The instructional core is described by City et al. (2009) as the interconnection between the teacher, the student, and the content in the classroom. An analogy to this relationship is a three-legged stool. Each part is unique and has its parameters and methods. At the same time, all three elements must be balanced for the whole process to work effectively. The instructional task can be thought of as the seat of the stool. All three legs support it. The stool can be used in several ways. It could be a seat, a table, a step, or other support. What makes the stool useful is not what the designer or seller says about how stool is intended to be used. The value is in how it is used. The instructional task is similar. The value of the instructional task is in what the student does and learns, which may vary from what the teacher or curriculum guide intends.
City et al. (2009) expand on the instructional core with seven principles that will lead to improved student learning. The first principle is that learning happens only due to the three elements of the instructional core. There must be changes and improvements within the teacher, the student, and the content for learning to improve. The second principle is that all three elements must be in balance. To continue with the stool analogy, if one leg is longer than the other three, the seat will be slanted, and the user will fall out. A change in one instructional core element must be met with similarly sized changes in the other two elements. The third principle builds upon the first in that the only thing that matters to learning is the elements of the instructional core. Changes that do not impact the core will not impact learning. Richard Elmore (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010) states that some methods of delivery do not actually impact the core. For example, a worksheet might be too simple for some students and too complicated for others. Only students who are in the middle of this group would be learning because the instructional core has been affected for them. The other students would not have improvements. The fourth principle is that the task students are currently doing will lead to their performance. Other factors play a role, but the students must actively work on the material to improve learning. The fifth principle is that the objective measure of accountability and change is within the activities the students are tasked with completing. The sixth principle is that teachers have to be involved in all aspects of the curriculum process, from writing to implementation and evaluation. Growth, understanding, and buy-in come from having the classroom teachers involved throughout the process. Elmore explains that accountability must start with the school before any external accountability measures can have a sustained impact. Finally, the seventh principle is that there must be a common understanding between all parties in the learning process. Everyone must agree on the exact definitions of what they are expecting. Some examples are what the teachers are looking for and what is the goal of the lesson or unit. A common understanding will build depth and continuity throughout the team. Reference City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education (p. 30). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). Leading the instructional core: An interview with Richard Elmore. In Conversations, 11(3).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
About 5352This is the second course in my administrative certification plan. It is a dive into techniques to improve instruction through research based methods. ArchivesCategories |