Teacher Leadership Subscribe to RSS
Common Core Big Idea 4: Map Backward From Intended Results
December 6, 2012 | Jay McTighe
Editor's note: This is the fourth post in a five-part series which takes a look at five big ideas for implementation of the Common Core State Standards, authored by Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins
The key to avoiding an overly discrete and fragmented curriculum is to design backward from complex performances that require content. A return to the linguistic roots of “curriculum” reveals the wisdom in this outcome-focused view. The Latin meaning of the term is a “course to be run.” This original connotation helpfully suggests that we should think of a curriculum as the pathway toward a destination. As mentioned above, our conception is that curriculum should be framed and developed in terms of worthy outputs; i.e., desired performances by the learner, not simply as a listing of content inputs.
This is not a new idea. Ralph Tyler made this very point more than 60 years ago (Tyler, 1949). He proposed a curriculum development method involving a matrix of content and process components that would guide teachers in meshing these two elements into effective performance-based learning. As Tyler points out, the “purpose of a statement of objectives is to indicate the kinds of changes in the student to be brought about… Hence it is clear that a statement of objectives in terms of content headings… is not a satisfactory basis for guiding the further development of the curriculum.” pp. 45-6. Indeed, the Mathematics Standards recommend just such an approach:
“The Standards for Mathematical Practice describe ways in which developing student practitioners of the discipline of mathematics increasingly ought to engage with the subject matter as they grow in mathematical maturity and expertise throughout the elementary, middle and high school years. Designers of curricula, assessments, and professional development should all attend to the need to connect the mathematical practices to mathematical content in mathematics instruction.” (p. 8)
Thus, the first question for curriculum writers is not: What will we teach and when should we teach it? Rather the initial question for curriculum development must be goal focused: Having learned key content, what will students be able to do with it?
Our long-standing contention applies unequivocally to the Common Core Standards as well as to other standards: The ultimate aim of a curriculum is independent transfer; i.e., for students to be able to employ their learning, autonomously and thoughtfully, to varied complex situations, inside and outside of school. Lacking the capacity to independently apply their learning, a student will be neither college nor workplace ready.
The ELA Standards make this point plainly in their characterization of the capacities of the literate individual:
“They demonstrate independence. Students can, without significant scaffolding, comprehend and evaluate complex texts across a range of types and disciplines, and they can construct effective arguments and convey intricate or multifaceted information… Students adapt their communication in relation to audience, task, purpose, and discipline. Likewise, students are able independently to discern a speaker’s key points, request clarification, and ask relevant questions... Without prompting, they demonstrate command of standard English and acquire and use a wide-ranging vocabulary. More broadly, they become self-directed learners, effectively seeking out and using resources to assist them, including teachers, peers, and print and digital reference materials.”
-- Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts
These points underscore a potential misunderstanding resulting from a superficial reading of the Standards documents (especially in Mathematics). One could simply parcel out lists of discrete grade-level standards and topics along a calendar while completely ignoring the long-term goal of transfer. A curriculum envisioned and enacted as a set of maps of content and skill coverage will simply not, by itself, develop a student’s increasingly autonomous capacity to use learned content effectively to address complex tasks and problems. Such traditional scope-and-sequencing of curriculum reinforces a “coverage” mentality and reveals a misconception; i.e., that teaching bits of content in a logical and specified order will somehow add up to the desired achievements called for in the Standards.
