INQUIRY UNPACKED An Introduction to Inquiry-Based Learning By Barbara A. Jansen "Inquire, think critically, and gain knowledge." "Plan strategies to guide inquiry." As our national educational organizations' standards evolve from students mastering discrete skills to demonstrating broad learning behaviors, often referred to as 21st century learning skills, pedagogy is slowly shifting from teacher- and textbook-centered dissemination of facts and information to student-centered construction of learning and knowledge. In this environment, students use a wide range of resources to collaborate with others to solve authentic problems by thinking critically, actively create content, and communicate with a wide audience. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills succinctly categorizes these participatory skills into the four Cs: "critical thinking and problem solving, collaboration, communication, and creativity and innovation" (P21 mission statement). Both the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) and the International Society for Technology in Education's (ISTE) 1 0 Library Media Connection ® i "The inquiry process is not linear but occurs as a cyclical series of actions or events." National Educational Technology Standards for Students 2007 call for students to use an inquiry approach when engaged in the research process. The AASL standards refer to inquiry seven times, including having students "inquire, think critically, gain knowledge, " and to "follow an inquiry- based process in seeking knowledge in curricular subjects, . . ." and "continue an inquiry-based research process by applying critical-thinking skills . . ." in addition to "conclud[ing] an inquiry-based research process . . ." (AASL). ISTE standards call tor students to "plan strategies to guide inquiry" ("NETS for Students"). But what does it look like for a student to be engaged in inquiry? What is inquiry-based research, commonly referred to as inquiry-based learning or "guided inquiry" (Kuhlthau, Maniotcs, and Caspari)? A recent post on the AASL email forum underscores the confusion that school librarians and educators in general have about inquiry. A librarian questioned the use of the term "inquiry-based project" in the standards in lieu of "research project" and considered whether she should teach her students the meaning of inquiry. A search for "inquiry-based research" on Google results in 102,000 links. "Inquiry-based learning" returns over 151,000 links. A search for "inquiry- based learning" offers 101 titles on Amazon.com, over 8,400 results on Google Books, over 9,760 results on Google Scholar, and over 52,000,000 results on Bing. March/April 2011 NOT TO BE MISSED READING AND VIEWING FOR SCHOOL LIBRARIANS Kuhlthau, Carol C, Leslie K. Maniotes, and Ann K. Caspari. Guided Inquiry: Learning in the 21st Century. Libraries Unlimited, 2007. Rheingold, Howard. "Librarian 2.0: Buffy J. Hamilton." Digital LM Central. MacArthur Foundation, 3 May 2010. W ...

1. INQUIRY UNPACKED An Introduction to
Inquiry-Based Learning
By Barbara A. Jansen
"Inquire, think critically, and gain knowledge."
"Plan strategies to guide inquiry."
As our national educational organizations'
standards evolve from students mastering
discrete skills to demonstrating broad learning
behaviors, often referred to as 21st century
learning skills, pedagogy is slowly shifting from
teacher- and textbook-centered dissemination
of facts and information to student-centered
construction of learning and knowledge. In
this environment, students use a wide range
of resources to collaborate with others to solve
authentic problems by thinking critically, actively
create content, and communicate with a wide
audience. The Partnership for 21st Century
Skills succinctly categorizes these participatory
skills into the four Cs: "critical thinking and
problem solving, collaboration, communication,
and creativity and innovation" (P21 mission
statement). Both the American Association of
School Librarians (AASL) and the International
Society for Technology in Education's (ISTE)
1 0 Library Media Connection ® i
"The inquiry process is not linear but occurs
as a cyclical series of actions or events."

2. National Educational Technology Standards for
Students 2007 call for students to use an inquiry
approach when engaged in the research process.
The AASL standards refer to inquiry seven times,
including having students "inquire, think critically,
gain knowledge, " and to "follow an inquiry-
based process in seeking knowledge in curricular
subjects, . . ." and "continue an inquiry-based
research process by applying critical-thinking skills
. . ." in addition to "conclud[ing] an inquiry-based
research process . . ." (AASL). ISTE standards call
tor students to "plan strategies to guide inquiry"
("NETS for Students").
But what does it look like for a student to be
engaged in inquiry? What is inquiry-based
research, commonly referred to as inquiry-based
learning or "guided inquiry" (Kuhlthau, Maniotcs,
and Caspari)? A recent post on the AASL email
forum underscores the confusion that school
librarians and educators in general have about
inquiry. A librarian questioned the use of the term
"inquiry-based project" in the standards in lieu
of "research project" and considered whether she
should teach her students the meaning of inquiry.
A search for "inquiry-based research" on Google
results in 102,000 links. "Inquiry-based learning"
returns over 151,000 links. A search for "inquiry-
based learning" offers 101 titles on Amazon.com,
over 8,400 results on Google Books, over 9,760
results on Google Scholar, and over 52,000,000
results on Bing.

3. March/April 2011
NOT TO BE MISSED READING AND
VIEWING FOR SCHOOL LIBRARIANS
Kuhlthau, Carol C, Leslie K. Maniotes,
and Ann K. Caspari. Guided Inquiry:
Learning in the 21st Century. Libraries
Unlimited, 2007.
Rheingold, Howard. "Librarian 2.0:
Buffy J. Hamilton." Digital LM Central.
MacArthur Foundation, 3 May 2010.
Web. 10 Oct. 2010. bttp://dmlcentraL
net/blog/howard-rheingold/librarian-
20-buffy-j-hamilton.
Stripling, Barbara. "Teaching Students to
Think in the Digital Environment: Digital
Literacy and Digital Inquiry." School
Library Monthly 26.8 (2010): 16-18.
EBSCOhost Professional Development
Collection. Web. 16 Sept. 2010.
INQUIRY DEFINED
w h a t is inquiry? What does it look like? What are

4. its components?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines inquiry a.s
"the action ot seeking, . . . for truth, knowledge,
or information concerning something; search,
research, investigation, examination; a course of
inquiry, an investigation; and the action of asking
or questioning. '
Educational organizations explain inquiry as it
relates to learning. In Standards for the English
Language Arts, the National Council of Teachers of
English (NGTE) describes inquiry as "the learners
desire to look deeply into a question or idea that
interests him or her' (27). AASL's explanation in
Standards for the 21st-century Learner oiFers inquiry
as a "stance toward learning in which the learners
themselves are engaged in asking questions and
finding answers, not simply accumulating facts
(presented by someone else) that have no relation

5. to previous learning or new understanding" (17).
Inquiry-based research—or learning—consists of
a "process of learning that is driven by questioning,
investigating, making sense of information, and
developing new understandings, it is a process
of active learning, [and] it is cyclical, not linear "
("Chapter 3: Inquiry in Action") and is deterpiined
"by one's own curiosity, wonder, interest or passion
to understand an observation or solve a problem"
("A Description of Inquiry").
Traditionally, the teacher tells students what to "look
up"' during the research phase of a given projea,
which may typically occur after the teaching of the
content as enrichment or a follow-up activity. Inquiry-
March/April 2011
"Inquiry-based research allows the student
to ask questions in which he or she is
interested and use all available resources
to investigate the problenn."

6. based research allows the student to ask questions
in which he or she is interested and use all available
resources to investigate the problem. Key components
ot inquiry-based research include "tíaming school
study around questions developed and shaped by
kids," "handing the brainwork of learning back to
the kids," and focusing on the "development of kids'
thinking first, foremost, and always" (Harvey and
Daniels 56-57). And, inquiry occurs not at the end
but at the beginning of the study, allowing students
to construct the content knowledge necessary to
understand concepts and make connections.
Inquiry does not necessarily follow a logical or neat
process. Models of inquiry-based learning show
a variety of approaches (see additional resources
below) that librarians and teachers can use to
guide students. All emph.isize that the process is
not linear but occurs as a cyclical series of actions

7. or events. The six-phase Stripling Inquiry Model
makes good sense for school librarians who seek a
structure for collaborating with teachers (Stripling)
to bring inquiry into the learning process. The
model's phases—connect, wonder, investigate,
construct, express, and reflect—allow for nonlinear
thinking as illustrated below:
Ideally, the process begins "when the learner
identifies a problem or notices something that
intrigues, surprises, or stimulates a question—
something that is new, or something that may
not make sense in relationship to the learner's
previous experience or current understanding" ("A
De.scription ot Inquiry").
INOUIRY PRACTICED
In reality, other than the occasional self-selected
research paper or science tair topic, state- or
school-mandated curriculum standards leave
little time for students to explore their own

8. interests. By turning the curriculum into engaging
problems for students to solve, students can
participate in inquiry while practicing many
curriculum-mandated skills (i.e., reading, writing,
listening, research) as they investigate subject-
area content (social studies, science, health, math,
etc.). Instead ot teachers dictating the information
students need to locate, allow them to determine
what they know, want to know, and need to know
to solve the intorniation problem. Encourage
students to use a variety of online and otïline
resources, and allow them to show their results by
creating products that go beyond the traditional
report and PowerPoint presentation. Targeting
specific audiences for students' etTorts raises their
level of concern and provides a focus for their
• Reflect on
own learning

9. • Ask new
questions
• Apply
understandings
to a new
context, new
situation
• Express new
ideas to share
learning
with others
• Connect to self, previous knowledge
• Gain background and context
1 ^ Connect ^ 1
- Reflect stripling Wonder
À Model of À
* Inquiry T
- Express Investigate
T ^ Construct ^ T
• Construct new understandings
connected to previous knowledge
• Draw conclusions about questions
and hypotheses

10. • Develop questions
• Make predictions,
hypothesis
• Find and evaluate
information to
answer questions,
test hypotheses
• Think about
information to
illuminate new
questions and
hypotheses
[Used with fjermission.] For more about the Stripling Model,
see the additional resources on the next page.
9 Library Media Connection 1 1
writing and knowledge sharing. For example, turn the
traditional report into
an article synthesizing important concepts for the general
consumption of
Time magazine readers or an editorial for the opinion page of a
newspaper.
Multimedia texts combine the important skill of writing along
with those

11. involved in visual and audio production. Students can display
these texts on
blogs or wikis for public consumption.
Inquiry is not easily nurtured through standalone library
instruction that
occurs once a week. Successful inquiry-based learning involves
students
engaging in topics originating in their subject-area courses for
extended
periods of time on consecutive days, preferably in collaboration
with the
school librarian. Kuhlthau, Maniotes, and Caspari suggest that
"inquiry
instructional teams" help students develop competencies in
research and
subject knowledge while helping to support essential 21st
century skills,
and require "careful planning, close supervision, ongoing
assessment, and
targeted intervention . . ." (2-3).
Buffy Hamilton, librarian at Creekview High School in Canton,
Georgia,
offers useful insights to the inquiry process through a
collaboration with a

12. tenth grade teacher of literature composition. According to
Hamilton,
collaboration with the classroom teacher benefits students in
several ways: scaffolding information literacy skills,
introducing
new online tools to students or showing them how to use
familiar
ones in effective ways, teaching evaluation of multimedia texts,
and
establishing a climate that promotes participation, inquiry, and
risk
taking in a safe environment. Students see two or more
professionals
working together and learning with them (qtd. in Rheingold).
Through self-selected topics within the greater problem of
veteran's issues,
students in Hamilton's school engaged in the inquiry process
with the
support of these professionals. Students "effectively learn to
become their
own information filters, which is the ultimate act of information
fluency.
[Using a variety of online resources and presentation tools such

13. as NetVibes]
allows us to privilege multiple forms of literacy and for our
students to
engage in transliteracy—the ability to read and write and share
information
across a variety of platforms" (Rheingold).
By collaborating with teachers to connect students to subject
knowledge,
developing their information fluency, and supporting the vital
skills of
collaboration, creation, and communication through inquiry,
school librarians
will solidify their place as an essential teaching professional at
their schools. *S
WORKS CITED
American Association of" School Librarians. Standards far the
21 st-Century Learner.
American Library Association, 2007. Web. 30 Aug. 2010.
http://www.aia.org/ala/mgrps/
divs/aasl/guidelinesandstandards/learningstandards/AASL_Lear
ningStandards.pdf.
"Chapter 3; Inquiry in Action." Supporting Inquiry with Primary
Sources.
Library of Congress, n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2010.
http://www.ioc.gov/teachers/
professionaldevelopment/selfdirected/inquiry/index.htmi.

