What is the most critical element of a high quality lesson?

I realize that selecting the most critical element of a high quality lesson is akin to selected the most important food group (coffee). Each is critical - the lack of any single group leaves us unhealthy (cranky). But to this initial question there is a concrete answer.

Mike Schmoker, in his book Focus, has his answer. When outlining the essential food groups to a high quality lesson he identifies the following: “... a clear learning objective … teaching and modeling, guided practice, checks for understanding/formative assessment, and independent practice/ assessment.” A great list! Of these, however, he refers to “checks for understanding/ formative assessment” as “especially critical” and suggests that until this practice is common all other initiatives should be put on hold. Certainly his insistence on the importance of this step has merit; however, this is not the most critical step.

More important than checking for understanding is knowing what one is expected to understand. Determining “a clear learning objective,” a learning target, or daily learning outcome (whichever term you choose) is absolutely fundamental. The more explicit we are about what we want students to learn, the more likely they are to learn it.

Last week, while working with social studies teachers, I peered over one teacher’s lesson plan at his Daily Learning Target: Students will understand the causes of World War I. Historians have spent careers, and books have been written, on this topic alone. This teacher was expecting his students to grasp this by the end of a single lesson? Never mind that this target screams for a powerpoint and a lecture with the hope that students write down the teacher’s understanding of the causes of World War I, or perhaps, the textbook’s sanitized version of events

This teacher does not need to perform a check for understanding based on this Learning Target because I can already tell him that the more astute students will be able to regurgitate facts he provided them in the lesson or rely on prior knowledge. Most students, however, if asked to articulate their understanding would be at a loss. This target is broad enough to be broken down into several smaller learning targets - measurable chunks, especially when one considers the amount of background knowledge students need for this: Where are the Balkans? (Where is Europe?) What do the terms Nationalism or Imperialism mean? This is information I suspect many of these students do not have. Further, while Schmoker uses the term “check for understanding,” the term understand in a learning target is very difficult to measure.

Let’s consider what some alternative, focused learning targets might look like.  

• Students will explain one cause of World War I.
• Better yet: I can define Nationalism and explain how that was a factor in World War I.
• Or, I can locate the Balkan peninsula on a map and create a key that explains its involvement in the start of World War I.

Now consider the “checks for understanding” for these targets, and consider the literacy- based process in which students could engage to gain this information.

Unquestionably, “Checking for Understanding” should get its just desserts, but before one can even consider dessert, there is the setting of the table through a bite- sized, measurable learning target.

Vision Building through Conversation

Toward the end of Learning By Heart, Roland S. Barth describes the type of vision necessary for schools to flourish. It is a “vital, courageous, demanding, uplifting vision-where most educators and students are familiar with the vision, where day-to-day behavior is constantly scrutinized for evidence of congruity with that vision, and where the school is incrementally approaching that vision.”

Of course the steps toward developing that vision are arduous. First, one must decide who should help design the vision. Then that Blue Ribbon Committee of past, present, and future stakeholders must assemble over the course of several months to painstakingly and agonizingly mince and parse words until they have crafted something that sounds just right. Then, of course, they must present that vision before a district committee who will compare it to the district vision to make sure everything is in accordance. Once the re-visions are made, then it can be presented to the school and voila!

There are protocols and processes that must be followed, because how else could you do it? At least that is how most visions have been erected.

However, even if that process does manage to muster some vitality and courage, how many visions actually manage to remain at the forefront of those working toward it, “... where day-to-day behavior is constantly scrutinized for evidence of congruity with that vision.” Can you name your organization’s vision?

Barth’s vision for vision development is refreshing. The essential piece to his process is in one word: Conversation: “... conversation about practice, reflection and writing about practice, telling stories, sharing craft knowledge, and maximizing differences in order to maximize learning” constitute the most important steps in the process, according to Barth. How refreshing is that!

My teaching career blossomed through this same practice the day I began teaching at a North Carolina New Schools early college high school. I had experienced success prior to this and had generally enjoyed my work. However, teachers in the New Schools model were no longer focused entirely on their class practices and their students  - we were a part of something bigger. We were being charged with the task of redesigning what high school looked like.

Of course, there are plenty of defenders of the current comprehensive high school model, and many students succeed in such a learning environment. Does every child thrive, though? And for those that do fine, is doing fine good enough?

For me, the answer was and still is no. And when I was asked to join the conversation about what could make school better, I changed as an educator. I was more willing to take risks because I knew that might provide new insights. I read and argued with theory and discussed teaching and learning daily with colleagues and with students.

We all took our job seriously, We were being asked to create a vision - what should school look like?

As I work throughout my county as an ELA and social studies curriculum specialist, one of my main goals has been to draw as many voices into a similar conversation. What is our vision of a redesigned instructional model that develops skilled readers, writers and thinkers?

We are developing that vision, we will then check ourselves against it (and check it against ourselves) and work each day to achieve it. And since it will come from the collective conversations of those that carry it out each day, it will naturally be vital and uplifting.