A related misconception is evident when teachers assume that the CCSS prescribe the instructional sequence and pacing. Not so! To assume that the layout of the documents imply an instructional chronology is as flawed as thinking that since a dictionary is helpfully organized from A to Z, that vocabulary should therefore be taught in alphabetical order. While the grade-level standards are certainly not arbitrary and reflect natural long-term “learning progressions,” a rigid sequence within each grade level was never intended. The authors of the Common Core Standards explicitly call attention to this misconception and warn against it:
“For example, just because topic A appears before topic B in the standards for a given grade, it does not necessarily mean that topic A must be taught before topic B. A teacher might prefer to teach topic B before topic A, or might choose to highlight connections by teaching topic A and topic B at the same time. Or, a teacher might prefer to teach a topic of his or her own choosing that leads, as a byproduct, to students reaching the standards for topics A and B.” (p. 10)
The implications of these points are critical not only for curriculum mapping but for the very nature of instructional practice. Consider this advice from a non-academic source -- the United States Soccer Coaches Federation. In Best Practices for Coaching Soccer in The U.S., the Federation recommends a change in the soccer “curriculum” of practice:
“When conducting training sessions, there needs to be a greater reliance on game oriented training that is player centered and enables players to explore and arrive at solutions while they play. This is in contrast to the ‘coach centered’ training that has been the mainstay of coaching methodology over the years. ‘Game centered training’ implies that the primary training environment is the game as opposed to training players in ‘drill’ type environments. This is not to say that there is not a time for a more ‘direct’ approach to coaching. At times, players need more guidance and direction as they are developing. However, if the goal is to develop creative players who have the abilities to solve problems, and interpret game situations by themselves, a ‘guided discovery’ approach needs to be employed.”
Best Practices for Coaching Soccer in The U.S. -- Appendix C pp. 62-64
We propose that this recommendation applies equally to teachers of academics as to coaches of soccer. In other words, if we want students to be able to apply their learning via autonomous performance, we need to design our curriculum backward from that goal. Metaphorically speaking, then, educators need to ask, what is the “game” we expect students to be able to play with skill and flexibility? In other words, we need clarity and consensus about the point of content learning -- independent transfer. Then, we can build the curriculum pathway backward with those worthy performances in mind.
To design a 12-K curriculum backward from the goal of autonomous transfer requires a deliberate and transparent plan for helping the student rely less and less on teacher hand-holding and scaffolds. After all, transfer is about independent performance in context. You can only be said to have fully understood and applied your learning if you can do it without someone telling you what to do. In the real world, no teacher is there to direct and remind you about which lesson to plug in here or what strategy fits there; transfer is about intelligently and effectively drawing from your repertoire, independently, to handle new situations on your own. Accordingly, we should see an increase, by design, in problem- and project-based learning, small-group inquiries, Socratic Seminars, and independent studies as learners progress through the curriculum across the grades.
Our point here is straightforward: if a curriculum simply marches through lists of content knowledge and skills without attending to the concomitant goal of cultivating independent performance, high-schoolers will remain as dependent on teacher directions and step-by-step guidance as fourth graders currently are. The resulting graduates will be unprepared for the demands of college and the workplace.
_0.JPG){kind=small}
Comments (17)
Comment RSSSign in or register to post comments
Randy, you got personal
Randy, you got personal first. As some of the kids still say, "don't start nothing, there won't be nothing..."
As for having a better idea, I do and I'm already involved in developing it. This, however, isn't the place, nor do I have the time, but I have already proven a major concept ( and won recognitions for it ) that deals with the latent potential of students being ignored by the educational system. Furthermore, the problems that plague the American public school continuum are systematically ignored by the higher ups running things, as well as the text book manufactures. I might add that I see nothing in Common Core that would address these issues.
Frankly, I'm tired of seeing one failed approach after another, because there is a real cost in human lives and suffering. Maybe you have to work within the system, but I don't. And I'm working on changing it.
As for your contention that Common Core doesn't mandate testing, I submit the article that I easily Yahooed looking for Common Core and "testing requirements". http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/are-common-... . I might mention that I never said the word "mandate" so your argument is moot. I Suggest readers look at the comments below it.
As for the social engineering intent of Common Core, I submit http://www.examiner.com/article/intelligent-design-common-core-s-core-goal as just one example. Social engineering is one of my areas of research, particularly utilizing technology, to such an extent that I coined a term for the effect that devices can be made to have on the human conscious - technocogninetics, to separate it from the feedback based term - cognitive technology, but Common Core has both all over it.
It's easy to see, Randy, that you're a cheerleader and apologist for Common Core. While you may be a great dance instructor, the last time I checked, dance was not even one of the studies identified as being critical for our young people to get better in, even to the point of it being a national security issue. That's one of the things I'm concerned with, and am involved in, on an increasing national level.
