SBG 3: Reflection Time

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.