Curry/Samara Model

Curriculum, Instruction, & Assessment

A Tool to Transfer Scientific Research on Authentic Achievement to the Classroom

Joseph S. Micheller, Ed.D.
September, 2002

Overview

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requires states to adopt a specific approach to testing and accountability, to raise academic achievement of all students, and to take direct action to improve poorly performing schools. According to (NCLB), teachers are the key to school improvement; and all improvement efforts must be based on scientific research. The U.S Department of Education’s Title II Draft Guidance June 6, 2002 includes a review of scientifically based research on teacher effectiveness. The review of relevant research found that the most important influences on teacher effectiveness are teachers’ general cognitive ability, followed by experience and content knowledge. The Draft Guidelines also identified traditional college coursework leading to advanced degrees and ad-hoc independent workshops as being ineffective. However, specific curriculum-focused and reform-centered professional development was identified as promoting effective instruction. This position supports the view of Wiley and Yoon, (1995); Brown, Smith, and Stein, (1996); and Kennedy, (1998), that suggests professional development focusing on academic content and curriculum that is aligned with standards-based reform will improve teaching practice and student achievement. The Draft Guidelines concluded that professional development should be more focused on the content that teachers will be delivering and the curriculum they will be using. Teachers must be provided systems that link and align standards, curricula, assessment and accountability (Whitehurst, 2002 p.10).

Curry/Samara Model of Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment

The Curry/Samara Model (CSM) addresses the call for a school improvement model that links curriculum, assessment, accountability, and teacher effectiveness. The (CSM) integrates a standards-based approach to curriculum development, through targeted professional development. The (CSM) dimensions of curriculum (content, process and products) are its foundational components. The model allows teachers to organize differentiated instruction to increase student achievement in mixed-ability classrooms. Differentiating curricula that modifies the content, process, and products has been widely recommended in the literature as being an effective strategy to address academic diversity (Plucker & McIntire, 1996; Morelock & Morrison, 1997; Tomlinson, Moon & Callahan, 1998; Tomlinson, 1999).

Description of the Curry/Samara Model Foundational Components

Content Dimension: The content dimension focuses on the information that is included within learning experiences. Content may be divided into two parts: factual (or required) and global. Factual content includes the facts, details, and rules that relate to the topic of study. Global content includes the issues, problems, and themes related to a topic of study (or spanning multiple topical areas across various disciplines). Specific strategies for differentiating content for all students are provided using the core curricular as the foundation for differentiation (Samara, 1998 p. 7).

Process Dimension: The process dimension addresses both the cognitive and affective domains. The cognitive domain focuses on thinking skills and may be divided into two sections: basic and abstract. Basic cognitive processes include the skills of recalling, understanding, and using information. Abstract cognitive processes include the mental skills of creative thinking, critical thinking and problem solving. The affective domain focuses on feelings, beliefs, perceptions and attitudes. The purposes of the effective domain are to assess students’ level of interaction with content; reinforce content through activities that have personal meaning to students; and, responding to the affective needs of students (p.7-8).

Product Dimension: The product dimension includes the tangible and intangible means through which students demonstrate what they have learned. Products may be classified as written, visual, verbal, and kinesthetic. The purposes of product forms are to accommodate various learning styles and learning preferences, provide suitable and adequate forms for the presentation of complex information and/or productive thinking (p. 8-9).

The content, process and product dimensions are opperationalized through a 3-6 week unit of study. The unit of study contains a content outline and 30 cell matrix divided into four quadrants. Teachers create active learning objectives within the quadrants. Each objective includes the process (introduced by a cognitive verb), the content to be addressed, and the product. The quadrants serve as the basis for differentiating the core curriculum, and regrouping students for instruction.

Unit Matrix

Quadrant One: Instruction in this quadrant focuses on assisting students to master information through basic thinking skills and demonstrating their competency through traditional product forms that may be assessed through objective criteria. Indicators may be taught through direct whole group instruction in this quadrant.

Quadrant Two: Instruction in this quadrant reinforces student mastery of the required content by requiring students to use the abstract thinking skill of create thinking, critical thinking and problem solving. Students demonstrate their content competencies and abstract thinking skills through traditional and/or innovative product forms. The products serve as vehicles for students to demonstrate content mastery and higher-order thinking skills. Objectives may be taught through large group instruction, small group instruction (for like ability or cross-ability groups), or for individual students through learning centers.