The bottom line is that this isn't the method to change Common Core or even stop it, or even develop a new system. As such, it is a low priority for my ever increasing high priority schedule. Have fun with your dance classes. I've got real work to do - http://www.prlog.org/12118862-marshall-barnes-prepares-to-take-on-nasas-... .
But wait! Eureka!
Bruce, I found them...
Shoe tying ---
Kindergarten writing standard 3: Use a combination of drawing, dictating, and writing to narrate a single event or several loosely linked events, tell about the events in the order in which they occurred, and provide a reaction to what happened.
Computer programming ---
Reading Standards for Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects, Grades 6-8:
Follow precisely a multistep procedure when carrying out experiments, taking measurements, or performing technical tasks.
You see, the standards are flexible enough to allow teachers to do what they know how to do, while meeting the standards. Teaching is an art, and we all have to think like artists when looking at "rules."
No need to get personal...
Hey, Marshall,
Jeez, when you go all ad hominem on a person, it makes others wonder if their words might have stung a bit. Your entire argument seems to be based on "a whiff" of "BS" and what the structure "smacks of." The rule of thumb is, if you have a better idea, propose it. It would definitely help if you "acquired" the time to become familiar with what you are critiquing.
Many of us have to operate in a world where the Common Core is a current reality, and we have to find the good in it. There is a great deal of movement in these standards toward higher-order thinking, and toward helping learners develop the habits of mind that will serve them all their lives.
Now, it is absolutely true that the big textbook manufacturers who are also the big test designers and sellers are always sniffing around avidly when any new national "reform" movement comes along, because they see a whole new wave of things to sell to schools. But nothing in the Common Core mandates testing, and nothing specifies curriculum that must be taught in a certain order.
If you tell teachers, "Just go teach," you don't do them any favors. A set of limits, rules, or in this case standards, is just a way to help organize your thinking about a creative task. As a composer, you should know that.
Finally, rather than being a tool for "social engineering," this set of standards is much more a tool for encouraging, fostering, and developing independent thinking in our young learners. I suppose that could effect social change, but I have to believe it would only be positive. The outcome of the current factory system is clear to everyone who can still read a newspaper.
BTW, you could have Googled my name and found out all you wanted to know in 30 seconds, but I hope you enjoy my fresh new profile on this site. :-)
Puzzled means it went over your head...
"Randy":
If you don't understand the meaning of "acquiring time", perhaps you should use a dictionary. Seeing as you haven't 'taken' the time to fill out a profile, or even up load a picture, leads me to question the validity of what you're doing here in the first place.
Even from what I've read of Common Core here, it smacks of a sham if it is supposed to improve education for kids. There are far better ways. This article http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/26/why-i-opp... , would seem to bear me out on this and is just the tip of the iceberg of the odor I indicated that I was catching a whiff of. Common Core, at its worst, is a social engineering tool and nothing more, but I wouldn't expect a faceless, bio-less, apologist avatar, without a dictionary, to know what that means, either...
I haven't given up! I think I
I haven't given up! I think I can do it. Stay tuned!
Randy
Puzzling Comment
How do you "acquire" time, exactly? Don't you just allocate it? Why allocate the time to comment on something you haven't put in the time to read and evaluate? And who are you listening to?
Here's the thing: I'm not an advocate of the Common Core. But, since it is in process in 45 states, I have to acknowledge the very real impact this initiative is having on teaching and learning across the nation. Simply calling it BS doesn't serve anyone.
I have major concerns, such as textbook / testing companies using this as a way to "re-tool" education yet again, at their vast profit. Such as expecting a "standardized product," i.e. the student, as a result of having "standards." Such as politicians continuing to insist on high-stakes, computer-graded tests to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex, creative process such as teaching & learning.
Those concerns are not rooted in the content, but in its potential use/misuse. As a guiding document, the Common Core standards are no worse than anything educators have proposed in the past, and they are far better than most due to their emphasis on thinking rather than encyclopedic knowledge.
