Backwards planning is all the rage in education today. The "understanding by design" principle dictates that teachers decide on a goal for their unit, course, lesson, etc. and then scaffold their curriculum with the aim of getting students to said goal. In general, I love the ideas behind backwards planning.
However, there is a way in which backwards planning has become the unwitting accomplice of teaching in the style and spirit of NCLB and lecture-oriented teaching. I've observed, both in high schools in New York City, and in classes in my own graduate program at Columbia University, a teaching style based on UBD principles that crushes student exploration in the name of teaching the intended content. Teachers know what they want students to learn or "take away" from a lesson, and conduct discussions and activities with these concepts in mind.
One common setup for lesson activities involves teachers posing questions, eliciting responses from students, and then synthesizing what they say through class conversation and board writing. Teachers have in mind before the conversation begins what they want to be on the board, and the direction they want the conversation to go in. Students are involved in the lesson, are active participants in a sense. However, with teachers knowing exactly where the conversation will go, what students are supposed to learn, it seems that the difference between lessons of this mold and lectures are surface level.
No comments:
Post a Comment