Tying Outcomes to Activities
One of the ways we can make learning outcomes successful is by tying them to individual activities.
Two possibilities are available to us.
The first sees us using separate activities for separate outcomes.
So, for example, we might begin the lesson with an activity that focuses on an ‘all’ outcome, then move onto one that deals with a ‘most’ outcome and then, finally, one that is concerned with a ‘some’ outcome.
The problem with this is that we risk seeing overall progress slow with each activity as groups of learners drop away.
This is because we have defined the outcomes as being accessible to all, most and some, not to everybody.
Therefore, by the final activity we have a lesson that is focussed on the progress of the few rather than the many.
(Whether we intended this or not.)
Even if we stress that all outcomes are achievable by all learners, there is a likelihood that not all learners will be able to engage successfully with the final activity.
A simple solution to this is as follows.
For each successive activity, add an element that deals exclusively with the next outcome, instead of planning an activity that only deals with the next outcome.
This leads to a situation like this:
- Activity One – ‘All’ outcome
- Activity Two – ‘All’ and ‘Most’ outcomes
- Activity Three – ‘All,’ ‘Most’ and ‘Some’ outcomes
While this is a touch more challenging from the planning perspective, it is highly effective in maintaining good progress across the board in each segment of the lesson.
It also forces you to look critically at your learning objective and associated outcomes, to ensure they are both sufficiently challenging and likely to maintain engagement.
The structure that results is inherently progressive (as each activity gets more challenging) while also allowing all learners to access the learning at every stage (as each activity begins from the ‘All’ outcome).
At the same time, it doesn’t limit learners because the inherent expectation is that while the ‘most’ and ‘some’ elements are more challenging, they are not by necessity restricted to or only aimed at certain groups of learners.
Pragmatically, we can assume that it is unlikely that every learner will successfully achieve the hardest outcomes.
But they might.
Learners can always surprise us.
Or we might find we’ve pitched things too low without realising.
For me, this formulation increases the possibility that more learners will access the most challenging outcomes.
And it increases the level of challenge across the board.
One way to achieve this is by joining together subtasks based on different levels of the taxonomy.
For example, Activity Two above would consist of two subtasks tied together, one aimed at the ‘All’ outcome and one aimed at the ‘Most’ outcome, both based on successive levels of the taxonomy.
Activity Three would follow the same approach, except with three subtasks.
The second approach we might choose to follow involves planning a series of activities, each of which goes some way to meeting all three of the outcomes we have defined.
This leads to a lesson in which learners can work at different speeds throughout.
Three simple techniques to achieve such an end are as follows.
Strategy 1: Sub-Tasks in Each Activity
Use the subtask approach but ensure that each activity you plan has three parts to it, each of which is tied to a different outcome and each of which is, as a result, more challenging than the previous part.
For example, you might have analysis, synthesis and evaluation subtasks tied together for each activity, with each of these referencing a successive outcome.
This way, every learner is challenged within each activity (analysis as our lowest level of challenge is still challenging, sitting as it does at level four of Bloom’s Taxonomy), and each activity contains scope for higher challenge, depending on where learners are at.
Strategy 2: Supplement Activities
Use extension tasks and extension questions as supplements to each activity you plan, with these giving access to the third and most challenging outcome (‘Some’).
Here we are providing more-able learners with work that will push their thinking and help them to achieve the most difficult outcome.
However, we are also making the work available to all learners (by, for example, displaying it on the board or on a resource) to reinforce the idea that targeted effort can help everyone to maximise their own progress.
One of my favourite approaches is to have an extension task, followed by a super-extension, then an out-of-space extension.
(And to reveal these in turn, so learners know something is waiting for them when they finish each one.)
Ensure these are higher-level, different and interesting so they are a reward for learners who complete the main activity.
I have found that consistently using this approach creates a desire among all learners to get to the extension tasks, including learners you might not have expected to respond in this way.
With this approach, there is also the option to tell more-able learners to jump straight to the extension task if the main activity is too easy for them.
Strategy 3: Delineated Success Criteria
Give carefully delineated success criteria for each activity, with these criteria relating to your outcomes.
So, for example, your first activity might come with five success criteria, the first two of which relate to the first outcome (all), the second two of which relate to the second (most) and the last of which relates to the third (some).
In each activity, all learners will have access to the various success criteria, but they won’t necessarily achieve all of them.
(They might, and fantastic if they do, but in a mixed ability class this is unlikely. However, that doesn’t mean we don’t allow for it or encourage it as a goal.)
Instead, it is likely that learners will reach a level of challenge that suits their current position.
For example, one learner might complete the first two success criteria but find the third a particular challenge, while another learner might spend most of the activity trying to achieve the fifth criterion.
