A SOCIETY FOR DYNAMIC COLLABORATION
Aloha Tower Market Place, Honolulu Harbor
Goals 2000: Harbors Project is an assemblage of nearly 60 Honolulu educators and administrators of 10 public schools in the Roosevelt High School Complex. The public schools consist of six elementary, one K-9, and three secondary schools.
In their desire to restructure curriculum, administrators in the Roosevelt Complex met on December 1, 1994. From a grant, funded by the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the Goals 2000: Harbors Project was conceived. The group felt that a comparative study of harbors around the world would be an appropriate vehicle to actuate a restructured curriculum through given key elements:
Improvement of Teaching and Learning
Integration of Content Areas
Development of a Community of Learners
Use of Technology
Assessment and Evalution
The project teachers met at Honolulu Harbor, the site of the Aloha Tower, Honolulu's renowned landmark. It was there that they established the areas of study: Arts and Culture, Economics and Trade, Envrionment and Marine Science, Hawaiian Studies, History, and Literature.
During the 1995-96 school year, the Goals 2000: Harbors Project group met to collaboratively plan lessons, share ideas, visit sites and learn from resources in the community. From their inspiration and insight, teachers designed and implemented lessons which reflected the first steps toward curriculum restructuring.
Roosevelt High School students and Manoa Elementary School students collaborate during a lesson in environmental education.
RESTRUCTURING THE CURRICULUM
A People, Planning Process
Collaboration within a community of learners is the basis for the Harbors Project's restructuring process. As such, it embodies a sensitivity to people within generic planning parameters which, in turn, encourage the individuals' purposeful interaction and productivity. The process or means toward renewal and improvement, therefore, are as important as the curriculum outcomes.
The restructuring process, when isolated from a review of the Harbors' activities, has "high performance team" characteristics as identified by researchers Katzenbach and Smith (The Wisdom of Teams, 1993). The teachers, principals, community members, and students participating in the activities demonstrated:
- Deep commitment to the purpose and goals of the project.
- Commitment to one another as they worked together.
- Focus on collective learning or developmental products.
- Awareness of personal growth and performance.
The process which contributes to building and maintaining high level collaborative interaction must start with a demanding performance challenge such as restructuring the curriculum. Then the following basic elements become important to the process:
- 1. Individuals are in smaller groups for working together.
- Groups formed by common interests or preference can provide a compatible initial environment. Addition of diversity such as varying discipline (subject area) and grade level can strengthen integration and articulation efforts.
- 2. Each group has adequate levels of complementary skills represented in its membership.
- The three categories of skills recommended are: functional/technical, problem solving/ decision making, and interpersonal. If the skills required for the purpose or goal of the effort are not evident, they should be introduced or developed through inservice training activities for the groups collectively or individually.
- 3. The improvement or restructuring effort has a meaningful purpose which is given priority among all participants.
- The meaningfulness of a long-term purpose sustains interest and commitment. This commitment, however, must also be evident among those in authority positions. Evidence may be shown through provisions of time and resources, side-by-side participation in key activities, and facilitation of information dissemination/ communication.
- 4. Short-term goals and guides are provided or developed by the participants toward attainment of the shared vision or long-term goal.
- Clear and realistic goals which call for a concrete set of work-products keep the participants informed as to important tasksÑimportant to individuals and the group collectively. Often guidelines such as the "Lesson/Unit Format" and "Instructional Unit Review" help to clarify the task and facilitate the individuals' working together.
- 5. Establishing a sense of mutual accountability is the true test!
- The individual and group accountability for the purpose, goals, approach and products supports the groups working together through the entire process.
Product Quality Review Guide
From the formulation of a lesson/unit development format through the three-cycle review and edit phases, contributing participants individually and collectively demonstrated their sense of accountability. The resulting instructional plans are contained in the next section. Their finalization was based on the following questions, designed to guide the development and documentation of curriculum restructuring.
Quality Guide for Individual Lessons
- 1. Outcomes/Lesson
- Does it relate to the goal and context of the project?
- What learner outcomes (performance standards) are addressed?
- 2. Improvement of Teaching/Learning
- Are positive attitudes developed or learner interests motivated?
- Do activities support acquisition of new knowledge?
- Are there opportunities for extending or refining knowledge?
- Are there opportunities for meaning use or application of learnings?
- 3. Integration of Content Areas
- What content areas are involved?
- How are the areas integrated (e.g., thematically, conceptually, contextually, etc.)?
- Are there bridges back to individual content areas for in-depth development as needed?
- 4. Community of Learners
- Are there opportunities for learning together (student, teachers, community)?
- Are there adult opportunities for working and learning together?
- 5. Use and Integration of Technology
- How is technology used?
- Is the use of technology integrated into the lesson so that the application will enhance learning?
- Does the technological application support inquiry processes?
- 6. Assessment and Evaluation
- How will the effectiveness of the lesson/unit be determined?
- Does the methodology/instrumentation/process directly address the learner outcomes?
- For the assessment/evaluation (authentic, alternative, or traditional), are the decision-making criteria identified.
Quality Guide for Lessons/Units Collectively
- 1. Learner Outcomes
- To what extent are the performance standards addressed across all lessons/units?
- Are there a minimum number of performance standards addressed for each content standard within the selected content areas?
- For each content standard cluster, is the coverage at the exploratory, processing, or application stage of learning?
- What other content areas/standards receive significant attention?
- 2. Gaps
- What are the areas/standards not addressed which require attention based on their importance to the development of literacy and thinking skills among the learners?
- Who will work on filling the gaps?
- Are there materials or resources which may address the gaps?
- 3. Integrated Comprehensiveness
- How do the lessons/units relate to each other?
- What major themes/concepts appear to run through the lessons/units?
Back
Home
The Harbor's project is a resource of the HERN institute THernbutton.gif)
Send e-mail to:
Harbors Web Master
If you find a good resource which we missed, please send us the URL.
