Writing Again

Teaching with the Right Work

Today I was thinking about instruction while modifying my online graduate course in instructional design. I feel extra pressure teaching a course to other educators on instructional design because the implied perception is that if you’re going to teach design practices and design, your course should model a great design. Therefore I carefully craft my objectives and design rubrics to assess student work. I scale back content to only what is essential to read and Intersperse videos for acquiring knowledge.

All effective teachers constantly think about how to tweak their lessons to increase student engagement and achievement. As I was updating this online course, how could I make the course more engaging and relevant to the student’s needs?

I reflected on the Rigor /Relevance Framework from the International Center for Leadership in Education. I have experience with the R/R Framework since much of my early writing was explaining how to use the framework in planning instruction and assessment. The framework’s four quadrants of teaching and learning distinguish between high and low rigor and high and low relevance. I want to push my instruction to Quadrant D, High Rigor/High Relevance.

I also read today about some of the current work of a not-for-profit organization called the Right Question Institute. This organization and many outstanding teachers are constantly looking for ways to increase the rigor of their instruction by moving from being focused on the right answers where students recall answers to where teachers focus more on using the right questions, which will stimulate more critical student thought, inquiry, and reflection. Teachers need to focus on the right questions.

The Rigor/Relevance Framework introduces a second dimension of moving from the acquisition of knowledge to the application of knowledge. This is about moving from passive student work to engaging student projects. So the goal of good instruction is not only asking the “right questions,” it is about expecting the students to do the “right work.” Is that work relevant and leads to the learning objectives?

I recently changed my online course to add more authenticity to the work and avoid these educators from voicing the same question many students ask, “When will I ever use this?” The assignments in this online course are now identified as authentic projects. Students demonstrate learning through five projects, including developing a demonstration video, designing an instructional model, creating a schema as an instructional guide, and developing an online learning module for a selected audience. To be honest, there is one traditional paper to be written (it is still essential to request educators to continue elevating their writing skills).

As teachers work on reflecting on their instruction, just as I did in this course, there needs to be clear learning objectives (based on standards). Teachers must strive for high rigor and relevance by asking students the right questions and assigning the right work in authentic projects. This will go a long way toward moving education to greater relevancy and respect.

Puzzles Are Not Boring: Embrace the Challenge

Now that Northeast golf season is over, I spend my spare time assembling puzzles. My wife thinks puzzles are boring, but I enjoy the challenge of putting the pieces together correctly to form a beautiful picture. The challenge of finding the best way to approach possible assembly is very satisfying. The traditional process starts with the edges, assembling clearly defined images, and ultimately piecing together all backgrounds. There are other strategies as well that you figure out along the way to solve the difficult portions of the puzzle, sorting by shape and color shades. To me, it is certainly not boring – the challenge engages me. Some lessons can be learned from puzzle building that can be applied to Career and Technical (CTE) teachers and make instruction consistently engaging for students.

There are parallels between puzzle construction and teaching in general. Education can be described as putting the pieces of the puzzle together. For CTE instructors planning instruction is a puzzle with so many essential technical skills for students to learn and so little time. Students have different abilities and prior experience and need time to develop proficiency. The effort required to retain these technical tasks can seem boring to some, particularly when a student struggles or is even uninterested. Yet, applying skill and problem-solving imparts great satisfaction when completing that beautiful result.

My approach to puzzle construction is engaging, but a linear one could be very dull. A linear path tests one piece against every other 500 pieces, trying to find the correct fit by trial and error. Then testing the same 498 against the next piece and so on. All of this would work to complete the puzzle, but a linear approach would require over a half million tasks – indeed, a tedious task.

When teaching becomes linear, it becomes boring. Linear learning is defining each skill and practicing each at a time with the promise that you will use it later. In some ways, standards-based instruction in the Common Core curriculum encouraged this linear approach. However, even if there are many learning pieces, they do not need to be taught one at a time. CTE, while it has lists of complex skills and knowledge, students are not learning in a rigid linear fashion but focusing on a finished product in acquiring the skills and procedures to complete that product. Therefore, good CTE instruction must resist ever becoming a linear approach to learning even as we embrace more precise standards and required assessments.

Following are three strategies for engaging CTE instruction based on the puzzle metaphor.

Remind students of the finished product. One thing that makes CTE learning so engaging to students is that they have a clear vision of a finished product, such as a lovely, nutritious meal, a hairstyle, and a functional computer network. Puzzle building can become tedious without a vision of the finished product. Frequently examining that finished image helps to reinforce the patient work necessary to complete the puzzle. Likewise, in CTE, students must be continually reminded of the building they are constructing or the animation they are creating. Sometimes applying new skills to reach proficiency is tedious and frustrating, whether it is troubleshooting a computer network or welding a metal frame. Acquiring technical skills takes patience and practice, and “keeping an eye on the prize” helps to ensure perseverance and persistence toward proficiency.