Quadrant Three: Students are introduced to complex content that relates to the previously mastered content. The focus on instruction is on developing depth of knowledge and the "big ideas" related to an area of study. Students investigate theme’s that extend from the factual information to generalizations and real world understandings. Indicators may be taught through large group instruction, small group instruction (for like ability or cross-ability groups), or for individual students through learning centers.

Teachers may also decide to begin a unit of study in this quadrant by posing an issue or a problem-based question to students. Activities may also be used to extend the area of study to multiple disciplines and to provide students with opportunities to pursue areas of personal interest

Quadrant Four: Students utilize abstract thinking skills with complex content that was introduced in Quadrant Three to extend learning experience beyond the classroom. Instruction focuses on issue development, problem solving, exploring the "big ideas" related to the theme under study (p. 8-11).

The Curry/Samara Model incorporates the tools to equip teachers with instructional practices to promote student achievement of higher order cognitive development (authentic achievement).

Curry /Samara: A Model Designed to Implement Authentic Achievement

During the past decade an increasing number of studies have identified that instruction that focuses on higher order conceptual development can positively affect student achievement (Carpenter & Fennema, 1989; Chang, Honey, Light, Moeller, & Ross, 1998). Cole (1990) identified that school improvement efforts that taught and assessed higher-order thinking skills were more successful in increasing student performance. Significant improvement in decision-making and problem-solving skills, and performance increases on reading skills were also achieved by Chapter I students that participated in Pogrow’s HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills) program (Dickenson, 1999, p. 14). Knapp, Shields and Turnbull’s (1992) findings identified that students who were provided alternative instruction that emphasized active learning and critical thinking skills had greater yearly achievement gains on tests of advanced skills than students who received traditional instruction. Wenglinsky (2000) assessed the relationship of classroom practices to student academic achievement by analyzing data from the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Wenglinsky’s study also supported that conveying higher-order thinking skills leads to improved student performance (p. 2)

The most comprehensive national longitudinal study to date found that student performance increased when authentic achievement was applied to a variety of teaching practices The Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools at the University of Wisconsin-Madison conducted this 5-year (1990-95) federally funded study to evaluate how restructuring initiatives were likely to improve a school’s human and social resources to increase student learning (Newmann, Seceda, & Wehlage, 1995). The study included 24 significantly restructured public schools, evenly divided among elementary, middle, and high schools, and located in 16 states and 22 districts, mostly in urban settings. There was a large range of enrollment, with an average of 777 students; 21% African American, 22% Hispanic, and 37% receiving free or reduced lunch. From 1991 through 1994 each school was studied intensively for one year during 2 weeks of on-site research. Narrative reports were supplemented by surveys of students and staff, conventional tests of student achievement, and the scoring of student achievement on two teacher-assigned assessments according standards of authentic performance. Researchers also made intensive study of mathematics and social studies instruction in about 130 classrooms, with complete data on about 2,000 students. This study allowed intensive examination of authentic achievement in a carefully selected group of schools that had made significant progress in restructuring (p. 5). The School Restructuring Study (SRS) was the first comprehensive national examination of classroom instruction based on common criteria and standards called authentic achievement.

Authentic achievement, as defined by Archbald and Newmann (1988), and Newmann and Associates (1996) stands for intellectual accomplishments that are worthwhile, significant, and meaningful, such as those undertaken by successful adults in their respective fields. In a school setting authentic achievement includes three criteria: construction of knowledge, disciplined inquiry, and value beyond school.

Construction of Knowledge

Adults face the daily challenge of constructing or producing, rather than reproducing, meaning or knowledge. This is represented through writing and symbols, making and repairing things and in performances for audiences (Newmann & Associates, 1996).

Students should be engaged and guided in cognitive work that is found in the adult world. Student construction of knowledge is based on a foundation of prior knowledge, assimilating a great deal of knowledge that others have produced. However, simply reproducing that prior knowledge does not demonstrate high quality authentic achievement. Students must be able to engage in higher level thinking skills: examine a problem, find a solution, reflect, and evaluate teacher feedback (Honebein, 1993; Resnick, 1987a; Wilson & Cole, 1991). Developing strategies for student knowledge construction is a critical factor to the success of developing self-motivated, intellectually stimulated learners (Duffy 1992; Unger, 1994; Wiske, 1994).

