Students performing at score 4.0 will demonstrate “in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond what was taught in class.” Score 4.0 performance becomes a measure of the qualitative difference between analysis at the 3.0 score and analysis at 4.0. At score 4.0, the student might apply analysis of additional literary devices, perhaps ones that are beyond grade level (for example, tone). Or the student might do an exceptionally perceptive analysis of the grade-appropriate text, in which the reasoning is much deeper and more accurate than performance at score 3.0. It is also possible that the student can apply analysis to challenging texts beyond grade level.
Taking into account the analysis of the proficiency scale for eighth-grade ELA theme and central idea, the following unit plan (figure 1.6) is one way in which a teacher can sequence the types of lessons to provide learning opportunities for her students. Where applicable, we indicate in this figure which activities are connected to specific levels of the proficiency scale. Some aspects of the plan (for example, sharing the scale and learning target) are not specific to a scale level so no level is indicated. (For additional information, see The New Art and Science of Teaching, Marzano, 2017.)
Source: Adapted from Marzano, 2017, pp. 107–108.
Figure 1.6: Sample unit plan for theme and central idea.
A quick review of this unit plan reveals the lesson sequence’s logic. Starting with the score 2.0 content from the proficiency scale, vocabulary terms and prerequisite knowledge and processes such as the ability to summarize the text with a teacher-provided graphic organizer and a process for determining theme or central idea, students progress through the content of score 3.0 and receive the opportunity to perform at score 4.0. The speed at which this progress occurs is less important than the sequence. Perhaps this same unit might occur across twenty instructional days instead of eleven.
Also note that the unit plan does not identify specific content to teach. It will become important to align specific passages of text with each instructional activity and homework assignment, but the content will merely support the unit plan’s sequence of instruction to the standard and its learning targets.
Further, note how often assessment, in various forms, takes place. In an eleven-day period, five assessments occur. Some of these assessments are informal student self-assessments, but these give important instructional feedback to the teacher and the students, indicating how the students perceive their own progress toward the learning targets. The formal assessments provide the teacher with the opportunity to use the information from these assessments formatively, deciding whether to continue with the unit plan as initially sketched, or to make adjustments, returning to content students have yet to master, reteaching as needed and so forth.
In summary, we define the process for sequencing a unit plan in this manner as a series of four steps.
1. The teacher identifies the priority standard and associated scale that he or she will teach during the unit of instruction. (This can be more than one priority standard. For purposes of explaining the process, we limit the example here to a single standard, but with multiple standards the process is the same. Instruction to each standard is integrated throughout the unit plan.)
2. The teacher reviews the proficiency scale to be clear about the learning progression from score 2.0 to score 3.0 and on to score 4.0. The teacher identifies the number of learning targets at each score of the scale.
3. The teacher proceeds to build the unit plan day by day, including:
► Adapting the sequence of lessons to scaffold learning through the scale’s scores
► Making frequent reference (often) to the learning goals and the proficiency scale
► Discussing how homework will play a role in supporting the unit’s learning progression
► Giving assessments often enough for students and teachers to use the results of the assessments formatively
4. The teacher reviews the unit plan and makes adjustments.
It is also true that the teacher should ask students to progress as rapidly as possible through the scaffolded learning. Expect faster progress than has been seen in a traditional approach in the past, since the focus of instruction is narrower with standards-based learning. At the same time, as always, the teacher should be sure to provide sufficient learning experiences for students to make progress before he or she asks students to perform at the next score level of the learning target. Developing a “feel” for the pace of instruction takes time. Teachers should make informed decisions early on but be ready to do some adjusting in the first few units taught in this manner.
For an example of how the same process can be applied at the elementary level, please see appendix B (page 145). This appendix illustrates the creation of a unit plan for a second-grade mathematics unit.
The logical and straightforward process for creating unit plans presented thus far in the chapter can be applied to multiple different teaching frameworks and templates that teachers may already be using in their classrooms. The following section presents an example of adapting the previously presented standards-based method of unit design to a sample planning template.
Using a Planning Template
A well-organized template that captures the unit designer’s thinking as the unit plan is developed can aid not only the teacher doing the design but also teachers who may review or use the unit plan later. The example that follows (see figure 1.7) is a modification of a template developed by Uinta County School District #1 in Wyoming. This template uses the four questions central to the PLC process (DuFour & Marzano, 2011, pp. 22–23) as a starting point, with the addition of an important question for planning: “How will teachers facilitate the learning?” In following the sequence of these PLC questions, the teacher addresses each aspect of curriculum and instruction necessary to meet the needs of all students.
Source: © 2017 by Uinta County School District #1. Used with permission.
Figure 1.7: Sample planning template.
A quick review of this template will demonstrate how the information developed through the four-step process mentioned previously (page 22) can be used to complete the template. PLC questions one and two are directed toward identifying the specific state (or provincial) standards that teachers will address in the unit and determining the assessment methods that will measure student progress toward, and past, proficiency. In the case of this template, state- and district-level assessments are cited; the teacher could also substitute specific assessments their students will take or simply use classroom teacher-designed or common assessments. The template then includes a sample proficiency scale, which teachers can use as the basis for the answer to the planning question. In answering this question, the teacher would include the sequencing of lessons as outlined in the unit plan example mentioned previously (see figure