Precise Teaching Is More Effective Teaching

B efore our schools in Red Bank, New Jersey, began using out come-based instruction, teach

ing lacked precision. Too often teachers could not specify exactly what they were teaching; they simply covered material. As a result, cur riculum decisions were made by textbook editors rather than by people in the school system.

Our first step in making teaching more precise was to identify teach ing objectives, grade by grade and subject by subject. In pupil behavior terms, we defined exactly what we wished the learner to be able to do or to know, and these objectives be came the basis of our instructional program. Next we broke down each objective into two components: the prerequisite skills necessary and the skills to be taught.

Instructional materials were ana lyzed to determine whether they met the objective. Teachers were encour aged to dip into a wide range of materials reflecting various modali ties in order to match learning styles with materials. Thus, as teachers drew on several sources for one unit, teacher-made materials became as important as texts. Teachers ordering new materials were required to specify exactly which objectives the materials were intended to address. Materials were also scrutinized to ensure they didn't cover multiple objectives, thus obfuscating the purpose of the lesson.

Improved precision extends to the teaching act itself. Our teachers must use an eight-step model for develop ing an objective:

Motivation Sharing the objective with pupils

so they understand what is expected of them

Explaining to pupils why they

JOAN D. ABRAMS

Joan D. Abrams is Superintendent of Schools, Red Bank Public Schools, Red Bank, New Jersey.

are working on the particular ob jective

Teaching to the objective Modeling desired behavioral

outcomes Providing guided practice Providing independent practice Evaluation.

Teachers have found that the clear specification of objectives keeps them on task. This applies to pupils as well.

Determination of how much time should be spent on each objective is left to the teacher. Most eight-step cycles do not take more than two weeks; some take as little as three or four days.

Evaluation is continuous. Child ren who demonstrate mastery of an objective are given enrichment activi ties. Those who do not are given a second or third opportunity to achieve the outcome and are re- taught using different strategies and materials. Grouping for enrichment or correction, based on formative testing, is precise and requires a clear understanding of entrance/exit level skills.

Teachers are expected to plan ex tensively before beginning instruction on an objective, rather than planning from week to week. They report this makes them better organized and more focused.

The cycle always begins with whole- group instruction. Interestingly, we found the change from group work to whole-class lessons to be a major stumbling block. Many of our teach ers defined good teaching as dividing children into groups and working with those groups one at a time. While the teacher worked with one group, the others were given ditto sheets or paper-and-pencil assign ments. Some assignments reinforced knowledge and skills, but many

merely maintained order by keeping the children busy. Teachers relied on practice materials to do a significant part of the instruction for them.

Accustomed to working with small groups, many elementary teachers were scared to death to stand up in front of the class for instructional purposes. This was not a problem with our secondary people but they were less likely to use a variety of materials and to think in terms of learning modalities.

The precision of the plan capital izes on the strengths of both groups: While elementary teachers are moving toward greater comfort in addressing the whole class, secondary teachers are adding to their repertory of materials and approaches. The clarity of the eight-step plan and the re quirement for precision in teaching have made this both necessary and inevitable.

What was the payoff? The percent age of students who passed the state wide tests required by the New Jersey Department of Education rose signifi cantly. For instance, in 1979, before mastery learning, only 75 percent of the third graders who took the read ing test passed it; in 1981 86 percent passed. In 1979, 47 percent of the students who took the sixth-grade mathematics test passed; in 1980 68 percent passed, and in 1981 76 per cent passed.

The graph shows the dramatic in crease in grade level performance over the past six years in all subject areas for grades two through eight. 1 For example, the mean score of eighth graders in mathematics has risen steadily from 7.1 in 1976 to 9.4 in 1981. Given the right pro gram, students will learn!

1 The slight decline in third-grade reading scores in 1980 was caused by inclusion of special education students who should not have been tested.

138 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

FIGURE 1 . READING SCORES IN RED BANK 1976 - 1981Typical of test scores in all subjects, reading achievement has improved,

especially in the upper levels.

MAT Spring1976- 1977 1978- 198O 1981 MAT -7O Edition 1980 -MAT -'78 Edition

GRADES 1 - 8 (Numeral represents grade levels)

9.4

8.9

8.6

7.8

7.5

7.3

7.2

7.1

7.0

6.9

6.7

6.5

6.2

6.0

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.3

5.0

4.4

4.2

4.0

3.9

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.1

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.1

1.9

1.7

^•^

^

fi66666<

*&&&&

•&'&**

2y2"y*

177,.'T/7

9tdP *<Sjp

P* \

'**>- 1* ' ^ "1*1 ^ *

cfifiG®

60»e

655555b°6&

^333333

J.'*5

'*22222yyyyyy

777 77111111

A\^a***11

-)^ii^1lit1 '

ip&B5B&/^tf~_.—065

——————— IS8*

•X3333333J333

??5??7773993

111111111111

e$^

<?»**J»*** „<*1^nA

n11 ^1

(j

^fifiS^*16666

«^55555S5«^

L44+*1>A*^ ^^

3333333.?,***^^5

•)•>•}•>•>•)•)•>•*-~Z**

I11111177T,.,

^ 88888»***

^** 1--\ l111

^"*

1

fe66„***

J^

&

jX

<^<£**<$*

"t*^^

333^3333^ i>

t'222222 ->aT.'j:J'

7 '777j 7 lA-VO

jB»«0>»

11l1in1

ttftfr*6*6*6

fa< J

^

(JS*A****^

^I?3'3'*

a1-n.'J-'''1'P*

A ,VAT 1A

1976 1977 1978 1979 p 1 980 1981

NOVEMBER 1981 139

Copyright © 1981 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.