Disciplined Inquiry

Authentic achievement relies on cognitive work that involves three main features: use of prior substantive and procedural knowledge base, strive for an in-depth understanding rather than superficial awareness of a problem or subject matter, and expressing one’s ideas and findings through elaborate communications. The primary argument for "disciplined inquiry" is to move beyond former knowledge "to move beyond knowledge that has been produced by others; that is to assemble and interpret information, to formulate ideas, to make critiques that cannot be easily retrieved from the existing knowledge base" (Archbald & Newmann, 1988, p. 2).

Disciplined inquiry’s focus is on in-depth learning that relates to real-world issues, and espouses the utilization of a direct connection of content and process to the learner’s background (Resnick & Klopfer, 1989). The lines between teacher and learner become blurred, and at times the roles become reversed. This allows students to demonstrate their skills to a wider audience. Intellectual authority is shared leading to respect, consideration, and empowerment for both teachers and students (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, Wiske, 1998).

Value Beyond School

In most schools, achievement is designed only to document the competence of the learner. In non=school settings cognitive work or communication has an impact on others beyond the purpose of assessing knowledge (Archbald & Newmann, 1988; Newmann et al., 1995). Instead, learning environments in schools should focus on realistic approaches to solving real problems within a context in which learning is relevant (Honebein 1993; Jonassen, 1991, 1994; Resnick, 1987b).

Implications for Standards Driven Instruction

As a result of this emerging research consensus, teachers must be able to determine which instructional practices will be successful in teaching students critical thinking skills applied to real world scenarios rather than a strict focus on didactic outcomes (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Frederidson & Collins, 1996; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Tomlinson, 1999; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). The (CSM) dimensions of curriculum (content, process and products) extend the authentic achievement criteria to a framework from which the intellectual quality of student work can be assessed for authenticity. The framework does not abandon traditional assessment and instruction. Instead, it expands active learning strategies and integrates traditional practices into a design (Unit Matrix) that extends the framework as specific inidcators for authentic classroom instruction and assessment.

The School Restructuring Study found that instructional strategies that focus on authentic achievement significantly improve academic performance of students in all grade levels and in both mathematics and social studies (scope of SRS was limited to mathematics and social studies). The School Restructuring Study’s findings support the argument that student performance will increase if the implementation of student-centered, active learning or constructivist practices are guided by explicit standards for authentic achievement (Marks, Newmann, & Gamoran, 1995, p. 30). Student achievement will increase if instruction is based on the ability to develop in-depth understanding, and apply academic learning to important, real world problems, the same skills that national reports argue that are needed to function successfully in the world of the 21^st Century (Wenglinsky, 1998, 2000).

D’Agostino (1996) extended the SRS study to Title I classrooms. This empirical evaluation was based on observational data collected to measure the degree of authentic instruction occurring in third grade self-contained Title 1 classrooms, and to examine its relationship to student achievement. D’Agostino’s study supported the School Restructuring Study’s findings that authentic math instruction significantly and positively predicted classroom student gains. Increased emphasis on teaching authentically was linearly associated with both increased student computation and problem solving growth. Authentic math instruction was not only related to improved higher-order math skills, but basic math skills as well.

In summary, the overview of relevant research cited herein identifies that instruction focusing on higher order cognitive ability (authentic achievement) positively influences student achievement . The (CSM) is well grounded in this literature and addresses its criteria ( construction of knowledge, disciplined inquiry, substantive conversation, and value beyond school). The design of the (CSM) provides teachers tools to translate research into practice by creating instructional units of study, and improving pedagogy to meet higher standards for all students.

