translate topics into teachable concepts,
they embed the rationale for engaging
students in learning about that concept. For example, we can reframe the
Industrial Revolution as the concept of
human progress and ask, Who are the
winners and losers of industrialization?
We can broaden the topic of pollution
into interdependence and ask, What
relationships exist between humans and
their environment?
PHOTO COURTESY OF OCHAN KUSUMA-PO WELL
Teaching that targets conceptually
framed learning standards also provides
multiple access points across the readiness continuum. For example, if we
ask students, How does the study of a
foreign language contribute to a respectful society? a student at a fairly concrete
level of thinking might suggest that
people can learn basic pleasantries—like
please and thank you—in that language.
Teachers with China’s national school system discuss how to personalize learning in a unit.
A more sophisticated thinker might
explore how different languages influence the ways people think and construct their values and beliefs. An even
more advanced student might make
connections between language development and culture.
Many students will fall short of the standards and their own learning potential
(Powell & Kusuma-Powell, 2011).
On the other hand, what would happen to personalized learning if there
were no clearly defined standards and
benchmarks for achievement? We might
see the overly individualized learning
programs characteristic of the 1960s ( 25
lessons for 25 students, with any sense
of a learning community diminished)
or instruction based only on activities
that lack clear learning outcomes. A curriculum without learning standards has
neither rigor nor credibility. It virtually
ensures confusion and mediocrity.
The Shift from
Topics to;Concepts
Standards-based curriculums can only
be personalized when the learning out-
comes are framed as robust, primary
concepts (Powell & Kusuma-Powell,
2011). In a planning session we once
conducted with a science teacher, the
teacher identified butterflies as the
focus of her next unit of study. What is
important for students to understand
about butterflies?, we wanted to know.
In the conversation that ensued, the
teacher explained that it wasn’t really
butterflies that she would be teach-
ing, but life cycles. She wanted the
students to understand that there were
similarities in the development of all
living things, and she planned to use
butterflies as an example. This teacher
had made a crucial shift—from teaching
topics to teaching concepts.
But Which Concepts?
When we frame learning outcomes as
robust conceptual understandings, stu-
dent learning becomes enduring and
transferable—but only if we choose rich
concepts. As teachers shift the focus
from topics to concepts in curriculum
planning, we suggest they test the
worthiness of proposed concepts against
these filters (Wiggins & Mc Tighe,
2005):
n Does the concept have enduring
value beyond the classroom? What
value will this understanding have for
a child in 20 years? If we struggle to
answer this question, the concept or
topic may not be worthy of student
time. For example, why do we still
teach the multiplication and division of
fractions when few people ever use this
skill?
n Does the concept reside at the heart
