This workshop was focused on reviewing the Understanding by Design framework and presented some strategies for application. Our district has been using UbD for at least the last 5 years. UbD is the brain child of Grant Wiggins and he has worked with Jay McTighe. If you need a primer on UbD, try this link "
UbD in a Nutshell." We actually used this in the workshop (try to overlook all of the typos--I'm wondering who did the proofreading!).
Recently, we implemented PLCs, the next step once UbD has been adopted. This makes perfect sense to me now, but I will admit that I did not see the direct connection until this workshop. They are so closely aligned that the goals of PLCs actually are structured to follow the stages of UbD:
1. What do we want students to understand? (UbD Stage 1)
2. How will we know they understand it? (UbD Stage 2)
3. What will we do when they don't understand? (UbD Stage 3)
4. What will we do when they already understand? (UbD Stage 3)
5.
What are the best practices for teaching? (UbD Stage 3)
Again, this is so clear and obvious to me now, but I really did not see it before! Everyone in the district still uses the language of UbD, and of course our lesson planning is rooted in the framework as individual teachers. And I know inherently that is how we work in our PLCs (start with the end in mind and develop common assessments). But I never saw the clear connection until now. It was also a good clarification of what we have been coming to terms with as a PLC. In Stage 1 of UbD, knowledge and skills are identified and we had a handout that specifically said "resist listing all the possible knowledge and skill goals that are in any way related to the unit topic. Identify only those goals that you plan to directly assess in Stage 2 and explicitly address in Stage 3." It was nice to have that idea supported in this context.
Throughout this workshop we got some tips for how to integrate the components of UbD (transfer goals, essential questions, enduring understandings, etc) into our lessons. This is information I have received a lot over the years, but it always helps to have a refresher. I am also glad to be getting it all down to go over again in the future, now that I am blogging about my learning experiences!
I have taken many workshops with our facilitator Liz and she always does a good job of modeling techniques to use. Some of what she did was Cooperative Learning type structures and then others were classroom and time management structures.
General learning and class/time management strategies:
- Process as Given/Process as Understood--After you give instructions, have a student repeat them for the class and the teacher gives clarification as needed.
- Your Time/Our Time/My Time--"Your Time" is the amount of time given to the students initially for the task. "My Time" is how much time the teacher knows we can spend on the task and decides the most amount of extra time that can be given, say 3 minutes. "Our Time" comes in when the given time is up, the teacher asks how much time is needed as a show of fingers (ie 0 to 3 minutes) and then the teacher averages the needs of the class to come up with Our Time which will be the extra time given to complete the task.
- Elevator pitch--Create a 1-2 minute summary of a particular topic to share (a CL structure would be good to use for the sharing)
- Inner/outer circle--I think this is technically a CL structure (Liz also had us do round robin, timed pair shares, stand up-hand up-pair up, and quiz-quiz-trade. See my Cooperative Learning methods post for details on these). For inner/outer circle, half of the class creates the outer circle and then the other half creates the inner circle, paired with one from the outer circle. Sharing happens and then the teacher instructs either circle to move so many places to the right or left to find a new partner.
- Card sorting using Fan and Pick--another CL structure. We had a set of cards to sort into three categories. There are two obvious roles; fanner and picker/reader, that would rotate. The group would discuss which category the card belongs to, ideally coming to a consensus and sort them accordingly. Any cards that couldn't be placed easily and required more processing could be saved to til the end.
- Reading with purpose--three examples were demonstrated with Cooperative Learning structures as well. 1. Highlight three important ideas and write why they are important. (CL was a timed-pair-share) 2. + if you already know it, - if you don't (I like to use a 0), and ? if you have a question. (CL was a mix-pair-share) 3. Identify most important point (CL was a single round robin)
- Fingers/Thumb ratings--for quick formative assessment AND student self assessment. For fingers, students rate from fist to five how comfortable they are with the material. For thumbs, thumbs are up, down, or sideways. I personally have trouble with only three choices of the thumb so I usually wobble... but it is good to mix it up with students.
Now about the components of UbD--writing EU's, EQ's, and transfer goals can be daunting (knowledge and skills aren't so bad). Here are some tips that were helpful to think about from the workshop:
- Transfer goals can be short term or long term. We tend to think about transfer goals as being huge and overarching. You will have a few overarching transfer goals for the semester or year. But, to accomplish those transfer goals, you need to have smaller transfer goals along the way. Skills from your Knowledge and Skills will feed into transfer goals.
- Enduring Understandings are the "forever and always." What do you expect the students to take when they leave your class? These are written in teacher language. Limit them to maybe 5 per semester. There are the 6 Facets of Understanding that can guide what demonstrates "understanding."
