http://www.wiseinkblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bigstock_Angry_Woman_in_Comic_Book_Styl_25804979.jpg |
I think maybe their view of LO is too black and white. I don't think having to be accountable for how and what you teach means you aren't trusted, I just think there is stakeholders involved that need to see that there's standards being met. Not just managers, but the students too.
I see the point of LO potentially just telling you the minimal standard. But I think that is where a marking rubric is linked accordingly to the LO and assessment peices. And in the rubric, there needs to be room for those unintentional and additional outcomes of learning, which show cirtical thinking and thought construction and linking of new ideas. I guess it's all the wording of how the LO is viewed in the rubric. That would be the difference between a HD, D and scraping through.
I've found LO useful to see what is expected of students so I know how to arrange my lesson plans to facilitate achievement. I don't stop at the LO though. I look to engage them with the material so that the knowledge and learning that has lead to that LO used a deep approach, they explored new ideas that may not be that exact outcome, but braodens their thoughts and enhances experience. I have however been confused by the occasional outcome when I don't see how's it measureable. And if I'm confused then the students would be too. But that's just the difference between and well writtenal and aligned learning out come with a poorly done won.
No comments:
Post a Comment