Watching the BluRay of the Avengers...less than 5 minutes in and Loki says, " I'm burdened with glorious purpose."
As a reflective teacher, I think this is my new mantra. In my mind, this says it all!
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Posted with Blogsy
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Equity
The word equity has been used in education for many years. Mostly it seems to refer to whether all student sub-groups are being given the same opportunities to learn. It has been argued that girls are not pressed to justify answers or even answer higher-level questions. It has also been argued that the same is true for certain minority students. It is my premise that the majority of teachers do not do this consciously. I think that most teachers have a nurturing streak that sometimes interferes with equal opportunity for all students. By this I mean...most teachers don't want to embarrass their students or put them on the spot. So I've watched as teachers ask a student a question and if the student can't answer immediately, they move to another student. The initial student is off the hook but what did they learn? I'll let that question hang for my readers to ponder.
But...the more I read and think about the art and science of teaching mathematics, the more I believe that equity is a far greater issue than looking at the opportunities given to sub-groups. I'm starting to believe that most every decision a teacher makes while planning an executing their lessons can be a gained or lost opportunity to teach all students equally.
PLANNING: How is the teacher utilizing the resources available for planning and executing their lessons? In our county, every course comes with a curriculum guide. These guides are created using the combined talents of the master teachers who teach that course. Their ideas, instructional strategies, and best practices are written into the guide, giving all teachers of that course proven ways to help students be successful. The writers also purposefully write connections among lessons and units. If a teacher, not aware of the big picture of the course, chooses to skip the mathematical task in one unit, they've lost the opportunity to continually refer to it as the course progresses. When a teacher makes the decision not to use the curriculum guide and the prescribed strategies and activities, they have made a decision to rob their students of proven opportunities. (an aside...I know there are some readers who are starting to fume at this point. I know that there are other ways to present content.) The hard fact is that our school system is the 25th largest school system in the United States. We have around 11,000 algebra I students. We also have movement within our county. By that I mean that many families move from an existing area of the county to another part of the county. When a student changes schools, there needs to be consistency. So, Teacher A decides not to follow the curriculum guide and skips any task that requires gathering materials or manipulatives or engages the students in discussion. That teacher has just robbed their students of an opportunity. The students who never leave the school have no idea that other students in the county are being given richer opportunities to learn the mathematics on a deeper level. To me, this becomes an equity issue. What gives a teacher who has signed a contract to teach the curriculum the right to make decisions like that. (Now for the readers who are really fuming...I'm not talking about the teachers who are thoroughly planned and provide their students with alternative lessons that maintain the integrity and fidelity of the written curriculum. I am talking about the teachers who disregard a rich task and change the lesson into a direct instruction, "I talk, you listen" experience). Unfortunately students can not easily get a new teacher if they don't change schools.
LANGUAGE: I hear mathematics teachers using slang terms all the time as they develop content. I think this is a huge equity issue. I have teachers argue with me and rationalize their use of incorrect terminology, like saying plug instead of substitute. One 6th grade teacher said that he and his peers in high school in calc III used those slang terms all the time and so did their teacher (who he says was the best teacher he ever had). My rebuttal to him was that by the time he was a senior in high school, he was 'in the club' so to speak. Experts in various fields have a tendency to create short-cuts in their communication when speaking to peers. What I tried to explain to him is that he had been given opportunities to hear and use the correct vocabulary and symbolism as he progressed, giving him the chance to get into the 'club' and speak in the shortened language. I told him that he was teaching 11-year olds who should be given every opportunity to hear correct language and see correct use of the mathematical symbolism so that maybe someday they, too, could get in the club. Every time a teacher takes short-cuts, whether with language or by teaching some trick for a mathematical process before developing the concept, they are robbing students of opportunities from which many of them may never recover. That is an equity issue.
I believe that teachers need to remember that they are teachers every single second that students are present, whether in the classroom or the cafeteria, or talking to them individually. Every interaction becomes an opportunity to show students the importance and beauty of mathematics. If we consciously think about our roles of assisting our students to see and believe in the importance of mathematics and model this love of subject with the execution of well-planned lessons, I don't think we'd have to worry about equity.