14. "A Description of Inquiry." Institute for Inquiry: Examining the
Art of Science
Education. Expioratorium, 1998. Web. 16 Sept. 2010.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/
ifi/about/inquiry.html.
Harvey, Stephanie and Harvey Daniels. Comprehension and
Coltahoration: Inquiry
Circles in Action. Heinemann, 2009. Print.
Internationa) Reading Association and National Council of
Teachers of English.
Standards for the English Language Arts. International Reading
Association and the
National Council ofTeachers of English, 1996. Web. 3 Sept.
2010. http://www.ncte.
org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Books/Sample/StandardsDoc.
pdf.
Kuhlthau, Carol C , Leslie K. Maniotes, and Ann K. Caspari.
Guided Inquiry:
Learning in the 21st Century. Libraries Unlimited, 2007. Print.
"NETS for Students 2007." International Society for
Technology in Education, 2007.
Web. 17 Sept. 2010. http://www.iste.Org//for-students/student-
standards-2007.aspx.
"Our Mission." Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2004. Web.
1 Oct. 2010. http://
www.p21 .org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=
188&Itemid= 110.
Rheingold, Howard. "Librarian 2.0: BufïyJ. Hamilton." Digital
LM Central.
MacArthur Foundation, 3 May 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.

15. http://dmlcemral.net/blog/
howard-rheingold/librarian-20-bufiy-j-hamilton.
Standards for the 21st-century Learner in Action. Chicago:
American Association of
School Librarians, 2009. Print.
Stripling, Barbara. "Teaching Students to Think in the Digital
Environment: Digital
Literacy and Digital Inquiry." School Library Monthly Id.%
(2010): 16-18. EBSCOhost
Professional Development Collection. Web. 16 Sept. 2010.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR THE STRIPLING
INOUIRY MODEL
Supporting inquiry with primary sources (multimedia from the
Library of Congress;
with Barbara Stripling, primary sources, and 5th graders):
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/professionaldevelopment/seifdirect
ed/inquiry/index.html
Supporting inquiry learning from the Library of Congress's
Teaching with Primary
Sources Quarterly publication:
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/tps/quarterly/0907/pdf/TPSQuarterl
ySummer09.pdf
"Student Inquiry and Web 2.0" by Pam Berger (includes using
Stripling Inquiry Model
with Web 2.0 tools):
http://www.schoollibrarymonthly.com/articles Berger2010-
v26n5p 14.html
OTHER MODELS
Historical Inquiry (ABC-CLIO):

16. As a group, brainstorm a variety of Key
Quest/ons that help illuminate the value of the
primary source.
Use the datat)ase
to research the
facts, opinions
and primary
sources related to
your Dilemma.
HhtoikjHnquiry PncKS
1 ^
Use the ABC-CLIO
databases to find
answers to your
Key Questions
and develop new
Key Questions.
Shape your Key Questions and their answers into a
broader Dilemma that lacks a single answer
Used with permi.ssion from ABC-CLIO.
Tasks of Inquiry (Anna J. Warner and Brian E. Myers,
Department of Agricultural
Education and Communication, Florida Cooperative Extension
Service, Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida):
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/wcO75
8Ws of Information Inquiry (Annette Lamb):

17. http://virtualinquiry.com/inquiry/ws.htm
Inquiry-based Learning (Paula Sincero):
http://www.inquirylearn.com/Inquirydefhtm
Inquiry Process (The Inquiry Page, University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign):
http://inquiry.illinois.edu/inquiry/process.php3
ASSESSMENT
"Enhancing Inquiry through Formative Assessment" by Wynne
Harlen (Expioratorium
Institute for Inquiry):
http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/docs/harlen_monograph.pdf
"How can we assess student learning in an inquiry classroom?"
(The Inquiry Page,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign):
http://inquiry.illinois.edu/php/assessment2.php
B a r b a r a A . J a n s e n is the Depanmem chair of
1-12 Educationai Technoiogy and Library Sen/ices and the
Upper School Librarian at St. Andrew's Episcopal School
in Austin, Texas. She is the author ofseverai titles from
Linworth Publishing.
1 2 Library Media Connection March/April 2011
Copyright of Library Media Connection is the property of
Linworth Publishing, Inc. and its content may not be

18. copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
Tim Christiansen
BUMT 5500
Superior Supermarkets
Superior Supermarket’s Problem
Superior Supermarkets has been in business in Dixie Town for
over 60 years and has both
the largest number of stores in town, as well as the largest
market share in supermarket sales.
Recently, Superior’s franchise wholesaler, which Superior has
been a member of since 1952,
proposed that Superior use the private-label brand which it
distributes as a way to boost sales and
margins for the store. Up until now, the store has only sold
national brand labels and the owner
of Superior (Sam Harris) is very resistant to bringing in private
labels. He has expressed his
belief that the company has been successful because it provides

19. convenience, service and
national labels.
Sam Harris Jr, the son of the owner is at least open to the idea
of bringing in private label
goods and has paid for a survey to be done to get some better
data about what this change in the
store merchandise might be able to do for the company. While
he is open to the idea, he does
admit that it would be a strategic change for the firm. The
franchise group has said that in order
to be consistent for Superior’s customers the adoption of the
private label goods would have to
be company-wide and for a minimum of five years.
The decision needs to be made at the next board meeting. Does
Superior begin selling
private label merchandise, in every store, for the next five
years, or not?
1
Laying Out the Options
The first alternative is to simply reject the offer from the
franchiser and continue business

20. as usual. Sales are good and have been going up, but there is a
significant amount of competition
within the town for the consumer’s supermarket shopping
dollar. The competition has been
relatively stable but consumers have been becoming more
accepting of private labels and the
company might lose market share if it doesn’t have anything to
offer to the cost conscious
consumer.
The second alternative is to accept the offer from the franchiser.
Accepting the offer
would mean carrying these products for a minimum of five
years, even if they did not seem to be
well accepted by Superior’s customers. And the products would
have to be in every store. The
stores would also lose about 10% of the current shelf space to
the private label brands. Since all
the stores have a concern about the amount of space in the store,
the private label merchandise
would have to replace other brands rather than being considered
as an additional source of
revenue. Sam Jr. had the controller of the company check on
how this might affect the sales.
The controller said that the best estimates would be that

21. anywhere from 2 to 15% of the sales
would switch from national brands to the private brand, and
about 7% seems to be the average
from what he has seen. However, the private label merchandise
would be priced about 10%
lower than the national brands they would be replacing, thus the
next years sales estimate of $28
million would probably go down.
Sam Jr. wanted some hard data to help him decide whether he
should try to encourage the
board to adopt the private label merchandise. He knew that at
the absolute minimum, bringing in
the private label merchandise must not lower the overall gross
margin dollars for the store. The
2
survey he arranged to have done by a college class in the town
will provide him with some
primary data which may help in making the decision.
Evaluating the Options
Maintain Status Quo
The first option of essentially doing nothing does have some

22. very appealing aspects.
First, there would be no change in current operations, so there
would be no cost associated with
restocking and relabeling shelves, etc. Admittedly, those are
probably minor costs, but in
addition to no change in the operations, there would be no
change in the image of the firm to the
public. It would continue on by providing convenient locations,
national brands at the premium
prices they demand, and good customer service.
The data the Sam Jr. has collected also lends some support to
this option. Table A-1
shows the Superior is the most patronized of all the chain
supermarkets at 30.5% of all shoppers.
While the difference between Superior and Old South was only
a little over one percent, it was
higher, even though Old South carries private label goods. And
Table A-3 suggests that
Superior’s shoppers do not come to the store for the price level
(only 10.1%), they are coming
for the location and the selection of brands that are available.
The personnel in the store were
equally important as the price at 10.1%.

23. Table A-4 suggests that the Superior customer is no more, nor
no less, knowledgable
about prices than the Old South shoppers who have the option
of private labels. So if the
Superior shopper knows prices about the same as the Old South
shopper, why aren’t they
shopping at Old South to buy private labels, which are lower
priced?
3
The data do support the fact that Superior is the most expensive
store in town. Table A-6
shows that even if the Superior shopper buys the lowest price
product available when they are
doing their shopping, they will still be spending over $4 more
than if they bought the lowest
price products at Old South. They would even be spending over
a dollar more for the national
brands. But, the private labels that Superior could sell would
only be able to reduce the prices by
10%, so a reduction of 10% of the Superior shopping basket
from A-6 would only bring the price
down to $39.57, which is only about a nickel less than what
they would spend at Old South, not a

24. large savings by any means.
And finally, if the private labels were accepted, the controller
has noted that these
products will not attract customers from other stores unless they
are advertised. Since these
products have a lower price that will bring sales down and
smaller sales may translate into
smaller gross margin to try to cover increased costs generated
by trying to advertise these private
label products.
Bring in Private Labels
Since the discussion about margins available was just
mentioned, what would the margins
be if private labels were brought in? From the controller’s note,
we know that about 7% of the
sales would switch from national brand to private label, and that
private labels retail for about
10% less. So 7% of the estimated $28M for next years sales
would go down by 10% or about
$1.96M in sales would go down to $1.764M. Thus, next year’s
sales would only be $27.8M
which would still make it the market share leader in the town.

25. But what about the margins? The national brands generate on
average about 19% gross
margin. Thus, on the $1.96M of sales that would have been
national brands it would have
4
generated about $372,400 of gross margin. And the private
label would only sell $1.764M, but
the margins on average are about 25%, so the gross margin that
they would represent would be
about $441,000. The increase in margin should be about
$68,600. A complete chart showing all
the potential combinations of sales and margins for national vs.
private can be found on
Appendix A, but on average the private labels will generate a
higher gross margin.
There are also a number of factors from the survey which
suggest this might be an
appropriate strategic direction to take. First, while Superior
does have greater sales than any of
its competitors, it also has more stores. Thus, if you compare
average store sales it is slightly
behind Old South at about $5.332M per store compared to Old
South’s $5.357M per store. And

26. Old South does have private labels selling at lower prices.
Table A-2 suggests that Superior loses more shoppers to other
stores than any other chain
except Big Bear and Big Bear has a different kind of product
mix which may make it harder for
customers to do all their shopping in one store. And the largest
percentage of customers that
Superior loses goes to Old South which prominently features
and advertises its private label
merchandise.
Table A-3 does show that Superior shoppers don’t come for the
price, but its customers
also didn’t find it was all that convenient. Both Old South and
Big Bear customers found their
stores convenient locations to be a bigger draw than Superiors.
So if convenience is not
something that the Superior shopper really sees in the store,
why are they coming to the store?
The choice of selection is less important to the Superior
customer than to either the Big Bear or
Old South shopper. But the personnel are as important as
prices, and higher than the other two
chains. And the personnel wouldn’t change.

