The Asset Model

Over the next three weeks on Ed Tech Tales we will be looking at Lesson and Unit plans. Many people would consider these hallowed documents sacred to the educational canon. However, It is hoped that the following three part series will cause us all to reconsider these documents and how, in light of our technological age, they may be in need of revision through the Asset Model. I hope that you enjoy the articles and, as always, please join the discussion in the comment sections below.

Because Its Always Been

“Excellent. You’re not going anywhere.”

Most schools rightly require that teachers document their instruction and explain the educational theory behind the activities that encourage the acquisition skills and knowledge in the classroom. For many years this sort of documentation has taken the form of lesson and unit plans which teachers have dutifully completed at the behest of administrators operating upon the best practice standards advocated by educational theorists. In recent years ideas like vertical and horizontal integration, differentiation, student centered learning environment, and cross curricular lessons have become something all teachers are requested to contemplate when considering what and how to teach in the classroom. Many educators feel overwhelmed by the responsibility these instructional perspectives foist upon their shoulders and the endless justification they need to provide to prove that what they are doing in the classroom is educationally sound.

After exiting teaching school and entering the classroom most teachers come to the realization that educational theory oftentimes must give way to educational fact. The classroom is not a sterile environment that adheres to theoretical strictures produced under testable conditions. Teachers are forced to deal with the classroom environment as is and any theory or plan must be adaptable to changing conditions. Unfortunately, the lesson and unit plan model used by most schools and teachers is rigid and lacks the fluidity necessary to work in today’s classroom.

At the heart of the rigidity found in traditional unit and lesson plans is the concept of control. In part, the lesson and unit plans driven by multiple educational theories are meant as a system of boundaries and guidelines meant to exercise control over the learning process. After all, we don’t want a lesson on fractions to devolve into a discussion on the latest pop star’s new album. While it cannot be denied that instructors need to exercise some level of control over the learning environment, we must always remember that with control also comes responsibility. If we exercise too much control over when, how, and what type of learning is to take place in our classrooms then we also accept responsibility if the intended learning results fail to materialize. Somewhat paradoxically, teachers bemoan the lack of responsibility students’ accept for their own learning and resent parents and administrators who attempt to blame them for student failures but they also exercise all of the control in the learning environment. It cannot help but be pointed out that if a teacher has total control over the learning environment then they must also accept the blame when things go wrong.

 

Of course such a situation is not ideal for anyone. Teachers are overwhelmed with the responsibility placed upon them while students and parents come to see teachers as intellectual vending machines in need of a good shake if the result they paid for is not forthcoming. Let us never forget that teachers are not entirely to blame for the current state of things. By its very nature the lesson and unit plans teachers are required to produce oftentimes adhere to a multiplicity of different educational theories that seem to demand the teacher takes on more and more control/responsibility for the learning process.

The question now becomes how we maintain a sound theoretical footing in education while redistributing control over the learning process which will also diffuse responsibility more equitably. Clearly some type of control must remain with the instructor and documentation on what is to be taught in the classroom must also continue to be a requirement. However, by re-examining current learning theories for instances where control can be redistributed and breaking up the rigidity of the unit/lesson plan model we can start to see a path towards a better learning environment.

First, let’s acknowledge that not all learning theories ask teachers to take control in the classroom. Quite conversely, Constructivism actively promotes a learning environment where student exploration is at the heart of the learning environment. However, Objectivist thinkers believe that the ‘construction of knowledge’ model and its accompanying activities represent a chaotic environment where true learning cannot take place. The best course of action is undoubtedly somewhere in between these two camps but for now let’s take a more constructivist standpoint and seek to give control back to students for their own learning. To that end we will consider how the lesson and unit plan can be adapted to offer more control to students while adhering to educational best practice such as differentiation and student centered learning environments.

The Asset Model

 

In order to help identify the differences between the new lesson/unit plan model and the old model we will refer to our new offering as Assets and Asset Plans while the more traditional approach will continue to be called lessons and units. At this point it’s also important to remember that one of the goals behind revisiting lessons and units is to lighten teacher workload by redistributing responsibility for the learning process. All too often a newly proposed educational model means oceans of extra work for teachers. The asset model should result in less overall workload for teachers and perhaps even provide justification for teaching practices already in place in some classrooms.

Let’s start our exploration by examining the Asset model, what it is, and how it differs from the more traditional lesson plan.

Simply put, an Asset is an independent knowledge or skill piece designed to aid mastery of a particular skill or knowledge area so that students can complete their own learning puzzles. An Asset can be used with multiple units, over multiple grade levels and can be referred to whenever needed independent of any one course of study. In contrast a lesson plan is more rigid sequential course of activities and learning objectives dependent upon on a particular unit for its inclusion in the curriculum.

Like a lesson plans, Assets should have learning objectives and contain an organized set of resources designed to help the learner meet those objectives. An Asset can also be tied to assessment, especially when it covers an essential skill or knowledge base that must be evaluated. However, Assets are better suited to the student centered, differentiated learning environment that offers students more control because they can be accessed at any time and in any order necessary to facilitate student understanding.

To better illustrate how Assets and lessons differ we must consider that students may or may not have all of the pre-requisite knowledge or skills necessary to complete traditional lesson plan objectives. Imagine a unit in music class where a student has been asked to write a simple melody during a lesson on musical form and structure. The focus of the lesson is the form and the structure of music and the teacher feels the majority of their students (due to age and experience) can handle the material without covering basic skills or knowledge. However, while trying to complete the lesson objectives a new student, who just transferred from another school, wonders “how do I count a measure?” Without such basic knowledge on musical theory the lesson objectives are clearly out of reach for this student and possibly others with similar fundamental questions.

“Almost There!!”