Oh, and Bruce, I just haven't had time to do it, but I'm sure I can get Shoe Tying into a meaningful place in teaching through the CC!
I have heard nothing good
I have heard nothing good about Common Core. I question its validity, its true purpose, and its need. I know BS when I see it, but have not acquired the time to look at Common Core in depth. However, the smell is certainly there...
I win !
Since no one could validate Shoe Tying, or Computer programming for Elementary students through the "the core". I win !! The Core fails.
Randy Around here we call it an educational rant
Randy,
I appreciate your considered remarks.
I won't reply to "we are the government" as I would run out of keystrokes. Then I might start on Legislators and elected officials as criminals and it would run from there. At least for the Democrats reading. I do pay $1100.00 in Union
Dues per year to an organization that promotes the Democratic party exclusively. I can not opt out. That's fair ? See, I don't need to venture off the topic.
.
Its nice to promise that the new assessments will be better... We haven't seen anything remotely that would indicate that change is coming but we can hope. When we look at the amount of time creating, preping the kids, administrating and grading all these assesments.. there is little time left for the job at hand. I appreciate your understanding of the problem with testing in these times.
I know the two or three that have been following this discussion wonder - What does this Bruce believe or trust in. Well It's Constructivsm: See Below.....
Constructivism Definition
Constructivism is a philosophy of learning founded on the premise that, by reflecting on our experiences, we construct our own understanding of the world we live in. Each of us generates our own "rules" and "mental models," which we use to make sense of our experiences. Learning, therefore, is simply the process of adjusting our mental models to accommodate new experiences.
Discussion There are several guiding principles of constructivism:
1. Learning is a search for meaning. Therefore, learning must start with the issues around which students are actively trying to construct meaning.
2. Meaning requires understanding wholes as well as parts. And parts must be understood in the context of wholes. Therefore, the learning process focuses on primary concepts, not isolated facts.
3. In order to teach well, we must understand the mental models that students use to perceive the world and the assumptions they make to support those models.
4. The purpose of learning is for an individual to construct his or her own meaning, not just memorize the "right" answers and regurgitate someone else's meaning. Since education is inherently interdisciplinary, the only valuable way to measure learning is to make the assessment part of the learning process, ensuring it provides students with information on the quality of their learning.
How Constructivism Impacts Learning
Curriculum--Constructivism calls for the elimination of a standardized curriculum. Instead, it promotes using curricula customized to the students' prior knowledge. Also, it emphasizes hands-on problem solving.
Instruction--Under the theory of constructivism, educators focus on making connections between facts and fostering new understanding in students. Instructors tailor their teaching strategies to student responses and encourage students to analyze, interpret, and predict information. Teachers also rely heavily on open-ended questions and promote extensive dialogue among students.
Assessment--Constructivism calls for the elimination of grades and standardized testing. Instead, assessment becomes part of the learning process so that students play a larger role in judging their own progress.
Knee jerk much? Think deeper!
Hey, Bruce,
Yes, I teach (and have taught for 30+ years) students of all ages, and I teach teachers as well.
Where do you get your idea of "government" as a money-collecting agency? The truth is, we all need some common services and infrastructure that is best provided by the people. Remember that WE are the "government." Public education is something that we have all agreed is in the public interest.
The trouble comes when our "free enterprise" system starts to try to make money off the process of educating our children. It's the private testing and curriculum-writing and textbook companies who are driving the kind of "drill and kill" educational strategies that you bemoan.
It seems awfully easy and convenient to blame "bureaucrats" for the testing debacle, but that lies directly at the feet of legislators who try to curry favor with their electorate by appearing to "do something" about education. If you dig a little deeper, you'll find that the common core standards at least emphasize thinking over remembering, process over skill, and that is a step forward in this tortured environment.
I feel deeply for today's classroom teachers who have to be responsible for their students' test scores, when those are the least evidence of actual learning. But the new assessments tied to the common core will be much more performance-oriented and much better reflections of student learning, even if they still retain flaws from the past.