some more thoughts about my model....

I've been thinking about my model this past week as I've been sharing it with others and trying to explain it to them. A lot of people have commented that they like the overall model because of its simplicity and the fact that the name helps make the parts easier to remember. I still wonder about the evaluation aspect of it, but keep going back to liking how I've depicted it here. I don't think evaluation should only inform the "input," but all parts of my model.

I've also been thinking about the pieces of my model and how they're represented. I still am happy with how they've turned out, as I think they've done a decent job of explaining contextual factors that need to be considered during the entire process. I shared my model with a senior doctoral student, and felt comfortable in my ability to explain it to her. She noted that the context is really important to my model, and that I was able to show parts that an outsider might not normally think of when creating a K-12 ELA curriculum. I also shared my model with someone with no interest in ID whatsoever, my husband. Although he wasn't able to offer the insight that my classmates might have on the product, he was able to tell me that the model made sense to him, and seems like a solid progression through the stages. (He also does not have any K-12 experience, so explanation of the context was also important here.)

Although it's still a novice model, I'm happy that I can share what I've created with an IDD&E student who's been in the program for years, someone completely outside of the field, and my classmates, and it seems to make sense to everyone. I like that my model is a simple depiction overall that can be fairly easily understood at first glance, and that a person's understanding of it seems to increase with explanation of each part. It makes sense to me; always good for it to make sense to others, too.

Complete ABCDE model as of 4-14-10

I uploaded the entire package to scribd, so you can look at the overall model and then the pieces in sequence. The fonts got changed slightly from the PDFs I posted earlier, but otherwise the diagrams are intact. Click below to view.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29903680/Full-ABCDE-Model-041410

The "E" in my ABCDE model

Yay! Last piece!

The "E" in my ABCDE model is Evaluation. In my "big-picture" model, I drew a dotted line on an arrow that encircled all components of my model. I think that evaluation is needed in all parts. Mostly, this is formative, but in some cases, it is summative. I decided to create a table explaining how each piece has evaluation incorporated into it.

Click on the picture to make it larger. The diagrams for A, B, C, D, and the entire model are all available in previous posts.

The "C" in my ABCDE model

The "C" in my ABCDE model for K-12 ELA curriculum development stands for Change. Communication is vital to this part of my model. I tried to think of how other models showing communication (such as the Gentry Instructional Product Development and Management (IPDM) model (1994; in Gustafson & Branch, 2002, p. 50). However, I know that some of the communication is linear and top-down (like when it is initially decided that a curriculum needs to be created), and other times there are groups working somewhat equally within the subsystem to make it all happen. I chose to categorize my Agents by what they would be doing to implement the change needed with creating, implementing, and evaluating a new ELA curriculum.

The image can be clicked to enlarge it. Previous posts show my diagrams for A, B, and the entire ABCDE model, and they can also be reviewed to help understand this post.

The "B" in my ABCDE model

The "B" in my ABCDE model for K-12 curriculum development is essentially a front-end analysis piece of what is needed to close the gap between the current curriculum and the ideal curriculum. After Agents are selected, the Background needs to be analyzed to determine what steps should be taken in order to create a curriculum specific to this system.

Please click on the image to see more detail.

Model Status Update #2

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.)

ID Model Status

At this point, there are a few major criteria that I know will be needed for my ID model:
1. FEA is critical. Needs should be determined and analyzed before creation of a district-wide ELA curriculum.
2. Design and development likely will run together, as the time allotted for the ELA teachers/others to create the curriculum will be limited. This may be somewhat like rapid prototyping, in that something is created immediately and then revised until it's what is the desired product.
3. Communication will be extremely important.
4. Implementation will also be key.
5. Ideally, summative evaluation will be involved, but typically a district can only afford so much time spent on editing and revising. Formative evaluation is also very important, and this will likely influence the outcomes a lot more (see item #2).

I will keep thinking about how this process will be represented, as it is fairly large in scope, even with a very specific outcome.

