EDU 6526: Instructional Frameworks

 

In my school district, the Marzano Instructional Framework is used in alignment with the new Washington Teacher Evaluation. Our district is studying Marzano’s Art and Science of Teaching to develop an understanding of each criterion. Marzano (2011) uses questions to organize instructional elements: “What will I do to help students effectively interact with new knowledge? What will I do to help students practice and deepen their understanding of new knowledge? What will I do to help students generate and test hypothesis around new knowledge?” These questions organize elements of effective instruction, which include opportunities for students to engage in complex tasks, generate hypothesis, and reflect on learning.  Students should practice multiple strategies and skills, identify similarities and differences, examine reasoning and revise their knowledge. These elements include learning strategies present in both Inductive and Inquiry-Based Model. However, direct instruction is the main framework use within our schools to develop student understanding of content. Evaluators are looking for specific elements of direction instruction which include: Clear Objectives, Anticipatory Set, Modeling, Check for Understanding, Guided Practice, Closure, and Independent Practice. I value and consider these elements as effective instruction and use direct instruction daily in my classroom. Elements of inductive and inquiry-based learning are used when assessing background knowledge, asking high-level questions, and when using the scientific method.

In addition to direct instruction, I also think inductive strategies are necessary in helping kids extend their knowledge beyond the context of the classroom. Dell’Olio and Donk states, “The inductive model provides students with opportunities to generate their own information, organize the information, make sense of what they have collected, and communicate their understanding to others” (p.146). This links to the research-based strategy, “Setting Objectives and providing feedback,” in Classroom Instruction that Works (2012).” Students are personalizing their own objectives, which can increase their motivation for learning. Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, & Stone (2012) states, “Students feel a greater sense of control over what they learn when they can identify how the learning is relevant to them” (p.9). I think students also benefit from the Inductive Model because students are engaged and participating in the learning. Dell’Olio and Donk state, “The inductive model provides students with opportunities to develop concepts, to increase their depth of understanding of those concepts, and begin building bigger ideas as they see relationships among concepts” (p.154). Students are developing their critical thinking skills through questioning and will more likely be able to apply the learning to contexts outside of the classroom.

I think my greatest struggle with the Inductive Model is the time it requires. With the demands of standardized tests and multitude of state standards, it often feels like teaching is a race against time. How am I going to fit all of these learning objectives in before the MSP? What if my students need multiple days to learn the objective? When do I make the decision to move on to the next lesson? When is it okay to get behind on the curriculum map in order to spend more time on developing understanding that will help students long term? Dell’Ollio and Donk (2007) state. “Time is always a resource in the classroom. You may find that completing all stages of this model during one class session is not possible of necessary, given your objective” (p.155). As I move forward I will have to consider the content area and objective when making decisions about implementing inductive strategies so students have opportunities to develop high level thinking skills

Ceri B., D., Hubbell, E.R., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. (2012). Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement (2nd ed.). Denver: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Jeanine M., D., & Donk, T. (2007). Models of Teaching: Connection Student Learning With Standards. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Standard 01. Instructional Planning, Standard 03. Curriculum, Standard 05. Assessment, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to EDU 6526: Instructional Frameworks

  1. Courtney,
    I enjoyed reading this post, and as I’m sure all educators can relate to your comment, about it feeling like a race against time. It’s unfortunate that the pressure of testing and meeting all the standards has made time also an added pressure, but I can’t help but remember that teachers should first and foremost be considered about teaching well and effectively, than covering vast amounts of content, that fail to target that higher order thinking skills that our students so need to develop. I agree that inductive strategy can be more time consuming but I think it is worth it in the end. Great post!
    Beth

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s