More on Aims
Posted: September 1st, 2010 | Author: Michael Goldstein | | 4 Comments »
In June, we proposed a brand new, very small Graduate School of Education to the MA Board of Higher Education. It’s a 500 page proposal that lays out all sorts of details.
There are 4 steps to the process.
a. Initial review by Higher Ed Staff
b. Review by a committee of others in that field, who then make a recommendation to the Commissioner
c. Commissioner review
d. Board votes up or down
This takes several months.
So what are some of the courses we’d offer? Ed Schools typically require future teachers to take 1 or 2 courses called “Methods.”
Our approach is a highly specialized Methods course. It’s tailored to the schools where our graduates will teach: “No Excuses” style charter and turnaround schools.
Perhaps our methods would work well in most schools (I think so). Perhaps not. But since we’re a boutique operation, we can pose a narrower question. What is expected of teachers in urban charter and turnaround schools?
One example: Writing a clear Aim on the board is a teacher move expected in 100% of No Excuses charter schools.
It sounds easy. But it’s not.
A MATCH teacher-turned-dean named Chris Dupuis wrote an email to teachers explained the concept in an email this morning.
Let’s say you are studying atoms in a science classroom:
POSSIBLE AIM: Atoms
Do you think that’s a good Aim? Chris doesn’t.
This is more an agenda item than it is an AIM. It doesn’t show depth or rigor.
POSSIBLE AIM: Understand atoms and what makes them up.
What do you think? Poor, says Chris.
Better but still too vague. Do they need to know subatomic particles, quarks, forces, etc?
GOOD AIMS FOR THIS LESSON:
1. Identify the 3 particles that make up an atom.
2. Know the charges, masses, and locations of the 3 subatomic particles.
3. Explain how Electromagnetic and Strong Forces hold the atom together.
These last three tell students exactly what they should be able TO DO by the end of class. As a teacher/tutor, I can take these AIMS and paste them into a quiz for the next morning to see if students can still do these.
Furthermore, it tells me and the students what they DON’T HAVE TO DO. If we’re not going to go as deep as quarks making up protons, it won’t show up in my AIMS. Students will then trust your AIMS as their roadmap to success, recognizing rigor and depth through how you articulate them.
Traditional Ed Schools prepare teachers for many different environments. The good part is teachers could acquire general ideas about teaching which may be universal. However, it is difficult to choose specific teaching methods and then invest lots of time practicing those methods. Our approach lets us go deeper by specializing.
I think that asking a question is a much better way to address the concept of an AIM. For example, “What is the structure of an atom and how is it all held together?” Or, to be more specific: “What are the three particles of an atom? What the charges on those particles? What forces hold those particles together, and how do they do it?” Then, students can see if they can answer the question as they are going through class or at the end.
I wonder about the aims of the proposed lesson, though. The first two are straight facts and the third, at the high school level, is
Sorry…accidental return. What I was trying to get at was this…I think if the AIM of an entire class is as straight-forward as the ones that are listed, are students being asked to do any real “conceptual thinking?” Or are they being presented with 6 facts (proton, +, neutron, N, electron, -) and two processes that they will probably not understand (since I barely do) but need to memorize. If the AIM = what they need to remember (facts), then I wonder if the content is really that rigorous and that thought provoking.
(Obviously, this was a random example for an imaginary class, and the 3rd example is way better than the first 2, but I think it can be pushed farther.) The AIM is a tool to conveying the point of the lesson, but I feel that the AIM can only be excellent if the lesson behind is also excellent.
I guess I worry that sometimes we, at No Excuses charter schools, fall so in love with breaking learning into easily digestible bits, that we take real thinking (and therefore learning) away from the kids. I know I was guilty of it before, but now that I am getting away from it I am becoming a better teacher and my kids are more engaged and are performing better.
Hi, Mike– I continue to enjoy reading your blog. Today’s made me wonder, What EXACTLY are your criteria for effective aims/objectives? Lemov, as I’m sure you’re aware, recommends the 4M’s (Manageable, Measurable, Made First, Most Important). I prefer a term I coined, “RPM Objectives” (which accelerate student learning :>): Rigorous, Purposeful, Measurable. Here is a link where I explain these further: http://www.literacycookbook.com/page.php?id=43
Would love to hear what you think. SarahT.
Paul, I agree. Dan Willingham tackles this in his wonderful book. Not Aims per se. But the need for both shallow knowledge (easily digestible bits) and deep knowledge.
Sarah, on every issue pertaining to teachers, I think there’s a novice level (where we operate in our program – training rookies) and a more sophisticated level (Paul, above, has been teaching for many years).
I think the #1 failing with rookies is listing a topic instead of a measurable aim (like Chris suggests in my post above). The #2 failing is simply that they overreach, and describe an aim they can’t achieve in the 56-minute period.
The interesting nuanced stuff – Chris’s notion versus Paul’s versus Doug’s versus yours – I wish there were a more of an “Advanced Teacher Taxonomy” to serve you all, and explore the tradeoffs.