Reflection, The Key to Perfect Lesson Design

Dr. Wendy Ghiora – Posting #130 – March 1, 2015

Most teachers are well prepared with the basic elements of lesson design.

However, from personal observation as a school principal, I noticed the last element, “Summary/Reflection,” was often missing from the lesson.

This routinely neglected element could be considered the most critical to making the lesson a real success for both students and teachers alike.

Here is a brief review of basic lesson design taken from Madeline Hunter (Using What We Know About Teaching).

1.   Objective
 (Learning
 Target,
 Goals and
 Purpose)

What, specifically, should 
the 
student 
be
able
 to
 do,
 understand,
 and
 care

about as
 a
 result 
of 
learning?

Not 
only
 do
 students 
learn more 
effectively
 when 
they
 know
 what
 they’re

supposed
 to 
be 
learning,
 how 
their 
learning
 will
 be
 measured, 
and 
why
 that learning
 is
 important 
to 
them, 
but
 teachers 
teach more
 effectively 
when
 they 
have
 that
 same 
information.

2.   Anticipatory
 Set 
or
 Orientation

The
 Anticipatory Set
 or
 Orientation serves to
 put 
students
 into
 a
 receptive

frame
 of
 mind.

An
 introduction, model, example,
question, 
key
 vocabulary 
term
 or 
activity engages
 students 
and 
their focus 
on 
the
 objective/learning
 target.  The
“set” 
may 
be
 motivational
 or
 pique 
curiosity 
about 
what 
is
 coming
 next
 in the
 learning.

3.   Input 
or 
Presentation

Students must 
acquire 
new
 information
 about 
the
 knowledge, process, or
 skill
 they 
are 
to
 achieve.

New learning
 must
 be
 chunked
 into
“digestible 
bits” or
 small
 portions 
tailored 
to
 students’ level
 of
 understanding.

4.Modeling

During 
modeling, the
 skill, strategy,
or
 task
 is
 named
 and
 given 
a
 purpose as 
students
 see and hear when 
and
 how
 it 
is 
used 
or 
applied.

This is followed by:

5.Guided Practice and 6.Independent Practice

7. Reflection/Summary/Closure

The 
teacher 
takes
 action 
to
 bring
 the 
lesson 
presentation 
to 
an
 appropriate


conclusion.


*Review
 and
 clarify 
key 
points

*Involve
 students 
in
 securing
 key 
ideas 
in 
their 
own
 minds

Closure 
is
 used 
to 
cue
 students
 to 
the 
fact
 that 
they
 have 
arrived 
at 
an


important
 point 
in 
the
 lesson
 or 
the 
end 
of 
a 
lesson.



Closure 
is 
the 
act 
of
 reviewing
 and 
clarifying
 key 
points 
of
 a 
lesson, tying


them 
together 
into 
a
 coherent
 whole 
and
 securing
 them 
to 
the
 student’s

conceptual
 network.


Students
 may
 be
 prompted 
to
 bring
 things 
together
 in
 their 
own
 minds,
 to


make 
sense 
out 
of 
what 
has 
just 
been 
taught.



“Any 
questions?
 No.
 OK,
 let’s move 
on,” is 
not
 closure.


Closure
 can 
help
 students 
organize 
and 
take 
stock
 of
 their 
own
 progress 
and


learning.
 Exit
 slips, sharing
 a
 summary
 with
 a 
peer
 or 
writing 
one 
are
 examples 
of
 closure
 strategies.


More on Reflection – Dr. Wendy Ghiora

After observing several classrooms where this part of lesson design was being neglected, I brought it up when conferencing with the teachers after my observation.  All of them had the same two responses for not including reflection:

1.   I forgot about it.

2.   I ran out of time.

This is why it is imperative to actually write this down as part of the lesson plan, so it will be included.  It is an excellent idea to have an outline that includes a timeline of sorts.  All one has to do is leave about 2-4 minutes for this at the end of each lesson.  Believe me, it is well worth it.

When students become reflective about the teaching and learning process, they are strengthening their own capacity to learn. Central to this is the principal of reflection as meta-cognition, where students are aware of, and can describe their thinking in a way that allows them to ‘close the gap’ between what they know and what they need to learn.

Reflection compels the student to think about and then put into words what new skill, knowledge or ability they have gained from the lesson. In this way, they are self-affirming an accomplishment. 

At the end of each lesson, for example, students can pair up and describe to each other, what they can specifically do now as a result of the lesson they have just completed.  Then the teacher asks for volunteers to share with the group what they told their partner or what their partner told them. 

As the teacher listens, it is the perfect assessment, for she now knows exactly what the students really understood and how they can use their new knowledge.

