Читать книгу Leading Modern Learning - Jay McTighe - Страница 13

CHAPTER 2

From Mission to Action

How do we collaboratively plan backward from the mission to purposeful actions?

In the first chapter, we concentrated on clarifying our destination in terms of establishing a vision for the future and using that vision to determine a specific mission that identifies long-term learning outcomes—both within and across disciplines. Now it’s time to plan your journey. To support systemic planning, we recommend two interrelated and mutually supportive planning frameworks that can guide the movement from vision to mission to action: (1) Input-Output-Impact and (2) backward design.

The laser-like focus on student learning and essential student outcomes are what drew us to the I-O-I framework, as well as its alignment to the UbD framework.

—Lisa Elliot, Superintendent, School District of Greenfield

The focus of this chapter is on detailing both of these frameworks. We follow these with a sample case study that illustrates how you can apply a backward design framework toward developing and attaining an outcome focused on self-directed learning. As you read this content, bear in mind that you can utilize these frameworks at multiple organization levels, from district to school to department.

The Input-Output-Impact Framework

The I-O-I framework offers a simple but powerful mindset for focusing on the articulation of a vision and mission in terms of the important and measurable learning outcomes district or school desires for students. The I-O-I framework is essentially a way of focusing a district’s, school’s, or department’s resources and actions on the desired learning results articulated in its mission. This focus is important and often missing in school-improvement planning and implementation. Figure 2.1 presents a visual of the I-O-I framework.

Source: © 2015 by Greg Curtis. Used with permission.

Figure 2.1: The Input-Output-Impact framework.

The I-O-I framework and approach are deceptively simple, but their value lies in directing thinking and actions toward results (impacts), and not toward activities (inputs), such as training or resource allocations and curriculum revisions, or changes to report cards (outputs). In other words, it’s about facilitating intentional action to achieve learning goals rather than stopping at organizational actions.

When a school can clearly and simply articulate a set of targeted and compelling outcomes, then planning, implementing, and assessing progress take on a very different tone. Maintaining a continual focus on meaningful results helps sustain a district or school through the long and sometimes difficult journey toward the realization of its vision and the delivery of its mission. Shining a relentless spotlight on achieving learning outcomes through concrete evidence of success at achieving the mission, as opposed to focusing just on organizational inputs and outputs, changes how it acts on traditional strategic planning and measures of success. Thus, as a guide and as a strategic evaluation scaffold, the I-O-I framework enables educators to move from aspirational to intentional.

Maintaining an I-O-I framework can:

• Help make the vision and mission focused on students’ learning and make them concerned with true transformation of individual learners

• Create a common understanding of central goals for learning, which is key to engaging the community and sustaining support for systemic work

• Ensure that a district’s or school’s definition of success is anchored in student-learning outcomes based on its mission

• Drive change backward, through various teaching and assessment practices throughout the school, from desired impacts to actions in service of targeted outcomes

• Align actions and processes across the district, school, or department

• Keep the focus an ongoing inquiry into student learning as evidence of the achievement of mission-based outcomes

Although it may seem self-evident, the framework can be tricky to apply with fidelity, since its use often challenges comfortable habits and familiar ways of operating. We will be revisiting the I-O-I framework throughout this book, and we hope you will see how it can support positive change across your organization.

Table 2.1 (page 36) provides definitions, critical questions, and examples for each phase of the I-O-I framework in relation to service learning.

As you may notice, inputs and outputs mostly represent school and educator action and the products of those actions. However, evidence of achievement of impacts will come from students and ties directly to the processes and products of their learning.

With this understanding, we turn our attention to using a complementary process—backward design—to plan and initiate a systemic plan for moving from mission to action.

Backward Design

Backward design is a process to help you plan with the end in mind by clarifying your ideal result before trying to reach it. Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (2005, 2012) popularized the concept of backward design in their book Understanding by Design, in which they propose a three-stage process for the backward design of curriculum. Familiarizing yourself with backward design regarding curriculum development will help you better understand how to apply it to any education initiative. We explore using backward design for curriculum development and educational initiatives in the following sections and then provide a backward design planning template.

