[Simtrainer-l] Fwd: Unit Relationship Follow Up Comments

Tue Mar 19 07:23:55 CDT 2019

Passing on Keith Lenz's take on my question. 

Debby Mossburg

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:06 PM Debby Mossburg <debby.mossburg at verizon.net> wrote:

Thanks so much, Keith - as always you've been most helpful!

Debby MossburgEducational Consultant703-978-6901 (H)703-973-8080 (M)

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Lenz <bkeithlenz at gmail.com>
To: Sim Listserve <simtrainer-l at lists.ku.edu>; debby.mossburg <debby.mossburg at verizon.net>
Cc: Jean Schumaker <jschumak at ku.edu>
Sent: Thu, Mar 14, 2019 12:00 pm
Subject: Unit Relationship Follow Up Comments 

Hi. I can weigh in on how I think about unit relationships. There are a variety of models that I have come across besides Bloom’s taxonomy. Webb’s Depth of Knowledge work is another example that I have seen resonate with teachers and administrators (I have attached a pdf about Webb’s DOK work) . Also, the standards contain key words that signal the type of thinking that is desired as an outcome (e.g., analyze, identify, compare, contrast, argue, etc.) I have asked teachers to look for key words in standards that “signal“ the type of thinking that is required to meet the standards. However, many of the words that teachers identify as “signals”  require additional analysis to get to the type of thinking that is required. For example: 
* Discuss the process leading to territorial status (e.g., Northwest Ordinance, township, sections) * Explore the economic and social consequences of the Great Depression* Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources* Integrate visual information (e.g., in charts, graphs, photographs, videos, or maps) with other information in print and digital texts. * Write an opinionpiece that introduces the topic orthe name of the book, states an opinion,states reasons which are supported by facts and details,includes linking words, phrases, and clauses, and    has a concluding statement or section. 
For each of the above standards listed above, I would ask, “What type of thinking are you going to need to teach and facilitate in order for a student to become proficient. What type of thinking is required in order to be able to "discuss a process”? I would ask this of the key task words in each standard. The Lesson Organizer Guidebook and the Unit Organizer Guidebook lists example relationships. Using that framework, I would first ask if this task required descriptive thinking or sequential thinking or both. There are subcategories for both of these. 
In general, I have some  problems with the “signal” words that are often embedded in standards, because they can be misleading regarding the thinking that is required to get there. As a result, teachers don’t teach how to discuss or explore or cite, or integrate, or form an opinion, they often just proactive in having them do those tasks and ignore what type of thinking is required to see improvement in those practice attempts. (So, much for promoting higher-order thinking.) 
Bottom line, I want teachers to look at the unit or lesson map and their unit or lesson questions and tell me the kind of thinking that is required for the student to be able understand the maps and answer the questions. What they tell me comes from a variety of places. I like the Lesson Organizer graphic organizer these days, because if a teacher says that the type of thinking is causal reasoning (cause and effect), then I ask what type of learning strategy are you going to insert into the lesson to get them to be able to do that (e.g., self-questioning and paraphrasing). However, where they get the actual words for labeling the type of thinking that is required to understand the critical relationships is based on what they are already familiar with. I just want them to think more about those words and what they really mean. By the way, when a standard says analyze. I ask, “how do you think to analyze something?” Hopefully, I can lead them to self-questioning, paraphrasing, visualizing, so that I can get them to teach students the foundation for understanding relationships. 
I am not sure that I answer all of your questions, but this is where I start. I do see line labels as “signal’ words that guide the type of thinking about the types of relationships we want students to understand as we build and discuss our content maps. Keith 
From: Simtrainer-l <simtrainer-l-bounces at lists.ku.edu> on behalf of SIM Trainers <simtrainer-l at lists.ku.edu>
Reply-To: Debby Mossburg <debby.mossburg at verizon.net>
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 7:40 AM
To: SIM Trainers <simtrainer-l at lists.ku.edu>
Subject: [Simtrainer-l] Unit Relationships - Unit Organizer Routine

Hello all - I need some opinions. Over the past couple of years, working with teachers who'd received their PD in Unit Organizers from various sources, I'm seeing a consistent use of Bloom's taxonomy verbs - list, analyze, describe, evaluate, examine, apply, etc. - used as Unit Relationships and often repeated in questions and stem labels. Often the verbs match those in state standards and are used again in questions and stem labels, which makes it very convenient.
My understanding of Unit Relationships has been much different, for the most part nouns rather than verbs (with the exception of Compare/Contrast), words like hierarchy, cause & effect, classes, rank, timeline, and other words from the example relationships page in Appendix B in the guidebook. When teaching, I'll sometimes tell teachers to think of the type of graphic organizer they'd use to clarify the information they're teaching and use the name of those graphic organizers as their Unit Relationships.
However, the use of Bloom's verbs isn't just one or two teachers, it's the case in the majority of Unit Organizer devices that I'm seeing. I'm beginning to wonder if I've got it wrong.So my questions are:   
   - Is this something others are also seeing?
   - Has this become an accepted alternative way to look at Unit Relationships.
   - What about stem labels - these verbs fit if the focus is on what students will be doing with the information, but not if the focus is how the information in the bubbles relate apart from what students will need to be able to do.
I'd love to hear your thoughts - TIA --
Debby MossburgSIM CE PD703-978-6901 (H)703-973-8080 (M)_______________________________________________
Simtrainer-l mailing list
Simtrainer-l at lists.ku.edu
https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/simtrainer-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/simtrainer-l/attachments/20190319/f5ea7a9e/attachment-0001.html>