1703 North Beauregard St.
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
Tel: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723)
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday
Local to the D.C. area: 1-703-578-9600
Toll-free from U.S. and Canada: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723)
All other countries: (International Access Code) + 1-703-578-9600
May 2008 | Volume 65 | Number 8
Reshaping High Schools
Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe
The high school curriculum should start with the long-term goals of schooling: meaning making and transfer of learning.
A local newspaper reporter asks students attending the town's high school to give their school a letter grade from A to F. One young man, a senior, rates his high school a B. When asked to explain, he replies with a single word: "Boring."
A first-year algebra teacher tries to remain enthusiastic in the face of student apathy. Although she attempts to engender a love of math in her students, many typically respond with the same questions, "Why do we need to learn this stuff? When are we ever going to use this?" She's aware that her answers are not convincing.
While lecturing to the vacant-eyed stares of many of his students, the veteran AP U.S. History teacher sometimes feels like the teacher in the film
Ferris Bueller's Day Off, who answers his own dull questions. Yet there's so much material to cover to prepare for the upcoming AP exam. What else can he do?
In one district, the results of end-of-year science exams reveal a troubling pattern: Students typically perform adequately on items requiring recall and basic skills but do poorly on items requiring application or careful analysis and explanation.
These vignettes reflect recognizable high school challenges—student displays of boredom, passivity, and apathy; external test pressures that demand superficial content coverage; and students who seem to know the material but don't know how to apply it. These different problems are, in fact, interrelated. They can be traced to one underlying factor—the lack of clarity about the goals of a high school education and how those goals should inform instruction, assessment, and curriculum design.
The mission of high school is not to cover content, but rather to help learners become thoughtful about, and productive with, content. It's not to help students get good at school, but rather to prepare them for the world beyond school—to enable them to apply what they have learned to issues and problems they will face in the future. The entire high school curriculum—course syllabi, instruction, and especially assessment—must reflect this central mission, which we call learning for understanding. Learning for understanding requires that curriculum and instruction address three different but interrelated academic goals: helping students (1) acquire important information and skills, (2) make meaning of that content, and (3) effectively transfer their learning to new situations both within school and beyond it.
All learners need to acquire facts and skills. But an education consists of more than a pile of facts or a laundry list of skills. Even if students can recite key passages from The Federalist Papers by heart, if they have only acquired the facts they won't be able to adequately answer questions like, Why do we need checks on power? What are the chief problems that a three-branch system of government is meant to address? When is the balance of power threatened? Where should I stand on the current debates about presidential power? But if their lessons and assessments have asked them to explore various ways in which governmental powers have been checked and balanced (or not) during different periods of history, they will be able to make meaning of facts and address such questions when they naturally arise in their lives.
Unfortunately, the common methods of teaching and testing in high schools focus on acquisition at the expense of meaning and transfer. As a result, when confronted with unfamiliar questions or problems (even selected-response problems on standardized tests), many students flounder. Consider a high school algebra question that was included on state tests in New York and Massachusetts:
To get from his high school to his home, Jamal travels 5.0 miles east and then 4.0 miles north. When Sheila goes to her home from the same high school, she travels 8.0 miles east and 2.0 miles south. What is the measure of the shortest distance, to the nearest tenth of a mile, between Jamal's home and Sheila's home? (Students were provided with a grid they could use to plot the answer.)
Fewer than 40 percent of New York 10th graders correctly answered this item, despite the fact that the requisite knowledge is "covered" in every Algebra I class in North America. Test results such as these reveal not a failure of coverage but a failure of transfer.
Out-of-context learning of skills is arguably one of the greatest weaknesses of the secondary curriculum—the natural outgrowth of marching through the textbook instead of teaching with meaning and transfer in mind. Schools too often teach and test mathematics, writing, and world language skills in isolation rather than in the context of authentic demands requiring thoughtful application. If we don't give students sufficient ongoing opportunities to puzzle over genuine problems, make meaning of their learning, and apply content in various contexts, then long-term retention and effective performance are unlikely, and high schools will have failed to achieve their purpose.
If transfer, meaning, and acquisition are all fundamental goals of high school instruction, what is the role of the teacher? To support these goals, teachers can weave together these three instructional approaches Mortimer Adler describes in The Paideia Program (1984):
As these categories make clear, there is rarely one best teaching approach. In a high school committed to teaching for understanding, we would see all three pedagogies in regular use.
When meaning making and transfer assume greater prominence in the curriculum, the sequence of learning events takes on a new significance. Most high schools, aided and abetted by textbooks that stress acquisition almost to the exclusion of the other two aims, have a propensity to cover lots of content before allowing students to use that content in authentic situations. This approach, based on a climb-the-ladder, step-by-step model of cognition, may be well intentioned, but it reveals a fundamentally flawed conception of learning. Research in cognitive psychology (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2001) challenges the notion that students must learn all the important facts and basic skills before they can address the key concepts of a subject or apply the skills in more complex and authentic ways. And all we need to do is look at how people learn sports, art, or their first language to recognize that this view is flawed.
Sadly, the climb-the-ladder approach may have the greatest negative impact on lower-achieving students. Struggling high school students are often confined to a regimen of excessive teacher talk, rote memorization of discrete facts, and mind-numbing skill-drill worksheets. The unfortunate reality is that some students will never get beyond the first rung of the coverage ladder, with its isolated and uninteresting approach to content; they will therefore have minimal opportunities to engage in and actually use what they are learning in a meaningful way. (And we wonder why these students aren't motivated!)