But...the more I read and think about the art and science of teaching mathematics, the more I believe that equity is a far greater issue than looking at the opportunities given to sub-groups. I'm starting to believe that most every decision a teacher makes while planning an executing their lessons can be a gained or lost opportunity to teach all students equally.
PLANNING: How is the teacher utilizing the resources available for planning and executing their lessons? In our county, every course comes with a curriculum guide. These guides are created using the combined talents of the master teachers who teach that course. Their ideas, instructional strategies, and best practices are written into the guide, giving all teachers of that course proven ways to help students be successful. The writers also purposefully write connections among lessons and units. If a teacher, not aware of the big picture of the course, chooses to skip the mathematical task in one unit, they've lost the opportunity to continually refer to it as the course progresses. When a teacher makes the decision not to use the curriculum guide and the prescribed strategies and activities, they have made a decision to rob their students of proven opportunities. (an aside...I know there are some readers who are starting to fume at this point. I know that there are other ways to present content.) The hard fact is that our school system is the 25th largest school system in the United States. We have around 11,000 algebra I students. We also have movement within our county. By that I mean that many families move from an existing area of the county to another part of the county. When a student changes schools, there needs to be consistency. So, Teacher A decides not to follow the curriculum guide and skips any task that requires gathering materials or manipulatives or engages the students in discussion. That teacher has just robbed their students of an opportunity. The students who never leave the school have no idea that other students in the county are being given richer opportunities to learn the mathematics on a deeper level. To me, this becomes an equity issue. What gives a teacher who has signed a contract to teach the curriculum the right to make decisions like that. (Now for the readers who are really fuming...I'm not talking about the teachers who are thoroughly planned and provide their students with alternative lessons that maintain the integrity and fidelity of the written curriculum. I am talking about the teachers who disregard a rich task and change the lesson into a direct instruction, "I talk, you listen" experience). Unfortunately students can not easily get a new teacher if they don't change schools.
LANGUAGE: I hear mathematics teachers using slang terms all the time as they develop content. I think this is a huge equity issue. I have teachers argue with me and rationalize their use of incorrect terminology, like saying plug instead of substitute. One 6th grade teacher said that he and his peers in high school in calc III used those slang terms all the time and so did their teacher (who he says was the best teacher he ever had). My rebuttal to him was that by the time he was a senior in high school, he was 'in the club' so to speak. Experts in various fields have a tendency to create short-cuts in their communication when speaking to peers. What I tried to explain to him is that he had been given opportunities to hear and use the correct vocabulary and symbolism as he progressed, giving him the chance to get into the 'club' and speak in the shortened language. I told him that he was teaching 11-year olds who should be given every opportunity to hear correct language and see correct use of the mathematical symbolism so that maybe someday they, too, could get in the club. Every time a teacher takes short-cuts, whether with language or by teaching some trick for a mathematical process before developing the concept, they are robbing students of opportunities from which many of them may never recover. That is an equity issue.
I believe that teachers need to remember that they are teachers every single second that students are present, whether in the classroom or the cafeteria, or talking to them individually. Every interaction becomes an opportunity to show students the importance and beauty of mathematics. If we consciously think about our roles of assisting our students to see and believe in the importance of mathematics and model this love of subject with the execution of well-planned lessons, I don't think we'd have to worry about equity.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Flipped Classroom...New Idea?
I have been reading about the notion of the 'flipped classroom' for about a year. The new young teachers who are getting much credit for this "new" idea should be very proud. Honestly, my thought is that they have taken a tried and true technique and added some bells and whistles to it. Jonathan Bergman and Aaron Sarns, both from a school in Colorado, early on, discovered a piece of software that would allow them to post PowerPoints online. In their earliest iteration of the technique, the teachers designed their PowerPoint presentations to be viewed by students who had been absent from class. The online lectures started to spread beyond just their students and the two teachers were soon asked to speak to other teachers about this idea of a flipped classroom. The idea evolved to mean that students were expected to watch podcasts and online videos to prepare for class the next day. This frees up valuable class time for the students to engage in cooperative endeavors such as projects or other activities that use and extend the ideas from the homework. The teacher can facilitate the learning of the connections of skills instead of constantly teaching those skills that underlie the real world applications.