27. 5
Possibly the most revealing data is from Table A-5. Here we
see that Superior’s shoppers
think buying private label merchandise is a great way to stretch
the budget — but Superior
doesn’t sell private label products. So where are these shoppers
going to stretch their dollars?
Somewhere other than Superior.
Recommendation
The decision of whether or not to bring in private label
merchandise is a critical strategic
decision for the firm. It has long term consequences of at least
five years and sale of these
products throughout the company. It is important to carefully
weigh the evidence.
There is no doubt that it looks like the margins for the firm
would increase, even though
sales levels would go down. But we do have to balance this
potential increase with the
probability of higher advertising costs to promote these
products. While on average the gross

28. margin should increase by $68,600, the extra costs of
advertising could seriously erode that
advantage.
There is also little doubt that the Superior shopper is looking
for private labels as a way
to stretch their food budget, they just are not finding these
products at Superior. This could be
one reason why so many of the shoppers Superior is losing to
other stores are choosing Old
South.
But there is also strong evidence that price of the products is
not a major concern for
Superior shoppers. The data suggest that price level ranks at
least third or fourth in the list of
reasons why shoppers chose Superior. And the Superior
shopper is at least as knowledgeable
about price as the Old South shopper, so if they are equally as
knowledgeable, maybe the
Superior shopper just doesn’t care as much about the higher
price.
6
While there is certainly some good support for either view, I

29. would have to recommend
to NOT introduce private labels. The firm has a strong image
with its shoppers of providing a
wide variety of national brands, through convenient locations,
with good service. The addition
of private labels would provide a new means of reaching the
price sensitive shopper, but that
would take more advertising and would essentially be trying to
compete with a competitor who
has built up this market over the years. Instead of trying to beat
the competitor at their game,
why not stick to your own direction and do a better job of
fulfilling the strategic direction of the
firm. Acquiring new customers who only want lower prices, at
a significant increase in
advertising, means that they could then be easily lost when a
competitor lowers its prices. I
believe it would be much better to find something that the
competitors can’t match and use that
as a strategic tool to grow sales and margins.
7
8

30. Appendix A
$28,000,000 Estimated Sales for Next Year
7.0% Percent of Sales that would change from National
Brand to Private Label
$1,960,000 Sales volume that would be affected
10.0% Difference in price between National Brands and
Private Label
$1,764,000 Sales volume if customers bought Private Label
instead of National Brand
Margin Analysis
Margin for National
Brand
Margin for
Private Label
17% 18% 19% 20% 21%
$333,200 $352,800 $372,400 $392,000 $411,600
20% $352,800 $352,800 $352,800 $352,800 $352,800
Difference $19,600 $0 $19,600 $39,200 $58,800
21% $370,440 $370,440 $370,440 $370,440 $370,440
Difference $37,240 $17,640 $1,960 $21,560 $41,160
22% $388,080 $388,080 $388,080 $388,080 $388,080
Difference $54,880 $35,280 $15,680 $3,920 $23,520
23% $405,720 $405,720 $405,720 $405,720 $405,720
Difference $72,520 $52,920 $33,320 $13,720 $5,880
24% $423,360 $423,360 $423,360 $423,360 $423,360

31. Difference $90,160 $70,560 $50,960 $31,360 $11,760
25% $441,000 $441,000 $441,000 $441,000 $441,000
Difference $107,800 $88,200 $68,600 $49,000 $29,400
26% $458,640 $458,640 $458,640 $458,640 $458,640
Difference $125,440 $105,840 $86,240 $66,640 $47,040
27% $476,280 $476,280 $476,280 $476,280 $476,280
Difference $143,080 $123,480 $103,880 $84,280 $64,680
28% $493,920 $493,920 $493,920 $493,920 $493,920
Difference $160,720 $141,120 $121,520 $101,920 $82,320
29% $511,560 $511,560 $511,560 $511,560 $511,560
Difference $178,360 $158,760 $139,160 $119,560 $99,960
30% $529,200 $529,200 $529,200 $529,200 $529,200
Difference $196,000 $176,400 $156,800 $137,200 $117,600
Average
Difference
$68,600
Rubric for Case Analysis
Critical Element Accomplished Competent Developing
Introductory
Description of the Problem

32. 5 points
Problem is well–described
and clearly, concisely
stated.
5
Problem is identified but
not as clearly or lacks
focus.
4
A correct problem is
identified, but not well–
described in order to be
dealt with.
3
No clear problem is
identified, but there is text
which suggests that
something is not working
for the firm.
0 – 2
Identification of Alternatives
10 points
All the major alternatives
are clearly identified and
well–described.

33. 9 – 10
All of the major alternatives
are identified, but the
descriptions are not clearly
written.
8 — 8.9
Most of the major
alternatives are identified,
but they lack clarity in the
writing.
7 — 7.7
Some of the alternatives
are identified, but they are
not well–described.
0 – 6.9
Evaluations of Alternatives
Both Quantitatively and
Qualitatively
15 points
The alternatives are
thoroughly evaluated and
both potential quantitative
and qualitative outcomes
are developed and
described.

34. 13.5 – 15
The alternatives are
evaluated but the potential
quantitative and qualitative
outcomes are not as clearly
developed and described.
12 – 13.4
The alternatives are not
thoroughly evaluated and
the potential outcomes are
lacking detail.
10.5 – 11.9
The alternatives are
improperly or poorly
evaluated with little detail
regarding potential
outcomes.
0 – 10.4
Selected
Solution
to Problem
and Justification

35. 15 points
A clear, single alternative is
chosen and the justification
for its choice is well–
supported.
13.5 – 15
A clear choice is made, but
the justification for its
choice is not well–
supported.
12 – 13.4
The selection of an
alternative is not entirely
clear, or there is not good
support for a choice that is
made.
10.5 – 11.9
No clear choice is made, or

36. a choice is made with very
little to no support for its
selection.
0 – 10.4
Mechanical Aspects of the
Analysis (e.g. Spelling,
Grammar, Punctuation)
5 points
The analysis is well–
written, with no writing
errors such as spelling,
punctuation, or grammar.
5
The analysis is well–
written, with a few writing
errors such as spelling,
punctuation, or grammar
4

37. The analysis is generally
well–written, but with a
number of writing errors
such as spelling,
punctuation, or grammar
3
The analysis is generally
not well–written, and
includes a significant
number of writing errors
such as spelling,
punctuation, or grammar.
0 – 2
50 Total Points
Gibraltar Door, Inc.

38. In November 2015, the company planning process for Gibraltar
Door, Inc. had just
concluded, and Richard Haworth, director of sales and
marketing, was reviewing the corporate
sales goal for 2016. The plan established a sales goal of $12.5
million for 2016, which
represented a 36 percent increase in sales over projected 2015
year-end sales.
During the planning process, a number of fellow executives had
voiced concern over
whether the distribution approach used by Gibraltar Door was
appropriate for the expanded sales
goal. Haworth felt that their concerns had merit and should be
given careful consideration.
Though he had considerable latitude in devising the distribution
strategy, the final choice would
have to be consistent with achieving the 2016 sales goal. His
approach and action plan had to be
prepared in a relatively short time to permit implementation in
January 2016.
The Company

39. Gibraltar Door, Inc. is a privately owned regional manufacturer
of residential and
commercial garage doors. Projected year-end company sales
were $9.2 million in 2015 with a
net income of $460,000 (see Exhibit 1). The company
manufactures both insulated and non-
insulated steel residential and commercial garage doors and
supplies springs, cables, rollers, and
side roller tracks for its products. Surveys of its dealers indicate
that the majority of its doors are
replacement purchases in the home remodeling segment of the
residential housing market, with
the balance of sales going to the new residential housing market
and the commercial replacement
garage door market.
The company distributes its garage doors through 300
independent dealers that typically offer
three different garage door manufacturer brands and 50
exclusive dealers that stock and sell only
Gibraltar doors. (Exclusive dealers often service competing

40. brands of garage doors in their
market area.) Combined, these 350 dealers service 150 markets
in 11 western and Rocky
1
Exhibit 1
Gibraltar Door, Inc. Income Statement Projection: For the
Period Ending December 31, 2015
Net Sales $9.200.000
Cost of Goods Sold 6,900,000
Gross Profit $2,300,000
Selling, General, & Administrative Expenses 1,840,000
Net Profit Before Income Tax $460,000
Mountain states and parts of north and west Texas. The
exclusive dealers, however, are the sole 1

41. Gibraltar Door dealers in 50 markets. According to Haworth,
this disparity in distribution policy
and market coverage occurred as a result of the company's early
history in gaining distribution.
Haworth added, “Gibraltar does not have a policy on exclusive
versus nonexclusive dealers. As it
so happens, the 50 exclusive dealers have been consistent
performers for us. We have chosen not
to distribute through other dealers in their markets given the
mutually beneficial relationship we
have enjoyed."
The 350 dealers that sell Gibraltar doors engage in garage door
sales, installation, and
service. Most dealers operate from a single location. All stock
and sell garage door openers and
hardware. The two major garage door opener suppliers are
Overhead Door, which also sells the
Destiny, Odyssey, and Legacy brands, and Chamberlain, which
makes openers under its own

42. label, as well as Craftsman and LiftMaster brands. All 350
Gibraltar Door dealers are located in
markets with populations of approximately 250,000 or less. All
150 markets are roughly
equivalent in terms of population and housing units according to
U.S. Census 2000 figures.
Gibraltar Door operates two distribution centers. These
distribution centers allow the
company to maintain an inventory of garage doors and hardware
near its dealers for quick
delivery. A distribution facility also operates at the company's
manufacturing plant. The company
employs 10 technical sales representatives. Eight
representatives call on each independent
(nonexclusive) dealer twice a month on average. Two
representatives call on the 50 exclusive
dealers.
The Residential Garage Door Industry
The residential garage door industry in the United States was
expected to post sales of $2.2
billion at manufacturer's prices in 2015. Steel garage doors

43. account for 90 percent of industry
sales. The home remodeling (replacement) market accounted for
the bulk of steel garage door
sales. Demand for replacement steel garage doors was driven by
the continued aging of the
housing stock in the United States and the conversion by
homeowners from wood doors to
lighter weight, easier-to-maintain steel doors. Also, product
innovations such as insulated steel
doors, new springing systems, and residential garage doors with
improved safety features have
made steel doors popular. Projected 2016 sales of residential
garage doors to the home
remodeling market were $2.25 billion, representing a 2.4
percent increase.
There are several large national manufacturers and many
regional and local manufacturers in
the U.S. residential garage door industry. The largest garage
door manufacturer in the United
A “market" is defined by Gibraltar Door as roughly equivalent

44. to a U.S. Census--designated metropolitan statistical area 1
(MSA). An MSA consists of (1) a city having a population of at
least 50,000 or (2) an urbanized area with a population In
excess of
50,000, with a total metropolitan population of at least 100,000.
An MSA may include counties that have close economic and
social
ties to the central county. Examples of metropolitan statistical
areas include the Modesto, California MSA; Pueblo, Colorado
MSA;
and the Cheyenne, Wyoming MSA.
2
States is the Clopay Corporation. Clopay Corporation markets
its garage doors through a
network of some 2,000 independent dealers and large home
center chains, including Home
Depot, Menards, and Lowe's Companies. Other large, well-
known garage door manufacturers are
Overhead Door Corporation, Wayne-Dalton Corporation, Amarr
Garage Doors, and Raynor

45. Garage Doors. Gibraltar Door, Inc. is considered to be one of
the smaller regional garage door
manufacturers in the industry.
In early 2015, Richard Haworth commissioned two studies of
the residential garage door
industry in the markets served by Gibraltar Door. One study was
a survey of 3,000 prospective
residential garage door buyers in 25 cities that represented a
cross section of the company's
markets. A summary of the survey results is shown in Exhibit 2.
A second study was commissioned to identify the number of
dealers that installed residential
and commercial steel garage doors in the 150 markets served by
Gibraltar Door and estimate
their approximate sales volume. Internet searching and
telephone directories were searched to
identify the independent garage door sellers and installers in
each market area. Using industry
data to adjust for sales of garage door openers, labor
installation charges, garage door and opener

46. maintenance and repair revenue, and the like, this study
identified 3,002 independent garage
door dealers with estimated 2015 steel garage door sales (at
manufacturer prices after adjusting
Exhibit 2
Residential Garage Door Survey Results Summary: 2015
1.
Residential garage door name awareness was very low. Just 10
percent of prospective
buyers could provide a brand name when asked.
2.
When asked what criteria they would use in buying a new
residential garage door,
price, quality, reliability of the installer, and aesthetic appeal of
the door were mentioned
most frequently in that order.
3.
Friends, relatives, and neighbors were the principal sources
identified when asked where

47. they would look for information about residential garage doors.
The Intenet and newspaper
advertisements were the next most frequently mentioned
information sources. A company
that may have installed or serviced a garage door opener or
repaired an existing door also
was considered an information source.
4.
Thirty percent of prospective buyers expected to get at least two
bids on a residential
garage door installation. Virtually all expected to receive and
review product literature,
including warranty information, prior to installing a new door.
5.
Fifteen percent of prospective buyers said they would install
their own residential garage
door when a replacement was needed.
6. Steel garage doors were preferred to wood garage doors by a
nine to one margin.
3

