If you search for the word 'understand' within the contents of Making the PYP Happen you will be rewarded with 453 hits. Conceptual understandings are prerequisites of our written curriculum (IB 2014 p.11) and enduring understanding is the goal of our unit plans (IB 2009 p. 37).
Central Ideas Driving Us To Tears
Central ideas in the current PYP framework are not facilitating understanding. Learning in the PYP is incredibly rich of course, but most students in PYP schools don't actually come to understand their central ideas. And if you asked a set of students to reflect on what do they understand now from units in previous years, they would have difficulty articulating their understanding of their former central ideas... (This could make a great research topic for the IB Research Team).... This makes any elusive understanding they might develop far from enduring. In short, although they have huge potential, in their current form central ideas are more often than not little more than a waste of time.
You may think what I am stating here is outrageous and grossly untrue. But any debate about my claim would end in stalemate as there is no IB definition of understanding for us to turn to and (grasping our assessment evidence) say 'See, look, you're wrong!" So... the first thing we need from the PYP Review are definitions.
There is no IB definition of understanding. In that absence we can look to Understanding by Design (Grant Wiggins & Jay McTighe) and Harvard University's Teaching for Understanding (David Perkins Tina Blythe and others). The PYP planner was based around the principles of Understanding by Design so UbD's perspective is particularly relevant.
Understanding is much more complex than one paragraph in a blog post can give justice. But with that caveat, here is a synopsis of how the big wigs define understanding.
To understand is more than a thought process - it is a performance. It is the ability to 'think with' knowledge and to perform flexibly. In order to understand, learners have to transfer and transform knowledge in novel, new ways. They have to perform flexibly in unrehearsed, unfamiliar contexts. The more flexibly a learner performs, the deeper the understanding. Understanding by Design categorizes these ways to perform flexibly using their six facets: seeing perspective, applying, explaining, empathizing, interpreting and having self knowledge.
1. Create a Primary School Definition of Understanding
Both Understanding by Design and Teaching for Understanding were developed out of middle and high school education. Their definitions of understanding and their associated curricula models are most easily applicable to more mature learners. For example I have some reservations of Understanding by Design's 'Six Facets of Understanding' being developmentally appropriate for all elementary school grades. I believe we need a primary school definition of understanding which is developmentally appropriate and realistic for our particular group of learners. I don't personally have the solution. It's very easy being on the back benches critiquing from afar but another thing altogether coming up with the solution. I don't envy the IB curriculum teams. I do hope that IB asks an understanding expert for assistance. We need a tangible description of flexible performance which suits our younger students. Perhaps David Perkins or Jay McTighe could assist the PYP Review in this regard? Another possibility might be Solo Taxonomy (John Hattie's take on this).
2. Help Us Understand That The Early Years Are Different
Expecting four or five year olds to apply and explain their learning both flexibly and in unrehearsed, unfamiliar contexts seems unrealistic to me. Piaget's fixed developmental stages may have been disproved, but there is still developmentally appropriate practice. Early childhood is awash of imagination and play. A place where reality and fantasy intermingle. It seems to me that 'understanding' in the early years if it exists at all is more about making connections and imagination than tangible, flexible performance. Are we trying to fit a square plug into a round hole? Let's agree that the early years is different. It is a pre-understanding phase of schooling and therefore we should not be teaching for nor assessing understanding. I hope the new PYP helps us all understand this.
3. Drop Conceptual Understandings In the Early Years
4. Include Several Understandings Per Unit
In order to come up with just one, workable statement broad enough to encompass all the learning (and disciplines) in a unit of inquiry, teachers all over the world are writing obtuse, wishy-washy central ideas. Such understandings are intangible, difficult (if not impossible) to understand (using the definition above) and they cause all sorts of assessment challenges. Many are not worth knowing at all. This isn't the teachers' fault, this is a symptom of being confined to one sole, central idea.
Lynn Erickson (the world leader in concept based curriculum) advocates that we put our conceptual understandings through her leveling process. This leveling process produces conceptual understandings which are well articulated, worth knowing, specific, and tangible. Importantly such conceptual understandings can actually be understood (performed flexibly) by our learners in the way I described earlier. These understanding performances can also be easily observed and assessed. But If you try putting a single central idea through Erickson's leveling 'hoops', you end up producing a focused conceptual understanding. At the same time this generally narrows the scope of the unit to the point where the inquiry would be just a week or a few days. The solution is very simple - allow for more conceptual understandings per unit of inquiry. This allows for meaty, understanding rich units - understanding which is tangible.
If you are interested in reading more about this logic and how this could and does already look in some PYP schools please read these blog posts:
In response to my recent post, some readers expressed that more 'must dos' like these are the last thing the PYP needs. I do empathize. One option would be to erase conceptual understandings, reference to understanding and central ideas from the standards and practices, planner and the new Principles and Practices.
However if the goal of understanding and conceptual understandings do remain in the revised documentation, then I argue there does needs to be a user friendly definition of understanding and better guidelines. As Grant Wiggins put it in his opening remarks here; understanding needs to be achieved by careful design not chance and that means revised instructions.
One Last Plea