There is a general misconception in education that suggests giving students more work means “harder” or “more rigorous” work. The two are not synonymous in the least. There is an astute difference between having students think critically about topics and strongly consider multiple solutions as opposed to having them perform the same functions longer on the same topic (E.g. worksheets, massive amounts of reading, etc). The conflict that I am describing is a serious issue in our schools and anyone who thinks it is not occurring is blind of the everyday functions.
The truth is that this type of misguided thinking that prevents students from developing strong critical thinking skills because they are more concerned with accomplishing every task as opposed to thinking deeply about individual tasks and solving problems. The only way to fix the issue is to begin revisiting curriculum guides and deciding what is important and what isn’t. Students need not be well-versed in every concept, vocabulary term, or idea if it will have no bearing on their ability to function once they leave the classroom. There is absolutely no sense in them reading twenty novels in a year or every page in a textbook if there is no deeper meaning drawn than that of surface details.
In reality, I believe that there are three key components to making an assignment rigorous: critical thinking, interdisciplinary analysis, and the use of transfer in completing the assignment. Together, they make up “The Big Three” and establish the basis for creating a truly rigorous assignment. Can all assignments be constructed this way? Absolutely not, and it is not feasible for them ever to be. It would be impossible for students to go an entire school year completing assignments that would touch on all three of these concepts at all times without leaving gaps in development; however, it is feasible that we can design all assignments to encompass at least one of them and generate two or three assignments over the course of the year that encompass all three.
This type of rigorous thought will only come with altering the structure to include more collaboration and realignment of priorities to ensure that adequate time is spent discussing “cross sections” of curriculum. Since time is a valuable priority, I would suggest a virtual set-up (via blogs or a Ning) that allows for ideas to flow freely. In addition, including some aspect of this in end-of-year summaries for teachers and administrators would stimulate more of a sense of urgency to deal with this problem. I contend that much of the reason these types of assignments do not exist is the product of a lack of time for teachers to develop strong collegial relationships with teachers that they normally do not come in contact with. The key is that we need to break the tradition of “closed door” classrooms and allow professionals from other departments, schools, and districts in to acquire a gauge on what students are studying in other subject areas.
In addition to being the foundation for challenging assignments they are also the basis for creating the most engaging assignments. I am certain that the ten-page paper that students write is challenging compared to the “Design Challenge” using MakerBot, right? Not even close. After watching the video, you try and convince me that those students are doing something easier than writing a paper on the process. If boredom were a sign of rigor then any assignment would be challenging.
I understand the importance of writing, knowing content and understanding the basics of disciplines, but for the life of me, I can’t understand why students cannot be given opportunities to put the pieces of the puzzle together. By working to create a culture and structure that cultivate deeper professional relationships between teachers of different backgrounds, the challenge of assignments can only improve. Developing assignments that focus on “The Big Three” promotes engagement, rigor, and replicates more of the skills that students will need as throughout their lives. As we embark on the second decade of the 21st century, we all need to expand our PLN and keep “The Big Three” in mind if we are truly committed to raising academic achievement and generating an environment that promotes the success of all students.
Aaron, well said. You identify essential skills we can’t let slip by the wayside in teaching and learning.
I would push us further to think about the difference betwee hard/rigorous work that is still closed-door, and authentic work, which finds an audience in the families, communities, and worlds that hold personal meaning for students. You can be interdisciplinary and transfer skills between assignments without ever leaving the classroom or the confines of a project that goes no further than the gradebook.
I love the idea of inviting in other education professionals into our classrooms, as well. Conversations amongst educators dedicated to improvement never fail to spark ideas that help students. However, again, I would push us to think about inviting professionals from other fields into our classrooms to guage our students’ work against the habits of mind they practice and the project-oriented tasks in which they engage.
Collaborations between our classrooms and communities will help us and our students gain practice with facing and solving the world’s messy, interdisciplinary problems. Such collaborations will help us learn with students and trasnfer what we learn back and forth between school and not-school, bridging the relevance gap and creating relationships between our students, their learning, and the future that they and their learning will serve.
January 13th, 2010 at 6:39 pmQuote
I agree, I think these are the skills ALL educators should be teaching. I believe that these are frequently ignored because the projects must be so complex and the assessment on our traditional grading scales are similarly problematic. I do my best to grade fairly but when we are talking about the level of subjectivity involved in assessing quality of critical thinking, etc, it becomes a bit of a sticky mess. Similarly at the high school level, I have found it nearly impossible (despite a strong desire) to connect to other teachers because not ALL of my students are in the same other classes. I think it’s good that students are able to pursue their interests and strengths in high school by choosing which science, math, and electives courses, but I cannot require students to do work connecting to science classes which some are not enrolled in.
I am hoping to find a place at a middle school level to experience a stronger interdisciplinary environment and if that happens, I will spend more time thinking of how high schools could find opportunities to implement this type of collaboration.
Regarding skills that transfer, I could not agree more. Since I teach English, I feel that *everything* they do in my class should benefit them elsewhere in their lives some how. If it doesn’t, I don’t do it. Of course, reading and writing effectively are pretty universally useful skills, so that helps.
Thanks for posting this. Well said!
January 14th, 2010 at 10:52 pmQuote
Candace,
Thanks for the thoughts. I have the same problem as you do with regards to “teaming” at the high school. Fortunately, my district is taking steps to solve the problem and create “teams” so that students have a common group of teachers to work with. Not only has it stimulated the academic environment, but the social environment has flourished as well. I do encourage you to experience the middle level collegiality. I was in a middle school for one year and found it to be a great set-up though the age was not to my liking.
Thanks again!
January 15th, 2010 at 8:16 amQuote
[...] how can we ensure that EVERY teacher thinks about meaningful learning? addthis_url = 'http%3A%2F%2Ftzstchr.edublogs.org%2F2010%2F01%2F18%2Frememberingreflecting%2F'; [...]
January 18th, 2010 at 11:07 amQuote
[...] how can we ensure that EVERY teacher thinks about meaningful learning? addthis_url = 'http%3A%2F%2Ftzstchr.edublogs.org%2F2010%2F01%2F18%2Fallowedtolearn%2F'; [...]
January 18th, 2010 at 11:10 amQuote
STAR Prep Academy middle and high school is now working on collaborative benchmarks that will incorporate at least 3 and in some cases 4 of the core content areas along with an artistic element. As a small school we have always used collaboration between teachers to help connect the curriculum, but this year we decided to take it a step further and formalize the process. As an example, the 6th grade will examine early river valley civilizations based on their history/culture; how earth science/geography played a role in their settlement; and use tools gained in English to research and write about these concepts. We also encourage outreach and as such, these students will be involved in a river restoration project in the Los Angeles Area. In the end, the students will create a visual representation and present the information to the school, thereby using all of the major concepts learned in 6th grade. In larger schools this is a challenging task as teachers do not share the same core group of students and are overwhelmed with the scheduling conflicts that make team planning virtually impossible. By scheduling shared planning time amongst its faculty, STAR Prep Academy has been able to avoid this issue. We have already seen increased interest amongst students and in past projects we have seen greater engagement and increased understanding of the material.
January 20th, 2010 at 4:32 pmQuote
[...] our students for real learning, and where REALLY are the opportunities for students to engage in critical thinking, interdisciplinary thought and transfer of knowledge? When do they engage and how can we leverage that for more sustainable learning? addthis_url = [...]
January 25th, 2010 at 3:35 pmQuote