48. for markups) of $316.8 million. Replacement parts sold to
dealers added another $31.7 million to
the estimated garage door sales, bringing the total market size
to $348.5 million in 2015. This
research also reported that independent garage door dealers did
not sell all brands of garage
doors carried at an equal rate. As a rule, for dealers that sold
three different manufacturer brands,
the dominant brand accounted for 60 percent of their sales, the
second brand, 30 percent of sales,
and the third brand, 10 percent of sales. Commenting on the
research, Haworth said, “These
numbers indicate that our market share is about 2.6 percent. I
know we can do better than that. In
fact, the ambitious sales goal of $12.5 million in 2016 is
achievable given the potential existing
in our present markets.”
The Distribution Strategy Issue
The strategic planning process had affirmed the overall
direction and performance of

49. Gibraltar Door's sales and marketing initiatives with good
reason. The company recorded sales
gains in each of the past 10 years that exceeded the industry
growth rate and had added 50
dealers in the past decade. The $12.5 million sales goal for 2016
was driven principally by
supply considerations. Senior executives were of the firm belief
that the company had to attain a
larger critical mass of sales volume to preserve its buying
position with suppliers, particularly with
respect to raw materials for its garage doors, namely,
galvanized steel and insulated foam.
During the planning process, company executives agreed that
additional investment in
advertising and promotion dollars was necessary to achieve the
ambitious sales goal.
Accordingly, Haworth was able to increase his marketing
budget by 20 percent for 2016. It
was decided that this incremental expenditure should be
directed at the 100 highest-potential
markets currently served by Gibraltar Door. These included the

50. 50 markets served by
exclusive dealers and 50 markets served by independent dealers,
which had yet to be
finalized. The remaining 50 markets and independent dealers
would continue to receive the
level of advertising and promotion support provided in 2015.
This support was typically in the
form of cooperative advertising allowances for newspaper
advertising, with additional
incentives for featuring the Gibraltar Door name, and product
literature.
Haworth saw his charge as determining the characteristics, the
number, and the locations of
the dealers Gibraltar Door would need to meet its sales goal of
$12.5 million in 2016. Initially
this would involve identifying the types of dealers that would
work closely with Gibraltar Door
in meeting company objectives.
A number of different viewpoints had been voiced by Haworth's
fellow executives. One

51. viewpoint favored increasing the number of dealers in the
markets currently served by the
company. The reasoning behind this position was that it would
be difficult for existing dealers to
attain the sales goal specified in the corporate plan. Executives
expressing this view noted that
4
even with a 2.4 percent increase in sales following the industry
trend, it would be necessary to
add at least another 100 dealers. They said these dealers would
likely be independent
(nonexclusive) dealers located in the 100 markets not served by
exclusive dealerships. Haworth
believed that adding another 100 dealers in its present markets
over the next year would not be
easy and would require increasing the sales force that serviced
nonexclusive dealers. Executives
acknowledged that this plan had more merit in the long run of,

52. say, three to four years. However,
their idea had merit as a long-term distribution policy, they
thought. The incremental direct cost
of adding a sales representative was $80,000 per year.
A second viewpoint favored the development of a formal
exclusive franchise program, since
27 nonexclusive dealers had inquired about such a possibility in
the last year. Each of these
dealers represented a different market, and each of these
markets was considered to have high
potential and be a candidate for the new advertising and
promotion program. These dealers were
prepared to sell off competing lines, most of which were
supplied by regional and local garage
door manufacturers. They would sell Gibraltar doors exclusively
in their market for a specified
franchise fee.
In exchange for the dealer's contractual obligation to stock,
install, and service the
company's products in a specified manner consistent with
Gibraltar Door's policies, the company

53. would drop present dealers in their markets and not add new
dealers. Furthermore, these
executives noted, the company’s current contractual
arrangements with its independent dealers
allowed for cancellation by either party, without cause, with 90
days’ advance notification. Thus,
the program could be implemented during the traditionally slow
first quarter of the upcoming
year. If adopted, company executives believed the franchise
program in these 27 markets could
be served by the advertising and promotion program. The other
50 markets served by exclusive
dealers would be unaffected, since the advertising and
promotion program was already budgeted
for these dealers. The remaining 73 markets would also be
unaffected, except for increased
advertising in 27 high-potential markets.
A third viewpoint called for a general reduction in the number
of dealerships without
granting any formal exclusive franchises. Executives supporting
this approach cited a number of

54. factors favoring it. First, analysis of dealers' sales indicated that
50 of Gibraltar Door’s dealers
(all exclusive dealers) produced 70 percent of company sales.
This success was achieved without
a formal franchise program. Second, these executives believed
that committing the company to
an exclusive franchise program could limit its flexibility in the
future. And, third, an
improvement in sales-force effort and possibly increased sales
might result if more time were
given to fewer dealers. Although a number had not been set,
some consideration had been given
to the idea of reducing the number of dealers in the 150 markets
served by the company from
5
350 to 250. This would mean that the 50 exclusive dealers
would be retained and 200
nonexclusive dealers would operate in the remaining 100
markets of which the top 50 would

55. benefit from the additional marketing spending.
A fourth viewpoint voiced by several executives was not to
change either the distribution
strategy or the dealers. Rather, they believed that the company
should do a better job with the
current distribution policy and network.
6
Nelson Graff
151
Teacher Education Quarterly, Summer 2011
“An Effective
and Agonizing Way to Learn”:
Backwards Design and New Teachers’
Preparation for Planning Curriculum

56. By Nelson Graff
ThepastdecadeorsohasseenincreasingemphasisinK-
12schoolsaround
the country on standards and standardized testing, particularly
since the advent
oftheNoChildLeftBehindlawin2001.Atthesametime,ourknowledg
eabout
studentlearninghasbecomeincreasinglycomplex,creatingapotenti
alconflictfor
conscientiousteachers—
administratorspushforthekindsofteachingthattranslate
directlyintobettertestresults,yetteachersalsoworktoengagediverse
studentsin
thekindsoflearningandthinkingrequiredforourcontemporaryera.T
hissituation
callsforteacherstohaveasophisticatedknowledgebothoftheirconte
ntandofhow
toguidestudentsinlearningthatcontent,whatShulman(1986)calls“p
edagogical
contentknowledge.”Yetsomeresearchonnewteacherssuggeststhat
newteachers
Nelson Graff is an

57. assistant professor
of English in the
College of Humanities
at San Francisco
State University, San
Francisco, California.
feel“lostatsea”whenconfrontingthecomplexities
ofplanningcurriculum(Kaufmanetal.,2002).
Inthetraditionofself-studyandtheScholarshipof
TeachingandLearning(SoTL),thisarticledescribesa
pedagogicalapproachthathasmetwithsomesuccess
inmyownworkwithpre-serviceteachers.Although
Ibeganwithabroadinquiryintotheeffectivenessof
myownpreparationoffutureteachers,Idiscussherea
narrowrangeoftheknowledge,skills,anddispositions
“An Effective and Agonizing Way to Learn”
152
relatedtoeffectiveteaching—
theabilitytodesignandplancurriculum.Isuggest

58. thatusingtheWigginsandMcTighe“BackwardsDesign”framework
hashelped
myformerstudentsdeveloptheskillstoplancurriculum.
Preparation to Plan on Entering Teaching
Researchonnewteachers’transitionsintoteachinghasrangedwidely
,including
generalsurveysofnewteachers’senseoftheirownpreparation(Calif
orniaState
University,2007;Housego,1992,1994;Veenman,1984),longitudin
alstudiesof
individual new teachers’ development (Bickmore et al., 2005;
Bullough, 1989;
Bullough et. al., 1992; Bullough & Baughman, 1995; Grossman,
et al., 2000),
comparisonsofthefeelingsofpreparationorthecompetenceofnewte
acherswho
attendedtraditionalteachereducationprogramsversusthosewhogai
nedcertifica-
tionthroughalternativemeans(Darling-
Hammond,Chung,&Frelow,2002;Gross-
man,1990),andexaminationsofnewteachers’attemptstopracticethe
conceptual
frameworks—particularlyconstructivism—

59. theylearnedintheirteachereducation
programs(Bickmore,Smagorinsky,&O’Donnell,2005;Cooketal.,2
002;Gross-
manetal.,2000;Smagorinsky,Cook,&Johnson,2003;Smagorinskye
tal,2004;
Valenciaetal.,2006).
Despitethisrangeofstudies,anddespitetheoverwhelmingsenseinar
ecent
surveyofworkingEnglishteachersthatwhatmakesateacherhighlyqu
alifiedis
knowledgeofstrategiesforteachingliteratureandwriting(Dudley-
Marlingetal.,
2006),littlespecificresearchhasbeendoneonnewteachers’abilityto
planinstruc-
tion.Someofthelittleresearchthathasbeendoneshowssomenewteac
hersfeel-
ingconfidentaboutcurriculum.Otherstudiesshowmanynewteacher
sstruggling
withcurriculumeitheronabasiclevel—
figuringoutwhatandhowtoteach—or
onamoreconceptuallevel—
negotiatingthecurriculumframeworks,pre-packaged
programs,anddistrictguidelinesthattheyfindintheirnewpositions.

60. Afewstudieshavefoundthatnewteachersfeelwellpreparedforplanni
ng
curriculumingeneralterms.Forinstance,Housego,whofoundweakn
essinnew
teachers’comfort“reflect[ing]onvariousinstructionalstrategies”(1
994,p.369),
neverthelessfoundthatalmosthalfofherrespondentsidentifiedplann
ingasoneof
theareasinwhichtheyfeltmostprepared.Likewise,Darling-
Hammond,Chung,
andFrelow(2002)foundthatteacherswhowerepreparedintraditiona
lteacher-
educationprogramsfeltwellpreparedin“coretasksofteachersuchas
designing
instructionandcurriculum”(p.290).Andtwoofthefourstudentsinthe
studyby
Grossmanandhercolleagues(2000)wereable,becauseoftheirknowl
edgeand
senseoftheirowncompetence,toadaptthematerialsinpre-
packagedprograms
tosuittheirpedagogicalgoals.BothHousegoandDarling-
Hammond,Chung,and
Frelowarereportingresultsofsurveyresearch,whichmayhelptoexpl
aintheir
generalresults—

61. onaverage,teachersmaywellfeelfairlywellpreparedforthese
domainsofpractice.Bulloughfound,inhislongitudinalstudyofKerri
e(1989),that
Nelson Graff
153
herconfidenceincreasedovertime,andherunderstandingofwhatitm
eanttoplan
curriculumchangedaswell,“fromaconcernwithactivitiestotime,wit
hpurposes
takenforgranted.Astheyearprogressed,herthinkingchanged,howev
er:Activities
wereseeninthelightofpurposesandstudentabilityandinterests”(p.1
41).
Thoughtheabovestudiesshowteachersfeelingconfidentabouttheirp
repara-
tionforcurriculumandplanningingeneral,otherresearchers,perhaps
mostnotably
Kauffmanandhiscolleagues(2002),havereportedonnewteachers’la
ckofprepara-

62. tionforcurriculumplanning.TheseauthorsnotethatnewteachersinM
assachusetts
feel“lostatsea”withlittlesenseofwhattoteachandhowtoteachit.Acc
ordingto
Kauffmannetal.,thesenewteachersfeeltheneedformorecurricularg
uidanceand
structuredassistance.GrossmanandThompson(2004)similarlynote
that“curriculum
materials...representimportanttoolsforlearningtoteach”(p.7)forne
wteachers
who “had not yet developed the pedagogical content knowledge
to feel confident
makingcurriculardecisionsontheirown”(p.5).Whileotherstudiesha
vebeenless
comprehensiveintheirclaimsaboutnewteachers’lackofpreparation
,theyhavefound
particularareasinwhichnewteachersfeelunpreparedfordesigningc
urriculum;for
instance,Grossmanandhercolleagues(2000)reportedthatnewteach
ersstruggling
withteachingwritingwerestronglyinfluencedbypre-
packagedcurriculummaterials
suchasJaneSchaffer’s“TeachingtheMultiparagraphEssay.”AndHo
usego(1994)
foundthatnewteachersfeltunprepared“toevaluatecurriculummater

