Prior to reading the first four chapters in Ozar’s book Creating a Curriculum that Works (1994) I never thought about the difference between the questions what shall I teach? vs. what shall students learn? I honestly don’t know if I ever actually knew there was a difference before now. I found Ozar’s outcomes-centered curriculum approach enlightening. Shifting a curriculum to an output mindset rather than an input mindset will create a learning environment most advantageous to the students. While I was reading, I was thinking about our WASC evaluation last year. Although I wasn’t physically there to experience the evaluation, the majority of our faculty meetings and/or in-services this year have primarily focused on our School Improvement Plans and In-Depth Studies. I went back and reread our Science In-Depth Study that our faculty is currently updating. We collaborate in teams (broken out by grade level) to answer the following questions: what students learn, how students learn, and how assessment is used. At times, our teachers are resistant in putting forth the energy and the effort towards these Plan of Action/In-Depth Studies; however, if we shift our focus and create a curriculum revolving around significant learning it can be, as Ozar says, ‘stimulating and rewarding.’
While I was reviewing our Science In-Depth Study, I found it hard to differentiate our goals and outcomes/objectives. Our study states that by identifying learning goals with students before they begin new material, we help the students understand what they are expected to learn with each lesson. After reading Ozar and better understanding the benefits to an outcome-centered curriculum, I think the statement should be revised to say learning outcomes instead of learning goals. “Curriculum that focuses on significant learning begins with clearly articulated learning outcomes.” (p.3)
As a new teacher, I think this book will be a great resource and guide for me. I can apply this approach to create unit and lesson outcomes. I want to be able to observe what has been learned and make it tangible for my students and for me! “Affective outcomes define the significant learning in terms of what students will do in the affective domain in relation to the subject matter.” (p.48)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you that I never saw a difference between what the teacher teaches and what the student learns. And, if we are truly student-centered in our approach, including all that we do outside of the classroom in preparation for inside the classroom, we will certainly create that advantageous environment for the students in our school community. I must admit, that I struggled with the "output"/"input" discussion that she creates merely from the fact that I don't myself like to think of the students as "producers". It makes me think back to the Industrial Revolution analogy from Senge especially since factory workers are the producers of our world. Maybe, what I learn from this is not to mix metaphors too much. Thanks for making me think.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Ozar's, Chapters 1 - 4, i also felt that writing curriculum is starting at the finish line and heading back to the start. It makes completely good sense to follow this method. When writing SLE's at the school where I work, the faculty took quite a long bit of time to distinguish between goal or outcome. All of the examples given in Chapter 1 - 4 definitely help to clarify the difference between the two. As a new teacher, you are in a good spot just starting out in this profession. You do not have many habits set and will easily pick up the newer, more successful ways of writing curriculum and working with digital natives.
ReplyDeleteBridget: the teacher resistance is certainly something I've experienced in various school settings. I think of the benefit of reflective practice and know from my own experience how difficult it is to allocate the time and energy for that. It seems our teacher contracts don't adequately take into account the time and energy which are necessary to do good curriclum development. As I read your response to the reading, it occurred to me that we should set a week in July for curriculum development and provide stipends for that. I know high schools that do this and I think it's beneficial for professional development as well as student learning. Folks are too exhausted in June; August is really too late because the train's moving out of the station . . . Thanks for instigating this thought process for me ... taking action on it will be the greater challenge!
ReplyDelete