We have all said it and we have all heard it: there’s just no time to slow down and [fill in the blank], I have so much to cover…
This, despite the fact that we all know, at some level, that it is not the ‘teaching’ that causes learning but the attempts by the learner to learn that causes learning; and that the 1st attempt may not be successful. The importance of feedback and its use, the idea that a key concept or skill is rarely learned at the first go, the need to ferret out and address misconceptions – all of what we know about optimal learning is far too easily trumped by a syllabus, course framework, or unit plan that says: we have to move on to the next topic!
So, here’s a simple move in four parts that we have used in building units and courses for clients that ‘tricks’ you psychologically into giving students more needed opportunities to learn important things – without feeling stressed about it:
- Part 1: Build in and identify in your map/syllabus/unit/lesson plan what we call white space. White space is a placeholder for any results that are likely to occur that require slowing down or re-teaching or re-practicing. Practically speaking, each week has a half-period or a whole-period built into the week’s plan for such adjustment.
- Part 2 is to devise 1-2 quick exit slips or informal formative assessments related to unit goals, and use those results to inform use of white space.
- Part 3 is to identify the parts of the unit that can be skipped or shortened, if need be, to ensure that unit goals are fully addressed. Putting an asterisk by those activities alerts you to the possibility. (It also has the virtue of helping you identify relative priorities in a unit: not everything is equally important in a lesson plan).
- Part 4 is to use the decisions about priorities from Steps 2 and 3, as needed, to accomplish unit goals.
While there isn’t much to this move, it has a surprisingly liberating power, as we have witnessed. Suddenly, teachers feel freed up from an unthinking march, regardless of degree of student achievement. The inevitable student need for feedback and opportunity to fully use it is ‘built in’ to the curriculum in a way that reduces the guilt of ‘slowing down or ‘falling behind’. Because with needed white space built in, you are not ‘behind’.
Some of you work in places that have absurd pacing guides that may prevent this move. I have written in past years here about the harm and thoughtlessness of such pacing guides that focus on inputs rather than outputs, and you may wish to review here what I said then in support of this move.
15 Responses
I’m eager to see the responses to this article. My response? I think it’s naïve and a bit condescending. Really? Plan for extra time? “white space”? And then skip “unnecessary” stuff? That’s the plan?
Here’s the plan we should have … Have overall concepts to be discussed that day on the syllabus along with due dates for projects, homework, essays, and test dates. Tests should be drawn up by the teacher to reflect what was covered during that time period in the class and at home. Teachers should have key concepts that need to be covered in a given year- without the specific forced items and time periods. The depth of this exploration will be decided by the students and is limitless. Lessons should build on one another so that students don’t have to stop working on one exciting lesson to move to another. Students dictate the pace and the lessons explored by their interest and motivation – urged on by the teacher who presents different ideas and ways of learning. Students who fall behind their peers and encouraged to continue with their peers- not pulled out for “remediation”. But, extra supports can be given in terms of how material is presented and in conjunction with their family.
I think we lose a lot when we develop a checklist for students to master- and then subject them to high stakes testing on that checklist of items- and we call that education. And then we have teachers overloaded with scope and sequence for these standards and we tell them “just make more space in your schedule for extra instruction and prioritize”. Yikes! But this seems to be what you are telling them. I think they realize this is what has to happen if the kids look at them with blank faces on something they’ll be tested on. The system of high stakes is the problem. And we can’t solve it with this type of “advice”.
Bravo! This is the aspect of true teaching that must be protected. A lesson plan is simply a guideline. As Grant has suggested, the lesson plan is flexible. In whatever jargon this flexibility may be described or labeled, its presence is inherent and required in any successful lesson plan. I especially enjoy this reference: “The depth of this exploration will be decided by the students and is limitless.” Apparently the Common Core advocates fully embrace a learning process that allows a greater depth of experience. Teachers are told that the new approach is not a “a mile long and an inch deep”, not just a veneer touching but not delving to limitless depths. It is the additional burden now imposed by the egregious evaluation systems that spoils the potential for full implementation of a Common Core approach to learning. With the limited class time and number of school days, and tests that occur before instruction can be completed, the inevitable response is: “there’s just no time to slow down and [fill in the blank].”
You’re off-base: already 20 tweets thanking me for the tip, and you miss the point of the tip: people don’t plan to adjust in their original plan which is why it is neither naive nor condescending.
I find it that way. But maybe people really do need to know to create white space. ?? Really? I just do not see it. And I don’t see this as working in anyway towards a solution to the true ed problems. But, that’s just me apparently. It’s still my opinion though. No disrespect intended though. Sorry if you took it that way.