63. ialsfromthe
standpointofcurrentguidelines”(p.357-358).
Conceptual Framework
Curriculum Planning
So what knowledge and skills are required for teachers to plan
curriculum
effectively?Itisclearthatteachersmustbeabletonegotiatetheneedso
fthestu-
dentsinfrontofthem,theinstitutionalrequirementsandmaterialcircu
mstances
oftheircontexts,andtheirknowledgeofcontenttodecidewhattoteach
,andhow
andwhentoteachit.Kauffmannandhiscolleagues(2002)definecurri
culumin
awaythatmayclarifythisdescription:“acompletecurriculumspecifi
escontent,
skills,ortopicsforteacherstocover;suggestsatimeline;andincorpor
atesapar-
ticularapproachoroffersinstructionalmaterials”(p.274-
5),withtheimplication
thatteacherswhocancreatetheirowncurriculaarepreparedtodevelo
ptimelines,
planactivities,gatherresources,andmakedecisionsaboutbothwhata

64. ndhowto
teach.Theycreate“long-
termobjectives”anddevelop“acoherentplantoaddress”
thoseobjectives(p.278);anddecide“whichdetailstoemphasizeandh
owmuch
depthtopursue”(p.282).Yetthisknowledgeisnotknowledgeaboutco
ntentalone.
Drawing from Ball (1996), I recognize that “the enacted
curriculum is actually
jointlyconstructedbyteachers,students,andmaterialsinparticularc
ontexts”(p.
7),suggestingthattheabilitytoplangoesbeyondknowledgeofsubject
matteror
statestandardstoincludeknowledgeofstudentsandparticularinstitut
ions.
“An Effective and Agonizing Way to Learn”
154
Creating curricula, or planning, therefore requires knowledge
of students
andtheirlearning,whatShulman(1986)calls“generalpedagogicalkn

65. owledge”
andknowledgeofthecontenttobetaught,andtheabilitytoanalyzeinst
itutional
constraints.ForthepurposesoffocusingthediscussionontheworkId
owithmy
studentsinasubject-
mattermethodsclass,Iwillfocusontheknowledgeandskills
appropriatetothatclass,thusspecifictotransformingthecontentkno
wledgewith
whichprospectiveteachersostensiblyenterthecredentialprogram(a
tSanFrancisco
StateUniversity,candidatesforthecredentialprogrammustdemonst
ratesubject
mattercompetencybeforeenteringtheprogram)intomaterialsfortea
ching.
Indescribingtherelationshipbetween“contentknowledgeandgener
alpeda-
gogicalknowledge,”Shulman(1986)describes“threecategoriesofc
ontentknowl-
edge:(a)subjectmattercontentknowledge,(b)pedagogicalcontentk
nowledge,
and(c)curricularknowledge”(p.9).Asthecredentialprogramdoesno
taddress
subjectmattercontentknowledge,Iwillfocusonpedagogicalcontent

66. knowledge
andcurricularknowledge.
I will use Shulman’s own description of pedagogical content
knowledge as
havingthreecomponents:
forthemostregularlytaughttopicsinone’ssubjectarea,...thewaysofr
epresent-
ingandformulatingthesubjectthatmakeitcomprehensibletoothers[;
]...the
conceptionsandpreconceptionsthatstudentsofdifferentagesandbac
kgrounds
bringwiththemtothelearningofthosemostfrequentlytaughttopicsan
dlessons
[and] knowledge of the strategies most likely to be fruitful in
reorganizing the
understandingoflearners.(pp.9-10)
AndShulmandescribescurricularknowledgeasboth“horizontal,”kn
owledgeof
“thecurriculummaterialsunderstudybyhisorherstudentsinothersub
jectsthey
arestudyingatthesametime,”and“vertical,”“familiaritywiththetop
icsandissues
thathavebeenandwillbetaughtinthesamesubjectareaduringtheprec

67. edingand
lateryearsinschool”(p.10).
Helpingprospectiveteacherstransformtheknowledgeoftheiracade
micsubjects
withwhichtheyenteracredentialprogramintopedagogicalcontentkn
owledgeand
curricularknowledge,therefore,meanshelpingthemtofigureoutthet
opics“most
regularlytaught”intheirdisciplines,usefulrepresentationsoftheide
asthatare
centraltothosetopics,andstrategiesforexploringwhatstudentsunde
rstandand
misunderstandaboutthosetopics.Thistaskalsoinvolvesteachingne
wcontent—the
horizontalandverticalcurriculumofschools,withwhichteachercand
idateshave
variedexperiences.
Backwards Design
ThebackwardsdesignframeworkasdescribedbyWigginsandMcTig
he(1995,
2005) provides a structure with which to help prospective
teachers in a content

68. methodscoursetobegintotransformtheircontentknowledgeintoped
agogical
Nelson Graff
155
contentknowledgeandtodevelopsensitivitytoboththehorizontalan
dvertical
curriculumasShulmandescribesit.ItisaframeworkIhaveappliedto
myown
syllabi, using essential questions to guide students’ reading and
our discussion
for each week of the class (Graff 2005) and constantly focusing
discussions of
pedagogical techniques on questions about transfer of learning,
about why the
techniquesmatteredorhadvaluetostudentsbeyondanysingleinstanc
e.Inwhat
follows,Ifirstdescribethebackwardsdesignframeworkgenerally,th
encontrastit
withtraditionalteaching,usinganexamplefrommyworkteachingthe
framework

69. todemonstratehowitmayhelpteachersdevelopthisknowledgeandsk
ill.
Intheirbook,Understanding by
Design,andtheworkshopstheylead,Wiggins
andMcTighearguethatteachershavefortoolongfavoredeitherdisco
nnectedcover-
ageofmaterialorhands-
onactivitiesthatleaveopenquestionsaboutwhatstudents
learnfromtheactivities.Theyclaimtheseapproachesresultfromanov
eremphasis
oneithercoverageoractivitiesinplanningandrecommend,asacure,d
esigning
instruction “backwards.” Wiggins and McTighe (1998) describe
the backwards
designprocessasfollows:“onestartswiththeend—
thedesiredresults...–and
thenderivesthecurriculumfromtheevidenceoflearning(performanc
es)called
forbythestandardandtheteachingneededtoequipstudentstoperform
”(p.8).
WigginsandMcTighearehardlytheonly(oreventhefirst)todefineba
ckwards
designinthisway;inageneralway,theirapproachmatchesTaylor(cit
edinMilner

70. andMilner,2008,p.18),and,intextsforEnglishteachersspecifically,
Smagorinsky
(2002,2008).AsMilnerandMilner(2008)noteintheirtextforpre-
serviceteachers,
theWigginsandMcTigheframeworkhasthebenefitofbeingbothsyst
ematicand
flexible.Itdiffersfromtheseotherapproaches,importantly,initscent
ralfocuson
whatWigginsandMcTighecall“bigideas,”“aconcept,theme,orissue
thatgives
meaningandconnectiontodiscretefactsandskills”(Wiggins&McTi
ghe,2005,
p. 5) and “enduring understandings,” which are “The specific
inferences, based
onbigideas,thathavelastingvaluebeyondtheclassroom”(Wiggins&
McTighe,
2005,p.342).Usingthebackwardsdesignapproachinvolvesdistingu
ishingamong
threelevelsofknowledge,whatWigginsandMcTighe(2005)discuss
as“worth
beingfamiliarwith,”“importanttoknowandbeabletodo,”and“bigid
easand
coretasks”(p.71).
Theiremphasiswithenduringunderstandings,bigideas,andcoretask

71. sison
learningthattransfers,thatstudentscantakebeyondaparticularlesso
nintonew
learning experiences in school and outside of school (Wiggins,
2009, personal
communication).Thequestforthese“enduringunderstandings”form
sacentral
componentofthefirststageofunitplanningintheirmodel,“Defininge
nds.”Once
a teacher has defined the ends, she can then “determine what
evidence” would
showthatstudentshadmetthoseends,andfinallyplanactivitiesthatw
ouldhelp
studentsdeveloptheskillsandknowledgetoproducetheevidence.Wi
gginsand
McTighehavefurtherarguedthatteacherscanapproachplanninginan
yorderas
longastheyaimforcoherenceofallthreecomponentsoftheirunits.
“An Effective and Agonizing Way to Learn”
156

72. Table1showsacontrastbetweenthequestionsateachermightaskhers
elfin
atraditionalmodelofplanningandbackwardsdesign.By“traditional
planning,”
ImeanboththekindofplanningIlearnedtodoasanewteacherandtheki
ndmy
students—
prospectiveEnglishteacherscomingoftenfromEnglishmajors—
tend
towanttodo.
Becauseofthecurrentwidespreadconcernwithstatestandards,Iwillf
urther
illustratethisplanningapproachbybeginningwithanexamplefromth
eCalifornia
English/LanguageArtsstandards.Take,forinstance,this9thgradest
andardun-
derthestrand“LiteraryResponseandanalysis,”astrandofEnglishtea
chingthat
wouldbefamiliartomostsecondaryEnglishteachers:“3.4Determine
characters’
traitsbywhatthecharacterssayaboutthemselvesinnarration,dialogu
e,dramatic
monologue,andsoliloquy”(Framework,p.232).Thisisastandardtea

73. cherscan
addresswhenweteachalmostanyworkofdramaorprosefiction.Andw
hileit
seemsobvioustoEnglishteachersthatweshouldhelpstudentsdevelo
pthisskill,
itiseasytoteachthisskillwithoutattendingtothelargerdomainsofme
aningit
implies.Thus, we may help students develop charts of character
traits for char-
actersinparticularworksofliteratureandtestthemonthosecharactert
raits.We
maygeneratetestquestionsthataskstudentstolistordescribecharacte
rtraits,or
Table 1
TraditionalPlanning BackwardsDesign
Stage1 WhatliteraturedoIwantto
Whatenduringunderstandingsabout
(oramIrequiredto)teach? literacyandlifeinformthestandards
atthisgradelevelandwillengage
myparticularstudents?
Stage2 Whatliterarytermsdoes Whatevidencewouldenableme

74. thisworklenditselfto toreliablyinferthatstudentshave
teaching? uncoveredthoseunderstandings?
Whatactivitieswouldbe
fun/interesting/useful/
engagingwiththis
literature?
WhatstandardsdoI
addresswhenIteach
studentsthiswork?
Stage3 HowshouldItestthat Whatskillsandknowledgedo
studentshavereadand studentsneedtodevelopinorder
understoodtheliterature? tosuccessfullyproducethatevidence?
Whatkindsofwritingdo Whatresources(e.g.literature)
wehavetodo? andactivitieswillhelpstudents
developthatknowledge
andthoseskills?
Nelson Graff
157
eventoexplaintheconnectionsbetweencharacterbehaviorandinfere

75. ncesabout
charactertraitssuchas“WhatdoesGeorge’streatmentofLenny(inOf
Mice and
Men)revealaboutGeorge’scharacter?”
WhenIseeprospectiveteachersmovinginthatdirection,Iaskthem,“
Whatdo
youwantstudentstobeabletodowhentheyhavecompletelyforgotten
everything
aboutOf Mice and Men(orRomeo and JulietorSong of
Solomon)?”Usingthe
backwardsdesignframework,Iaskstudentstointerrogatethis(andot
her)standards
inordertoframetheirworkasEnglishteachers.Iaskthemtolookforco
nnections
amongthestandards,enduring
understandingsthatinformthestandardsandthat
willhelpstudentstransfertheirlearninginparticularclassesintofutur
eclasses
andtheirlivesbeyondschool.Inthisway,Iamimplicitlyaskingthemto
move
fromsubjectmatterknowledgetopedagogicalcontentknowledgeand
toconsider
boththehorizontal andvertical curricula
intowhichthestandardsfortheirgrade

76. levelfit.SomequestionsIaskmystudentstoconsiderwheninterrogati
ngsucha
standardare,“Whydoesthismatter?Whyisthisastandard?Whatunde
rstandings
aboutliteratureandlifemakethisimportant?Howwilllearningthishe
lpstudents
readandwrite?Howdoadults(andadolescents)intheworldapplythis
skill/strat-
egy/knowledgeintheirdailylives?”
My students find these questions challenging. To them, it is
obvious that
studentsshouldbeabletodescribeGeorgeandLenny,andperhapsonl
yslightly
lessobviousthattheyshouldbeabletoinfercharactertraits.Theseskil
lsmatter
becausetheyareimportanttoreadingliterature,andstudentsshouldk
nowabout
thesecharactersbecauseGeorgeandLennyareimportanttothenovel.
SoIask
prospectiveteachersaboutthestudentswhodonotimaginethemselve
sreading
literatureoutsideofschool:Howwillthishelpthem?Howwillyoujust
ifylearning
thistothem?Howwillyouhelpthemseeitsimportance?

