The entirety of chapter two, titled Planning that Ensures Academic Achievement, talks about planning to ensure academic success. In all honesty, this chapter again seems too short and filled with assumptions about students and the teachers reading this book.
Begin with the End, which mirrors the educational philosophy of Understanding by Design, simply reminds teachers to form an objective instead of just creating an activity. Again, my disappointment is that any well-educated, Masters-holding teacher who applies what they know already does this. His technique is a great synopsis of the planning by design framework, or any other philosophy that flows from unit planning to lesson planning. The only important question he asks here is: Why are you teaching the material that you are teaching?
The 4 M's expand on what objectives should be and what objectives should look like when used in lesson planning. Objectives should be manageable, measurable, made first, and most important. No arguments here; teachers need to think about if an objective is manageable for one lesson, or if there should be more time allotted for certain skills (much of this comes from experience in the classroom and knowing your students). Is the objective measurable? How do you know when students master the objective? This is pertinent; the best teachers hold students (and more importantly, themselves) accountable for the learning that is happening in the classroom, and a measurement system of some sort must exist in order to push and motivate students to learn. But some of these measurements may be goals that students write themselves, or portfolios. That detail was left out of Lemov's field study notes. Made first again reflects the idea that teachers begin with the end in mind, which is the exact goal of the Understanding by Design framework; if you've never read this before, you should really read it (Understanding by Design by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe). Whether you agree or disagree, it's important to know about the philosophies in the field. In addition, it will give you more structured detail than Lemov. In his text, most important is in regards to whether the lessons focus on the most important things on the path to college.
The last two M's are disheartening to me. The only reason that made first does not sit well with me is how he says an indication that the objective was retrofitted to an activity is if a teacher uses a standard for the lesson. While I agree you cannot retrofit objectives or standards, and they cannot just be applied in isolation without forming a theme or building on previous learning, the presence of a standard is not an indication that the objective was fabricated to fit an activity. The other beef that I have with most important has to do with his exclusive mindset of what is important for students. Is the path to college the only thing that should be taught in classrooms? I vehemently fight that education should be create life-long learners and students who love learning, regardless of post-secondary plans. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character- that is the goal of true education."
In post it, Lemov talks about posting the objective in clear view so that all students can see what is expected, review the objective, and be reminded that the objective is the goal. While this is a good idea, this would mostly (and almost exclusively) be successful for secondary native English-speaking students. Younger students and students who are English language learners would need more support in understanding what the objective means and why the objective is posted.
Shortest Path talks about creating the shortest path in lessons to meet the objective. However, Lemov pairs this with talking about how champion teachers pair this shortest path with enriched activities set at an appropriate pace; these are critical caveats to walking the shortest path. He also specifies that almost any method of teaching are neither good nor bad, except in how they relate to the goal. If my objective talks about creating critical thought and debate, lecture is not the best style of delivery, whereas a Socratic seminar may be more beneficial. This is again, something that all educated and experienced teachers learn at some point in their career.
Double Plan is actually a new technique that I have not heard of before; the first in his book yet! Most teachers plan what they will be doing as the teacher, but champions plan what the students will be doing. When I read that, I thought at first, 'So simple! We make worksheets, they are taking notes, they are answering questions...' Then I read on and realized that I plan what students are doing at certain points when I should be thinking about what students are doing in between these points as well. Good point, Mr. Lemov! In my teaching placement I have already used this technique to revamp my unit lessons for the content on magnets, and the unit went much more smoothly due to my awareness of what the students would be doing at all points in the lesson. Off-task behavior, boredom, and inattention declined greatly when I was teaching about magnets because I planned what the students would be touching, thinking, writing, or saying at any point in the lesson.
Draw the Map is a highly controversial topic. Basically, Lemov says a teacher must plan the layout of their room while asking these questions:
When should students interact?
How should students interact?
What interactions support learning objectives?
Begin with the End, which mirrors the educational philosophy of Understanding by Design, simply reminds teachers to form an objective instead of just creating an activity. Again, my disappointment is that any well-educated, Masters-holding teacher who applies what they know already does this. His technique is a great synopsis of the planning by design framework, or any other philosophy that flows from unit planning to lesson planning. The only important question he asks here is: Why are you teaching the material that you are teaching?