Joseph S. Micheller, Ed.D. is the Executive Director of Curriculum/Instruction and Staff Development for the Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District. Joe has eleven years of classroom teaching experience, and nineteen years of administrative experience in the positions of curriculum and technology coordinator, assistant superintendent, and superintendent of schools within the State of Ohio. He holds the degrees of B.A. in History, M.Ed. in Curriculum & Instruction, an Ed. S. in Administration from Cleveland State University, and a Doctor of Education degree from the University of Akron. He was a fellow in the Center for Creative Leadership’s Ohio School Leadership Institute, and Leadership and the New Technologies Institute at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He is a trained Malcolm Baldrige Site Evaluator, and has presented at State, National and International Conferences on the topic of preparing schools to be successful in the digital age. He was the principal investigator of Determining the Intellectual Quality of Internet Accessed Lesson Plans study funded the Research Center for Educational Technology, Kent State University, Kent Ohio. Recent publications include Building Teacher Capacity for Authentic Learning in the Next Millennium, and Managing Success.

Archbald, D. A., & Newmann, F. M. (1988). Beyond standardized testing: Assessing authentic academic achievement in the secondary school. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Carpenter, T. P. (1989). Using knowledge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531.

Chang, H., Honey, M., Light, D., Moeller, B., & Ross, N. (1998). The Union City story: Education reform and technology: Students' performance on standardized tests. New York: Education Development Center/Center for Children & Technology.

Cole, N. S. (1990, April). Conceptions of educational achievement. Educational Researcher, 19(3), 2-7.

Duffy, T. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T. Duffy & D. Johnassen (Eds.), Constructivism and technology of instruction on a conversation (p. 221). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

D'Agostino, J. V. (1996). Authentic instruction and academic achievement incompensatory education classrooms. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22(2), 139-155.

Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins, A. (1996). Designing an assessment system for the future workplace. In L. B. Resnick & J. G. Wirt (Eds.), Linking school and work: Roles for standards and assessment (pp. 193-222). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan. M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Honebein, P. (1993). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments (pp. 17-24). New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991, September). Evaluating constructivist learning. Educational Technology, 31(9), 28-33.

Jonassen, D. H. (1994, April). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34-37.

Kennedy, M. (1998, April) Form and Substance in Inservice Teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Knapp, M. S., Shields, B. J., & Turnbull, B. (1992). Study of academic instruction for disadvantaged students: Academic challenge for the children of poverty Summary Report (SRI International No. LC88054001). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning (45).

Marks, H. M., Newmann, F. M., & Gamoran, A. (1995). Does authentic pedagogy increase student achievement? In F. M. Newmann & Associates (Eds.), Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality (pp. 49-). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morelock, J., & Morrison, K. (1997). Differentiating developmentally appropriate: The multidimensional curriculum model for young gifted children. Roeper Review, 21 (3), 195-200.

Newmann, F. M. &. A. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Newmann, F. M., Secada, W. G., & Wehlage, G., G. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards, scoring. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Plucker, J.A. & McIntire, L. (1996). Academic survivability in high-potential, middle school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40 (1), 7-14.

Pogrow, S. (2000). The unsubstantiated "success" of success for all: Implications for policy, practice, and the soul of our profession. Retrieved May 3, 2002 from www.alta-sfa.com/pogrow_kappan.html.

Resnick, L. B. (1987a, December). The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20.

Resnick, L. B. (1987b). Education and learning to think. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Resnick, L., & Klopfer, L. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Samara, J. (1998). Planning for effective instruction using the Curry/Samara model. Austin, TX,

Tomlinson, C.A. Moon, T.R. & Callahan, C.M. (1998). How well are we addressing academic diversity in the middle school? Middle School Journal, 29 (3), 3-11.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom. responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Unger, C. (1994, Feb). What teaching for understanding looks like. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 8-10.

Wenglinsky. H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics (Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service). Princeton, NJ (37).

Wenglinski, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality (Educational Testing Service). Princeton NJ: ETS. Policy Information Center

Whitehurst, G., J. (2002, March). Scientifically based research on teacher quality: research on teacher preparation and professional development. Paper presented at the White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Adlexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wiley, D., & Yoon, B. (1995) Teacher reports of opportunity to learn: Analysis of the 1993 California Learning Assessment System. Educational Evaluation and Policy Anaylsis, 17, 355-370.

Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1991). A review of cognitive teaching models. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(4), 47-64.

Wiske, M. S. E. (1998). Teaching for understanding. linking research with practice. The Jossey-Bass education series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bess