Return to one of the opening vignettes and recall the scene in the movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off in which the history teacher drones on about the Hawley-Smoot Tariff and the Laffer Curve, poses dull recall questions, and then answers them himself. This episode comes painfully close to familiar high school experience. Imagine that the teacher had framed the same content around an essential question (When should the government promote free trade and when should it protect its industries?) and a culminating performance task (As an advisor to the Secretary of Commerce, give advice on the U.S. positions on Chinese imports and NAFTA). Such a change would have enhanced engagement, understanding, rigor, and relevance.
Here's another illustration of an alternative instructional sequence built with meaning and transfer in mind—this one in high school mathematics. The unit involves statistics, specifically the concept of measures of central tendency (mean, media, mode, range, and so on).
Typical high school math textbooks and classes begin by defining the terms
mean, median, and mode; give examples illustrating each measure; provide independent practice with about 15 problems (for example, requiring students to complete a table by calculating all three measures for a data set); and then pose several hypothetical word problems asking students to apply their skills. Notice how the following unit unfolds quite differently, with meaning making and transfer preceding instruction in the basics.
In this example, learning for understanding develops in an iterative fashion across the three categories of transfer, meaning, and acquisition. The acquisition of new vocabulary and techniques for calculating central tendency are introduced in response to real problems around the issue of fairness and average and as preparation for the final performance task. Although traditional quizzes are included, they are not the capstone assessment: The unit culminates in a thought-provoking (and personally relevant) transfer task and a reflection on the unit's essential questions.
The transfer, meaning, and acquisition categories are useful for analyzing course syllabi, unit plans, and lessons to ensure alignment with the goal of teaching for meaning. For an example of how a teacher could apply the categories to a science unit, see Figure 1. Note that in the chart, instructional activities designed for meaning and transfer are matched with assessments designed for the same goals.
An Instructional Unit on the Nature of Science (Observation, Using Tools of Science, Scientific Reasoning)
Hook: The teacher poses questions to set the stage and shows optical illusions and pictures of nonvisible light (such as infrared) made visible.
How can we better see? What might we not be seeing, and why? How can we make the invisible visible?
Teacher sets up a simulated "crime" in the classroom. Students then individually list what they observed (saw, heard, and so on). Students compare their individual lists to illustrate the variability of both observations and recording of "facts."
How do scientists carefully make and record their observations—without jumping to unsupported conclusions?
Explain how scientific observation differs from casual observation. Explain the value of systematic record-keeping in science.
Students research various scientific tools and technologies (telescope, X-ray machine, computer spreadsheet) and discuss their findings to answer the questions.
How do scientific tools and technologies enhance scientific observation and record keeping? Which tool is helpful when?
Provide examples of ways in which scientific tools and technologies enhance scientific observation.
Teacher displays and labels the parts of a microscope and explains their functions.
What are the parts of a microscope, and what does each part do?
Quiz on the names of microscope parts. Match the part with its function.
Teacher models how to focus a microscope. Students practice with a partner.
How do you focus a microscope?
Skill check: Demonstrate focusing a microscope
Students select items (such as pond water) to observe under the microscope and record their observations.
What can we learn from microscopic observations?
Use a microscope to examine a tiny object and carefully record your observations so that someone else could learn what you observed.
Students make microscopic observations as part of a scientific investigation (for example, observing the structure of onion cells and potato cells).
How are the cells of these different plants alike and different?
Students observe three different plant sections under a microscope, record observations, and answer the investigation question.
Note: The distinctions among the three types are not always sharp. For example, meaning-making activities may also help students acquire information and skills.
A close examination of classroom assessments in high school courses reveals that many do not assess for understanding, and fewer still require transfer. So schools need to test their tests—to review their assessments for a marking period and ask, What percentage of items and tasks assess acquisition of discrete information and skills? What percentage require students to infer, generalize, analyze, and make connections, show their reasoning, or support their answer? What percentage require students to apply past learning to new situations?
We recommend that schools develop a public syllabus for every course, which articulates the course's transfer-meaning-acquisition priorities and concomitant assessments. Such an approach offers a practical means of freeing high school instruction from the dominance of the textbook and its emphasis on acquisition. The textbook should serve as a resource, but not as the syllabus.
In high schools today, acquisition of content for its own sake dominates teachers' and students' experience—and therefore, schooling fails to achieve its purpose for a sizable proportion of learners. The approach proposed here suggests that to reform the high school curriculum in a meaningful way, we must challenge the common practice of teaching knowledge and skill for acquisition first and then teaching for meaning and transfer later. Rather, we must recognize that the purposeful and effective use of content is the ever-present goal, and we must design all instruction with that goal in mind.
Adler, M. (1984). The Paideia program: An educational syllabus. New York: Macmillan.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2001). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Grant Wiggins is President of Authentic Education in Hopewell, New Jersey;
email@example.com. Jay McTighe is Educational Consultant with Jay McTighe and Associates, Columbia, Maryland; firstname.lastname@example.org. They are coauthors of Understanding by Design, Expanded 2nd Edition (ASCD, 2005) and
Schooling by Design: Mission, Action, and Achievement (ASCD, 2007).
Copyright © 2008 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Subscribe to ASCD Express, our free e-mail newsletter, to have practical, actionable strategies and information delivered to your e-mail inbox twice a month.
ASCD respects intellectual property rights and adheres to the laws governing them. Learn more about our permissions policy and submit your request online.