- Essential Questions vs. Topical Questions--I had never heard about a distinction between essential and topical questions, so this was supremely useful. You may have only 5 essential questions for the whole semester (say one or two per unit) but you could have topical questions every day. All questions should be written in kid-friendly language, as they are meant to be shared with students. Good essential questions we know don't have just one right answer. But think of it in these terms; is it debatable? Could people interpret the question differently and come to different conclusions? And I'd like to add here; can the question be answered with a claim that is supported by evidence?
Now that we have a better feel for the terminology, and have written TGs, EUs and EQs, and identified K&S, what do we do with them in the classroom? We generally know that we should post the EQs and Liz suggests even posting your knowledge and skills for the unit. Also, it is not enough just to post them. Here are some ways that were suggested for students to interact with the framework of your lesson plan:
Have students talk about/answer the EQs at the beginning and end of the unit--
question early and often. These are perfect questions to use for a brainstorm rally robin to get students thinking. I will admit I need to be better about using EQs. Now that I am becoming more comfortable with Cooperative Learning, I think I will be more comfortable asking students such tough questions. Liz had us write our thinking in response to one of her essential questions on a post-it and put it next to the question she had listed on chart paper at the beginning of the workshop, then again at the end of the knowledge acquisition component. I think I would have them do a write-pair-share or something with the questions at the beginning of the unit and again at the end (on the same paper) so they could see their learning.
A follow up to the idea of working with your essential questions with the students is having them
generate questions about the essential questions. Like, what do you need to know in order to answer that question? I imagine creating a document with the EQ in one column, and the next column would be for them to write whatever they are thinking and one more column for what questions they have about the EQ. At the end of the unit I would have them reflect on whether their questions were answered (and what questions they may still have) and how they would answer the EQ at that time. Of course I would incorporate CL structures along the way for this process to encourage engagement and thinking.
Have the students self assess their understanding of the knowledge and skills for a unit. This required
showing them the knowledge and skills you intend for them to acquire during the unit. I have gotten slightly better at this. My co-teacher and I developed a self assessment tool that worked really well this past year where we listed the learning targets, and for each target students had a bar with a continuum from "I have no clue" to "I can teach it." At the beginning of a unit, we would have them shade where they were and date it. Then, after a formative assessment we would have them re-evaluate the specific targets that were assessed. Before the test we would have them do one more self assessment and set goals for preparing for the "summative" assessment (I put this in quotes because our unit test was really one more formative before the final which was the true summative).
After Liz taught us about some of the knowledge and skills she wanted us to acquire she said "now this is what
I think I've taught you." I love that quote and am totally going to steal it. She had us write something about our learning of each. I would use this idea when we revisit our targets and have them discuss in a CL structure what they have learned so far about a particular target.
After Liz's presentation we had break out groups that we could choose from. She worked with newer teachers on unpacking standards. There were three others to choose from; GRASPS, WHERETO, and High Level Questioning. GRASPS is a way to write performance events and a colleague of mine went to that one and shared her info with me. Here is the gist:
Goal: Your task is... The goal is... The problem or challenge is... The obstacles to overcome are...
Role: You have been asked to... You are... Your job is...
Audience: Your clients are... The target audience is... You need to convince...
Situation: The context you find yourself in... The challenge involves dealing with...
Product, performance and purpose: You will create a... in order to..., You need to develop... so that...
Standards and criteria for success: Your performance needs to... Your work will be judged by... Your product must meet all of the following standards... A successful result will...
I went to the breakout session on questioning. As I mentioned before, I think higher level questioning will become easier through cooperative learning structures. The biggest idea I took away from the questioning section was that low level (basement) questions reiterate the text or content, middle level (ground floor) questions require the text or content to create an answer, and high level (high rise or penthouse) questions are an extrapolation from the text. You may use evidence from the text to support an answer but it requires a lot of your own thinking and ideas.
Finally, I also went to a breakout session about WHERETO. WHERETO is an acronym like GRASPS but this is for unit design as opposed to assessment design. This is what it stands for:
Where/Why: these are your goals for learning which should be presented to students. You should demystify the big ideas, EQs, evaluation criteria and discuss why we are learning it.
Hook: the attention grabber. Leads into lesson (ie an engaging story, analogy, connection to life, some fun media, etc)
Equip/Explore: what the students need to learn--how you will teach it, being aware of lack of experience and making sure to include all necessary tools for learning.
Rethink/Revise: students should make improvements based on self-assessment and feedback, sometimes posing a second essential question helps.
Evaluate: student self-evaluation and reflection, allow students to process learning (I personally think this seems a bit out of order and should come before rethink and revise but ideally you would have them evaluate again after that process too)
Tailoring: differentiation in content, process, and product. Criteria for evaluation should be the same even if the process or product are different.
Organization: sequence of learning to develop and deepen understanding. Allow students to explore questions early and often.
I think this is supposed to be sequential but of course tailoring and organization would be part of your planning process, so I'm not sure... The main thing I took from this session (and kind of in conjunction with the rest of the workshop) is that I need to be more up front with our learning goals. I need to give students a road map!