “I knew I’d fail because I’ve never been good in that subject.”  Sound familiar?  However, because reflective learning causes students to acknowledge their fears and inadequacies and to identify their strengths, question beliefs, and challenge assumptions – such negativity can be deflected before it becomes ingrained. 

The CLI Model offers an effective platform for addressing this more substantial and meaningful approach to teaching and student learning.  Both a Curriculum Coordinating Council (CCC) and a SAC can systematically build in processes associated with curriculum content and instructional techniques that make mastery real and student performance valid.