As a bonus, this is excellent PR for both the teacher and the school.  When the student goes home and the mother asks,

“So what did you learn in school today?”

Instead of the usual answer: “Nothing…”

The student will recall what he learned in your class. 

Why?  Because he was forced to:

1.Think about it.

2.Say it out loud to a classmate.

3.Listen to others (or maybe even himself or his partner) state what they learned.

4. Recognize his accomplishment and feel good about it.

The mother will then think,

“Wow, at least he is learning something in that class. What a great teacher that must be!”

This small, but important part of the lesson allows students to practice and develop explaining, rephrasing and clarifying skills. By listening to all of the student responses, the teacher can summarize by repeating the common elements or ideas presented and thank the students for their individual and team contributions toward understanding the topic more deeply.  This practice also engages students in learning to focus on the “big ideas,” and how to summarize those ideas.

The most significant outcome of this simple step is the knowledge the teacher obtains of what the students actually “got” from the lesson, and the certainty the students either have or don’t have when they leave the classroom. Now, the teacher can accurately plan the next day’s lesson.

Wouldn’t you agree, this is the key to perfect lesson design?

Horse Story (an analogy)

Unknown Source

Dr. Wendy Ghiora . Posting #129 . January 15, 2015

 

I find this analogy applicable to several common practices employed by school districts throughout our country.  Perhaps, as you read this, you will know exactly what this analogy is so eloquently referring to.

 

Common advice from knowledgeable horse trainers includes the adage, "If the horse you're riding dies, get off."

 

Seems simple enough doesn't it? Yet in education we don't always follow that advice. Instead, we often choose from an array of other alternatives which include:

1.Buying a stronger whip

2.Trying a new bit or bridle

3.Switching riders

 

4.Moving the horse to a new location

5.Riding the horse for longer periods of time

6.Saying things like, "This is the way we've always ridden this horse

7.Appointing a committee to study the horse

 

8.Arranging to visit other sites where they ride dead horses more efficiently

9.Increasing the standards for riding dead horses

10.Creating a test for measuring our riding ability

11.Comparing how we're riding now with how we did ten or twenty years ago

12.Complaining about the state of horse these days

13.Coming up with new styles of riding

 

14.Blaming the horse's parents. The problem is often in the breeding.

 

15.Tightening the cinch

 

Will we ever learn?

Catholic Scholars Denounce Common Core Standards

Dr. Wendy Ghiora – Posting #128 - November 15, 2014
 

I had a close friend as a child growing up in Long Beach, California.  She attended a local Catholic School, St. Anthony’s.  It always seemed like she had much more homework that I did and that she was learning about a lot more subjects.  Later, when I began my teaching career and had school-aged children of my own,  I met parents who had enrolled their children in Catholic Schools.  Many of these parents were not Catholic, but were certain their children would receive a better education in Catholic School than in Public School.  Students who have attended Catholic schools say they were more disciplined and the approach to academics was more regimented. For the most part, students from Catholic schools are still receiving higher scores on performance tests than students in public schools. 

This brings me to the article by Valerie Strauss in The Washington Post, regarding the Common Core Standards.  According to the article, “about 130 Catholic scholars around the country have signed a hard-hitting letter to U.S. Catholic bishops denouncing the Common Core State Standards as doing “a grave disservice to Catholic education” and urging the bishops to ignore the standards or, in the more than 100 dioceses that have already adopted them, to give them up.”

The letter was signed by 132 scholars from various disciplines and institutions.  This well thought-out and compelling letter was sent by Gerard V. Bradley, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, to every Catholic bishop in the country.  “The document blasts the standards, saying they are ‘contrary to tradition and academic studies on reading and human  formation, ‘and accuses Core proponents of seeking to “transform ‘literacy’ into a ‘critical’ skill set, at the expense of sustained and heartfelt encounters with great works of literature.”

“The letter, which calls the Core  a recipe for standardized workforce preparation,” cites criticism of the standards by academics including James Milgram, professor emeritus of mathematics at Stanford University, and Sandra Stotsky, professor emerita of education at the University of Arkansas. They have both testified before various state legislatures against the Core, saying the standards aren’t strong enough to prepare students for college. “

This letter was sent individually to each Catholic bishop in the United States. 132 Catholic professors signed the letter.

The authors of the letter are devoted teachers; many of whom are now professors’ emeriti.  They state the reason for the letter is their devotion to teaching and caring for what children are learning and being prepared to do.

Here is a summary of the main reasons these esteemed educators oppose Common Core:

1.The early rush to adopt Common Core has been displaced by sober second looks, and widespread regrets. Several states have decided to “pause” implementation.

