Today I tried drafting some ideas for what my final model might look like. It's still in the developing stages, but I think I'm going with the "ABCDE Model for K-12 Curriculum Development." You're welcome to review my sketches and sloppy handwriting at the following URL:
http://www.scribd.com/full/29204505?access_key=key-286oqqi8swkesq80rkc5
(You may just want to skip to the last page, as that's the clearest. The first page is just brainstorming, while pages 2-4 describe more about each stage of my model.)
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Categorizing my ID model
Below is where I currently believe my ID model fits into the frameworks described by Edmonds, Branch, & Mukherjee (1994):
Orientation: My curriculum development ID model definitely leans more towards the prescriptive, because it matched well with what Edmonds et al. described as a model that "outline[s] how a learning environment can be altered or constructed in order to affect the variables of interest in a certain way or bring about the desired outcome" (1994, p. 60). This would certainly apply to the concept of a unified and grade-specific ELA curriculum. Based on what I've seen resulting from the process of a well-planned and structured curriculum development effort, I would say that my model could also be categorized as both descriptive and prescriptive. My model will "speculate and recommend organizational strategies, and...[will be] comprehensive and explicit in the amount of detail for application" (Edmonds et al., 1994, p. 60).
Knowledge Structure: This label is much more straightforward; I believe my model is procedural, since it is concrete and not abstract in nature. I am definitely working with the idea of how a goal can be reached, rather than answering the question of why we're trying to reach it (Edmonds et al., pp. 60-61).
Expertise Level: Although I think that the audience for whom the final product [curriculum] is intended should cover the range of novices, intermediates, and experts, I believe that those who are creating the curriculum and following my ISD model are more likely to be in the intermediate to expert range. Those charged with creating something that will potentially affect thousands of students should be well-versed in what the state standards are, and how to address them in the classroom. They should also be familiar with classroom-level instructional strategies so that lessons addressing these standards can be implemented effectively. Although a novice may be able to follow the model, application of the model would be best used by those with teaching/classroom/curriculum development and implementation experience.
Structure: At this point, I am going to categorize my model as novice/soft-system-based. I am choosing this designation because the primary audience of my model can be made up of instructional designers, but more likely, will be comprised of teachers. There will need to be flexibility factored into the curriculum as it is being created, as individual teachers using the product resulting from the model will use their own strategies in order to address the delineated standards and approaches. Also, since both the creators of the product and the consumers of the product are teachers, I do agree with Edmonds et al., who state that teachers have expertise in instruction in their contexts, but may not have experience as formal instructional designers (pp. 65-66). Based on my own experience, teachers rely on a more intuitive form of instructional design. Through IDD&E, I have learned a more structured approach that matches well with, and more importantly justifies, the decisions I made as a classroom teacher based on what I believed to be "good teaching."
Context: This may be the easiest category for me, as the nature of working with a district-wide curriculum is a clear sorting of my ISD model into the K-12 arena.
Level: For this categorization, I am a little unclear. My first thought is that this is institutional-level, as it affects the entire school district. However, it encompasses curriculum-level, although at all grade levels, as well as course-level, unit-level, lesson-level, and even module-level. The only level described in Edmonds et al. that I do not view as applying to my particular model is mass-level, since this is not global nor is it national (1994, pp. 67-69). Could it be national? Yes, but then different standards would need to be addressed from state-to-state. This may also change my context from K-12 to either K-12 specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, or K-12 in the United States, depending on how I'd like to go with this. I may even choose to limit this to one particular school district, greatly limiting the context, but still remaining at the institutional level.
One thing that I was happy to learn from this exercise was that categorizing my ISD model, even in the planning stages, is a lot easier than I thought it would be. Even though I don't have everything on paper yet (still mulling over how exactly all of this will be represented), it's good to know that I have a fairly clear idea of where I'm going with this.
Orientation: My curriculum development ID model definitely leans more towards the prescriptive, because it matched well with what Edmonds et al. described as a model that "outline[s] how a learning environment can be altered or constructed in order to affect the variables of interest in a certain way or bring about the desired outcome" (1994, p. 60). This would certainly apply to the concept of a unified and grade-specific ELA curriculum. Based on what I've seen resulting from the process of a well-planned and structured curriculum development effort, I would say that my model could also be categorized as both descriptive and prescriptive. My model will "speculate and recommend organizational strategies, and...[will be] comprehensive and explicit in the amount of detail for application" (Edmonds et al., 1994, p. 60).
Knowledge Structure: This label is much more straightforward; I believe my model is procedural, since it is concrete and not abstract in nature. I am definitely working with the idea of how a goal can be reached, rather than answering the question of why we're trying to reach it (Edmonds et al., pp. 60-61).
Expertise Level: Although I think that the audience for whom the final product [curriculum] is intended should cover the range of novices, intermediates, and experts, I believe that those who are creating the curriculum and following my ISD model are more likely to be in the intermediate to expert range. Those charged with creating something that will potentially affect thousands of students should be well-versed in what the state standards are, and how to address them in the classroom. They should also be familiar with classroom-level instructional strategies so that lessons addressing these standards can be implemented effectively. Although a novice may be able to follow the model, application of the model would be best used by those with teaching/classroom/curriculum development and implementation experience.