77. Withsomeeffort,studentscometoenduringunderstandingssuchasLi
tera-
ture mirrors lifeorReaders apply the same strategies to
understanding stories in
literature as they apply to understanding the stories of their
lives. Or they may
preferquestionssuchasHow do we come to know ourselves and
others?Notice
thattheseunderstandingsorquestionsfocusnotontheparticularwork
butonbig
ideas of literature and life and on connections between the
particular work and
otherworksorstudents’lives.Seeingthelearninginthisway,teachers
realizethat
aquestionlike“WhatdoweknowaboutGeorge”willnotprovidegoode
vidence
thatstudentshavelearned.Instead,teachersmayaskstudentstoreada
newstory
andinfercharactertraitsaboutacharacterinthatstory.Orteachersma
yaskstudents
todescribeacharactertheyhavenotdiscussedasaclassandexplainthe
irprocess
of inferring character traits. Depending on the wider focus of
their instruction,
teachersmightevenhavestudentswriteshortstoriesorpersonalnarrat

78. ivesand
explaintheirchoicesforrepresentingcharacters.Ifteachersasktheirs
tudentsto
dothisforautobiographicalnarratives,theyareevenhelpingstudents
toapplythe
skillsofreadingliteraturetounderstandingtheirlives.
“An Effective and Agonizing Way to Learn”
158
Andonceprospectiveteachershavethoughtclearlyaboutwhatitwilll
ook
likeforstudentstodemonstrateunderstanding,asbyinferringcharact
ertraitsin
newcontexts,theyteachdifferently.Theyseethattheyneedtodrawon
students’
everyday practices of inferring personality traits and focus not
on George’s or
Lenny’s characteristics as much as on how readers come to
know George and
Lenny.Inthisway,workingthroughthisframeworkinaCurriculuman

79. dInstruc-
tionclass,prospectiveteachersdeepenunderstandingsofcontentkno
wledgethat
theyexperiencedasstudentsandconsiderwhatitmeanstoteachsuchk
nowledge,
transformingitintopedagogicalcontentknowledge.
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) and Self-
study
Shulman(1999)arguesthatinorderto“takelearningseriously,”wem
ust“take
teachingseriously,”makingpublicandavailableforscholarlycritiqu
eourpedagogi-
calpractices.Bystudyingourownclassroomsandourownstudents’le
arning,he
argues,wenotonlyimproveourownteachingbutbuildknowledgeofte
aching
andlearninginawidercommunityofscholars.Inteacher-
educationresearch,this
kindofinvestigationisoftencalledself-study.Cochran-
Smith(2005)notesatrend
toward such research in teacher education: “one major
development in teacher
educationresearchintheUSandinmanyothercountrieshasbeenthegr

80. owthof
researchonpracticeconductedbyteachereducationpractitionersthe
mselvesand
disseminatedinjournals,books,andconferencesacrosstheworld”(p.
221).While
suchresearchmaybecriticizedaslessgeneralizableorrigorousthanla
rger-scale
experimental studies, these authors and others (e.g., Huber &
Hutchings, 2005;
Smith,2010)argueforitsvalue.
Methods
Data Collection
Theresultsforthisinquirycomefromabroadandveryopen-
endedconsid-
erationoftheeffectivenessoftheCurriculumandInstructionsequenc
eIteach,
guidedbythefollowingtworesearchquestions:
(1)Howdonewteachersdescribetheirteachinglives?
(2)HowwelldotheyfeelthattheCurriculumandInstruction(C&I)cou
rses
intheircredentialprogrampreparedthemforthoselives?

81. Whiletheseresearchquestionswerequitebroad,becausethebackwar
dsdesign
framework came up frequently in these new teachers’ talk about
the program, I
attempttoanswermorenarrowlyconstructedquestionsinthisanalysi
s:
(1)Towhatextentandinwhatwayshasthebackwardsdesignframewor
k
beenusefultonewteachersinnegotiatingtheirteachinglives?
Nelson Graff
159
(2)What aspects of the framework and my teaching of the
framework
wereparticularlyhelpful?
Becausemyinterestwasingatheringfeedbacktounderstandandimpr
ovemy

82. ownteaching,Icastaverybroadnet.Iinvited,byemail,eachofthe93st
udentswho
hadgraduatedfromtheC&IclassesItaughtbetween2004and2006top
articipatein
focusgroupdiscussionsabouttheirteachinglivesandpreparation.Of
the93gradu-
ates,8wereexcludedbecausetheemailaddressesIhadforthemwereba
dorthey
werenotteaching.Ofthosethatremained,25agreedtoparticipate,and
21eventually
didparticipateinfocusgroups.Inordertomaximizetheamountoffeed
backIcould
gather,andbecausesomeoftheremaining60expressedawillingnesst
orespond
byemail,Isentthesamequestionsthatthefocusgroupsaddressed,ino
pen-ended
form,to17ofthoseteachers.Nineofthemresponded,givingmefeedba
ckofsome
sortfrom30graduatesoutof85eligible(35%).Thebreakdownbycoho
rtgroup
follows:GraduatesfromFall2004—
2(6.7%ofgraduates),Spring2005—6(26%
ofgraduates),Fall2005—3(33.3%ofgraduates),Spring2006—
13(38%ofgradu-
ates),Fall2006—

83. 6(66.7%ofgraduates).Oftheteacherswhoresponded,19were
women,11men;24wereCaucasian,sixpeopleofcolor.Theseparticip
antsformed
fivefocusgroups,whichrangedinsizefromthreeparticipantstoseven
.
Focusgroupsmadeitpossibleforparticipantstotalk,inarelativelyuns
tructured
manner,abouttheirexperiencesteachingandtheirrecollectionsofthe
credential
program.AsAthanasesandMartin(2006),citingFern(2001)note,“be
causefocus
groupsuseresponsesandreflectionssharedinsmallcohortsettings,th
eycanuncover
trendsobscuredbyconsensusinsurveysandaidtheorizingaboutphen
omena”(p.
629).Thesessionsweredividedintotwohalves,ofaboutanhoureach.
During
thefirstsegment,Iaskedteacherssimplytodiscusstheirteachinglives
—theups
and downs, the successes and hardships. These discussions
happened without
anyinterventionfromme.Ihoped,throughthesediscussions,tolearna
bouttheir
teachingsituationsandthewaysthosesituationsdifferedfrommyown

84. secondary
teachingexperience.Duringthesecondhalf,Iaskedcandidatestocon
sidertheir
preparationasteachers,askingbothwhattheyfeltwellpreparedtodow
henthey
beganteachingandwhattheyfeltillpreparedtodo,givingthemtimeto
discuss
eachquestionbeforemovingontothenextandoccasionallyfollowing
upteacher
commentstoaskforclarification.Ifollowedupthesequestionsbypres
entingteach-
erswithanadaptationofasurveydoneannuallysince2004bythechanc
ellor’s
officeoftheCaliforniaStateUniversitysystem,askingmostofthegro
upssimply
tolookoverthesurveyandaddanyinsightsitinspired.Finally,Iaskedt
eachers
torecallactivitiesorreadingsfromtheirC&Iclassesandexpresshowc
onnected
thoseactivitiesorreadingsseemedtotheirteachinglives,promptingt
hemwith
copiesofthesyllabiofthecoursestheytook.
Whileemailresponsestoopen-
endedquestionslackedthedepthofthefocus-
groupdiscussions,andthoseteachersdidnotreceivethepromptingth

85. atcolleagues
“An Effective and Agonizing Way to Learn”
160
inafocusgroupmighthaveoffered,providingteacherstheoptionofres
pondingby
emaildidallowmetogatherfeedbackfromteachersfromwhomIwoul
dotherwise
nothaveheard.
Data Analysis
Ibeganbyexaminingteachers’answerstothequestions,“Whatdidyo
ufeel
particularly well prepared to do when you began teaching,” and
“What did you
feelparticularlyillpreparedtodowhenyoubeganteaching,”codingth
eiranswers
usingthemethodofconstantcomparison(Strauss,1987)andexamini
ngthere-
mainingtranscripts(moregeneraldiscussionsofparticipants’teachi

86. nglives)for
corroborating evidence.What emerged from this open coding
was an emphasis
acrossfocusgroupsonplanningasanareaofstrongpreparation.Forthi
sreason,
andbecauseIwasinterestedinteachers’preparationintheCurriculum
andInstruc-
tionclassesinparticular,Ifocusedmycodingforthisanalysisonteach
ers’discus-
sionsofcurriculum,“whatandhowtoteach”(Kauffmannetal.,2002).
Icodedas
“curriculum”anycommentsaboutcurriculum,lessonorunitplanning
,lessons,
assignments/homework,ortexts.Ithencodedtheseas“positive”or“n
egative”as
regardedtheteacher’ssenseofpreparationtoplan.
BecauseitseemedtomeIwashearingbackwardsdesignprinciplesme
ntioned
frequently,Ialsospecificallynotedcommentsteachersmadereferrin
gexplicitly
orimplicitlytothebackwardsdesignmodelfromWigginsandMcTigh
eandcon-
nections to the contexts in which these new teachers were
teaching. Such com-

87. mentsincludingusingthetermsfromWigginsandMcTighesuchas“bi
gideas”
or“essentialquestions”ormentioningprinciplesthatwediscussedrel
atedtothe
framework,suchasbeginningwiththeendsinmind.
Results
Teachers’ comments in the focus groups suggested strongly
both that they
feltpreparedforplanningandcurriculumandthatlearningthebackwa
rdsdesign
frameworkhelpedthemtofeelso.Ofthe30teacherswhoparticipatede
itherin
focus groups or by email, 26 commented in some way on their
preparation for
planningandcurriculum.Whileaminorityofteachers(8of26,31%)w
homade
commentsabouttheirpreparationforplanningsuggestedtheyfeltillp
reparedforit,
most(18of26,69%)discussedfeelingpreparedforplanning.Ofthese
26teachers,
alargemajority(17/2665%)referredspecificallytotheprinciplesofb
ackwards
designintheirdiscussionoftheirpreparationtoplan,withsometeache
rswhofelt

88. preparedtoplannotmentioningit(5/18,28%)andotherswhofeltunpr
eparedin
practicaltermsmentioningitasprovidingusefulprinciplesforplanni
ng(4/8,50%).
Beyondtheirownindividualplanning,someteachers(8/26,31%)disc
ussedtheir
abilitytoevaluatethematerialstheyencounteredintheschools,largel
yfromtheir
colleagues,butalsotheirownmaterialsandtheirownpractice.
In the sections that follow, I will discuss what it meant for
some teachers
Nelson Graff
161
toclaimtheyfeltillpreparedforthecurriculumandplanningtheyface
dinthe
schools, what it meant for those teachers who felt well prepared
and how they
spokeofthebackwardsdesignframeworkinthatregard,andwhatteac
herssaid
abouttheirabilitiestoevaluatethematerialsavailabletotheminschoo

89. lsandtheir
ownpractice.Inthesesections,Iquoterepresentativecommentsfromi
ndividual
teachers,allofwhosenamesarepseudonyms.Finally,Iwilldrawontea
chers’com-
mentstoexplorewhataboutmyteachingofthisframeworkmadeit,asN
ancy—a
teacherwhofeltshelackedthepracticalskillsforplanning—
putit,“aneffective
andagonizingwaytolearn.”
Feeling unprepared to plan—
“Good curricular theoretical know-how,”
but not enough practical advice(8/26=31%)
Ashasbeenfoundfairlyofteninresearchonteacherpreparation(e.g,S
mago-
rinskyetal,2004),teachersdescribeadisjunctionbetweenthetheorya
ndpractices
theylearnedinthecredentialprogramandtheirexperiencesinstudentt
eachingand
intheirteachinglives.Forexample,Nancycommented,“Well,Ifeelli
keIgotalotof