No disrespect assumed! But I think you under-estimate the psychology of coverage – it’s a truly bad habit that induces people – especially in textbook-framed courses – to rush without building in time for in-depth work. True in private schools and colleges, as well. In fact, in all my years I can’t think of any more solid foundational principle about the underlying need for reform: most teachers, especially in upper grades, ‘cover’ content and provide too few opportunities to either go into depth or thoroughly address misconceptions and deficits. More to the point: they strongly feel that this is the case, supported by every curriculum being written as if every spare minute were spoken for. So, to build in no ‘content’ into a formal curriculum is a bigger deal than you might imagine. It’s unheard of in large districts and extremely rare everywhere. Hence, the positive comments. You and I might think the need and response is trivial; it isn’t. It addresses a big problem, whether we like it or not. (Hint: one of the positive commenters here is a nationally-known and highly respected math educator who worked on the common core standards.)
Thanks Grant- this is why I enjoy reading your blogs…. you’re a thoughtful individual. Ok, maybe I am naïve! It seems more obvious to me but ok. Clearly though, there is a perception that the schedule is not owned by the teacher. That’s a problem. And maybe just telling them- you do own a bit of your schedule- will help. But, well, really? Maybe we are in more trouble than I thought then.
Are you by chance a mom that home schools your children? Because what you say just cannot happen in a classroom. If we practiced that in public ed., we’d never get anything accomplished.
No, I’m not. I’m an educator. I have an M.Ed. This can absolutely work and is a wonderful way to teach. I know that there are powers that be that make it impossible to veer from the scope and sequence. I’m frightened by your use of the phrase “never get anything accomplished” though. I can understand hearing frustration and saying it just cannot be done, right now. However, this IS what education should be about. Look around. Motivation is a key ingredient missing for many students. We can’t “sing and dance” our way to motivation. There has to be “buy in”. You create that when you respect the student enough to have detailed syllabi, control given (in some significant part) to the student for their learning, and give the teacher control over what is tested. It’s ideal. But aren’t we trying to work towards that?
Amen. “Covering” topics in mathematics is a synonym for ” mile wide, inch deep” . Your idea for focusing plans on white space and feedback makes possible the cure for our national coverage disease. Implicit in this way of teaching is the priority of paying attention to student thinking in their work and discourse.
Sent from my iPhone
I teach AP European history, and it is easy to fall victim to “coverage” mentality–especially when you don’t have control over the final assessment. I’m going through my map and identifying “white space.” I plan to reread this post in January and again in March and April–just in case I am tempted to panic and start “covering.” Your strategy is much more useful than the AP European history teacher mantra–“Napoloen MUST be dead by Christmas!” Thanks for the post.
That’s a great line! I’ll send you an e-mail reminder each month 🙂
Tick, tick, tick……A lab that was designed to take two days extends into four. No problem, right? What about all of the other required topics that are awaiting, all required, each potentially inviting greater in depth discussion, but that high stakes test will be in March! Grant, it is this “push” that cripples and degrades the quality of learning event that the students deserve. The testing is imposed on a standardized schedule. An excellent teacher knows from experienced practice the approximate time required to complete a lab activity or investigation. Under a Modeling approach, a demonstrated a researched-based strategy, much more time is given to allow students to develop understanding and to delve into greater depths of ownership. How can this approach to excellent instruction be harnessed to a testing timeline? The depth of learning opportunity and the forced state-imposed testing schedule and evaluation pieces are simply incompatible.
Experienced educators often have an advantage when it comes to anticipating how much time to devote to different concepts, but experienced teachers also know that they don’t get the students they had last year. They get new students, who come with different skills and background knowledge. That is why it seems that the approach recommended in this blog post applies to veteran as well as new teachers. While experience is likely to decrease the number of times that we encounter “surprises” related to student understanding, I haven’t had a year when there haven’t been at least a few surprises. Whether it’s student skills or a hurricane, nothing goes exactly as planned. That’s when we do need to assess and decide how we are going to best use the time we have. I think the issue is not falling into the trap of reverting exclusively to a “transmission” model of teaching when we feel like we are strapped for time. The pressures on teachers, students, and yes, administrators are real. No, we don’t have control over the state, AP, or IB exam, but there are things over which we do have control.
Good example of a Teacher changing the emotional design of her classroom and school. http://www.upworthy.com/when-she-realized-her-students-were-suicidal-this-teacher-changed-her-curriculum-2?g=4&c=or1
In my previous life white space was the whole world, the norm. For 20 years I had only an exceptional due date. My mini lessons were so brief that they did not distract, and every thing was self paced. I focused on what really mattered, a consistent reading of the text coupled with citing from the text. Now, due to the lack of deep discussion about CCSS at the beginning, the posted “I Can,” the instructional rounds by admin, the desire for bits, the district pacing of standards, I create a big box of car parts but nothing you can drive. Again, when I mentioned to our superintendent that I had 12 to 15 hours of listening to the common core authors, and asked “who else has that many hours,” her response was, “who would want to?”