The 4 M's expand on what objectives should be and what objectives should look like when used in lesson planning. Objectives should be manageable, measurable, made first, and most important. No arguments here; teachers need to think about if an objective is manageable for one lesson, or if there should be more time allotted for certain skills (much of this comes from experience in the classroom and knowing your students). Is the objective measurable? How do you know when students master the objective? This is pertinent; the best teachers hold students (and more importantly, themselves) accountable for the learning that is happening in the classroom, and a measurement system of some sort must exist in order to push and motivate students to learn. But some of these measurements may be goals that students write themselves, or portfolios. That detail was left out of Lemov's field study notes. Made first again reflects the idea that teachers begin with the end in mind, which is the exact goal of the Understanding by Design framework; if you've never read this before, you should really read it (Understanding by Design by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe). Whether you agree or disagree, it's important to know about the philosophies in the field. In addition, it will give you more structured detail than Lemov. In his text, most important is in regards to whether the lessons focus on the most important things on the path to college.
The last two M's are disheartening to me. The only reason that made first does not sit well with me is how he says an indication that the objective was retrofitted to an activity is if a teacher uses a standard for the lesson. While I agree you cannot retrofit objectives or standards, and they cannot just be applied in isolation without forming a theme or building on previous learning, the presence of a standard is not an indication that the objective was fabricated to fit an activity. The other beef that I have with most important has to do with his exclusive mindset of what is important for students. Is the path to college the only thing that should be taught in classrooms? I vehemently fight that education should be create life-long learners and students who love learning, regardless of post-secondary plans. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character- that is the goal of true education."
In post it, Lemov talks about posting the objective in clear view so that all students can see what is expected, review the objective, and be reminded that the objective is the goal. While this is a good idea, this would mostly (and almost exclusively) be successful for secondary native English-speaking students. Younger students and students who are English language learners would need more support in understanding what the objective means and why the objective is posted.
Shortest Path talks about creating the shortest path in lessons to meet the objective. However, Lemov pairs this with talking about how champion teachers pair this shortest path with enriched activities set at an appropriate pace; these are critical caveats to walking the shortest path. He also specifies that almost any method of teaching are neither good nor bad, except in how they relate to the goal. If my objective talks about creating critical thought and debate, lecture is not the best style of delivery, whereas a Socratic seminar may be more beneficial. This is again, something that all educated and experienced teachers learn at some point in their career.
Double Plan is actually a new technique that I have not heard of before; the first in his book yet! Most teachers plan what they will be doing as the teacher, but champions plan what the students will be doing. When I read that, I thought at first, 'So simple! We make worksheets, they are taking notes, they are answering questions...' Then I read on and realized that I plan what students are doing at certain points when I should be thinking about what students are doing in between these points as well. Good point, Mr. Lemov! In my teaching placement I have already used this technique to revamp my unit lessons for the content on magnets, and the unit went much more smoothly due to my awareness of what the students would be doing at all points in the lesson. Off-task behavior, boredom, and inattention declined greatly when I was teaching about magnets because I planned what the students would be touching, thinking, writing, or saying at any point in the lesson.
Draw the Map is a highly controversial topic. Basically, Lemov says a teacher must plan the layout of their room while asking these questions:
When should students interact?
How should students interact?
What interactions support learning objectives?
Some of his other questions exhibit a bias against social interaction in the classroom and his 'perfect' map of a classroom shows students sitting in rows by twos facing the front. This intrigues me for several reasons. Obviously, there is a secondary bias to this map, considering that a lot of elementary schools have tables and must use them. This map also shows an underlying belief that students are there to work, and that they cannot work in groups larger than two effectively without getting side tracked. A teacher-dominant approach is present in that this map has all the students facing the front at all times, and has students sit with as little connection points with others as possible. The walking route of the teacher is not planned well in this map; research shows that teacher who move around (and don't just stand at the front of the classroom) manage behavior more effectively and have higher student engagement. With the map drawn by Lemov, the teacher would struggle to walk up and down the aisles and be able to see what most students are doing at all times. Lastly, this map does not take into account the community or the ambiance that a classroom can create for specific lessons when arranged in several ways. When doing a Socractic seminar, a teacher can make an inner circle and an outer circle. When students are taking two sides of a debate, the students could sit on one side of the room, facing the other. If instruction is going to happen in centers, then clusters of four may prove more conducive to instruction. The set-up of the classroom should always flow from the isntruction, and a rigid, two-desk column system may prove more problematic than beneficial.
Whether any teacher or professional agrees or disagrees with Lemov, planning is the most important thing for a teacher, and not enough credit can be given to those who prep, plan, and revamp lessons in advance.
Reference:
Lemov, Doug. (2010). Teach like a champion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reference:
Lemov, Doug. (2010). Teach like a champion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
No comments:
Post a Comment