Choose one of the videos below and be preapred to respond to the Nearpod prompt asking to explain how the individal featured personifies CRAFTSMANSHIP AND PERSERVERENCE:
The problem of students “rubber stamping” the work of their peers during peer editing sessions is a frustration faced by many Brighten ELA teachers who, nonetheless, see the value of students evaluating the writing of their classmates. In a perfect world, this process can inspire student writers to be more accountable as both writers and readers of their own work, as well as of the writing of their peers. In reality, teachers often find peer editors signing off on, or failing to revise work that is clearly and obviously below par. Although my use of the word “obviously” arguably bends toward the subjective, I have too many times employed checklists that ask peer editors to “check off” that the author has, for example, underlined the title, only to find an affirmative check endorsing a paper in which the title is objectively not underlined.
In an effort to address this, I plan to employ the following peer editing strategy as a way to frontload the expectations for the year.
Below is an outline of the framework and a variation of the SRSD (Self-Regulated Strategy Development) method used to teach the strategy. The activity is front-loaded by administering a Pre-Assessment of Genre Knowledge: Grade 7 and having the students memorize two mnemonic devices that will compose the foundation of our evidence-based writing for the year. These devices will dovetail with the R.A.C.E. framework for constricted responses to which they have been previously introduced. The devices are:
Compare/Diagnose/Operate REVISION WORKSHOP (CDO) – Student teams evaluate the Team Writer’s first draft – This revising strategy involves revising a paper sentence by sentence, starting with the first sentence and proceeding to the last. After reading a sentence (Step 1) the Team (they are all Team Editors now) agrees upon/selects a CDO Strategy Card that best describes it (Step 2). Two of the cards focus on clarity, one asks writers to consider the sentence in relation to overall purpose; two others ask for analysis for confusion; one for mismatches between intent and outcome; and two others prompt for evaluation of the readers’ reactions. Finally, the last card indicates that the sentence is good as is.
Each statement should be printed on a white card with a green border to remind students to start with these cards. The words Evaluate each sentence should also be printed at the top of each card to remind Team Editors that they are assessing each sentence. Whenever an evaluation card other than This is good is selected, Team Editors first think about how to correct the problem, then choose one of five tactic cards (Step 3). Finally, the Team Editors annotate the draft for revision. Each revising tactic (Step 3) should be typed on a white card with a red border to signal that this is the final step in making a revision (see CDO Strategy Card .)
After the Revision Workshop time expires Team Editor 1 will take on the role of Team Writer. The new Team Writer is assigned the task of composing a 2nd draft (on notebook paper/typewritten with a class heading) that carries out the intended collaborative revisions (Step 4) for the next class period.
REVISION WORKSHOP – Student teams evaluate the Team Writer’s second draft – This revising strategy involves revising a paper sentence by sentence, starting with the first sentence and proceeding to the last. After reading a sentence (Step 1) the Team (they are all Team Editors now) agrees upon/selects a CDO Strategy Card that best describes it (Step 2). Two of the cards focus on clarity, one asks writers to consider the sentence in relation to overall purpose; two others ask for analysis for confusion; one for mismatches between intent and outcome; and two others prompt for evaluation of the readers’ reactions. Finally, the last card indicates that the sentence is good as is.
Each statement should be printed on a white card with a green border to remind students to start with these cards. The words Evaluate each sentence should also be printed at the top of each card to remind Team Editors that they are assessing each sentence. Whenever an evaluation card other than This is good is selected, Team Editors first think about how to correct the problem, then choose one of five tactic cards (Step 3). Finally, the Team Editors annotate the draft for revision. Each revising tactic (Step 3) should be typed on a white card with a red border to signal that this is the final step in making a revision.
After the Revision Workshop time expires Team Editor 2 will take on the role of Team Writer. The new Team Writer is assigned the task of composing a final draft (on notebook paper/typewritten with a class heading) that carries out the intended collaborative revisions (Step 4) for the next class period. For this draft, the Team Writer will be given a Peer Editing Checklist for reference.
