Last year, Heather Hurst spent a year observing one of my 10th grade English classes as the field research for her PhD work at UPenn. Her focus was critical pedagogy in the classroom.

As a part of her research, she took complete transcripts of every class that she observed. She did me the very nice favor of sending these to me as soon as she wrote them up, which was an amazing (and sometimes mind-bending) view into my classroom and my practice.

This week, she sent me the draft of her dissertation. This gave me access to something new — the student interviews she had completed throughout the year. She asked a bunch of questions, conveniently listed at the end of her document. Here are a few that stood out to me:

• If first interview: What do you think your English teacher’s goals are for her classroom? Are those goals important to you?
• If second interview: In our last interview, you said you think Ms. [Pahomov]’s goals are ____________. Are there any that you would add or take away now?
• Did you ever feel that your English class was preparing you to change anything in your neighborhood/community/city/state/country/society?
• What could you use from English class to change the world you live in for the better?

You can probably imagine what I would hope their answers would resemble. That they would get some semblance of my emphasis on a mix of explicit skills and “big picture” ideas and theories that help them transform their reality. The 10th grade theme is “systems,” after all. Many of the units are designed to have students identify social systems around them and analyze how those systems influence the individual (often unfairly, often without them realizing it.)

On the whole, however, students saw the goals in my class as getting an A, learning how to write better, and generally not think about the “real world” outside the classroom. They did consider one of my big goals to be valuing different opinions and learning from each other — and they believed in that — but didn’t necessarily connect that to life beyond our class.

What a wake-up call. Today I am really thinking about what’s “clear” to me but opaque to students — and therefore only happening in my head.

Of course, sometimes students can’t speak on the things that are happening in their education — or choose not to.

Still, a change in approach is definitely in order. This is a piece of the curriculum that needs to be unhidden.

What needs to be “unhidden” in your classroom? Also, if you ever have the chance to have your classroom studied for a year, I highly recommend it!

On Wednesday, the first session of the Project Based Learning group that I’m hosting met in SLA’s Library.

Going into the session, people had already read a short intro essay about Understanding by Design. We started by introducing ourselves and describing our teaching environments. I’m thrilled to have people from all grade levels and disciplines, and even two people doing special instruction via a non-profit! A big goal of this ItAG is to help people create lessons that work in their environment, no matter what that is.

We then watched this short video, and then talking about whether the video confirmed or challenged our pre-conceived notions about PBL:

We then took a look at this short “cheat sheet” describing a few core pieces of PBL. I made a point of challenging the section labeled “21st Century Skills” (as if nobody ever reflected before the year 2000!)

Folks looked at the chart and read the accompanying descriptions for each skill, and had time to reflect on what they were already doing well in their classrooms, and what they were worried about.

Here are a few key questions that came out of that reflection, as shared with the whole group:

• How do you deal with group work? Some kids will refuse no matter what. How do you get them to see the value? Extra time will be devoted to this in a future session.
• Making it public is difficult. How do you do that?
• How do you get projects to be above being a poster?
• How do you get kids to take ownership? 
• Getting them to go out on a limb – what’s the right answer? how many points is this worth?
• How do you prevent them from shutting down? 

We then took a look at a Template PDF which introduced the basics of Understanding By Design lesson planning. I strongly recommend that you download the whole document, but here’s a snapshot of what we did.

The first step was looking at the template, where I told folks not to get overwhelmed by the number of boxes:

Next, we looked at a “before and after” series, first looking at the “original” plan and discussing what we thought the essential questions for this project could be, and how that might change the overall design of the unit.

Once we had teased that out, we looked at the “transformed” lesson.

The second example was for a high school geometry class — a valuable discussion because we hit our heads against the conflict of what makes math “interesting” — the math itself, or the social implications of it? Several of us were very interested in the connections that the unit was making to geography and packaging, but were reminded (by the math teachers in the room) that this is often a flaw in “selling” math to students — that everything BUT the actual math is presented as the cool stuff.

A few other key understandings that came out of our discussions:

• PBL is more about the “how” than the “what” — so the lesson plans should be focused on the process, not the final product.
• Therefore, PBL can (and should) teach explicit skills to students — how are they going to create that what?
• Explicit skill instruction is NOT forbidden, and often necessary in PBL. That can include looking at textbooks, or giving quizzes or tests. The point is that these activities are formative, not summative.

