Unit Three - Lesson and Unit Planning

I was particularly intrigued by the Teaching for Understanding framework.  As I had mentioned in a previous post, the district where I teach is currently using the ideas of the Schlechty center to direct us on how to design curriculum.  While I agree with the overall concept, that lessons/units that you plan should be designed with the student in mind and therefore have their engagement at equal priority with content, I have major issues with the framework that Schlechty presents on how to achieve that goal.  I think cumbersome details are brought to the forefront and become many tedious tasks that end up detracting from the overall concept.  

I was very interested as I read the basic ideas of TfU and the more I looked at the Harvard-designed templates online, along with several further writings and articles by Wiske and others.  The overall concept was the same as Schlechty - design work backwards - well at least backwards from what we are used to.  Think first of your kids and the major things you want them to learn, then design you work to get them to that point; to help themselves get to those learning objectives.  But TfU is better; for several reasons.

a) It incorporates technology.  It doesn't merely suggest that more use of technology in the classroom would be a good thing, but makes it an integral part of the curriculum planning process.  If we are going to engage the kids and get them more in the driver's seat of their own education,  educational technology, the ever changing entity that that is, must be used - its the most efficient and beneficial tool to achieve those two goals.

b) Its realistic.  Obviously, every couple years, a new educational trend hits the scene, and takes districts by storm.  Usually, its the same thing, just packaged and worded differently, and after a few years gets old and educators move on to the next shiny new trend.  Usually, these concepts get old because they are things that sound great on paper or an animated power point presentation, but are barely applicable to the real lives of teachers, students, and their classrooms.  Different design methods, curriculum planning ideas, etc usually fall far short in plugging in to the real world aspect of elementary and secondary education - I think especially secondary education.  It seems that few of these program designers have ever taught in a high school and know the reality of working in content based teams, with crazy schedules of coaching, multiple preps, etc and students who have similar, if not more hectic and different lives.  

Especially with the use of the Harvard School of Ed. CCDT design tool, TfU is usable.  Teachers can easily work collaboratively together and make the learning objectives the forefront of the planning, therefore making it easier to design engaging work for the students to achieve those learning goals.  Many teachers are adverse to change it seems (odd to me that someone that is supposed to be teaching learners should intrinsically be a life long learner and adapter themselves, doesn't like change, but whatever; its way too common) and don't want to take on a new curriculum planning method if it means a big overhaul of their teacher routine.  This doesn't.  You can easily work with your team members and organize things simply to effectivity analyze whether or not its something that fits those TfU, student led, PBL, etc objectives that our lessons/units should.