Let students make choices in working toward the finished goal. There are many ways to construct a puzzle, and each person can develop their own strategy. There is still only one way the puzzle pieces fit, But there can be flexibility in how those pieces are constructed. If there was only one way to build a puzzle, such as sequentially trying every piece against one specific piece until the right one is found, it would be a boring routine. In CTE, there is usually a single solution to a finished product, but giving students options along the way to put steps and procedures can make the learning task more engaging and exciting.

Encourage patience with frequent compliments focusing on the positive. For example, building a puzzle with a partner creates opportunities to compliment one another when finding a problematic piece or finishing a portion of an object. These compliments reinforce one another and strengthen the resolve to complete the puzzle. In CTE instruction, the teacher is the constant coach to provide frequent compliments focusing on improvement that can inspire students to develop proficiency in their skills.

Keep this analogy of puzzle building as you continue to assemble your puzzle of engaging each student in high quarry CTE.

Tarnishing the “Gold Standard”

The New York State Board of Regents is engaged in discussion and feedback on high school graduation requirements. This effort started three years ago but was delayed due to the pandemic. One of the more controversial issues is what to do about the “Regents Exams.”

The new single set of tests would be different, but the question for staff was what to name the new tests. The decision was not to create a new name for the new tests but to continue to call them Regents exams because the term Regents Exam has automatic respect. I recall someone mentioning that it was the “Gold Standard” of assessments. During that discussion, I questioned requiring every student to pass the test to get a diploma. Instead, I suggested requiring the tests and closely examining schools that gave diplomas to many students with low scores. The group quickly overruled my opinion.

The new exams were different while still having the same Regents name. Since it was universally required and tied to earning a diploma, it demanded pedagogical, legal, psychometrically, and political changes. The tests changed from fixed scoring, where 100 meant 100% of answers were correct, to scale scoring, meaning your performance met a standard considering question difficulty. Further confusing this change is that the scale score was based on a 100-point scale rather than a 4-point scale typically used in scaled achievement tests. Over time there were debates over cut scores. Should it be the same for students with disabilities? Is there a different level for excellence or college readiness? Cut scores have been a moving target over the last few years.

Some vocal critics claim these exams, of which students must pass five separate exams to earn a diploma, are artificial, outdated, and arbitrary hurdles that prevent students from earning a diploma. Many educators admit the exams have become amplified in importance, demanding too much attention by “teaching to the test” and evaluating teacher and principal effectiveness on pass rates. Those on the side of retaining the exams insist there must be standard measures of learning outcomes to hold the school accountable.

A portion of my education career was spending two decades working in the New York State Education Department. I left the department in 2000 so I can claim no credit or receive any blame for policies enacted in the last 20 years. However, I was involved in the staff discussions in the mid 90’s when the policy of exams and graduation requirements were changed. At that time New York had two sets of high school exams. One was the optional Regents exams in various subjects which had a century-old history of being rigorous measures of students learning. The other set of tests were newer and were considered lower level assessments. The Board of Regents changed the exam policy and felt that this two-tier system perpetuated inequity in schools, often along racial and economic lines.

I spent two decades working in the New York State Education Department as a portion of my education career. I left the department in 2000, so I can claim no credit or receive any blame for policies enacted in the last 20 years. However, in the mid-’90s, I was involved in staff discussions of exams, graduation policies, and requirements. At that time, New York had two sets of high school exams. One was the optional Regents exams in various subjects, which had a century-old history of rigorous measures of student learning. The other set of tests was newer and was considered lower-level assessments. The Board of Regents changed the exam policy and felt that this two-tier system perpetuated inequity in schools, often along racial and economic lines.

Well, the new exams, while still the same Regents name were different. Since it was universally required and tied to earning a diploma it demanded changes pedagogically, legally, psychometrically and politically. The tests changed from fixed scoring where 100 meant 100% of answers correct to scale scoring meaning your performance met a standard considering question difficulty. Further confusing this change is that the scale score was based on a 100 point scale rather than a 4 point scale typically used in scaled achievement tests. Over time there were debates over cut scores. Should it be the same for students with disabilities? Is there a different level for excellence or college readiness. Cut scores have been a moving target over the last few year.

As a result of these changes, which seemed like logical decisions at the time, we find that the Regents Exams are no longer the Gold Standard. But they have evolved into a complex mishmash of education jargon and demand inflated importance in high school learning. As a result, local decision-making and the body of work that students undertake in high school are ignored. Instead, it is all about the tests.

I doubt the Regents Exams will survive in this discussion. I proudly recall studying for, taking, and passing high school Regents exams when I was in high school 60 years ago. But, unfortunately, the current version does not generate public confidence or good educational purpose.

I am a supporter of tests; research has shown that well-designed assessments contribute to high levels of student achievement. However, tying the Regents exams as a graduation requirement has led to too many unintended negative consequences. The high school diploma should be based on the larger body of student work. Not all of that work is the same for each student. Some exams should be part of that body of work regardless of name. Finally, the state should refrain from punishing students by denying diplomas to students who fail to meet standards on state tests. Instead, the state’s role should be to hold accountable schools that award diplomas to students with low achievement rates.