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.