90. likereallysolid,um,thoroughbaseofhow,whatgoodteachingis;how
ever,Ididn’t
really.IfeellikelastyearinstudentteachingIwasn’tpracticingthoset
echniques
becauseIwasforcedtodootherthings,butnowI’mgoingbacktoalltho
sethings.”
Others,likeFrank,feltkeenlytheabsenceofpracticalstrategies.Heno
ted,“Igotso
muchgoodcurriculartheoreticalknowhowherebutasfarasmanagem
entandreal
practicaladviceisconcerned?Idon’tthinkIgotenoughofthat.”
Someofthecommentsofteachersalsoechoedthediscoveriesmadeby
Ball
(1996,2000)andGrossmanandThompson(2004)abouttheimportanc
eofdistrict
frameworksandpre-
packagedprogramsforhelpingnewteacherswhofeelinsecure
aboutcurriculum.Nancy,forinstance,notedofherschool’sinsistenc
eonteaching
theJaneSchaffermethod,“AndIwanttolearn,Iwanttolearnthemetho
dandtry
touseit.Idon’tthinkI’mthebestwritingteacher,soI’mwillingtogivei
tashot.”
AndDorothydiscussedusingtheShining

91. StarseriesextensivelywithherEnglish
LanguageLearners.Inbothofthesecases,asGrossmansuggests,itist
eachers’
uncertaintyabouttheirowncompetenceinteaching—
Nancyintermsofwriting,
DorothyintermsofEnglishLanguageLearners—
thatledtotheirdependenceon
thepre-packagedmaterials.
Thosewhofeltunpreparedwantedspecificthings:aclearsenseofgrad
e-level
expectations,morespecificthanthestandards;specificstrategies;ev
enconcrete
waystoplanandpacetheirtime.Oneemailrespondentnotedtheneedfo
r,“Suc-
cessfullessonplansfromexperiencedteachers.”AndDavidnotedthat
“Isimply
don’tknowwhataneighthgradevocabularylistversusa10thgradevoc
abulary
listis.”ThisrelatescloselywithKauffmannandcolleagues’subjects(
2002),who
reportednotknowingwhattoteachatvariouslevels.Italsorelatestoth
ecurricular

92. “An Effective and Agonizing Way to Learn”
162
knowledgeShulmandescribesteachersneeding,whatstudentsshoul
dbelearning
atanygivengradelevel.YetDavidalsonotedthechallengeofsuchleve
ledlists
“whenyouhavethirdgradeupto12thgradereadingskillsandspeaking
skillsin
your10thgradeclass.”Hecontinuedafterstatingthisconcern,though
,withastate-
mentthatspeakstohowtheseteachersdidfeelprepared,intermsofthe
process
ofplanningandaddressingtheneedsoftheirstudents:
ThewayI’vegottenaroundthatisIdon’tactuallydospecificvocabwor
ds.I’ve
been pounding the idea of the three steps to contextual
vocabulary: step one,
youbreakthewordapart;steptwo,youbreakthesentenceapart;stepthr
ee,you
breaktheparagraphslashwholetextapart,andsoit’stheideaofthisish
owyou

93. guessbetter.
Feeling prepared to plan—
”I can bridge the gap”(18/2669%)
Thissenseofhavingaprocessbywhichtofigureoutwhatstudentsneed
edand
plantomeetthoseneedspervadedthecommentsofthoseteacherswhof
eltprepared
toplan.Paula,forinstance,discussedadaptingherinstructionafterdis
covering
thatherstudentsdidnotknowhowtowriteanoutline:“Thefirstbigwrit
ingthing
was,OK,you’rejustgoingtowriteanoutlineforapaper.You’renotwri
tingthe
paper;you’rejustwritingtheoutline.Andgivingthemthreethesestoc
hoosefrom,
andgivingthemtheirsourcesandsaying,OK,workwiththisstuff;thisi
safinite
amountofmaterial.”BothsheandAlexattributedthisnotionofplanni
ngtomeet
students’needslargelytothebackwardsdesignframework.Alex,fori
nstance,said,
“Iknewthestandards,butnowthatIknowwhattheywant,andwhatIwa

94. nt,and
whatthestudentsneed,Icanbridgethegap.”WhenAlexfocuseson“wh
atthey
[thestandards]want,andwhatIwant,”heisaddressingends,theplace
Wiggins
andMcTighesuggesttobeginplanning.
Most of those who explicitly mentioned the backwards design
framework
didsointermsoftheprocessitgavethemforplanninginstruction,notin
gasone
emailrespondentdid,“IneedtoknowwhatIwantmystudentstoknowa
ndwhyI
wantthemtoknowitbeforeIteachittothem.”Thisfocus,onnotonlywh
atstu-
dentsneedtoknowbutwhytheyneedtoknowitisattheheartoftheback
wards
designframework,anditisthisknowledgeofwhatisimportantforstud
entsto
knowandbeabletodothatledDavid,asheclaimsabove,tofocusnotons
pecific
vocabularywordsbutontheprocessofinferringthemeaningofnewvo
cabulary
wordsencounteredincontext.Davidandothersalsotalkedaboutthei
mportance
ofstudentsknowingwhytheywerestudyingEnglishandwhytheywer

95. elearning
particularskillsorinformation.
Otherteacherscommentedonthelong-
termfocusthatformsakeypartofthe
backwardsdesignframework.Paula,forinstance,notedtheusefulnes
sof“This
ideaofhavingabiggerpicturethatyouwantedtogettofromadaytodayt
hing.”
Nelson Graff
163
Andsheexplainedtheconsequenceofthisplanninginherclasses:“Igo
tpositive
feedback from the kids about how organized I seemed and I
always seemed to
thinkIknewwhereIwasgoing,sotheythoughtthattheyknewwherethe
ywere
going.”Likewise,Marycontrastedherabilitytoplanforthelong-
termwiththe
othernewcomersatherschool:“IfeltveryconfidentthatIhadagoodfra
mework

96. for[unitplanning],andagoodstartingpoint,whereasI’veseenotherte
acherswho
arejusttreadingwatereverydayandtryingnottodrownanddon’treall
yknow
whattodotomorrow.”Thoseotherteachersmorecloselymatchthetea
cherswith
whom Kauffmann and colleagues (2002) talked. Ella andAmy
discussed their
confidenceinbuildingunitsandtheimpactthathadontheirteaching.E
llacom-
mented,“Ispentalloflastsummerbuildingunits,andmyyearthisyear
hasbeen
somuchbetter.”IncontrasttotheteacherswithwhomKauffmanandco
lleagues
(2002)worked,then,candidatesfromthisprogramfeltgenerallywell
preparedto
planandgeneratethebulkoftheirowncurriculum.
Feeling prepared to go beyond simply planning—
“It made me think a lot about using assessments in my
planning”(8/2631%)
Askillthatgoesbeyondthebasicsofplanningandleadstowardbecomi
nga

97. reflectiveeducatoristheabilitytomakedecisionsbasedonthesystem
aticcollec-
tionofevidence.Theorientationtowardusingthatskilliscentraltothe
backwards
designframework,butonlythreenewteachers—
Mike,Anthony,andDavid—spoke
specificallyaboutassessingtheirownteachingandusingassessmentt
oguidetheir
teaching.Mikenoted,“Ifeelreallywellpreparedtoevaluatemyfirstye
arafter
I’mdonewithit.I’vegotalotofreallygreatlikestrategiesfortakingalo
okat
thestuffthatIwasabletoputtogetherand,inahurry,whenIwastired,an
dmake
betterfornexttime,”andhefollowedthiscommentwiththeoneabove,
thattak-
ingalookathisteaching“made[him]thinkalotaboutusingassessment
sin[his]
planning.”BothAnthonyandDavidmadesimilarcomments,notingas
wellthat
theyrealizedtheirteachingwasnotgoingastheywantedittoandthatth
eyhad
thetools—throughbackwardsdesign—
toimproveit.Anthonydescribesmaking
hisjudgmentabouttheneedtorevisehisteachingbasedonstudentlear

98. ning:“I
foundmyselfkindofjustburningthroughstoriesandnovels,butthenIf
oundthat
thestudentswerenotpickinguponthebigideasthatIwashopingthatth
eywould
pickupon.”
Whileothersdidnotdiscussusingassessmentsintheirplanningoreval
uating
theirownwork,theystillusedwhattheyhadlearnedfromthebackward
sdesign
frameworktoevaluatethequalityofmaterialsavailabletothemfromt
heircolleagues.
David,Charles,Mary,andothersalsoreferredtotheirevaluationofcu
rriculum
materialswhethertheirsorothersintermsofthekindsofteachersthey
wanted
tobe.MaryandCharlesframedthesecommentsintermsofevaluating
materials
usedcommonlyintheirteachingenvironmentsascomingfromaninstr
uctional
“An Effective and Agonizing Way to Learn”

99. 164
paradigmthattheysawasineffective,thetransmissionmodelofteachi
ng:Mary
commented,forinstance,“IknewwhatIhadtodoinordertonotbethew
orksheet
teacher.”
Reflecting on the teaching and learning of backwards design—
”An effective and agonizing way to learn”
Thenewteachers’commentsabovemakeclearwhattheytookfromlea
rning
thebackwardsdesignframeworkintotheirteaching—
theknowledgeofaprocess
forlessonandunitplanning,anemphasisontheimportanceofundersta
ndingboth
whatstudentswouldlearnandwhy,andaconceptualframeworkforev
aluatingboth
theirownteachingandthecurricularmaterialstheyencounteredinthe
schools.Of
allthecommentstheymade,though,theonethathashauntedmehasbee
nNancy’s

100. commentcallingbackwardsdesign“aneffectiveandagonizingwayto
learn”be-
causeitsoneatlysumsupmyownsensefromteachingtheframework,t
hatithasa
tremendousamounttoofferandthatprospectiveteachersstrugglewit
hit.Although
Ididnotaskthefocusgroupstodiscussmyteachingspecifically,Iwant
toreflect
onwhataboutmyteachingoftheframeworkmayhavebeeneffective,a
ndwhat
partsofitprospectiveteachersseemtohavefoundchallenging.Indesc
ribingthis,
Iwillbedrawinglargelyonmyrecollectionsoftheclasses,withsomere
ference
bothtootherresearchonteacherpreparationandtothenewteachers’c
omments
duringthefocusgroups.
Smagorinskyandhiscolleagues(2003)describetheimportanceofpro
gram
coherenceforprospectiveteachers’conceptdevelopment,referringt
othevarying
definitionsofconstructivismthatcandidatesincredentialprogramse
xperienced.
AsimilarcoherenceintheC&Iclasseshelpedtomaketheteachingofba

101. ckwards
designeffective.Oneteachernoted,“Ithelpedtohaveyoualwaysaski
ng,‘Why
areyoudoingthis?’”Thatquestion,andthefocusontheteachers’goals
forstudent
learninginformeddiscussionsoflong-
termplanning,unitplanning,anddailyles-
sonplanning.Becausewebeganthesemesterwiththisconcept,investi
gatingthe
“bigideas”behindtheCaliforniaELAstandardsandrelatingthosebig
ideasto
theteachingofliterature,reading,writing,andlanguage,candidatesh
adconstant
reinforcement of the need to focus on ends and to think about
the meaningful
connections among choices of content, activities, and students’
lives.That this
perspectiveisechoedsowidelysuggeststhatthisemphasismadeitswa
yintonew
teachers’notionsofgoodteaching.
Thesameteacherwhonotedthehelpfulnessofthinkingaboutthequest
ion
“Why are you doing this” hinted at one of the reasons new
teachers may have

