Designing Curriculum and and Instruction 1 Task 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

Task 1 for Designing Curriculum and Instruction 1...

Description

1

Applying Theories, Design Principles, and Evaluation Models

Hannah Schwartz College of Teacher Professions, Western Governors University Michelle McCain May 16, 2021

2 Applying Theories, Design Principles, and Evaluation Models Introduction I teach third grade at a Title 1 school that serves preschool through sixth grade. Our school is a walking school in the suburbs. I have 19 students, 11 boys and 8 girls. I am teaching virtually over Microsoft Teams for the whole year. A1. Curriculum The Curriculum I chose is iReady Classroom Mathematics. This program is created by Curriculum Associates. The content area is math and the grade level I will be focusing on is third grade. Curriculum Associates states that their goals and objectives with their iReady Classroom Mathematics curriculum is to teach students to have “ownership in learning”(Curriculum Associates, n.d.). They also have the goal of making math accessible and equitable for all students (Curriculum Associates, n.d.). Their final objective is to “address unfinished learning”, meaning they want to fill in the gaps and have each child meet grade level goals(Curriculum Associates, n.d.). A2. Design Principles iReady Classroom Mathematics adheres to the design principles sequence and continuity. Curriculum Associates sequences this curriculum starting with review, then introducing more complex and new topics. The sequence of iReady Classroom Mathematics starts out with a review from second grade topics, which should last 21 days according to the pacing guide. Curriculum Associates considers the standards covered in Unit 1 to be additional standards. The second unit focuses on one of the major topics of third grade math, multiplication and division. Unit 2 should take 42 days according to the pacing guide. As you can see, this is double the time of Unit 1, showing there is more for students to learn and that it is new material which will take longer to learn. The third unit is another unit on multiplication, but this time to find areas, solve word problems, and use scaled graphs. Unit 3 should take 30 days. This unit does not cover as much as unit 2 because it is applying what students learned in unit 2 into different applications. The fourth unit is fractions, including comparing and finding equivalent fractions, measurement using fractions, and representing data with fractions. This unit covers 28 days. This is the first time students are taught fractions in this curriculum so it is a longer unit. Unit 5 covers Measurement, including time, liquid volume, and mass. This unit only covers 16 days. Unit 6 covers shapes, including attributes, categorizing shapes, finding the area and perimeter, and partitioning shapes. This unit should take 18 days. The last two units are shorter units. Unit 5 is all major standards, according to Curriculum Associates. Unit 6 has 3 major standards and 2 supporting standards. As you can see, the sequence starts out with review from the previous year before introducing new topics such as multiplication and division. Students should have a solid understanding of multiplication and division before starting unit 4, fractions. In third grade, Curriculum Associates starts the year off with place value, addition, and subtraction of three-digit numbers. Place value, addition, and subtraction are all main topics in

3 the second-grade scope. They are reviewed again in the fourth-grade scope at the beginning of the year. As you can see, Curriculum Associates uses continuity as they repeat content at different levels, increasing the difficulty each time. A3. Ideology The ideology that Curriculum Associates followed for iReady Classroom Mathematics is scholar academic. Scholar academic ideology focuses on children gaining knowledge in a subject. The scholar ideology is a lens that school “is to help children learn accumulated knowledge of our culture” (Introduction to the Curriculum Ideologies, page 4, n.d.). One example of iReady Classroom Mathematics having a scholar academic ideology is that their mathematics instruction puts a strong focus on the standards for students to meet every year. There is a high instructional time that focuses on the main units of study. Edreports states that “the numbers of lessons devoted to major work of the grade (including assessments and supporting work connected to major work) is 33 out of 39, which is approximately 85%” (iReady Classroom Mathematics, 2020. ) This earned iReady a 4/4 score for the instructional material to be focused on the standards that students should master every year. The focus is on the knowledge students are supposed to learn and show mastery of, which is at the center of scholar academic ideology. A second example of the scholar academic ideology that iReady Classroom Mathematics has is their lessons are split into 3 distinct parts. The first session is an “explore” lesson, the second lesson is a “develop” lesson, and the final lesson is the “refine” lesson (Ellis, M. et al. 2020). For example, the first session of lesson 20, Understand What a Fraction Is, is titled “What a Fraction Is” (Ellis, M. et al. 2020). This lesson on teaching students the basics of a fraction, the numerator, and the denominator, and what it means to represent a part of a whole. This shows the scholar academic ideology because it is presented in a way where teachers are giving the students new information. Teachers are acting as the person who is extending their knowledge to the students, which is the focus of the scholar academic ideology. A3a. Ideology that supports goal(s) and objective(s) Curriculum Associates states that their goals and objectives are for students to have “ownership in learning”, that math will be accessible and equitable for all students, as well as trying to “address unfinished learning” to fill any knowledge gaps (Curriculum Associates, n.d.). Their goals and objectives are supported by a scholar academic because there is a focus on helping students fill any gaps of knowledge and for students to meet grade level standards. They are not focused on individual interests, social change, or trying to meet the needs of society. A4. Learning Theory The learning theory that is most apparent in the design of iReady Classroom Mathematics curriculum is constructivism. As stated by Kelvin Seifert and Rosemary Sutton in Major Theories and Models of Learning, constructivism sees learning to be “how students actively create (or “construct”) knowledge out of experiences.