Lastly, the take-home task: pick a unit that you would like to make PBL — either one that you already teach, or a new one to design from scratch. If you’re feeling motivated, start to brainstorm what your essential questions would be!

If you are following along at home, please post your lesson plan in the comments, as well as any questions or thoughts you have.

Last week, I finally joined Donors Choose. My first project — books to be added to my classroom’s independent reading library — was funded in under 24 hours.

Needless to say, I was delighted. I’m thrilled that my students have more books to read.

But I’m also frustrated. I’ve still got a printer with no ink. We do have the money for paper. But we could use some new ink cartridges. Also, another Spanish teacher. And a Librarian.

Like I’ve said here before, teachers should not have to volley for resources that any school district would actually pay for if they had the money. And while individual donations do wonderful things for schools, sometimes the glorification of that charity shifts the focus away from the harsh inequities in school funding around our country.

While I write this, City Council is having a hearing on the proposed closing of 37 schools in Philadelphia. Members of PCAPS will be speaking, including Bartram High School Teacher Anissa Weinraub.

In her testimony, she will be making the specific recommendation that Philadelphia help raise funds for education by rethinking how it collects revenue from major city players, including “taxing major center city commercial real estate holders and corporations that don’t pay their fair share” and “by taxing the mega non-profits on their real estate holdings.”

Maybe you agree, maybe you don’t. But whatever you do, don’t lose sight of the big picture. Because one day I would like for Donors Choose to become obsolete.

Related Post: I can’t grant write my way out of systemic inequality

I’ve already written a fair amount on this blog about SLA’s bi-weekly 2Fer essays. In brief, students in the 11th grade write a short analytical paper on any topic they choose, (roughly) every two weeks.

To emphasize the portfolio-style nature of this assignment, multiple 2fers live on the same Google Doc. When they finish one assignment and reflect on it, those reminders are the first thing they see when it’s time to start a new one. Then, in the middle of the year, we ask them to write a “Self-Reflective 2Fer” turning those reflections into a comprehensive thesis.

The instructions:

Your task this week is to write a 2Fer analyzing… your own 2Fer writing! The goal is to figure out HOW you can improve your writing, so your thesis statement should analyze a weakness in your composition.

Consider zooming in on one or two of the following focus areas: Thesis/Focus, Content/Development, Organization, Style, and Conventions.

One more thing… for this paper, the first person is allowed! Just make sure you’re not writing a long story about what distracts you from getting your work done. I want analysis of actual writing, not excuses why the writing isn’t there. You can and should quote:

• — sections from your old 2Fers
• — edits from your peers
• — comments from Ms. Pahomov, both in your 2fers and at the end of each quarter
• — your own “student reflections” completed after each 2Fer
• — your edited papers that appear on the 2Fer Quarterly

Once students see that this is less work than a typical 2Fer, they relax. And then they get into it, looking at the four papers they have already written this year for patterns and trends. The goal is for them to really see how the five categories for feedback — thesis/focus, content/development, organization, style, and conventions — really connect. Here are a few choice quotes from this year so far:

“I like to take a clear stance on the topic I choose. A 2fer is supposed to do this, but I make it seem like it’s not even a topic that can be broken down into two parts. By this I mean, many of my 2fers are structured like, “The thing I support is so much better than this other thing.” Where by representing one side and one side only, I dominate one side of the topic and pound it into a bloody pulp.”

“When I get passionate about my papers, I look at it as a good thing, but it’s actually jumbling my papers up so that I list my opinions and it makes my paper biased.”

“The main problem with my writing is that I don’t know how to put the pretty bow on the top of it. And by that I mean, I don’t know how to write conclusions.”

A big advantage to doing this in the middle of the year is that their discoveries become their personal goals for the next semester — typed up in a big box at the top of their next Google Doc. The entire process becomes more customized — students know exactly what their weak spots are, and what steps they should be taking to improve. The peer editing discussions get more detailed, and the revisions go faster. This isn’t to say that they magically resolve their issues — but at the very least they know what they need to work on. Writing becomes a more transparent craft.

This post was inspired by Kate and Maggie’s Rinse and Repeat blog post. If you want more information about 2Fers, check out the slide deck below.