102. foundthiswayoflearningagonizingwhenshewrote,“Ididn’tfinishth
ecourse
with answers.” Because this approach does not emphasize “best
practices” but
insteaddecidingthebestpracticesfortheparticularpurposesofthetea
cherina
particularcontext,teachersmayhavefeltthereweretoomanyquestio
nsandnot
Nelson Graff
165
enoughanswers,assuggestedbyonenewteacher’srequestfor“Succe
ssfullesson
plansfromexperiencedteachers.”
Frommyownmemoryofteachingtheclass,though,thereisanotherrea
son
candidatesfoundthisprocessagonizing.Salcommented,inhisfocusg
roup,about
hismemoryof“grapplingwithsomuch...thecentralquestion...whatt
heheck

103. is an essential question.”The kind of thinking this framework
asks of teachers
wasnewtothemandrequiresadeepunderstandingoftheircontentofak
indnot
necessarily emphasized in their previous coursework. This deep
understanding
and interrogation is a necessary part of developing what
Shulman describes as
“pedagogicalcontentknowledge”(1986,p.9).Shulmannotes,“Thete
acherneed
notonlyunderstandthatsomethingisso;theteachermustfurtherunder
standwhy
itisso”(p.9).EvencandidateswhohadmajoredinEnglishasundergra
duates
and who had established their subject matter competency
through course work
struggledwiththedeepunderstandingofliterature,readingprocesses
,composing
processes,andlanguagenecessarytomakedecisionsaboutwhatunder
standings
andinquiriesarecentral,andmanyofthecandidateshadestablishedth
eirsubject
matterknowledgebyamostly-multiple-
choiceexamination,sotheyweremissing
thisdeeperunderstandingentirelyandstruggledagainsttheirlackofri

104. chexperience
withEnglishwhentheyhadtowrestlewithessentialquestionsandbigi
deas.
Conclusion
These results must be considered preliminary for any number of
reasons. I
wasworkingwitharelativelysmallpoolofteachersfromasinglecrede
ntialpro-
gram,allinEnglish.Investigationswithmoreteachersinavarietyofcr
edential
programsandavarietyofdisciplineswouldbenecessarytomorerigor
ouslysup-
portthevalueofthebackwardsdesignframework.Also,thefree-
flowingnatureof
thefocusgroupdiscussionsleftmewithouttheopportunitytocloselyi
nvestigate
teachers’ideasandexperiences.Likewise,despitetheconnectionsa
mongteach-
ers’sensesoftheirownpreparation,teacherself-
efficacy,andteacherperformance
(Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002), the comments of
these teachers
reflecttheirthoughtsaboutwhattheydo—
orthosethoughtstheywerewillingto

105. expressamongtheircolleaguesandinfrontoftheirformerteacher.Res
earchthat
followstheteachersintotheschoolsandexaminesnotonlytheirpracti
ceinthe
schoolsbuttheconsequencesofthatpracticeforstudentlearningwillp
rovidean
importantfollow-uptothisresearch.
Despitetheseflaws,theresultsandthestudyitselfraiseimplicationsf
orteacher
educatorstoconsider.First,theyreflectthevalueforteachereducator
softalking
toourformerstudentsandhearingfromthemwhatworkedanddidnotw
orkabout
ourclasses.Ihadmyownsensethatbackwardsdesignwasausefulconc
eptfor
futureteachers.Thatitremainedwithgraduatesoftheprogramintothe
irfirstyears
ofteachingreinforcesthatsense.Thatthesecommentsaboutbackwar
dsdesign
“An Effective and Agonizing Way to Learn”

106. 166
aroseingeneralfocusgroupdiscussionsaboutnewteachers’livesandt
heirsense
oftheirownpreparationsuggeststhepoweroftheconceptinnewteach
ers’lives.
Theseresultsalsosuggestthevalueofbackwardsdesign—
anapproachwhich
has become widespread—in preparing prospective teachers to
plan instruction.
Theyfurtherdemonstratethattheemphasisonbeginningwithdesired
outcomes
inherentinthebackwardsdesignapproachishelpfultonewteachersin
providinga
processbothfordesigninginstructionandforevaluatingcurricula—
one’sownand
others’.Andtheemphasisoninterrogatingthewhysbehindwhatwete
achprovides
newteachersawaytobalanceastandards-
basedcurriculumwithanemphasison
thelearningthatEnglishteachersreallyvalue.
Finally,theseresultssuggestanopportunityforteachereducatorsfoc
usedon
improvingourpreparationofteachers.Whileitiscertainlytruethatthe

107. effectsof
individualcoursesmaybemagnifiedormitigatedbyprogrammaticfa
ctors,inter-
rogatingourindividualcoursesfortheirpotentialimpactonparticular
lyimportant
skillsfornewteacherscanbeempoweringforteacherswhowanttofoc
usmoreon
ourowncurriculumthanprogramstructure.
Note
Iamverygratefultotheteacherswhotooktimeoutoftheirbusylivestos
haretheir
thoughtsaboutteachingandtheirpreparationandtotheanonymousre
viewersofthismanu-
scriptforfeedbackthatledtosignificantrevisions.
References
Athanases,S.Z.,&Martin,K.J.(2006)Learningtoadvocateforeducat
ionalequityina
teachercredentialprogram.Teaching and Teacher Education
22,627-646.
Ball,D.L.(2000).Bridgingpractices:Intertwiningcontentandpedag
ogyinteachingand

108. learningtoteach.Journal of Teacher Education 51(3),241-247.
Ball,D.L.(1996).Reformbythebook:Whatis:ormightbe:Theroleofc
urriculummaterials
inteacherlearningandinstructionalreform.Educational Researcher
25(9),6-14.
Ball,D.L.,&Feiman-
Nemser,S.(1988).Usingtextbooksandteachers’guides:Adilemma
forbeginningteachersandteachereducators.Curriculum Inquiry
18(4),401-423.
Bickmore,S.T.,Smagorinsky,P.,&O’Donnell-
Allen,C.(2005)Tensionsbetweentraditions:
theroleofcontextsinlearningtoteach.English Education 38(1),23-
52.
Bullough,R.V.Jr.(1989).First-year teacher: A case
study.NewYork:TeachersCollege
Press.
Bullough,R.,withBaughman,K.(1995).Changingcontextsandexpe
rtiseinteaching:first-
yearteacheraftersevenyears.Teaching & Teacher Education

109. 11(5),461-477.
Bullough, R.V., Jr., Knowles, J. G., & Crow, N.A. (1992)
Emerging as a teacher. New
York:Routledge.
CaliforniaStateUniversity.(2007).Teacherpreparationreportshow
sCaliforniagradsare
readytoteach.RetrievedJune8,2007,fromCaliforniaStateUniversit
yPublicAffairs
Website,http://calstate.edu/pa/news/2007/TeacherEval.shtml
Clift,R.T.,&Brady,P.(2005).Researchonmethodscoursesandfielde
xperiences.InM.
Nelson Graff
167
Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.) Studying teacher
education: The report of
the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 309-
424). Mahwah, NJ:

110. LawrenceErlbaumAssociatesandWashington,DC:AmericanEduca
tionalResearch
Association.
Cook,L.S.,Smagorinsky,P.,Fry,P.,Konopak,B.,&Moore,C.(2002)
Problemsindeveloping
aconstructivistapproachtoteaching:oneteacher’stransitionfromtea
cherpreparation
toteaching.The Elementary School Journal 102(5),389-413.
Darling-Hammond,L.(2006).Powerful teacher education:
Lessons from exemplary pro-
grams.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F.
(2002).Variation in teacher preparation:
howwelldodifferentpathwaysprepareteacherstoteach?Journal of
Teacher Educa-
tion,53(4),286-302.
Dudley-Marling,C.,Abt-
Perkins,D.,Sato,K.,&Self,R.(2006).Teacherquality:theper-
spectivesofNCTEmembers.English Education 38(3),167-188.
Graff,N.(2005).Essentialquestionsforfutureteachers.Big Ideas,

111. 1(3).<www.bigideas.
org>
Grossman,P.L.,&Richert,A.E.(1988).Unacknowledgedknowledg
egrowth:Are-examina-
tionoftheeffectsofteachereducation.Teaching & Teacher
Education 4(1),53-62.
Grossman,P.,&Thompson,C.(2004). Curriculum materials:
Scaffolds for new teacher
learning. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study ofTeaching and
Policy. <http://depts.
washington.edu/ctpmail/Reports.html>.
Grossman,P.,Valencia,S.,Evans,K.,Thompson,C.,Martin,S.,&Pla
ce,N.(2000).Transi-
tions into teaching: learning to teach writing in teacher
education and beyond.Albany,
NY:NationalResearchCenteronEnglishLearningandAchievement.
CELA-RR-13006.
<http://cela.albany.edu/transitions/index.html>
Housego,B.(1992).Monitoringstudentteachers’feelingsofprepare
dnesstoteach.Journal
of Education for Teaching 18(3),259-273.

112. Housego,B.E.J.(1994).Howpreparedwereyoutoteach?Beginningt
eachersassesstheir
preparedness.The Alberta Journal of Educational Research,
XL(3),355-373.
Huber, M.T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of
learning. Stanford, CA:The
CarnegieFoundationfortheAdvancementofLearning.
Kauffman,D.,Johnson,S.M.,Kardos,S.M.,Liu,E.,&Peske,H.G.(20
02).“LostatSea”:
Newteachers’experienceswithcurriculumandassessment.Teachers
College Record
104(2),273-300.
Kelting-
Gibson,L.M.(2005).Comparisonofcurriculumdevelopmentpractic
es.Educational
Research Quarterly, 29(1),26-36.
Milner,J.O.,&Milner,L.F.M.(2008).Bridging
English(4thed.).UpperSaddleRiver,
NJ:PrenticeHall.

113. Shulman,L.S.(1986).Thosewhounderstand:Knowledgegrowthinte
aching.Educational
Researcher, 15(2),4-14.
Shulman,L.S.(1999).Takinglearningseriously.Change, 31(4), 10-
17.
Smagorinsky,P.(2002).Teaching English through principled
practice.UpperSaddleRiver,
NJ:PrenticeHall.
Smagorinsky,P.(2007).Teaching English by design: How to
create and carry out instruc-
tional units.Heinemann.
Smagorinsky,P.,Cook,L.S.,&Johnson,T.S.(2003).Thetwistingpat
hofconceptdevelop-
mentinlearningtoteach.Teachers College Record,105(8),1399-
1436.
“An Effective and Agonizing Way to Learn”
168

114. Smagorinsky,P.,Cook,L.S.,Moore,C.,Jackson,A.,&Fry,P.G.(200
4).Tensionsinlearn-
ingtoteach:accommodationandthedevelopmentofateachingidentit
y.Journal of
Teacher Education, 55(1),8-24.
Smith,M.B.(2010).Introduction:Endingthesolitudeofcitizenshipe
ducation.InM.B.
Smith,R.S.Nowacek,&J.L.Bernstein(Eds.),Citizenship across the
curriculum (pp.
1-12).Bloomington,IN:IndianaUniversityPress.
Snow,C.E.,Griffin,P.,&Burns,M.S.(Eds.)(2005).Knowledge to
support the teaching of
reading:Preparing teachers for a changing
world.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Strauss, A. S. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists.
New York: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
U.S.DepartmentofEducation.(n.d.).New no child left behind
flexibility: Highly qualified
teachers.<http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibilit

115. y.html>
Valencia,S.W.,Place,N.A.,Martin,S.D.,&Grossman,P.L.(2006).C
urriculummateri-
als for elementary reading: shackles and scaffolds for four
beginning teachers. The
Elementary School Journal, 107(1),93-120.
VanDerValk,T.(A.E.),&Broekman,H.(H.G.B.).(1999).Thelesson
preparationmethod:
awayofinvestigatingpre-
serviceteachers’pedagogicalcontentknowledge.European
Journal of Teacher Education, 22(1),11-22.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers.
Review of Educational
Research,54(2).143-178.
Wiggins,G.,&McTighe,J.(2005).Understanding by
design(2nded.).UpperSaddleRiver,
NJ:PrenticeHall.
Copyright of Teacher Education Quarterly is the property of

116. Caddo Gap Press and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.