Curriculum Design Models Ensuring Curriculum Alignment

Goal-Based Design

Goal-based design sets clear and practical goals that expand the curriculum. Participants become change agents in the teaching learning process and incorporate new strategies into the classroom curriculum (Glatthorn et al., 2018). Some things to consider when utilizing a goal-based design are community involvement in planning and implementing an integrated curriculum, developing quality leadership, incorporating learning centers, use of technology, and planning and implementing phases for the inclusion of new instructional strategies with continual assessment and evaluation standards. Questions about the mission of the school, what students will be learning, and how technology strategies can be used to achieve curricular objectives should be considered. 

Design-Down, Deliver-Up Model

The Design-Down, Deliver-Up model includes two parts. The Design-Down part begins with the learner exit outcomes, program goals, program objectives, learner outcomes, and authentic tasks. Then the Deliver Up portion begins with the authentic tasks, learner outcomes, program outcomes, program goals, and learner exit outcomes. 

Utilizing Design Models for Curriculum Alignment

These philosophies resonate with curriculum alignment through creating a congruent pattern of unit and lesson design that ensures the written, taught, and tested curriculum is consistent. Using models of design like Goal-Based design and Design-Down, Deliver Up model ensure consistency with the written curriculum and the taught curriculum. The written curriculum represents a district-wide consensus about instructional objectives and their relative importance for the learners (Glatthorn et al., 2018). Glatthorn et al. (2018) explains that by using these models the curriculum reflects the input of experts, subject matter specialists, district administrators and supervisors, and classroom teachers. The curriculum designed represents an informed consensus and should be the determining element for what is taught day by day. 

Reflection on Curriculum Development

If I had complete control over curriculum development and am creating a yearly planning guide, it would be important to align assessments with learning objectives. The first thing would be to determine the learning objectives. Then you would need to evaluate the types of assessments that would be used. I would encourage project-based learning graded by rubrics, written responses, and some multiple-choice tests. Students would need to be assessed after each unit to check for understanding before moving on the next unit

When designing curriculum-based assessments it is important to align with existing courses and units. I would determine if assessments aligned with current state standards and determine the test scope and frequency. It is important to determine how many forms of each assessment are used, check the validity of assessment items, use pilot forms of tests, and use a system to provide quick retrieval of information required for analysis and understanding of assessment results (Glatthorn et al., 2018). 

 

Types of Assessments

Formative assessments are imperative in providing ongoing, developmentally appropriate assessments to monitor students’ progress and provide guidance in making instructional decisions. Formative assessments can look like classroom discussions, tickets-out-the-door, decisions made in a project, and asking students questions. These types of formative assessments are important for identifying existing misconceptions. Additionally, summative retakes are important for students to achieve mastery. Students should be able to retake summative assessments to ensure mastery.

Important Principles of Curriculum Design

When designing a curriculum, it is important to start with a big-picture map of major concepts to be taught and concepts and skills develop over time in relation to each other (Glatthorn et al., 2018). This is where a pacing calendar is important for determining the scope and sequence of important concepts and ensuring these concepts are taught. This provides a curriculum guide to ensure good instructional decisions are made. 

Determining the types of assessments are instrumental in creating a cohesive measurement of the standards being taught. This can begin with semester benchmarks and eventually grow to 9-week exams. I would prefer to use project-based learning in science, but typically administration likes to see quantifiable data. All assessments should be aligned with state standards and be given at the same frequency. The goals of the curriculum should be stated in a clear and concise manner with a progression of skills from simple to complex. There are many elements to effective curriculum design that focus on both the written and taught curriculum. The primary goal is to ensure everyone is working towards the same goals and the curriculum is aligned vertically and horizontally. 

Reference

Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., & Boschee, B. F. (2018). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation. SAGE publications.

Farrell's "Backwards Model" and Teacher Evaluations

What is Farrell’s Backward Planning Model?

Farrell’s “Backwards Model” focuses on the systemic pedagogical practices. The elements of Farrell’s lesson design are focused on text and student’s mastery of the material. 

Elements of Farrell’s backwards planning model include:

1) All learning beginning in the text

2) The teachers’ job is to engage the reader and activate prior knowledge

3) Multiple readings of academic text are routine

4) Independent mastery of text being essential to mastery

5) Writing records and creating thought through writing

6) Teachers frequently communicate their ideas through writing

7) Rhetoric is as important as concept (Glatthorn et al., 2018).

 

Using Farrell’s Backwards Planning Model in My Classroom

    I have not personally adopted Farrell’s backwards planning model because I plan lessons using the 5E model and the Understanding by Design model written by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe. The Understanding by Design Model shares some similarities to Farrell’s model in that the assessment is planned first. However, there are differences in focus of instruction and Understanding by Design provides more of a framework for planning curriculum. The reason I have adopted the BSCS 5E model and Understanding by Design for instruction is because they are more conducive to science learning. Farrell’s backwards planning model has many differences from the 5E learning model. For example, the first phase of the 5E learning cycle involves the engagement phases where student’s prior knowledge is assessed through short activities or discussions, whereas Farrell’s first element of lesson design involves student’s solely engaging in text. I prefer the 5E model because formative assessment and revision of prior concepts is continuously taken into account. I also do not agree with Farrell’s idea that all learning begins in text because one of the primary principles of the 5E model is that students learn while doing. Literacy is essential to learning, but it is not the only vehicle for understanding concepts. 

Does Farrell’s Lesson Design Align with Written and Taught Curriculum?

    The steps of Farrell’s lesson design align with the written curriculum but seems too rigid for taught curriculum and assessment. The main reason is that the check for understanding occur after the guided practice through student discourse, but discussions and formative assessments should occur in all elements of lesson design. Lesson design should afford more flexibility and this model would fit in well with a technological design focus. Implementing some principles from the naturalistic model is significant in designing student centered curriculum. 

