{"id":3355,"date":"2015-06-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2015-06-09T04:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/blog\/cw_post\/making-sense-or-trying-to-of-competencies-standards-and-the-structures-of-learning\/"},"modified":"2020-02-05T12:55:13","modified_gmt":"2020-02-05T17:55:13","slug":"making-sense-or-trying-to-of-competencies-standards-and-the-structures-of-learning","status":"publish","type":"cw_post","link":"https:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/cw_post\/making-sense-or-trying-to-of-competencies-standards-and-the-structures-of-learning\/","title":{"rendered":"Making Sense (or Trying to) of Competencies, Standards and the Structures of Learning"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"math<\/a>
From Building 21 (Click to Enlarge)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

States, districts, and schools are developing a range of different ways to structure their Instruction and Assessment system (the set of learning goals of what schools want students to know and be able to do; the way they can identify if students have learned them; and, if not, how they can provide feedback to help them learn it). I\u2019m having difficulty being able to describe the differences as well as the implications. The issue of the importance of the design of how we describe what students should and\/or have learned has come up in meetings about assessment, about learning progressions (instructional strategies that are based on how students learn and are designed to help them move from one concept to the next), and with the NCAA over the past month.<\/p>\n

So I\u2019m doing the only thing I know how to do\u2014which is to try to identify the different issues or characteristics that are raised to see if I can make some sense of it. For example, here are a number of questions that help me understand the qualities of any set of standards and competencies:<\/p>\n

Is it designed to reach deeper levels of learning? <\/b><\/p>\n

Some structures clearly integrate deeper learning and higher order skills, whereas others seem to depend solely on the level of knowledge based on how the standard is written. We could just use standards and forgo an overarching set of competencies. However, the competencies ask us to ensure that students can transfer their learning to new situations. It drives us toward deeper learning.<\/em><\/p>\n

Is it meaningful for teachers for teaching and for students for learning?<\/b><\/p>\n

As I understand it, much of the Common Core State Standards was developed by backward planning, or backing out of what we wanted kids to know and be able to do upon graduation and then figuring out what it would look like at younger ages. Much less attention was spent on structuring the standards based on how students learn and meaningful ways to get them there. The learning progression experts are emphatic that it is important to organize the units of learning in a way that is rooted in the discipline and helps teachers to recognize where students\u2019 understanding is and how they can help them tackle the next concept. That means the structures are going to be different in different disciplines. Thus, we need to understand how helpful the structures of the standards, competencies, and assessments are to actually help students learn.<\/em><\/p>\n

What are the implications for assessment? <\/b><\/p>\n

There are a number of considerations regarding assessment. First, we want to make sure that the standards and competencies are organized to create a powerful feedback loop. Second, we want part of the assessment system to help us to double check that students learned something. Regardless of if we are assessing each student or doing quality control on whether teachers are determining proficiency in a consistent way, we expect students to be able to transfer their learning\u2014thus we are going to look toward performance-based assessments. Which brings us back to how the structure is organized. To what degree is the granularity and organization going to support instruction at the higher levels of learning?<\/em><\/p>\n

Is it user-friendly? <\/b><\/p>\n

Certainly the language of the standards and competencies needs to be written in a way that engages students. Many schools are using \u201cI can…\u201d statements. However, we should also think about the overall structure as well. Too many standards, and it starts to feel like a checklist.<\/em><\/p>\n

What are implications for creating interdisciplinary and project-based learning?<\/b><\/p>\n

Interdisciplinary projects are one of the best ways to fully engage students, as is robust project-based learning. If the standards are too granular, it\u2019s hard to figure out how they are connecting to the overall project.<\/em><\/p>\n

What are the implications for tracking student progress and communicating what students know and are able to do? <\/b><\/p>\n

Students who have experienced a lot of failure in school will want to be able to see their progress, leading us to smaller chunks of learning. However, chunks that are too small can lead to a linear approach to structuring learning. By the time we start thinking about communicating to other schools and colleges, we want broader ways to communicate what students know and are able to do\u2014whether using a course as a proxy or a form of standards-based transcript.<\/em><\/p>\n

I get a bit dizzy trying to think this through (and I\u2019m sure I don\u2019t have all the considerations identified). I think it is going to require a group process to tackle this challenge, drawing upon different types of expertise, including the student perspective, to extract the characteristics and implications of different structures.<\/p>\n

However, we can start looking at the different ways districts and schools are structuring Instruction and Assessment. Below are examples. (FYI, they\u2019ve been pulled together because they are available on the web, not as examplars. They may also not be up to date as districts tend to continue to try to improve them periodically.)<\/p>\n