Now we could point our finger at the teacher and admonish them for not planning their lesson more appropriately but this criticism doesn’t really approach the real issue and places unfair expectations on teachers. The spectrum of student understanding and skills on any given topic are much wider in the classroom environment than many of us would care to admit. Between ESL/ELA , special needs, and transfer students there is already a great diversity in what types of knowledge and skills a teacher can expect without even considering students who don’t have any institutionally prescribed learning labels. Some teachers might look to solve this issue through traditional differentiation but putting the onus on the teacher to create a multiplicity of lesson plans or activities for different learning styles each and every lesson also doesn’t address the fundamental issue and places an enormous workload on teachers.

The fundamental issue present in our example is in the structure of the lesson plan itself, not in students or the teachers. In a traditional sequential lesson/unit structure we build on skills and knowledge in a linear fashion. The problem comes when a student is forced to progress despite a gap in their understanding or skill set. The sequential march of the unit/lesson trumps the individual learner’s needs especially when the ‘majority’ of the students do have the skills or knowledge required. Rarely is there time to address such a situation because the rigid lesson/unit structure oftentimes demands we push forward. We must stay on track at all costs. This rigid adherence to the sequential time allotment given for learning aided by the traditional lesson/unit plan structure fails students and teachers regularly. A student who does not master basic measure counting before being assigned to write a short melody would have to go back and learn the skill. Skills like measure counting may not even be covered in a unit plan on melodic writing because it is far too basic to be addressed. Consequently, a teacher may not have a resource readily available to meet a confused student’s needs because such a fundamental question wasn’t anticipated which places the teacher under stress to produce the required materials. Meanwhile, the confused student feels ’stupid’ for not having basic skills or knowledge and embarrassed for having to ask a fundamental question that highlights their ignorance. Sadly, the more probable scenario is that the confused student chooses to hide their deficiency, not ask for help, and try to circumvent the gap in their understanding or skills resulting in work that does not meet the objectives of the lesson or unit. This situation is a common occurrence in education but it can be helped by some small rethinking on the traditional differentiation model.

Lets Differentiate

“Oh yeah..lets differentiate..thanks a lot!”

In traditional differentiation the teacher is responsible for supplying students with a multiplicity of lesson materials and learning strategies so that every student can achieve the unit or lesson goals based on their individual learning needs. However, this noble instructional goal is made somewhat complex when there is only one teacher and 30 students with multiple learning styles. At a certain point the mere act of differentiation becomes something akin to a three ringed circus with the teacher at its hectic center. However, if we ask students to differentiate for themselves we can now address not only an issue with traditional differentiation but also the lesson plan structure.

To better explain how student driven differentiation solves the inherent issues with lesson plans and addresses our concern with traditional differentiation, let’s revisit the example provided earlier to see how our scenario changes in a learning environment structured through knowledge and skill based assets.

Our teacher has set the same student goal of writing a simple melody and again there is a student with a fundamental question about how to count a measure. However, in this learning environment each student is pursuing the goals of the curriculum at their own pace although certain curricular goals that must be met before advancement can happen. Still, the focus is less on everyone completing the same goals in lock step with teacher instruction and rather on everyone filling in the pieces of their ‘learning puzzle’ at their own rate. Some students may choose to complete the outside of the puzzle before tackling the center while others may choose to complete desperate chunks before linking them together. What matters is that by the end of the ‘unit’ every student has every piece of their learning puzzle in place. In this environment knowledge and skills assets become our puzzle pieces.

The instructors job in our scenario is to take the goals of the unit and break them into usable chunks of knowledge and skills. Some pieces will undoubtedly be easier to grasp if others are completed first but others might be done in any order the learner chooses. Through the use of technology teachers can organize and supply assets in focused pieces that children can choose to tackle independently. Teachers will undoubtedly still wish to go over or even assess certain asset pieces for competency but once work time begins the students can then choose to focus on the asset covered in class or work with a completely new asset that is still relevant to their exploration of the unit goals and objectives. In this environment our student should feel no stigma in accessing an asset that teaches them how to count a measure since another student might be accessing a similar asset while others are doing something completely different but equally relevant to the task before them. Each child is deciding for themselves where their own knowledge gaps are. The teacher’s job is to provide a multiplicity of assets that can address any questions a student might have about their knowledge area. The departmental asset library available to students through online means might cover hundreds or thousands of knowledge or skill sets filtered by category and tags. Since assets are not tied to any one unit, any asset is available at anytime to provide any student with the relevant skill set or knowledge necessary to fill their individual knowledge gaps. Now we should also start to see what is meant by student driven differentiation for both students and teachers. In this environment teachers are responsible for collecting, organizing, filtering, and presenting information in clear and concise pieces (like little Googles). It’s the student’s job to discover the gaps in their understanding and use the assets provided to complete their own learning puzzle which eerily mirrors the skills they practice everyday while using online search engines.

Round Up

“You go little guy!”

We could also go further and point out that if a department were to adhere to this model they would consequently be working together to produce asset pieces. This collaboration would undoubtedly result in a more horizontally and vertically aligned curriculum since the assets needed might also be used by another teacher in the same subject at the same or various grade levels. A departmental collaboration on assets would therefore naturally encourage another learning theory championed by modern best practice.

The knowledge and skill asset idea is not a truly new idea. Teachers naturally practice many of the principles outlined here the moment they realize that trying to adhere to a rigid lesson plan schedule with a classroom full of unpredictable learners necessitates some type of flexibility. The goal in this writing is to attempt to codify and justify the approaches that many successful teachers take everyday to meet their student’s needs.

Join us next week when we’ll look at Asset plans and the advantages they have over traditional unit plans. Hope to see you there and don’t forget to comment.