Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Sharing Our Story
Today we visited the OAISD to present our story to curriculum directors from the area. This is always a great opportunity for me. Not only does it sharpen the saw but it fuels the fire! By being around educators who are excited about the future and not running from it I was inspired to stay the course. Additionally, by sharing my story and listening to others I am always enlightened with a new idea or hunch to grow on. Remember.....All kids means ALL kids. How are we ensuring meaningful communication with each student multiple times per week if we are so stuck on lecturing to them 5 hours a week. PBL......more to come....
Friday, February 10, 2012
Collaboration With Language Arts
Today we joined with the language arts department to help kids write rock stories and post them on their blogs.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
A Fresh Look At Learning Targets
My teaching partner Ted Malefyt wrote this article about our recent look at learning targets....
We innovated a couple of our old hunches and really feel we have struck gold....
1. Innovate "Student Passports"
2. Innovate Learning Targets
Yield: Lower Student Failure Rate and Decreased Reteaching.....
Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of good to learning targets. They provide structure and focus to the learning that takes place in the classroom. Additionally, learning targets help in the process of grading, especially for teachers implementing a true system of standards based grading. However, I would argue that there might be a better way!
The Process This year, 7th grade science has started to implement more challenged based learning into the classroom. With this implementation we discovered that students had a difficult time asking good questions to drive their research. Upon reflection, Bob and I made a decision that we needed to increase our focus on student inquiry. In addition, we took a look at learning targets and came to the conclusion that each learning target was teacher driven.
Not a single learning target was derived from student inquiry! Therefore, we decided to pursue a method that would preserve the content the state was requiring of us all the while encouraging student inquiry. We came up with a plan to have student questions drive the formation of our newly found (thanks to Brad Fuzak and Nate Alkire) road map.
When you take a look at the road map, student questions were divided up and organized into appropriate categories. These categories were designed to match the state curriculum. We hypothesized that student questions would match the general curriculum. In fact they did with a little teacher influence on the organization. The next phase of this newly found "road map" is the formative structure that it provides. As students complete the "box categories" we enter into a discussion with each student. Using their questions as a guide we determine if they have a good understanding of the content in that category. If a students has completed all the tasks and can demonstrate content knowledge they receive a stamp on that box to verify. No student is allowed to take a summative assessment until they have all their stamps!
The Data
The data supports the validity of the student inquiry driving the tasks and the formative assessment. After the first trial of summative assessment on rocks we came up with the following: 175 students (88%) scored above a B-, which we consider to be proficient. 22 Students (12%) scored between a B- and D-. 1 student scored below a D- Conclusion Without actual numbers from previous years, I am very confident that we have never achieved this kind of student performance on the first summative assessment for a concept of this magnitude. A concept as complicated as a dynamic rock cycle has proven to be difficult in years past for many students.
Many times we have found ourselves finding ways to re-teach material and providing justification for using retakes. Witnessing 88% of our students demonstrating proficiency this early in the process is good, but having only 1 student receive an E the first time through is bigger. In my opinion, reflecting on our use of learning targets is a discussion worth having.
1. Innovate "Student Passports"
2. Innovate Learning Targets
Yield: Lower Student Failure Rate and Decreased Reteaching.....
Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of good to learning targets. They provide structure and focus to the learning that takes place in the classroom. Additionally, learning targets help in the process of grading, especially for teachers implementing a true system of standards based grading. However, I would argue that there might be a better way!
The Process This year, 7th grade science has started to implement more challenged based learning into the classroom. With this implementation we discovered that students had a difficult time asking good questions to drive their research. Upon reflection, Bob and I made a decision that we needed to increase our focus on student inquiry. In addition, we took a look at learning targets and came to the conclusion that each learning target was teacher driven.
Not a single learning target was derived from student inquiry! Therefore, we decided to pursue a method that would preserve the content the state was requiring of us all the while encouraging student inquiry. We came up with a plan to have student questions drive the formation of our newly found (thanks to Brad Fuzak and Nate Alkire) road map.
When you take a look at the road map, student questions were divided up and organized into appropriate categories. These categories were designed to match the state curriculum. We hypothesized that student questions would match the general curriculum. In fact they did with a little teacher influence on the organization. The next phase of this newly found "road map" is the formative structure that it provides. As students complete the "box categories" we enter into a discussion with each student. Using their questions as a guide we determine if they have a good understanding of the content in that category. If a students has completed all the tasks and can demonstrate content knowledge they receive a stamp on that box to verify. No student is allowed to take a summative assessment until they have all their stamps!
The Data
The data supports the validity of the student inquiry driving the tasks and the formative assessment. After the first trial of summative assessment on rocks we came up with the following: 175 students (88%) scored above a B-, which we consider to be proficient. 22 Students (12%) scored between a B- and D-. 1 student scored below a D- Conclusion Without actual numbers from previous years, I am very confident that we have never achieved this kind of student performance on the first summative assessment for a concept of this magnitude. A concept as complicated as a dynamic rock cycle has proven to be difficult in years past for many students.
Many times we have found ourselves finding ways to re-teach material and providing justification for using retakes. Witnessing 88% of our students demonstrating proficiency this early in the process is good, but having only 1 student receive an E the first time through is bigger. In my opinion, reflecting on our use of learning targets is a discussion worth having.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)