The team collaboratively evaluates the final draft using the collaborative editing strategy. The team determines if the paper is ready to be “published.” If so, the team will submit the paper for peer review. Peer reviewers will evaluate using the Peer Editing Checklist. If no revisions are needed the paper may be submitted for a collaborative assessment. The student team may make revisions and submit them on Day 5.
Complete the simulation at this site: www.playspent.org
Identify three things you learned from this simulation.
·
·
·
I.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
1. Identify 3 important poverty statistics from the Poverty Overview section.
·
·
·
II.
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/quiz.aspx
2. Take the hunger quiz on this website called Testing your Knowledge on Hunger. Name one thing you learned.
III.
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx
3. How many people were in poverty in 2011?
4. How many Americans live in food insure households?
IV.
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/child-hunger-facts.aspx
5. Identify 3 child hunger facts from this website.
·
·
·
V.
http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html
6. How many millions of children are in poverty in the U.S.?
7. What is the poverty level income for a family of 4?
VI.
http://www.nccp.org/profiles/NY_profile_7.html
8. Look at the child’s race/ethnicity graph. Answer the following questions.
a. What percent of white children live in poor families?
b. Black children?
c. Hispanic children?
d. Asian children?
e. American Indian children?
VII.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
9. List 10 striking poverty statistics from this website:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
VIII.
http://www.snap-help.com/?path=13&reset=1&split_id=150
10. What is SNAP?
11. Who does it assist?
12. What is WIC?
13. Who does it assist?
14. Identify 3 facts about world poverty.
·
·
·
X.
http://www.gcfb.org/site/DocServer/hungerbycounty_2010.pdf?docID=3821
1. How many more meals were provided by Gleaners in Macomb County than last year?
2. How many people in Macomb County are living below poverty?
XI.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2046.html
15. Pick a country and identify the percentage of the population below the poverty line.
I recently had an interesting discussion with my wife regarding the issues that arise in the workplace over compensation and the perils organizations face without a clear pay structure with clear steps based on experience (at the hiring stage), performance (a metric to award excellence) and longevity (a by-product of performance). Organizations that fail to bring clarity to their team members pay structure open the door to allowing toxic team members to use pay as a blunt tool with which to sew division among team members.
(On that note, I just read the following article on Linkedin by Jack and Judy Welsch that is a good short read: Do You Have a Jerk Problem?)
Along this line, one of the most famous examples of an organization addressing its pay structure and culture can be found in Netflix CEO Reed Hastings’ renowned “Netflix Culture” presentation, in which he details, in 126 slides, how he hires, fires and rewards employees.This document (slideshare) has been quite controversial, but I think is insighful (but difficult to implement as a school leader.)
Here are some highlights:
Pay the top of the pay scale from jump street (Since they are committed to hiring the best, they pay at the top of the market. This is long term thinking as keeping good people is important and staff turnover is expensive.)
Netflix has just released an updated culture and management philosophy, one that takes into account another two years of operating experience, as well as all the feedback the company got on its prior philosophy. Worth the read.
I am working on a project involving Atlanta’s new streetcar route. Below are some images I captured during an afternoon in which I rode the street car, got off at each stop and photographed interesting features within easy walking distance of each stop:
When I was first introduced to organized curriculum mapping our middle school team based our work on the model put forth by Dr. Heidi Hayes Jacobs’s Mapping the Big Picture (1997, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010).
There is a plethora of information in print and on the web outlining the concept behind mapping and detailing steps on how to implement a curriculum mapping initiative in your school. The following is a brief overview with resources to help you get started on your own curriculum mapping journey.
Curriculum Mapping is Not a Spectator Sport.
Curriculum Mapping tends to be a thorn in the side of many teachers who are asked to submit curriculum maps annually as part of their administrative ritual of accountability. These documents are usually recognized as good planning tools but then they are often deposited in binders where they are rarely used once the unit of study has begun.
