But let me explain because I think the problem is that we do not execute plans that allow for us to do both. I also have to say up front that I do believe that the low level content is moved into long term memory by engaging students in the higher level activities.

So back to the issue of what we actually do and my observations. All teaching and lesson planning involves making decisions about what is important etc. So to help my staff move into higher level activities and learning we adopted new planning techniques following Chris Lehman’s presentation on “Understanding by Design” at NECC this year.

Chris spoke of tests and quizzes as a “dip stick” that help us assess the content knowledge. The knowledge we have identified as necessary to have students succeed with a performance task that will cap each unit. A unit design that includes a performance task seems to help get over the low level content hurdle because to accomplish the goal we have to keep focused on where we are going and not get caught up in the daily minutia of fact based learning.

I am looking forward to hearing what others think.

Basically, I think this questions raises a false dichotomy in some minds, which goes something like this: You are either teaching low-levels facts and simple understanding or deep thinking. The reality, I believe, is that these goals are not mutually exclusive.

For example, kindergarten students can listen to a read aloud and discuss plot, setting, and character with clear modeling and guidance before they can sound out c-a-t. Basically, they can already do some higher-level comprehension tasks before they’ve even learned to decode. However, you better not skip all that phonics instruction just because they can tell you why the Big Bad Wolf seems to have it out for pigs.

The pyramid that you use here illustrates the need to put in a foundation that will be the bedrock of future understanding. The flaw in the modern system is that we want to skip the steps that create foundation and build the foundation while we erect the tower.

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/classed.html

My question: the statement “if a school is to be successful under NCLB” seems to limit the possibilities. I’m Canadian, as you may know, but I have not yet heard anything positive about NCLB. Not once. Will there ever be the critical mass to oust NCLB? It seems what is needed is a revolution, and no longer working within this box and trying to redefine how you can work within it. I understand it is easier said than done (i.e., NCLB determines funding, IS legislated), but with all of the dissenting voices, I am surprised there hasn’t been more change to the system itself.

Hopefully things will change soon, perhaps after the election. All the best.

http://vimeo.com/1629993

@Daniel: While I agree with you that we are starting to see better assessment items, I’m willing to put money on the assertion that the vast majority of items on state and federal assessments (and, typically, local quizzes/tests) still are lower-level, factual- and procedural-type items.

@Barbara: I made the video because I hear a lot of teachers say that they feel they have to stay down in the lower-level domains in order to teach lower-level content. In contrast, I believe (and I’m pretty sure that psychological and educational research shows) that teaching low-level content THROUGH higher-order thinking activities results in better mastery, longer retention, etc. In other words, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot when we only rely on lower-level instructional activities to ‘teach’ lower-level content. We’re making intentional choices that work against the very goals that we say we want to achieve.

@Audrey: I think the problem is less that folks are trying to bypass laying the foundation and more that they never get above the foundation?

@Alec: I went back and forth on that language. I decided to leave it in because most of the folks I work with are here in the States and because NCLB is used as a causal factor for educator behavior (‘If only we didn’t have NCLB, then we would…’). Like many others, I believe that much of the problem with NCLB has been our chosen responses to its directives. NCLB has many issues, don’t get me wrong, but much of the fault must lie with us and the deliberate choices that we have made regarding our instruction.

The problem usually arises when teachers stay there too long. It is ok if a student does not know 100% of a basic skill before going into higher order processes. In fact, synthesis and analysis can help further along the understanding of basic skills that have already begun to be acquired. But to do all at the same time would effectively increase cognitive load quickly and to the point that it would lead to confusion and frustration and eventually just giving up.

2 – On another note, here is an example of the type of learning that is expected in Quebec schools as of the adoption of the Quebec Education Program (QEP) about 10 years ago.

It is a learning evaluation situation (LES). The LESs have been used through the end of Secondary Cycle 2, year 1 (grade 9) and are being integrated into Cycle 2, year 2 (grade 10) this year, which means that this is how I will be teaching, assessing, and evaluating my math students this year. (luckily we received the first part of a collection of texts we can use to support this new curriculum yesterday…the rest is in translation and we may receive it before the end of the year, we may not. That’s a whole other story…)

http://www.learnquebec.ca/en/content/curriculum/social_sciences/features/situation_geo_thirst/index.html