APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTATION 2
Objectives
In order to achieve a successful curriculum change plan key objectives are designated to
address targeted skills that are required to show mastery. These objectives must have three
concepts that focus on what the student will be learning, ow will the learning be assessed, and
what will be the criteria to show mastery (Gordon et al., 2019). The curriculum change plan
focuses on three different learning objectives. These objectives will designate domains of
learning that include cognitive, affective and psychomotor. While the affective and psychomotor
domains will be most essential to the development of learning achieved with the curriculum
change plan. The cognitive domain will still be utilized as the students are developing their skills
in development of the goals. However, there are always creative ways to integrate all three
domains together in education. Restorative Justice Practices will only be successful with the
combination of all three domains as students learn effective ways to communicate about harm
they have experienced (Gilbert et al., 2012). This paper will explain how each domain aligns
with each objective, and how each objective relates to the Affective Classification System.
The first objective states that students will reduce discipline referrals to reduce the
number of out of school suspension days. This objective contains criteria that aligns with the
affective domain because it relies on a student’s environment and how the student forms
relationships between real-life issues; however, this is very difficult to measure (Beltran-Pellicer
et al., 2019). The psychomotor domain basically involves physical activity, but due to the real-
life issues involved in objective one the alignment with psychomotor domain could be justified.
This objective will also require emotional intelligence to master therefore, the cognitive domain
could also align.
APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTATION 3
The second objective states that students will learn to build positive relationships that will
support a positive school culture. Just like objective one, the second objective also requires the
use of emotional intelligence. Johnstone (2017), states that there are five domains aligned with
emotional intelligence: understanding your own emotions, being able to control one’s emotions,
self-motivation, noticing other people’s emotions, and building relationships. Since emotions are
involved with building relationships the affective domain aligns with the objective two. The
psychomotor domain relates to objective two since it uses recognizing non-verbal emotions of
others in order to build relationships. The cognitive domain can also align since social and
emotional learning is directly related to mental processes and problem-solving in order to build
positive relationships.
Finally, objective three states that student’s will improve their academic achievement.
This aligns with the cognitive domain since being educated and having growth in academic
achievement involves the student caring about their grades in school and understanding the
purpose for learning (Johnstone, 2007). Since the students must use their emotion of care to
improve their performance in school this objective will also align with the affective domain.
Objective three could also touch on the psychomotor domain since improving academic
achievement will involve the use of physical movement and utilizing fundamental skills.
Classification System
The Affective Classification System was developed right after Bloom’s taxonomy was
released. The Affective Classification System consists of a group of domains that relate to social
emotional learning. Gordon et al., (2019) stated that the taxonomy of the affective domain has
five parts: receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and characterization. The social
emotional learning curriculum in schools has not always been a key objective of learning. The
APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTATION 4
mental health needs of our students has increased over the last few decades. Trauma-informed
care and restorative justice practices are two examples of frameworks in the social emotional
learning curriculum. If the SEL needs of a student are not met academic achievement will suffer
or not even take place. Gordon et al., (2019) stated that in 1964 Kratwohl, Bloom, and Masia
introduced the Affective Classification System. They stated that the system promotes the well-
being and achievement of a student and without this there would be no academic achievement
accomplished. The three objectives noted in this curriculum change plan align more with this
classification system.
Objective one states that students will reduce discipline referrals in order to reduce the
number of out of school suspensions. This objective explicitly relates to all five domains of the
Affective Classification System. In order for this objective to be mastered the student must
receive by listening to teachers and students as they express themselves and not inflict harm if a
disagreement ensues. The student must respond appropriately when called upon in the classroom
or restorative circles. The student must value and appreciate their education and friendships
established at school. The students must organize their thoughts to achieve positive gains of
behavior achievement. The student must characterize and value the rules established at school to
promote a positive school culture.
Objective two states that students will learn to build positive relationships that will
support a positive school culture. While this objective can apply to all domains it directly applies
to receiving, responding, and valuing. In order to learn how to build a positive relationship a
student must be open to communicating and valuing the importance of relationships. They must
value the commitment made to learning and growth.
APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTATION 5
Finally, objective three states that students will improve student achievement. All five of
the domains will apply to the objective. Students will be aware of receiving and listening to the
school environment. Students will answer and discuss in the classroom as they are receiving
instruction. They will communicate any questions of misunderstanding to promote a positive
classroom and school culture.
These objectives imbedded in this classification system have been deemed hard to
measure. However, when these practices are not addressed the academic objectives that are
easily measured are not met or mastered. “The philosophy underlying these practices hold that
human beings are happier, more productive, and more likely to make positive changes in the
behavior when those in positions of authority do things with them, rather than to or for them”
(Rideout et al., 2010). Positive relationships impact teachers, students and staff of a school more
than anything else that can be taught.
Instructional Model
While there is not just one instructional model that can be applied in the classroom to
achieve mastery, there must always be some type of research-based or evidence based model
chosen (Gordon et al., 2019). The Restorative Justice Practices curriculum change plan could fit
into several instructional approaches. After copious amounts of research and 29 years of
educational experience. I have decided that in order to facilitate change by building positive
relationships and addressing change in violations of harm and aggression the Multi-Level Tiered
Support System of whole-school approaches is the most appropriate model to choose. This will
entail the use of the Differentiated Instruction Model to allow interventions and support for all
community school members to develop the skills needed to establish positive relationships
(Morrison et al., 2005). By utilizing the whole school approach is broad and addresses everyone.
APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTATION 6
The MTSS model will be used to support students who are needing more intensive instruction to
repair harm and promote a positive school culture. The highest tier in the MTSS model will
assist those students needing individualized instruction support to address behavior problems or
disorders.
The roll out of the whole school implementation will occur in several segments of
development to build a solid foundation. There will be an organization plan of development
starting first with leadership and key stakeholders to promote buy-in and funding. The
professional development implementation will be introduced to begin establishing instruction of
Restorative Justice Practices to everyone involved. The professional development will be
differentiated to provide multiple ways for teachers and students to comprehend the practices and
promote discussions to help implement the initiation of relationship building. The sequence of
implementation with the whole school will map out goals and objectives for the year. As the
implementation initiates there will always be constant guided practice, differentiation of
instruction to address individual levels of needs, and cross-curriculum instruction to support the
implementation.
The end goal of this implementation of a cross-curriculum is imbedding in a potential
Social Studies or History class. This will continue to promote Restorative Justice Practices for
advanced students as younger or new students are oriented to the practices through the initial
trainings. These classes will have the students developing their own rubric for the course
guidelines and curriculum. The students will embed the Restorative Justice Practices in their
curriculum design as they support the positive school connections of climate that has been
established.
APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTATION 7
This curriculum change plan will not be successful without a positive team of support.
The Bible promotes the highest support of teamwork, “As each had received a gift, use it to serve
one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace” (The Holy Bible, 2019, 1 Peter 4:10).
APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTATION 8
References
Beltran-Pellicer, P., & Godino, J.D. (2019). An onto-semiotic approach to the analysis of the affective
domain in mathematics education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(1), 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2019.1623175
Gilbert, M., Schiff, M., & Cunliffe, R., (2013). Teaching restorative justice: Developing a restorative
andragogy for face-to-face, online and hybrid course modalities. Contemporary Justice
Review, 16(1), 43-69. https:///doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2013.769305
Gordon, W., Taylor, R., & Oliva, P.F. (2019). Developing the curriculum: Improved outcomes through
systems approaches. Pearson.
Johnstone, G., & Van Ness, D.W. (2007). Handbook of restorative justice. Willan.
https://doi.org/10.4324?9781843926191
Morrison, B., Blood, P., & Thorsborne, M. (2005). Practicing restorative justice in school communities:
The challenge of culture change. Public Organization Review, 5, 335-357.
Rideout, G., Roland, K., Salinitri, G., & Frey, M. (2010). Measuring the effect of restorative justice
practices: Outcomes and contexts. Journal of Educational Administration and
Foundations, 21(2), 35.
The Holy Bible. (2019). The Holy Bible Online. (Original work published 1976).
https://biblegateway.com
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
