Unlock with PatreonThe Problem with CI
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
A Triangle
Share:
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn
Ben Slavic
Get The Latest Updates
Subscribe to Our Mailing List
No spam, notifications only about new products, updates.
Related Posts
CI and the Research (cont.)
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
Research Question
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
We Have the Research
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
5 thoughts on “A Triangle”
This was on jeopardy last night.
It was this graphic that started it all for me and the few educators that get it. It was from a landmark article by Lorin Anderson who in other research realized and brought to the mainstream students’ greatest achievement: creating. Not evaluating or judging or cutting others down, creating is superior.
The article uses less evolved language to describe instruction (activities and materials) and doesn’t mention authentic assessment but it’s heart is very child-focused. Here’s an except on equity:
Anderson, LW. 2002. “Curricular alignment: A re-examination”. Theory into Practice. Vol 41, number 4. Pp 255–260.
Providing or denying opportunities to learn results in a very different education for different students. In summarizing the results of their research in New Zealand, Adrienne Alton-Lee and Graham Nuthall stated: “Our exploratory studies revealed that the curriculum excluded or marginalized people by race and gender . . . and that these processes led to different experiences for different . . . students” (p. 6). Or, in the words of Linda Winfield, opportunity to learn “emphasizes the importance of instruction and school factors in student achievement, and it avoids the ‘blame the victim’ mentality which focuses solely on students” (p. 307). In this regard, there is increasing evidence that the impact of opportunity to learn on student achievement is considerably greater for minority students than for their “advantaged” counterparts (Elia, 1994
PS: At your data meetings, you get bonus points for describing how this form of curricular alignment “closes gaps” (closing gaps is NCLB/ESSA speak for not firing administrators).
And it’s so simple…instruction and assessment as the base linked together with measures of objectives (performance indicators like those in the S&S) at the top.
This is constructive alignment and the reason why our methods need assessment and curriculum to prop them up and support them with admin.
Guys, this Anderson pyramid is huge. It’s theory that supports what we know is true: curriculum should align where we assess kids are at, and then we should use that to design comprehensible input to meet them where they are. It defies the idea that curriculum should just push kids through lists of themes or units or things to know in a rigid map.
John Biggs spelled it out and related it to performance assessments and even created a curricular model (the SOLO model). But so do others in not so many words beginning with Lorin Anderson in 2002 (that’s a big name!). One can see a progression towards this idea from major players like Robert Marzano (the only other Robert in my life who matters) and John Kendall. It’s bigger than just Krashen. We have powerful academics on our side and we need to be in the forum preparing notes to take in to our data meetings because it’s big guys!
It just hasn’t gone mainstream because ZERO teachers understand the word “curriculum” and only a handful understand “assessment.”. But that changes now.
Emphasis on “opportunity to learn”