Teacher-practice operates within a pooled interdependent resource environment of schools. Teachers engage with district and school administration to implement required state curricula and processes that lead to student achievement. However, operationalizing the delivery of a curriculum in a classroom falls within the domain of teachers. Current research suggests that delivery is loosely connected to school administration (Xia et al., 2019).
This delivery, at its core, is a set of teacher practice decisions that influence what is essential to learn, how that learning takes place and, how that learning is supported. Using the six complex ID taxonomies outlined by (Richey et al., 2011), teacher practice becomes a complex planning cycle that builds from a deliberate but rational set of ideas between the teacher, student, and outcomes. Each taxonomy is constructed from core elements and subcomponents that represent a single taxonomy. Across all six taxonomies, there are 31 main components and 207 subcomponents. Complexity Indeed!
Updating Richey’s (1986) mathematical formula for student achievement to reflect the six taxonomies of teacher practice were “L” is the learner and learning process; “LP” is the learning and performance; “CS,” content structure and sequence; “ID” is instructional and non-instructional strategies; “MD,” media and delivery systems; and, “DDS,” designer and design process. The “a’ represents the percentage accounted for by each taxonomy, and “e” represents the error term.
Learning = aL + aLP + aCS + aID + aMD + aDDS + e
Adding 2 district curricular outcomes across language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies we have a total of 8 required initial outcomes. At the end of the 1st marking period, the initial 8 outcomes produce 16 possibilities. At the end of the 2nd marking period, there are 32, and by the 3rd there are 64, and the 4th making period totals to 128 possible outcomes per student. With an average of 20 students per class, the initial set of 8 required curricular outcomes produces 2,560 possibilities that need to be accounted for at the beginning of the year! Complexity Indeed!
| Taxonomy | No. Main Components | No. Sub-Components |
| Learner | 6 | 46 |
| Learning & Performance | 4 | 26 |
| Content Structure and Sequence | 3 | 18 |
| Instructional & Non-instructional | 7 | 48 |
| Media & Delivery | 5 | 31 |
| Designer & Design Process | 6 | 38 |
References
Richey, R. (1986). Theoretical and conceptual bases of instructional design. Nichols Pub Co.
Richey, R., Klein, J., & Tracy, M. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base. Routledge.
Xia, J., Shen, J., & Sun, J. (2019). Tight, loose, or decoupling? a national study of the decision-making power relationship between district central offices and school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(3), 396–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161×19851174
Recent Comments