I am so excited to tell you about the
amazing experience I had yesterday. I had the privilege of attending the
Ecolint Educational Conference in Geneva Switzerland. It was my second year attending and I was so
thrilled to go again because this year I would get a chance to hear Lynn
Erickson speak.
If you don’t know Dr. Erickson’s work then
I encourage you to Google her and read her books. She is a leader in
concept-based curriculum and instruction.
Now, let me digress for a minute, I was
first introduced to conceptually based teaching while working on my masters
degree. In fact, we had to use Understanding by Design to plan all of our
lessons. I remember being told that UbD was “backward” planning, that we wanted
to start with the intended student outcome and plan our lessons to guide
students in that direction. Along the way they would acquire skills and facts
and make connections. I started using this design and found it rather difficult
to wrap my head around the “big idea”, “understandings” and “essential
questions”.
As I started my first year as a pyp teacher
I had to get used to the IB unit planner. Similarly to UbD we start with the
“Central Idea” and again work towards the skills and knowledge that we want the
students to gain (or this is how I understood it should be done). One area that
started making more sense to me was the use of key concepts. In the PYP program
we have seven concepts that are to be addressed, studied, woven through the six
units of inquiry.
These concepts are:
I have used these concepts to try and
direct our inquiry into specific topics. I have not, however, used them to
really guide my planning process.
So, back to yesterday where I was sitting
in my seat eagerly waiting to be transformed. And would you know…I was!
Lynn explained what she calls the structure
of knowledge. She uses the following diagram to illustrate just how this
structure is formed.
She shared with us the difference between
the two dimensional curriculum model which is topic-based and the three dimensional
model that is concept-based.
The difference as you can see from the
illustration is that in the three dimensional model we add concepts and
principles to simple factual content and skills. In a two dimensional model the
facts are taught but very superficially. There is not real depth of
understanding or analysis of why it is relevant. The facts that are learned are
not transferable but rather, are locked in time, place or situation.
The three dimensional model, on the other hand, is idea-centered. This
means that the ideas provide the foundation to understand conceptual and
transferable ideas. Through the use of a conceptual lens the students gain an
intellectual depth in thinking and understanding. WOW! Don’t we all want that?
Here are a few other key points that really
resonated with me:
1.
Concepts are not an afterthought in
planning but are the groundwork that everything else is built upon.
2.
A conceptual lens mustn’t only include one
or two concepts but can utilize many related concepts as well.
3.
Teaching with conceptual understanding and
teaching for conceptual understanding is possibly more important than making
sure a child understands the Central Idea or our units.
4.
It might be a good idea to keep our lines
of inquiry hidden from the students and to see where their conceptual lenses
take them.
Amazing right? So
I will be taking all of this back to the classroom with me and hoping to
re-work the next unit I plan to really start with the concepts first.
I guess I really
get it or at least starting to get it.
Thanks Lynn!