Structure: At this point, I am going to categorize my model as novice/soft-system-based. I am choosing this designation because the primary audience of my model can be made up of instructional designers, but more likely, will be comprised of teachers. There will need to be flexibility factored into the curriculum as it is being created, as individual teachers using the product resulting from the model will use their own strategies in order to address the delineated standards and approaches. Also, since both the creators of the product and the consumers of the product are teachers, I do agree with Edmonds et al., who state that teachers have expertise in instruction in their contexts, but may not have experience as formal instructional designers (pp. 65-66). Based on my own experience, teachers rely on a more intuitive form of instructional design. Through IDD&E, I have learned a more structured approach that matches well with, and more importantly justifies, the decisions I made as a classroom teacher based on what I believed to be "good teaching."
Context: This may be the easiest category for me, as the nature of working with a district-wide curriculum is a clear sorting of my ISD model into the K-12 arena.
Level: For this categorization, I am a little unclear. My first thought is that this is institutional-level, as it affects the entire school district. However, it encompasses curriculum-level, although at all grade levels, as well as course-level, unit-level, lesson-level, and even module-level. The only level described in Edmonds et al. that I do not view as applying to my particular model is mass-level, since this is not global nor is it national (1994, pp. 67-69). Could it be national? Yes, but then different standards would need to be addressed from state-to-state. This may also change my context from K-12 to either K-12 specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, or K-12 in the United States, depending on how I'd like to go with this. I may even choose to limit this to one particular school district, greatly limiting the context, but still remaining at the institutional level.
One thing that I was happy to learn from this exercise was that categorizing my ISD model, even in the planning stages, is a lot easier than I thought it would be. Even though I don't have everything on paper yet (still mulling over how exactly all of this will be represented), it's good to know that I have a fairly clear idea of where I'm going with this.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Evaluation in my model
Evaluation- determining the value or worth of something.
Formative evaluation- evaluation that takes place in order to affect the final outcomes via shaping the process due to feedback/analysis.
Summative evaluation- evaluation that assesses the overall worth or value of something in a final manner.
As Nick Smith has said, formative evaluation is like the cook tasting the soup while cooking. Summative evaluation is what the restaurant patron thinks when they taste the soup.
Although my experience is limited, I really like working with evaluation. I'm currently taking 641 with Nick. I took 841 with him in the fall (The Nature and Design of Inquiry), and I think that course has really helped my understanding of how to approach an evaluative process. It also helps that Nick and I are reading and discussing a book about exemplary evaluations. I get to think about evaluation a lot as a practice.
I think that evaluation's there in K-12 education, but usually not to the level needed. In my experience, formative evaluation happens to a point, until the next big intervention comes along and everything is abandoned. The only summative evaluation that seemed to occur was dropping one program for another. As a teacher, I felt that programs were not given adequate implementation time before they were evaluated. If formative evaluation did happen, it didn't seem that many changes were made to improve the system.
For my model of curriculum development, formative evaluation will be very important. A major output will be the curriculum itself, but it will need to go through many iterations before it is even implemented. There will need to be several cycles of formative evaluation with those writing the curriculum, where they can work as a group and refine it at a certain grade level (such as 10-12). In order for the curriculum to be aligned, it will also need to be evaluated formatively by checking for discrepancies between K-6, 7-9, and 10-12. Another formative evaluation may occur when the curriculum is presented to other major stakeholders, such as the district's curriculum coordinator and the school board for approval.
Although formative evaluations should continue to occur during initial implementation, this may not happen. Minor changes may happen at the classroom level, but the district may not be willing to pay teachers for their time to edit the curriculum again. In a sense, the decision to approve and implement the curriculum would then be summative. Ideally, a curriculum would be continually revised to meet the ever-changing needs of the district's students, but this may not be feasible in the real world.
Formative evaluation- evaluation that takes place in order to affect the final outcomes via shaping the process due to feedback/analysis.
Summative evaluation- evaluation that assesses the overall worth or value of something in a final manner.
As Nick Smith has said, formative evaluation is like the cook tasting the soup while cooking. Summative evaluation is what the restaurant patron thinks when they taste the soup.
Although my experience is limited, I really like working with evaluation. I'm currently taking 641 with Nick. I took 841 with him in the fall (The Nature and Design of Inquiry), and I think that course has really helped my understanding of how to approach an evaluative process. It also helps that Nick and I are reading and discussing a book about exemplary evaluations. I get to think about evaluation a lot as a practice.
I think that evaluation's there in K-12 education, but usually not to the level needed. In my experience, formative evaluation happens to a point, until the next big intervention comes along and everything is abandoned. The only summative evaluation that seemed to occur was dropping one program for another. As a teacher, I felt that programs were not given adequate implementation time before they were evaluated. If formative evaluation did happen, it didn't seem that many changes were made to improve the system.
