The Handbook for the New Art and Science of Teaching. Robert J. Marzano
Chunking Content
Based on student needs, an effective teacher breaks the content into small chunks (that is, digestible bites) of information that students can easily process. Research has shown that information in small pieces allows students to hold it in working memory long enough to process it (Good & Brophy, 2003; Linden et al., 2003; Mayer, 2003; Rosenshine, 2002). The teacher should present chunks of information in a logical sequence, and he or she should determine the size of each chunk by how much students already know about the content (Marzano, 2007).
There are three strategies within this element.
1. Using preassessment data to plan for chunks
2. Presenting content in small, sequentially related sets
3. Allowing for processing time between chunks
The following sections will explore each strategy to provide you with guidelines to effectively implement this element. Read through each before creating a plan for your classroom. Teachers may use the strategies individually or in combination. Remember, these are not merely activities to be checked off; they are methods of creating a practice that combines your art with the science of chunking content. Reflect on your use of each strategy by filling out the “Strategy Reflection Log” on page 331.
Using Preassessment Data to Plan for Chunks
Based on students’ initial understanding of new content, the teacher presents new content in larger or smaller chunks. How much the students know about the topic determines how big, or small, the chunks will be. Preassessments can be either informal (such as those presented in element 4) or more structured, hardcopy assessments that include problems that represent the levels of the proficiency scale.
If students scored well in a specific area on a preassessment, the teacher presents that information as part of a larger chunk. When presenting information about which students displayed misconceptions or little prior knowledge on the preassessment, the teacher can use smaller chunks.
Presenting Content in Small, Sequentially Related Sets
Next, the teacher delivers the chunks. If presenting new declarative knowledge, the chunks include concepts and details that logically go together. If presenting new procedural knowledge, the chunks include steps in a process that go together. While executing the chunking process, the teacher monitors student understanding. If the students seem confused, before moving to the next chunk, the teacher stays with the content until understanding is achieved.
Allowing for Processing Time Between Chunks
The teacher provides a structured time for students to work together to process chunks of content. For example, a teacher has students work in groups of three. Students decide who will be member A, member B, and member C. The teacher presents the first chunk of information, and member A summarizes it. Members B and C add to what A has already said, and each group identifies elements of the chunk they are still confused about. The teacher takes questions from the whole class to clarify these confusions and then asks each group to predict what the next chunk will be about. The teacher presents the next chunk, and groups repeat the process, except that member B summarizes and members A and C add information. After the teacher presents the third chunk, groups repeat the process again, with member C summarizing, and members A and B adding information.
Monitoring Element 6
Specific student responses and behaviors allow the teacher to determine whether this element is being implemented effectively and producing the desired effects.
• Students actively engage in processing content between chunks.
• Students can explain why the teacher stops at specific points during a presentation of new content.
• Students appear to understand the content in each chunk.
Use this list to monitor student responses to element 6.
To monitor your own use of this element, use the scale in figure 3.1 in combination with the reproducible “Tracking Teacher Actions: Chunking Content” (page 62). As with other proficiency scales, level 3 or higher is the goal.
The following examples describe what each level of the scale might look like in the classroom.
• Not Using (0): A teacher introduces a new unit by giving a class-long lecture. She only pauses when a student raises his hand to ask a question and does not give the students time to process new or difficult knowledge.
• Beginning (1): A teacher does not plan in advance where he will pause when reading a short story with his students. He decides to pause every few sentences, which disrupts the narrative and causes his students to lose track of the story’s plot.
• Developing (2): A teacher purposefully presents the introduction to a new unit in small chunks by breaking the important concepts of the unit into categories. However, she does not use any techniques to verify that the students are processing and understanding each chunk of information.
Figure 3.1: Self-rating scale for element 6—Chunking content.
• Applying (3): A teacher employs the chunk processing strategy to teach students new information. He observes and engages with the different groups in the room to make sure that every group member is participating and grasping the content. The teacher moves on to the next chunk when he is satisfied that the class understands what was just taught.
• Innovating (4): A teacher observes her class after describing each step of a complex procedure and asking them to try it out. She looks for students who appear to be struggling with the steps so that she can modify her instructional approach. She pairs one struggling student with a student who appears to be successfully implementing the step and then asks the partner who is doing the step correctly to demonstrate and explain it to the other student.
Element 7: Processing Content
During breaks in the presentation of content, an effective teacher engages students in actively processing new information. Research has shown that some processing macrostrategies (such as reciprocal teaching) increase student achievement (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). Processing macrostrategies combine several individual research-based strategies (such as summarizing, questioning, or predicting) to help students actively process information (Marzano, 2007).
There are eight strategies within this element.
1. Perspective analysis
2. Thinking hats
3. Collaborative processing
4. Jigsaw cooperative learning
5. Reciprocal teaching
6. Concept attainment
7. Think-pair-share
8. Scripted cooperative dyads
The following sections will explore each strategy to provide you with guidelines to effectively implement this element. Read through each before creating a plan for your classroom. Teachers may use the strategies individually or in combination. Remember, these are not merely activities to be checked off; they are methods of creating a practice that combines your art with the science of processing content. Reflect on your use of each strategy by filling out the “Strategy Reflection Log” on page 331.
Perspective Analysis
This strategy was originally developed by Robert J. Marzano (1992) in A Different Kind of Classroom: Teaching With Dimensions of Learning. The teacher asks students to consider multiple perspectives on new knowledge using perspective analysis. Topics might include controversial political topics, school- and community-related issues, or historical perspectives, to name a few. This strategy involves