4 One example of the constructivism learning theory is that the first part of every lesson has three parts, explore, develop, refine, as discussed above. These three parts of a lesson fits into the idea that Bloom’s taxonomy describes. The idea is that there are different levels of understanding, starting at remembering and understanding something all the way to evaluating and creating. This idea of levels of knowledge are seen in the explore, develop, and refine stages of the Ready Classroom Math Curriculum. The explore part is focused on the remember and understand levels of the pyramid. In the development part of the lesson, students start to apply the knowledge learned the previous day. The refine sections of the lesson focus on applying and analyzing the instruction. Some may not all reach the top of the ladder, like creating something, but each lesson increases in complexity (Armstrong, P. 2010). Another example that a constructivism learning theory is apparent in this curriculum is the use of student talk as directed by the curriculum. Student-talk is one method for students to make meaning of what they are learning. Constructivism focuses on the idea that “knowledge is construction in action and must be constructed by individual knowers” (Akpan. J. P. 2016)). This is evidenced in student discourse as they discuss their findings, ideas, or confusions instead of being lectured to by a teacher. A4a. learning theory that supports goal(s) and objective(s The constructivism learning theory supports Curriculum Associates goal for iReady Classroom Mathematics. For example, the goal of students having “ownership in learning” fits into the constructivism’s idea that students learn best when they are actively participating in their learning. The second goal of Curriculum Associates is that the curriculum will be accessible and equitable to all students. This is support by constructivists theory that learning is built upon previous knowledge and that all students can build on top the knowledge they possess, even though it can differ from classmates. The third goal of the curriculum is the “address unfinished learning” and this is supported by the zone of proximal development (ZPD) that is a part of constructivism theory. The ZPD is when an expert, or a teacher in this case, supports the child (Seifert. K., Sutton. R. n.d.). In the development section, after students attempt the main problem, they are then taken step by step through the possible solutions and reasons behind each solution. This is taking kids through their ZPD with the curriculum acting as the expert and the teacher being the expert in the classroom. B. Evaluation I will be evaluating iReady Classroom Mathematics using the CIPP evaluation model. B1. Context-Need A need I wish to address by using this curriculum is to support students who are not at grade level. B2. Input-Addressing Need One component of the curriculum that addresses the need of students who are performing below grade level is the use of differentiation in each unit. Every lesson has options to support

5 students who are struggling with the concepts being taught. For example, page 460 has a section called “Hands-On Activity” with an additional activity to support students as they gain knowledge (Ellis, M. et al. 2020). The “Hands-On Activity” also has an option to challenge students who have a greater understanding. A second component of the curriculum that addresses the need of students who are performing below grade level is the use of 5 different levels of questioning. Page 462 lists three different sections with questions and ways to present the information (Ellis, M. et al. 2020). This allows students who are struggling more to comprehend the instruction and those who have a greater understanding being challenged. B3. Input-Resources The resources I would need to gather to evaluate the curriculum is a teacher math book, and access to the online section of iReady math. The math book has copies of the student’s pages, alongside the teacher notes. I would also need to collect the manipulatives needed for the curriculum and the “Hands-On Activity”(Ellis, M. et al. 2020). B4. Process-Implementing the Curriculum To implement this curriculum, I would start at analyzing the first unit. I would look at the standards and objectives, how they are assessing student’s knowledge. I would attend any professional development the district provides to increase my understanding of the curriculum and how to implement it in my classroom and for my students. B5. Process-Monitoring effectiveness I would monitor the effectiveness of this curriculum on how well the lessons meet the objective and standards that the curriculum states it will. I will use the assessments of student knowledge, both formative and summative, that the curriculum has in place. I will monitor the level of student success on the assessment, looking for growth, conceptual understanding, and procedural fluency. B6. Product- Determining Effectiveness I can determine the effectiveness of the curriculum if it supports my students who are below grade level. If I see growth in my students' knowledge, then I will be able to determine if the curriculum is effective. B7. Product-Decision If I observe using quantitative and qualitative data that students are showing appropriate growth of knowledge, then I will know that the curriculum is effective, and I can choose to continue to use it.

6 Resources Akpan, J. P., Beard, L. A. (2016). Using Constructivist Teaching Strategies to Enhance Academic Outcomes of Students with Special Needs. Universal Journal of Educational Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1089692.pdf Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teacher.

https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/.

Curriculum Associates. (n.d.). Best Math Curriculum: iReady Classroom Mathematics. Best Math Curriculum: Ready Classroom Mathematics | Curriculum Associates. https://www.curriculumassociates.com/products/i-ready-classroom-mathematics

Ellis, M., Kersaint, G., Kelemanik, G., & Lucenta, A. (2020). iReady Classroom Mathematics Teacher’s Guide. (Vol. # 2) Curriculum Associates. iReady Classroom Mathematics. (2020). https://www.edreports.org/reports/detail/readyclassroom-mathematics-2020-3#the-report Schiro, M. S. (2013). Curriculum Theory Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns. Sage Publications, Inc. https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/47669_ch_1.pdf

Seifert, K., & Sutton, R. (n.d). Major Theories and Models of Learning. Lumen Learning. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/educationalpsychology/chapter/major-theories-and-models-oflearning/...