We're in week five
at my school and so this weekend I spent some time reflecting on how things are
going in my freshmen world history class. It was a good time to do this because
they had just completed their first summative assessment and we had spent time
discussing their progress reports; plus I had just graded their first unit
essential question answers.
I'll start by saying
that even though it took a good half hour to discuss their progress reports, it
was time well-spent because it gave them a chance to think about the process of
learning, and how that was more important than thinking about the final product
(i.e. a grade). For the discussion I had printed a progress report for each
student and then we went over each component using a fake Justin Bieber sample
as a comparison (see below).
I explained that their overall grade was not shown
because I wanted to emphasize that the skills and unit goal parts of their grade are still in flux, which meant their overall grade is in flux. Yet if I had to
give a converted grade, then their 'beginning', 'developing', 'succeeds', and
'excels' standard grades would equate roughly
to 'D', 'C', 'B', and 'A' percentages (respectively) for the standards portion of
their grade. I'm happy to say that they responded pretty well to this
discussion and there weren't any frustrated or confused remarks.
Nonetheless after
grading their answers to the first unit essential questions, I was disappointed
by their responses. They had done so well on the summative assessment, so what went wrong here? They tried to 'include evidence', as I had talked about in class, but they really struggled to answer the questions. It was basically clear they didn't understand my questions.
So it dawned on me that our constant conversations
about standards were making them comfortable with the idea of learning, but that they are still struggling with understanding what they need to learn. For instance, what does it mean when I ask for them to include evidence? How do they connect primary sources we discussed to the objectives of the unit? What became troubling to me was the fact that I don't think my essential questions as I articulated them for the kids were actually all that good for this first unit. And it's important I clarify that difference: the questions themselves weren't poor, but the articulation was. After all, they had done well on the summative assessment, but it also occurred to me that the questions on that test were very different kinds of questions than those I had given as essential questions.
So I spent some time on Skype last night with one
of the best teachers out there, my friend Gary. It was an invigorating
conversation and he gave so much good advice that I filled up three big
notecards with ideas (both front and back I might add!). Firstly, he convinced
me not to beat myself up for perhaps having less than optimal essential
questions at the start. Just as I was asking my students to reassess their own writing and
skills, I had to reassess my own framing of units. We also had a great
conversation about the type of questions I should be asking my kids. Really I
should center much of my content around debate
questions and have my kids learn how to articulate the criteria with which they
reach judgment. So, for example, instead of asking 'Why is Socrates important',
a better question would be 'Is Socrates important?' This seems rather obvious
in some ways because in history, after all, we are teaching kids how to be
persuasive, and while on summative assessments I am great about asking more debate-type questions to get them to apply what they know, nonetheless I may be more
'conclusions' based in my backwards planning than might be optimal. In other
words, I think about what students should know about a time and place, when
really I should be thinking about how my students should wonder about those time and places.
What is also fantastic
about Gary's advice for structuring my essential questions around
'defend or argue against' type verbs is that it gives me more options for
reassessments as well. It encourages a type of creative thinking from both
myself and my students that makes the class much more collaborative than having
me hand down pronouncements for what they should know. I also thought Gary's
observations were so insightful because as my department head once said, part
of the reason why students have a hard time finding relevance for a
history class is because they don't have enough baggage themselves at their age
to understand how the past can be important, so questions in which students are
forced to confront ethical or philosophical questions by using historical and
even their own experience will give the material so much more meaning.
Hence I will spend some
time rethinking my essential questions, which in turn will help me rethink the
way I craft my lessons. I will admit, with head bowed, that my classes have always proved successful in the past, so in my own arrogance I was a little concerned at the start of my reflection that this whole standards thing was somehow ruining my mojo. But as I thought more about it and talked with Gary, it has instead become fulfilling to realize that although at first I was a little frustrated
that my students did so poorly on their first unit standards, it also helped me
come to a pedagogical epiphany about what would better frame the content. So yes, as Gary said, it is worth embracing this first foray into
standards because it will only improve & strengthen the way I craft the curriculum, and I am
excited to continue to update this blog with how it all goes.
Lastly, if anything my conversation with Gary only continues to solidify my belief that collaborating and working with other teachers is the best resource for any teacher. The advice, encouragement, and empathy of other teachers has made this profession all the more meaningful, and I will always be grateful for those moments of discussion.