Needling needs needed

There are several needs that should be addressed in my context. As mentioned before, the most obvious is test scores for the state of PA. The 2009 Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) reading results for 11th graders were that 31.1% of tested students scored at levels of proficient or above, but 63% of the tested students need to score proficient or higher in order to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

(For my other needs, I am thinking about these as if the ELA curricula were not developed, and as if we are only starting to plan them now.)

Another need are standardized ELA curricula for the district. The district in my context did not have a standardized and aligned ELA curricula, and they needed to be in place.

Third is the issue of state-mandated, grade-specific ELA standards. PA has ELA standards established for the grades in which PSSA tests are administered: 3, 5, 8, and 11. Grade-specific standards need to be created to address grades K, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12.

In terms of prioritizing these three major needs (and there are likely others), they all have their own costs to be met, and also would have costs if they were ignored. For the increase in PSSA scores, the costs would be revision of curricula, teacher time, student time, and costs associated with any intervention plans used to try to fix the problem. (I knew of at least three that were attempted in the five years that I was a teacher in this school.) The cost of ignoring the problem is probably the greatest out of all three needs: if the school does not meet AYP, it will be in danger of being taken over by the state. This restructuring process would cost the school money to send students elsewhere, and may cost teachers and administrators their jobs. Another important aspect that could be lost is teachers' academic freedom in being able to teach lessons that they have specially adapted for the school and its limited resources. Those teachers that are successful would be punished with the school as a whole because assessment of the school in this case relies only on PSSA scores, rather than individual student achievement or other measures of learning.

Creating grade-specific, aligned ELA curricula will take a great deal of teacher time out of the classroom. If teachers work on this during the summer, it is still their time that is spent, and they will need to be paid for it. Administrators that are involved will also need to spend their time/be compensated for their time working with the teachers. Teachers from all grades will need to be involved, as they are the ones most familiar with their resources, current lessons, and how they may address PA standards in their classrooms. Ignoring the need for curriculum development will prevent the schools from being consistent in what they teach, resulting in unevenly prepared students. Not connecting classroom pedagogy with state standards will also result in students being unprepared in their school and after graduation. Of course, students also will not be prepared to meet state standards, and the school will be going against NCLB and AYP guidelines.

Continuing to think about this from an FEA point of view, context of the school is extremely important. The development of curricula in a well-off or even somewhat decently funded district would be very different than what might take place in this lower-income urban district. Teacher and parent buy-in and support of developments is very important, especially when the school has a history of underperforming on PSSAs and other tests. Teachers need to see value in what they are doing in order to create curricula that meet standards but also are pedagogically sound and engaging for a student population that includes ELL/ESL, special education, and disadvantaged youth. There's a lot that would need to be considered contextually before launching into the actual curriculum writing and development.

FEA and a school in PA

If I were to begin working on creating a unified and standardized curriculum again, I would certainly believe that Front End Analysis (FEA) would play a huge role. The district in which I worked struggled for years with funding and academic achievement (or lack thereof, according to standardized testing). The introduction of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) emphasized these gaps. I recently viewed the 2008-2009 state standardized test scores and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the school, and the scores have not shifted much, despite multiple interventions. The school is also in its third year of Corrective Action II, the lowest ranking for AYP.

By using FEA in this context, a curriculum could be planned that addresses multiple needs of the school, district, and students. For example, according to the PA Dept of Education (http://paayp.emetric.net/):
"To meet the Performance Target required for AYP, schools and every measurable subgroup in the school must have at least 56% of the tested students achieve a Proficient score or higher on the mathematics assessment and 63% of the tested students achieve a Proficient score or higher on the reading assessment."

To gain some perspective on the context, in 2008-2009, my school scored 29.6% proficient or above in math for 11th grade, and 31.1% proficient or above for 11th grade reading.

The most obvious need for NCLB and AYP is for students who are currently earning 31.1% proficient or advanced rankings on the PA state assessments to score a total of 63% proficient and advanced. This is no small feat, and the school's scores have not shifted much from 2003-2009, according to the PA dept. of ed.

There are many other needs that could be addressed. Using Romi's book, Chapter 6 described systems approaches at the micro and macro levels. I probably could view my context from both, considering the impact that students/school/community all have on each other. I think I'll be focusing on the issues at the micro level though, in working with the ELA department.