A school’s curriculum mapping initiative must focus through a lens that looks at the balance between what was individually or collaboratively planned and the “on the ground” reality of what really took place in individual classrooms. This is “living” data and we measure it in real time: recorded by months or grading periods.
A good map is a window to let everyone know just what the heck is going on in the building.
The Journey is the Work: Teachers should never consider their maps as being “finished” nor is having maps the ultimate goal of mapping. Maps are the result of doing the hard, collaborate work of mapping. The term mapping itself is a verb – an action word that lets the school community know that the work is collaborative and ongoing. Mapping is a purposeful review process that will help teachers make instructional decisions based on what they have done before. That is why is it important that these be digital documents that can be easily shared (locally, nationally and internationally) and updated. These can be created in-house or using mapping software. Here are four links to examples of mapping software:
School can create tailor-made, in-house formats as simple or as complex as deemed necessary:
***Click here for a simple mapping template that I made in Word. Whatever form a school uses it should be uniform and understood by all stakeholders.
Here is a GAHistory_Map_7th that is more complex and would ultimately need to be reviewed and edit with colleagues – especially with respect to paring down the essential questions. This map is actually two maps – one is an at-a-glance overview followed by more detailed maps outlining each unit.
Why Maps Must “Live”:
We are learning, and we are learning about learning. Schools will always have new students, new classes, and new school years and maps should be tailored, designed, revised, and replaced to reflect the evolution of learning.
This idea needs to be communicated and embraced by the whole staff. Curriculum maps are never to be used for teacher evaluation or punitive damage. Maps are designed to provide authentic evidence of what has happened or is being planned to happen in a school. This means school leaders must commit to the time it will take for teachers to engage and reflect upon the work. Leaders must walk the walk and invest the funds and the time necessary to execute a curriculum mapping initiative. This is no small task and should be built into a multi-year strategic plan BEFORE work begins. Otherwise, this can devolve into and exercise rather than a thoughtful pedagogical strategy.
THE 3 Cs (adapted from Mapping the Big Picture)
Communication
Curricular Dialogue
Coherency.
Communication — 21st Century curriculum maps are most often developed and maintained using an Internet-based commercial mapping system. This technological venue provides teachers and administrators with easy access to both the planned and actual horizontal (same grade level and/or same discipline) and vertical (different grade levels and/or different disciplines) curricula for present and past school years. The commercial systems’ search features allow teachers to gain instant information in regard to mapping data to aid in curricular dialogue. This means and level of communication is unprecedented. In the not-to-distant past data had to be printed out, copied, distributed, and an in-person meeting held to view and discuss the documents. Curriculum Mapping encourages innovation and thought about meeting differently and in new ways.
Curricular Dialogue — Teachers take part in collegial relationships wherein they make data-based decisions about grade-level, cross-grade level, disciplinary, and cross-disciplinary curricula and instructional practices. Teachers become Teacher Leaders. Curriculum Mapping has two guiding principles: Jacobs (2004) states that teachers and administrators must consider “…the empty chair…” which represents all students in a given school or district, and “…all work must focus on Johnny, and all comments and questions are welcomed as long as they are in his best interest” (p.2). Second, if it is in the students’ best interest to change, modify, stop, start, or maintain curriculum practices, programs, and/or other related issues, there must be data-based proof to do so (Jacobs, 2002). These two principles are logical, rational, and well-founded. One may consider them easy to implement, but oftentimes proves difficult in practice. Barth (2006) refers to the “…elephant in the classroom—the various forms of relationships among adults within the schoolhouse might be categorized in four ways: parallel play, adversarial relationships, congenial relationships, and collegial relationships” (p.10). Not surprising, the first three ways do not elicit vigorous curricular dialogue. Barth contends “…empowerment, recognition, satisfaction, and success in our work—all in scarce supply within our schools—will never stem from going it alone … success comes only from being an active participant within a masterful group—a group of colleagues” (p.13). Therefore, it is of utmost importance to provide teachers with ample professional development to hone their skills in all facets of curriculum mapping and collegial, curricular dialogue. Allowing teachers time to build personal ownership in the mapping process empowers them, and subsequently, improves student learning.