Evaluating Classroom Culture and Teacher Effectiveness

    The indicators that matter the most to me are assessing prior knowledge, relating concepts to real-world experiences, student ownership over their own learning, and students solving problems using critical thinking skills. Ferrell’s backwards planning model misses some crucial factors in students’ taking ownership of their own learning through reading and re-reading the texts with teacher led discussion to assess prior knowledge. Furthermore, Glatthorn et al. (2018) states that discussions should be text based because displaying of text is more valuable than creating visual displays. Assessment should present a variety of methods to demonstrate learning.

    The way that I plan on evaluating teacher effectiveness and culture in the classroom is to conduct informal observations and gather data about research-based teaching strategies, grouping patterns, technology use, and levels of knowledge. Additionally, artifacts in the form of lesson plans and sample assessments will be collected to evaluate goals of learning and whether the data matches the walk-through observations. 

    During these walk-throughs I will also complete certain tasks including asking students about what they are doing and assessing whether grouping is being used intentionally. It will take time to gather enough data to develop a thorough evaluation of classroom culture and teacher effectiveness. It is important to vary focus in these observations and provided immediate feedback (Glatthorn et al., 2018). 

    Another method that will be used for evaluating teaching effectiveness will be Professional Learning Communities. According to Glatthorn et al. (2018) professional learning is effective if it is based on sound research, facilitates dialogue, and responds to district goals. Whenever you listen to teachers and align goals of curriculum together you can create an effective learning community. Glatthorn et al. (2018) explains that when professional learning is used effectively it is more likely the written, taught, tested, and learned curricula is more consistent. 

References:

Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., & Boschee, B. F. (2018). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation. SAGE publications.

Technological or Naturalistic: Which process should you be using to develop curriculum?

 In developing a course unit there are two processes that can be implemented: the technological process and naturalistic process.

What is the technological process?

The technological process is rational, systematic, and ends-oriented model of curriculum planning (Glatthorn et al., 2018). The curriculum model emphasizes defining learning objectives early in the process and then identifying the steps to accomplish those goals (Glatthorn et al., 2018). This is reminiscent of the backwards design model. Steps in the process include (1) determining goals and time schedules (2) assessing the needs of learners (3) identifying course objectives (4) determining sequencing (5) identifying learning activities that aim to meet the objectives (6) selecting materials (7) identifying methods for assessment (8) and then systemizing all of those decisions in to a curriculum guide (Glatthorn et al., 2018). The technological process is more rigid and structured. This process is beneficial to novice teachers who need additional support and for creating a cohesiveness amongst educators in a building. The technological approach can sometimes move away from the identification of need to the development of the course (Glatthorn et al., 2018). 

What is the naturalistic process?

The naturalistic process of curriculum planning involves being sensitive to the political aspects of curriculum design, emphasizes the quality of learning activities, reflects more accurately the way curricula has been developed, and considers how teachers plan for instruction  (Glatthorn et al., 2018). The naturalistic model gives more weight to objectives, activities, and materials, instead of focusing only on the objectives (Glatthorn et al., 2018). The advantage of this method is that it is more likely to be implemented because it addresses the political reality of schools and mirrors teacher's actual planning styles (Glatthorn et al., 2018). The disadvantage is it is not as structured and in the hands of a novice it can become a "random collection of entertaining activities" that appear unrelated to the course goals (Glatthorn et al., 2018, p. 231). 

Dual Process

Dual processes should be implemented in all grade levels. However, there should be more emphasis of one process over another in consideration of these grade levels. Elementary should emphasize a more naturalistic process with portions of the technological process involved. In secondary school, the technological process should be more focused with some components of the naturalistic process integrated. 

Implementing Dual Process in Elementary 

The naturalistic process is more applicable to elementary grade levels in developing a new course or unit. The inherent flexibility the naturalistic approach offers is more conducive to the differentiation of instruction. In elementary the teachers are more attuned to students needs because they are typically in a contained classroom with the same group of students for the year. Using a naturalistic approach affords the teachers the opportunity to develop intrinsic experiences for students that are challenging. Using a more naturalistic approach in elementary accounts for the diversity of learners found in early childhood. However, some aspects of technological processes planning should be incorporated including identifying goals and time schedules, assessing needs of learners, and identifying methods of assessments. Integrating parts of the technological process is imperative in ensuring cohesiveness between teachers and supporting teachers with varying levels of expertise. Using the naturalistic process with novice teachers is difficult and having the structure and accountability in a technological process ensures synchronicity. Using the technological model ensures all teachers are meeting the same goals, timetables, assessments, and completing the same activities. 

Implementing Dual Process in Secondary and Post-Secondary

In secondary school, dual process should be implemented but with an emphasis on technological processes over the naturalistic process. The reasoning behind this is in middle, high school, and post-secondary levels there is a significant division of content specific areas and having a more rigid structure is necessary when many teachers are working in distinct areas. By creating a system of synchrony using the technological process, students are receiving similar treatments in different classrooms and affords more consistency.  That is not to say some aspects of naturalistic processes should be included. For example, it is important to incorporate aspects of the naturalistic approach including an adherence to the political climate in the classroom because secondary and post-secondary students are typically more aware of what is going on outside of the classroom. Connecting real world experiences with the classroom experience is imperative to conceptual understanding. Additionally, the naturalistic method focuses more on objectives, activities, and materials. 

Using a dual approach provides more educational opportunities by ensuring coherence amongst teachers while providing flexibility to differentiate learning. Aspects of both processes should be incorporated into curriculum design in order to ensure collaboration amongst teachers and flexibility to meet the needs of students. 

References: 

Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., & Boschee, B. F. (2018). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation. SAGE publications.