What a powerful idea...but...not new.
My school system has been using the UCSMP Transition Mathematics program since about 1985 and I taught this program from that time until I left the classroom in 2000. Since coming to the Secondary Mathematics Office, I have been deemed the 'keeper of the flame' for the program. Most recently, I was the lead writer and editor of the curriculum rewriting when the third edition of the textbook was released. (But, I'm slightly off the topic.)
The cornerstone of this program (and all of the prior and subsequent programs in the series) require the students to read ahead. The students read the lesson from their textbook that will be taught in the next class. They read, take notes, and complete some exercises that cover the ideas from the reading. The exercises are nothing more than questions that clarify whether the students know what the main ideas of the lesson are. The students are instructed to use their notes to answer the questions. If they can't answer a question using just their notes, they should go back to the text and enhance their notes. Never are the students required to read for mastery of content. Their prereading is nothing more than reading a movie review or the summary on a book jacket. The students bring some knowledge to class which allows the teacher to form the lesson in a way that does more than regurgitate the reading. If the teacher plans the lesson in such a way that reiterates the text, the majority of students will stop prereading. Well heck, wouldn't you? Think of your college classes that required a textbook that was only used to build the muscles it took to carry it. If the professor spewed back the content verbatim, why take the time to read?
The students come to class with their notes, each having a personal understanding of what was read. The teacher's job is to design a lesson that uses the content in such a way that all students have a more thorough understanding of what they preread. They are also encouraged to enhance and add to their notes during the lesson. The prereading also gives the students a chance to formulate questions to ask the teacher or their classmates. So, isn't this the original version of a flipped classroom? Hasn't prereading always been a technique used to give students a chance to prepare for the content that will be presented in class?
As I mentioned previously, this idea of giving this technique a new name, the flipped classroom, is wonderful if it encourages students and parents to buy into the idea of preparing or taking some responsibility for bringing something to each and every lesson. But, let's not act like this is a bold new frontier. Anytime students are asked to be prepared for class and held responsible for being prepared allows the teacher to take all students farther and achieve more in the little time time available in class.
What a powerful idea...but...not new.
My school system has been using the UCSMP Transition Mathematics program since about 1985 and I taught this program from that time until I left the classroom in 2000. Since coming to the Secondary Mathematics Office, I have been deemed the 'keeper of the flame' for the program. Most recently, I was the lead writer and editor of the curriculum rewriting when the third edition of the textbook was released. (But, I'm slightly off the topic.)
The cornerstone of this program (and all of the prior and subsequent programs in the series) require the students to read ahead. The students read the lesson from their textbook that will be taught in the next class. They read, take notes, and complete some exercises that cover the ideas from the reading. The exercises are nothing more than questions that clarify whether the students know what the main ideas of the lesson are. The students are instructed to use their notes to answer the questions. If they can't answer a question using just their notes, they should go back to the text and enhance their notes. Never are the students required to read for mastery of content. Their prereading is nothing more than reading a movie review or the summary on a book jacket. The students bring some knowledge to class which allows the teacher to form the lesson in a way that does more than regurgitate the reading. If the teacher plans the lesson in such a way that reiterates the text, the majority of students will stop prereading. Well heck, wouldn't you? Think of your college classes that required a textbook that was only used to build the muscles it took to carry it. If the professor spewed back the content verbatim, why take the time to read?
The students come to class with their notes, each having a personal understanding of what was read. The teacher's job is to design a lesson that uses the content in such a way that all students have a more thorough understanding of what they preread. They are also encouraged to enhance and add to their notes during the lesson. The prereading also gives the students a chance to formulate questions to ask the teacher or their classmates. So, isn't this the original version of a flipped classroom? Hasn't prereading always been a technique used to give students a chance to prepare for the content that will be presented in class?
As I mentioned previously, this idea of giving this technique a new name, the flipped classroom, is wonderful if it encourages students and parents to buy into the idea of preparing or taking some responsibility for bringing something to each and every lesson. But, let's not act like this is a bold new frontier. Anytime students are asked to be prepared for class and held responsible for being prepared allows the teacher to take all students farther and achieve more in the little time time available in class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)