2. Prominent educators and political leaders have declared their opposition..

3.Much of today’s vigorous debate focuses upon particular standards in English and math. Supporters say that Common Core will “raise academic standards.” But we find persuasive the critiques of educational experts (such as James Milgram, professor emeritus of mathematics at Stanford University, and Sandra Stotsky, professor emerita of education at the University of Arkansas) who have studied Common Core, and who judge it to be a step backwards. We endorse their judgment that this “reform” is really a radical shift in emphasis, goals, and expectations for K-12 education, with the result that Common Core-educated children will not be prepared to do authentic college work. Even supporters of Common Core admit that it is geared to prepare children only for community-college-level studies.

4.Every student deserves to be prepared for a life of the imagination, of the spirit, and of a deep appreciation for beauty, goodness, truth, and faith. 

5.The judgments of Stotsky and Milgram (among many others) are supported by a host of particulars. These particulars include when algebra is to be taught, whether advanced mathematics coursework should be taught in high school, the misalignment of writing and reading standards, and whether cursive writing is to be taught.

6.Common Core adopts a bottom-line, pragmatic approach to education. The heart of its philosophy is, as far as we can see, that it is a waste of resources to “over-educate” people. The basic goal of K-12 schools is to provide everyone with a modest skill set; after that, people can specialize in college – if they end up there. Truck-drivers do not need to know Huck Finn. Physicians have no use for the humanities. Only those destined to major in literature need to worry about Ulysses.

7.Perhaps a truck-driver needs no acquaintance with Paradise Lost to do his or her day’s work. But everyone is better off knowing Shakespeare and Euclidean geometry, and everyone is capable of it. Everyone bears the responsibility of growing in wisdom and grace and in deliberating with fellow-citizens about how we should all live together. A sound education helps each of us to do so.

8.The sad facts about Common Core are most visible in its reduction in the study of classic, narrative fiction in favor of “informational texts.” This is a dramatic change. It is contrary to tradition and academic studies on reading and human formation. Proponents of Common Core do not disguise their intention to transform “literacy” into a “critical” skill set, at the expense of sustained and heartfelt encounters with great works of literature.

9.Professor Stotsky was the chief architect of the universally-praised Massachusetts English language arts standards, which contributed greatly to that state’s educational success. She describes Common Core as an incubator of “empty skill sets . . . [that] weaken the basis of literary and cultural knowledge needed for authentic college coursework.” Rather than explore the creativity of man, the great lessons of life, tragedy, love, good and evil, the rich textures of history that underlie great works of fiction, and the tales of self-sacrifice and mercy in the works of the great writers that have shaped our cultural literacy over the centuries, Common Core reduces reading to a servile activity.

10.A rich, classical, traditional education forms men and women capable of discerning and pursuing their path in life and who stand ready to defend truth, their church, their families, and their country.

11.In contrast to such academic rigor, the Common Core standards lack an empirical evidentiary basis and have not been field-tested anywhere. Sadly, over one hundred Catholic dioceses have set aside our teaching tradition in favor of these secular standards.

12.Parents embrace traditional education and long for adherence to it – indeed, for its renaissance. That longing reflects itself in the growing Catholic homeschool and classical-education movements and, now, in the burgeoning desire among Catholic parents for their dioceses to reject the Common Core.

The professors end the letter with the following:

“Because we believe that this moment in history again calls for the intercession of each bishop, we have been made bold to impose upon your time with our judgments of Common Core.”

In my humble opinion, this letter minimally gives us “food for thought.”  What is the real purpose of Common Core? What are its benefits and which students are its beneficiaries? Is it another “panacea” which is merely a guise for teaching to the lowest common denominator? This is a common occurrence that plays out every day in our nation’s classrooms. Students with high aptitude (defined as the ability to learn/reason) and competence (defined as having documented success) are left languishing in classes taught to the lowest common denominator. Parents of children in both public and private schools want their children to be able to achieve and to be all they can be.

As a high school English teacher, I taught what was called “Basic English” to twelfth grade students. The curriculum I was given was comprised of reading material written at about fourth grade reading level, with ideas and themes that were of no interest to my students.  I sneaked into the bookroom and took a class set of Macbeth and several other works that were in the curriculum for the “regular” twelfth grade English classes.  Through scaffolding and other highly motivating techniques, I was able to teach all of the works these “basic” twelfth graders supposedly could not learn.  All I can say is, THEY LOVED IT! All children are capable of learning, if they have proficient and caring teachers. By teaching to the lowest common denominator, which seems to be what Common Core is doing,  we are not only failing those high potential students, but we are also sabotaging our own future as a country.