Mapping the teacher's path

The point of a curriculum map is to ensure that the subject to be taught is addressed in a systematic way that stresses critical thinking, authentic assessment and use of best practices in order to stimulate learning.  I believe my curriculum map accomplished this goal.  Each subject to be covered in my map is explored in terms of essential questions students need to be able to answer in order to build full knowledge of the topic at hand.  By their nature, essential questions address higher order thinking skills, since information must be first evaluated and synthesized by the teacher in order to create meaningful lessons for students.  Authentic assessments, such as writing, artwork, etc. serve as demonstrations of students’ understanding of the content.

                This map also makes use of the following tools to stimulate critical thinking and authentic assessment:

           Spoke chart –to activate prior knowledge

KWL chart—to activate prior knowledge and to provide framework for evaluating what students want to know to and if they feel their questions have been answered by instruction.  The KWL chart is an effective means of reflection on lessons for both students and teachers.

Writing journals—provide a daily view into what students are thinking about what they have learned.  Even in kindergarten, students can express what they know or are wondering about in a journal through words, pictures or both.

Class Mural— helps students express what they know about their favorite dinosaurs through artwork. 

                Each subject covered by the curriculum map is also aligned to the standards in my state in a variety of subject areas.  In NYC where I teach, it is near impossible to set aside time for science lessons, unless they are also considered either math or ELA intensive, since blocks are set aside for those two subjects but not others.  Besides, teaching across the content areas is one way to help students build connections among subjects being covered. 

                If I were redoing this map, I would focus more on individual lesson plans, as I feel the map was somewhat broad in what it addressed.  I focused more on units of instruction as opposed to detailing each step along the way.  I don’t necessarily believe that this nonspecificity hampered the map, but the map could have definitely been enhanced with more details.  For example, there was little differentiation of learning for either gifted or slower learners and little differentiation between different types of learning, such as visual, aural, kinesthetic, etc.  By focusing more on individual lessons, this type of information could have been included.

Overall, though, I was pleased with my work on this map.  It has certainly helped me with my current job, which is not teaching kindergarten, but tutoring students one-on-one.  In this capacity, I am given a manual from which to teach and a set of assessments that are inauthentic to say the least.  Needless to say, this has forced me to enhance the materials provided with my own lessons, materials and structure in order to help these learners advance.  This tutoring program is mandated by a provision of No Child Left Behind to address learners in failing schools.  Not all of my students are failing, but most need remediation to bring them in line with the levels they should be achieving in their grades.  It is fulfilling work, but quite frankly it was a lot more frustrating last year when I felt confined to stay rooted in the materials provided.  I feel much freer now to create new lessons and new materials for my students, in accordance with the state and city standards provided.  Isn’t the point of learning to be able to apply what is learned to new situations?  If that is true, this teacher has gotten the most out of being a student.