Problem-Solving Delivery Model—Redefining Cyclic Teaching and Learning

By Dr. Vin Hawkins
Educational Consultant, Former District Leader

In a previous post, I indicated the necessity of problem recognition and solution, going to the reservoir of real, current problems rather than contrived, pre-packaged ones. Problems were categorized as utilitarian, humanity, and global community. 

This post focuses on the optimal instructional environment for this higher-level learning. Problems that make the cut for consideration, and their subsequent solutions, have the following components: embedded content standards, critical and creative thought, inquiry and investigation, information gathering, analysis and synthesis, and collaboration and debate.

In the real world of the 180-day school year, labor-driven education budgets, and glacial movement toward true blended learning, the typical school year and use of personnel is modified the following way:

A cohort of 100 students is taught by four instructional advisors and supported by two learning coaches. Accommodating developmental appropriateness, these cohorts are found at the Foundational (ages 5-8), Exploratory (ages 9-13), and Focused Inquiry (ages 14+) levels. There are three competency tiers within each level: Novice, Intermediate, and Proficient.

This is a dynamic, not static, model. Each size-100 cohort rotates through a series of three interdisciplinary majors (IM) during an academic year, 12 weeks each. For example:

IM1: Mathematics, economics, engineering, science

IM2: Civics & international history, languages, literature, religions & cultures

IM3: Entrepreneurialism, environmental studies, health & physical well-being, performance & visual arts

Adapting the Saturation Learning model, a balance of leveled (Foundational, Exploratory, or Focused Inquiry) instruction and problem-solving occurs daily for 12 weeks for each IM.

Within each Level, students must progress through all three competencies for their particular IM (1st, 2nd, or 3rd) during their 12-week rotation. A demonstrated competency of “proficient” is a student's entrance ticket to the next level (i.e., Exploratory to Focused Inquiry). Cohort groups have the same four-member instructional advisor team and two learning coaches for at most four years (e.g., ages 5-8), an entire level experience. Thus, depending upon age or time-in-level, students can rotate through each IM as much as four times within a particular level, with increased depth at each experience.

An example:

September 1 - November 30: Cohort A experiences IM1; Cohort B (another 100 students) experiences IM2; Cohort C (a third group of 100 students) experiences IM3

December 1 - March 15: Cohort A experiences IM2; Cohort B experiences IM3; Cohort C experiences IM1

March 16 - June 15: Cohort A experiences IM3; Cohort B experiences IM1; Cohort C experiences IM2

Annual "proficiency evidence" determines advancement to subsequent levels, where cohort rotations continue. Each "novice-intermediate-proficient" experience within each level is, of course, more sophisticated and complex than that at the previous level.

Each four-member team's instructional advisors' content knowledge goes beyond one specific subject area in the interdisciplinary major. They are confident and adept at using technology within the context of developmentally appropriate levels, and are competent collaborators among colleagues.

The two instructional coaches are indispensable, and primarily responsible for the following:

· Behavioral support

· Real-time intervention (to prevent any subset of any IM 12-week experience to lag behind)

· Enrichment protocols

· Parent, community, business, higher-education liaison

· Internship and community service requirements

· Senior projects and e-folio monitoring

· Collaborate with the instructional advisor team to determine proficiency validation for level advancement

The advantages to this re-calibration model are compelling. The cumulative learning experience, for each interdisciplinary major, consists of approximately 5000 hours of skill and concept-embedded problem recognition, solution, and justification. Compare this with at most approximately 2300 hours of cumulative exposure to mathematics, 1200 hours of science, and 150 hours of economics in the typical current K-12 experience.

A Physics Teacher's Formula for Increasing Student Learning

A Post on Student Achievement Best Practices
By Buffy Sexton

A few of my TLN colleagues and I were recently discussing the X PRIZE Foundation and that its next challenge—and prize—will be focused on education. As we brainstormed ideas for challenges and prizes, I couldn’t help but wonder how an external prize can be created when, in reality, our students’ education is the prize. Better yet, growth in their learning is the prize. And even better than that, our students’ ability to increase their own learning is the prize. Now there’s a challenge.

What could that kind of challenge look like? Let me turn up my imagination for a bit. . . .

Okay, physics teacher stepping in here. Let’s say that knowledge gained can only travel in the positive direction (that whole “never forget how to ride a bike” thingy), just like distance traveled. We need a unit of measure, so let’s use grade level, or gl. I will assign knowledge the variable k. Let’s also say that we will use the Greek letter ∆ (delta) to represent the amount of change in k. We can then use this formula for the amount of change in k: ∆k(gl)=kfgl-kigl, where f stands for final and i stands for initial.

Alright, looking good. But we need to know how much time passed for this ∆k. We’ll use ∆t, which just happens to stand for change in time. And, let’s use a school year, or y, as the unit of measure.

Let’s review:

Symbol	Meaning
k	knowledge
∆k	Change in knowledge
gl	The unit of measure for ∆k. (a grade level)
∆t	The time interval used to reach that ∆k. Measured in school years.

We are rollin’ now! So the challenge: at minimum, we want to get students to a ∆k of 1gl/1y. Ah, but we know it has to be student-driven ∆k. So, how do we get them to want to increase their ∆k?

Research has shown (that would just be my nine years of teaching) that while some, if not most, students do want to increase ∆k, not all students seem to care enough to try/stay on task/come to school on a regular basis/____________________. You can fill in the blank with the issue of your choice.

So what are concerned, exhausted, at-their-wits'-end educators to do?

Here are my humble thoughts:

• Embrace the Common Core standards (or, for my state, the Kentucky Core Academic Standards). They let us know what students should know and be able to do at the end of a given grade level. Will the first year of implementation be messy? Yes. Easy? No. There are a million if’s, and’s or but’s out there surrounding the Common Core. Transfer that resistive energy to kinetic energy. For science, the Common Core outlines what good science teachers already do.

• Stop fighting the things that already keep our students on task (albeit tasks they want to do). By this I mean their technology. Smart phones. iPads. Tablets. iPods. Xbox. Wii. We have been so busy trying to make sure students aren’t texting during class that we’re losing the chance to use the same equipment to keep them on task.

• Here’s the scariest one—yes, worse than cell phones in the room! Give, put, place, or throw the responsibility for learning on the student. Yes, I said it. Don’t stand and deliver. Watch and facilitate. Get on the sidelines and coach. Get out of the game and let them play to learn.

Give students appropriate tools, guidelines, and scaffolds. Turn up your imagination for a minute. What could this look like in your classroom? Picture, if you will—Twilight Zone, just go with it—a normal classroom on a normal day like any other. Only the desks aren’t desks. They are round tables. The students aren’t sitting, taking notes from a teacher standing in the front of the room. Some students are taking notes from a real text book. Some are taking notes on iPads. Some are conducting a lab. Some are filming said lab. Some are conducting online simulations of the lab.

Look, there’s a kiddo watching the video of the lesson he missed yesterday. Watch him. Stop. Rewind. Play. Stop. Rewind. Play. Stop. Write. See here? Here’s the teacher. Cruising around the room. Stopping to encourage her. To push him. To question her. To answer his question with a question. Each student has her own learning target. And each student is giving individual evidence of ∆k. How much of an increase in ∆k will students push themselves toward?

This isn’t the Twilight Zone. It’s the new educational landscape: student-driven learning. Will this be messy at first? Probably. Easy? Could be. Let’s see what kind of challenge the students design.

Buffy Sexton teaches science at Meyzeek Middle School in Jefferson County, Kentucky. She is a National Board Certified Teacher and a member of CTQ’s Implementing Common Core Standards team.