Coherency — A combination of 21st Century communication plus curricular dialogue eventually equals curricular coherency. Many teachers are currently engaged in what Dr. Jacobs (2001) refers to as “…treadmill teaching.” Running breathless on grade-level or content-area treadmills trying desperately to get everything they believe needs to be taught, taught. If teachers took the time to slow down their treadmills and personally document and evaluate both the planned, and most importantly, actual learning, they may well discover that they are perpetuating a potentially incoherent curriculum. Curriculum Mapping is designed to ask teachers to record, reflect on, study, and revise their individual and corporate work. This cyclic endeavor eventually leads a school or district to developing and maintaining an aligned curriculum that makes sense to all—and most importantly—to students!
From Mapping the Big Picture:
To make sense of our students’ experiences over time, we need two lenses: a zoom lens into this year’s curriculum for a particular grade and a wide-angle lens to see the K-12 perspective. The classroom (or micro) level is dependent on the site and district level (a macro view). Though the micro and macro levels are connected throughout a district, there is a conspicuous lack of macro-level data for decision-making. Yet we need that big picture for each student’s journey through his or her years of learning. With data from curriculum mapping, as the school and its feeding and receiving sites can review and revise the curriculum within a larger, much-needed contest. Data on the curriculum map can be examined both horizontally through the course of any one academic year and vertically over the student’s K-12 experience (pp. 3 – 4).
MAPPING THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION: Hard to write but essential with respect to framing a unit of study or course or both.
Dr. Joe Krajcik, a professor of science education at the University of Michigan’s School of Education, recommends the following list of characteristics as a guide to use when developing essential questions (Krajcik, Joe. “Characteristics of Driving Questions.” [Online]
Essential questions should:
Suggested Steps: The Indiana Department of Education has compiled an overview document called Tools for Designing Curriculum through Mapping and Aligning that highlights sixteen “tools” to help school develop, map and align curriculum. An outline of suggested steps to begin a curriculum mapping initiative are below.
For those looking for a deeper dive into mapping and implementation check out the full reports (links below). These pdf documents include rubrics to evaluate current curriculum, software programs, and excellent definitions of terms:
Suggested Steps for How Curriculum is Developed
The process may look something like this example I found on Pintrest:
Over the past few years there has been a great deal of interest in looking at education through the prism of learning and the brain and the ways mindset, memory, exercise, nutrition, “grit”, and motivation contribute to cognition. This has been or great interest to educators who are constantly searching for ways to help their students acquire knowledge and skills. The challenge, of course, is that what works for one student may not work for another. They way we educators tackle that monumental problem is that we differentiate.
Differentiating is one of the most difficult things teachers are asked to do and I am constantly on the lookout for ways to do it better. One way that might be of benefit to both teacher and student may be to give students a greater say with respect to not how they are presented information but also how they should be assessed. One of many methods teachers can employ is to provide students assessment choices via a Think-Tac-Toe framework of menus.
A Think-Tac-Toe matrix allows a teacher to design a menu of assessments through a multiple intelligences prism that will hopefully motivate the students to authentically engage with the material. Research on the connection between motivation and learning has focused on two types of mindsets that students develop, based on the kind of experiences (including assessments) we present them within school. Students tend to develop either performance-related goals or mastery goals.
Performance-related goals are those that are linked to more traditional types of assessments. Students become motivated by the grades they achieve, their rankings compared with other students, and extrinsic rewards such as honor rolls or school awards. In contrast, students who develop mastery goals are motivated by the actual learning experiences. Their rewards arise from the challenges of acquiring and applying new knowledge and skills.