For my model of curriculum development, formative evaluation will be very important. A major output will be the curriculum itself, but it will need to go through many iterations before it is even implemented. There will need to be several cycles of formative evaluation with those writing the curriculum, where they can work as a group and refine it at a certain grade level (such as 10-12). In order for the curriculum to be aligned, it will also need to be evaluated formatively by checking for discrepancies between K-6, 7-9, and 10-12. Another formative evaluation may occur when the curriculum is presented to other major stakeholders, such as the district's curriculum coordinator and the school board for approval.
Although formative evaluations should continue to occur during initial implementation, this may not happen. Minor changes may happen at the classroom level, but the district may not be willing to pay teachers for their time to edit the curriculum again. In a sense, the decision to approve and implement the curriculum would then be summative. Ideally, a curriculum would be continually revised to meet the ever-changing needs of the district's students, but this may not be feasible in the real world.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Management of Instruction for My Model
I'm still processing how my model will be depicted. It seems like such a simple thing (especially because I've been involved with it before), but the readings and reflection questions keep shifting my thinking. Then again, I need to remind myself that the creation of an ELA curriculum wasn't simple when we were working on it; a representation of how the process ideally progresses won't be simple, either.
# What are your ID model’s goals/objectives?
The goal is to create a unified, standards-based, grade-specific ELA curriculum for an urban school district.
# What is/are the goal(s) of your supra-system? Do the goal/objectives of your ID model align with the mission and goals of the supra-system?
From what I can tell at this point, the goals are identical for the district, the teachers creating the curriculum, and the schools that will implement it.
# What will be your method of delivery – who & what provides instruction?
The dissemination of the curriculum will be done by those ELA teachers involved in the creation process, as well as any relevant administrators (ELA dept. head, district reading specialists, asst. principal(s), district curriculum coordinator, etc.). The actual instruction will be presented by all ELA teachers.
# What will be your method of instruction – instructional architecture?
# What will be your method of grouping for learning?
I am still working on these questions. The instructional architecture will likely have a foundation/infrastructure of instructional strategies used by the teachers creating the curriculum. These strategies will have been implemented in the classroom in some form or another to ensure that they help to provide authentic learning experiences and involve the learners in the context to help maximize engagement. The grouping will likely be separated by grade level.
# Other logistical / administrative issues or problems?
Design and implementation will display a lot of differences. Although the entire process should be iterative after pilot implementation, the district may be eager to launch the new curriculum without trying it first. The district may also be reluctant to allow more time to revise the curriculum, even if it is direly needed.
# What changes, clarifications, edits, etc. can you make to your model based on the feedback you are receiving?
I am not sure about any changes yet, since I have not received a lot of feedback with suggestions on changes. I would definitely appreciate more constructive feedback to help me create my model.
# How are you going to visually/graphically represent your model?
Short answer: boxes and arrows. Longer answer: boxes, arrows, levels of involvement, depiction of iterative process, possibly endpoints where the model may stop for whatever reason (administration wants to stop working on this, etc.). There are a lot of pieces that could be involved; I need to think about what really needs to be included for this to work.
# What are your ID model’s goals/objectives?
The goal is to create a unified, standards-based, grade-specific ELA curriculum for an urban school district.
# What is/are the goal(s) of your supra-system? Do the goal/objectives of your ID model align with the mission and goals of the supra-system?
From what I can tell at this point, the goals are identical for the district, the teachers creating the curriculum, and the schools that will implement it.
# What will be your method of delivery – who & what provides instruction?
The dissemination of the curriculum will be done by those ELA teachers involved in the creation process, as well as any relevant administrators (ELA dept. head, district reading specialists, asst. principal(s), district curriculum coordinator, etc.). The actual instruction will be presented by all ELA teachers.
# What will be your method of instruction – instructional architecture?
# What will be your method of grouping for learning?
I am still working on these questions. The instructional architecture will likely have a foundation/infrastructure of instructional strategies used by the teachers creating the curriculum. These strategies will have been implemented in the classroom in some form or another to ensure that they help to provide authentic learning experiences and involve the learners in the context to help maximize engagement. The grouping will likely be separated by grade level.
# Other logistical / administrative issues or problems?
Design and implementation will display a lot of differences. Although the entire process should be iterative after pilot implementation, the district may be eager to launch the new curriculum without trying it first. The district may also be reluctant to allow more time to revise the curriculum, even if it is direly needed.
# What changes, clarifications, edits, etc. can you make to your model based on the feedback you are receiving?
I am not sure about any changes yet, since I have not received a lot of feedback with suggestions on changes. I would definitely appreciate more constructive feedback to help me create my model.
# How are you going to visually/graphically represent your model?
Short answer: boxes and arrows. Longer answer: boxes, arrows, levels of involvement, depiction of iterative process, possibly endpoints where the model may stop for whatever reason (administration wants to stop working on this, etc.). There are a lot of pieces that could be involved; I need to think about what really needs to be included for this to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)