Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h8FIIXT12604; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:18:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:18:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3F6601BF.8030308@csulb.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Kevin Rocap <krocap@csulb.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2543] RE: Toolkit on line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 4250 Lines: 91 Dear Lisa, Here is a hopefully helpful reference that supports the direction you're taking (a good direction I think ;-)): Although their work targets K-12 instruction Grant Wiggins's and Jay McTighe's "Understanding by Design" provides, I think, helpful ideas for the design of any learning environment (including for adult learners). A key to "Understanding by Design" for them is the process of "Backward Planning" which relates to your recognition of needing to start with your assessment or desired outcome. Wiggins and McTighe say that there are three stages of Backward Design: 1) Identify desired results 2) Determine acceptable evidence (relates to what you're calling assessment, I believe) 3) Plan learning experiences and instruction And then they suggest a focus on big ideas: Enduring Understandings: What specific insights about big ideas do we want students to leave with? What Essential Questions will frame the teaching and learning, pointing towards key issues and ideas, and suggesting meaningful and provocative inquiry into content? What should students "know and be able to do'? What Content Standards are addressed explicitly by the unit? They place a big premium on "Understanding" as different from, but implicated in knowing and doing. Understanding has to do with "making sense" of things, drawing unobvious inferences and insights from the big picture ideas; understandings has to do with grasping theories rather than simply facts, etc. Essential Questions are arguable, ar "at the heart of the subject", recur (and should recur, in learning and professional life), raise more questions, raise important conceptual and philosophical issues, provide an organizing purpose for meaningful and connected learning. With regard to the assessment or evidence issue they emphasize: determinng key, complex tasks indicative of understanding; determining what *other* evidence will be collected "to build the case for understanding, knowledge and skill"; and determing the rubrics that will be used to assess complex tasks. Planning the learning then involves planning learning that is Effective and Engaging. They offer a mnemonic they call "whereto": *Where* are we headed? How will students be *hooked*? What opportunties will there be to be *equipped*, and to *explore* and *experience* key ideas? What opportunities will there be to *rethink*, rehearse, refine and revise? How will students *evaluate* their work? How will the work be *tailored* to individual needs, interests and style? How will work be *organized* to optimize effectiveness and engagement? If you'd like more information there is an "Understanding by Design Exchange" website that could make a good complement to the EFF site: http://www.ubdexchange.org/default.html I've summarized points above from Powerpoint presentations available for download from this site, FYI. Just a thought and a hopefully helpful resource. In Peace, K. lisa mullins wrote: > I spent the week-end reviewing all the materials presented to us at > the EFF institute. I found some answers to the problems I am having > with planning for my lessons using EFF. I found in the article about > the assessment instrutments that I may be going from end to beginning > instead of beginning to end.. (I don't have the materials with me, so > I forget the title) I realize after reading this article that the big > mistake I am making is to plan the activity then try to link the > assessment to it. I should be planning the assessment then linking > the activity to it. Is this correct? I also understand better the > process of the assessment and the use of the assessment. I read the > Scenarios of State X. I see now that the assessment is a process that > has several components. For example, I need to have 3 different types > of assessement in mind for my activities. Then, someone else delivers > an assessment never before seen by myself or the students. These 4 > assessments are combined to determine if the student can move on the > preformance continuum. Is this correct? If so I am on a role, if not > then I need advise or at least clarification. Lisa Mullins Hawkins > County, Tennessee > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:14:45 EST