An interesting study conducted by Carole Ames and Jennifer Archer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign found that
…interventions aimed at modifying attributions and training of learning strategies may not have lasting effects if the classroom does not support the targeted outcomes of the intervention. A mastery, but not performance, structure provides a context that is likely to foster long-term use of learning strategies and a belief that success is related to one’s effort. Similarly, goal-setting interventions that are aimed at getting students to establish realistic but challenging goals may be further enhanced when a mastery structure is in place.
Modifying or changing the nature of students’ experiences in the classroom may provide a viable way of redirecting students’ achievement goal orientation. Changing the classroom structure may not help some students who lack certain skills, who are not aware of critical learning strategies, and who, as a result of many accumulated experiences, have adopted a belief that they are not able. Although these students may need to learn new skills, modifying the goal structure of the classroom in such a way that mastery goals are salient and are adopted by students may also be necessary.
Mastery goals that are student selected provide students with agency in the process of their own learning and assessment towards mastery. Teachers could approach these assessments as bookends to a unit – presenting the students with the options before the unit begins and assessing mastery of the content based on the project based/skills based assessments included in the Think-Tac-Toe matrix. Teachers that want a common performance task that assesses the whole class can simply place that task in the center square.
The following link is an example of a Think-Tac-Toe choice board for the middle school study of slavery in the U.S.. In this case, the teachers chose a common task that assesses research, analytical and writing skills as a common (center square) assessment: Tic Tac Toe Slavery Assessment
For some very useful resources check out the Differentiation by Design wiki page.
I came across a wonderful online tool courtesy of Richard Byrne’s amazing Free Technology of Teachers blog. If you have not looked at blog before I suggest doing so now before you read another word!!
The resource I learned about is called Canva which is an extremely user-friendly design site that allows users to drag and drop design elements to enable the creation of high-quality presentions. You can upload your own images to use in your graphics or choose to use the mix of free and fee-based images and templates Your completed Canva projects can be downloaded as PDF and PNG files. You can also simply link to your online graphic
Here is one I made for my neighborhood CD circle using free templates – CD Circle 2015 Flyer.
This could be a great presentation tool for teachers to introduce to their students in addition to being a tool to base a design project. A framework for teachers to follow is now available on the new Canva for Education site. As a recent post on Free Technology of Teachers highlights, the Canva for Education site features eighteen lesson plans written by Vicki Davis, Steven Anderson, Terri Eichholz, and Paul Hamilton. The lesson plans include things like Paul’s making historical infographics in which students summarize and visually represent the connections between historical events and their causes. For the elementary school crowd Terri has a lesson called Initial Selfies in which students learn to isolate and pronounce the initial, medial vowel, and final sounds. One of Steven’s lesson plans calls for students to build graphics about percentages. And to take advantage of students’ familiarity with Facebook, Vicki has built a lesson plan in which students build historical figure fan pages.
If you want to get your creative juices flowing Canva might be a good place to start.
One of the great challenges for teachers and administrators is the often daunting task of developing meaningful in-house professional development opportunities. It has always been a best practice to design PDs that address particular problems of practice that are identified by the staff, the administration or both. Great PDs manage to identify areas in need of growth and tailor professional development in a way that honors the time and talents of the participants. All too often however, this is not the case.
Check out this time and talent waster from a Chicago Public School PD:
This is not how professionals should be spending their time.
One valuable first step in determining the authentic “value” of your staff PDs is for presenters/administrators to allow the participants to present immediate feedback. I find it helpful if team members give PD session feedback through the following lens as part of a reflective Workshop Evaluation Form:
The above video was posted on a blog by New Jersey teacher Michael Dunlea called WHEN P.D. BECOMES “PAINFUL DETENTION.” because it illuminates the characteristics of bad PD and offers examples of outstanding professional learning. The post is worth the read specifically for Dunlea’s overview of how his district used the concept of an EdCamp style format to make all the stakeholders in the PD active participants.