Table 2.1: Definitions, Key Questions, and Examples of the Input-Output-Impact Framework

Phase	Definition and Key Questions	Examples
Input	Definition: Actions and resources (such as time or money), processes, and programs, directed toward the mission Key question: What actions, processes, and resource allocations will you need to achieve your mission?	• The school establishes curriculum-mapping committees within and across disciplines. Review existing curriculum for horizontal and vertical alignment. • The school provides schoolwide staff development on the Understanding by Design® framework for curriculum design. It purchases the unit-design software. • The school establishes the collaborative team, schedules, and meeting protocols. • The school forms a committee to explore service-learning opportunities for students.
Output	Definition: Tangible results of organizational inputs (such as curriculum, new programs, or structures) Key questions: What are the results of our actions, processes, and resource allocations? What products will be produced?	• The school develops horizontally and vertically aligned curriculum maps for both academic standards and 21st century skills. • Teachers review a collection of Understanding by Design units against Understanding by Design standards. • The school analyzes, in teacher teams, student work from common assessments each quarter. • The school makes available a series of structured service-learning opportunities for secondary students.
Impact	Definition: Observable and measurable student learning based on the mission and program goals Key question: What are the most important observable and measurable goals for student learning relative to our mission?	• Students show increasing proficiency across the grades in targeted 21st century skills. • Students show growth in understanding and transfer in academic subjects. • Students demonstrate specific skills and observable dispositions valued in the workplace. • Students demonstrate traits of engaged citizens through their service experiences.

Curriculum Development

The idea of planning curriculum backward from desired results is not new. The four critical questions of a professional learning community (PLC) summarize the intent of backward planning for educators (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many, & Mattos, 2016): (1) What do we want students to learn? (2) How will we know they have learned it? (3) What will we do when they haven’t learned it? (4) What will we do when they have already learned it? These questions summarize the intent and the sequence of the three stages of backward design Wiggins and McTighe (2005) describe in Understanding by Design. Here is a summary of each stage.

1. Identify desired results: This stage in the design process calls for clarity about long-term goals and instructional priorities. Teachers consider long-term goals based on established academic standards and related educational outcomes (such as 21st century skills). They also identify the big ideas they want students to understand and frame companion essential questions around these targeted understandings. Finally, they identify more specific knowledge and skill objectives.

2. Determine assessment evidence: Teachers endeavor to think like assessors before planning lessons and activities in stage 3. This approach requires them to consider the assessment evidence they need to validate that they have achieved the learning outcomes targeted in stage 1. Doing so sharpens and focuses teaching.

3. Plan learning experiences and instruction: With clearly identified learning outcomes and appropriate assessment evidence in mind, teachers can plan the most appropriate instructional activities for helping learners acquire targeted knowledge and skills, come to understand important ideas, and apply their learning in meaningful ways.

We find that the intentional use of backward design for curriculum planning results in more clearly defined goals, more appropriate assessments, and more purposeful teaching. However, we have also observed that teachers do not always follow this approach when planning. Instead, there is a tendency on the part of some to jump from stage 1 to stage 3, to plan daily lessons and learning activities rather than consider long-term goals and assessment evidence up front. For these educators, backward design requires a shift in familiar planning practices.

Education Initiatives

You need not limit backward design to curriculum development. Indeed, we have found that it offers a robust process for organizational planning, and we recommend using it explicitly when planning for any major education initiative, including modern learning. The backward design framework also meshes nicely with the I-O-I framework. In matters of school and district reformation (implementing a futures-oriented vision), the logic of backward design, as presented in the book Schooling by Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2007), suggests the same three-stage process, with minor variations for systemic initiatives.

Stage 1: Identify Desired Results

In this stage, you (including your leadership team or PLC) establish the vision and long-term mission for 21st century learning in terms of learning outcomes. You also consider what various constituents (teachers, parents, students, board members, the community, and so on) will need to understand about the proposed reforms, and you frame the initiative around essential questions to focus your efforts.

Stage 2: Determine Evidence of Success

As when designing for curriculum development, in this stage, you think like assessors before developing specific action plans. The backward design approach requires that you carefully consider the evidence you need to show that you are realizing your vision. As we noted in the I-O-I framework, evidence should primarily focus on desired impacts and not on inputs or outputs. Thus, backward design departs from the common practice of thinking about evaluation as something participants do at the end of a project. You need clarity about the success indicators from the start, and you should designate these indicators through the lens of student performance. In other words, you need to get in the habit of asking the assessor’s questions, as in the following.

• “How will we know if we have achieved the desired results?”

• “What will see in terms of student performance if we are successful?”

• “What data do we need from the start to set a baseline related to our goals—to measure the gap between our goals and our current reality?”

• “How will we collect this evidence?”

• “How will we track our progress along the way?”

Such questions and their answers are key not only for making wise plans but also for clarifying an understanding of your mission and the impacts it will have on student learning. Only with clear and appropriate evidence in mind can you gauge your progress and know when you need to adjust your actions. Waiting until the end to see how (or if) they worked is simply too late.

In addition to impact evidence, you must also gather evidence related to inputs and outputs—for example, the actions you take to achieve the desired impacts for student learning. To arrive at these actions, consider the answers to questions like the following.