Thursday, May 31, 2012

End of Days - Where's the Learning?

My 11th grade daughter just finished her last day of school today.  Guess that actually makes her a senior now.  Yikes!  Anyway, she had exams the last two days, which she didn't have to take because of her grades, yet...she had to show up and be there or she would fail.  So, she sat for 4 hours each day doing not much. Not a great use of time, but that I sort of understand.  Sort of.  (Though, in schools I taught at, if you were exempted from an exam you did not have to actually show up...different state, different rules I guess).

What I really was concerned about was the last two weeks of school, particularly the last week.  My daughter watched more movies in that time than she has all year.  State tests were over, only thing left to do was kill time apparently. She was able to view the entire Star Wars saga in Astronomy (at least there was some far-fetched content relationship there).  But I find it hard to explain Finding Nemo in English. Math did continue to do work - review worksheets and problems for the upcoming exam which my daughter was not taking.  But - at least there was some actual content work going on.

I am not saying that these final weeks of school shouldn't be fun - I get it.  The year is ending, things are closing down. I was a teacher, so I know exactly what the end of school is like. But - it is possible to continue learning and doing content related things that are fun and relevant, versus resorting to watching movies. It worries me, especially when districts are 'adding time to the school year to increase student achievement'.  If that time results in things like watching movies or playing cards (yes...that happened too), then I am not seeing the increase in student achievement. Increased time for student achievement only works if it is being used for learning - not watching time-filler movies.

Some Ideas:
  • Instead of drill-and-kill review worksheets, how about the students identify the areas they want to review, then assign small groups specific areas to create a review summary and present it to the class? Gets them talking and working together.  Or - have each group create a review game from the key areas and then swap games.  I've done this in math classes and it was a hoot!

  • If you are going to watch a movie, pick a movie that is relevant to the content you teach, identify key concepts you want them to identify while watching the movie, and then have them write up a summary of how those key concepts played out in the movie. For me, I always showed "Donald Duck in Mathemagic Land" and then we would do math activities related to things in the movie (usually with Sketchpad) - so The Golden Ratio, or pool-table simulations, or fraction instruments. 
  • Use technology - i.e. a software tool you never got around to using with your students, creating a class video, using some type of social media tool (blog, wiki, Twitter, etc.).  Let the students explore or create a project using technology that ties together what they have learned.  In my math classes, students use to do an end of year Sketchpad project, where they created dynamic sketches showing the concepts they had learned (there were specific concepts focused on or maybe these were the concepts they wanted to review for the exam.  Often times it included student choice of 10-12 concepts.)
  • Playing cards - I admit - I did this with my students.  HOWEVER - we also collected data, used Fathom to determine the probability (and now you could use TinkerPlots as well by creating a sampler) and guessed the probability of winning certain games, of drawing specific hands, etc. It was fun, but we were doing mathematics.  
These are just a few ideas - be creative.  Don't forget, you have a captive audience in your students so use that time to learn and have fun - it is possible to do both.  End of days should not be wasted, mindless time-kill.



Sunday, May 27, 2012

Teaching is The #1 Fun Career?

I am sitting on my porch and trying to do some fine edits on my first 2 chapters of my dissertation proposal and start my third chapter.  Naturally, I am doing anything but that!  I was looking at my twitter feed (@vpigreenie) and saw this post from @iEducator about five careers that let you have fun on the job, of which teacher is the number one career for having fun.  As the article puts it:
"Fun factors: According to the U.S. Department of Labor, teachers often "use games, music, artwork, films, books, computers, and other tools to teach basic skills." And because teachers are constantly around kids, it's more natural to be light-hearted than it might be in a workplace full of adults".
Looking back on my 17 years in the classroom, I would agree that I definitely did have a lot of fun.  I was one of those teachers that used games, let my students work together and talk in class as we learned, and used the computers as much as possible. However - especially as standardized testing became more and more a focal point for all things, the fun was harder and harder to come by. Not because I didn't keep trying to do those things, but because I was forced to abide by the constant testing and assessment rules, leaving less time for innovation and fun in learning and teaching.  Teaching became less fun and more of  a chore, for both the students and me.  And this I fear is the situation today - teaching is no longer fun, and learning is no longer fun, because there is so much pressure and judgement, based on standardized testing, that teachers are afraid to let their classrooms be fun.  (Can't tell you how many times I have heard "we don't have time to do the fun things".)

My question - since when did having fun in teaching mean students weren't learning?

We need to get out of this horrible pattern of drill-and-kill learning, where learning is brought down to a bunch of memorized skills and procedures in order to perform well on assessments. It is possible to create learning environments where in fact, it is fun to teach, fun to learn, and everyone still does well on assessments.






Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Dynamic Geometry® - A Solution to Math Boredom

I have been writing a piece about dynamic geometry® software, and have had a really difficult time conveying the power of dynamic mathematics environments in the static environment of the written word.

Let me clarify what I mean by dynamic geometry software - I do NOT mean software that is just for geometry.  Dynamic geometry means the ability to take all sorts of mathematics visualizations (shapes, graphs, plots, functions) and drag and manipulate them to create infinite examples. These dynamic movements follow mathematical behaviors and allows for exploration, discovery of relationships and properties and allow students to interact directly with the mathematics because the mathematics is visual and tangible. Dynamic geometry software is specifically mentioned in the Common Core Standards of Mathematical Practice because of it's ability to be a tool that promotes reasoning, questioning, making conjectures, persevering, modeling, and communicating. Naturally, I have a strong bias towards specific dynamic geometry software: Sketchpad, Tinkerplots and Fathom.

Knowing that dynamic geometry software is all about movement, as I try to write about it for this piece I am doing, I realize it is almost impossible to convey the power of dynamic geometry with words or even with pictures.  I have been describing what students would be doing with the software and then supporting this description with a picture that steps through the process, but what I find is they are just pictures taken at one point in time.  And while the pictures show a progression of change, they do not capture, just as the words do not capture, the amazing change in the mathematics, the sense of wonderment, and the 'aha' moment that a student might encounter when working in a dynamic environment.

In a word - they are boring.

Which is probably why students who are exposed to only textbooks with words and pictures of math never get the sense of power, wonder and infinite possibilities of mathematics. Even students who are using technology (calculators or computers or apps) but only doing drill-and-practice type applications or calculations with these tools, are not getting the sense of movement, connectedness and variation that dynamic geometry software provides.

Here is an example of what I mean by boring and static:
Using TinkerPlots®, it's possible to explore relationships between attributes (i.e. variables) from data on which students have the heaviest backpacks. Grab an attribute from the card stack of data, say body weight, drag and drop it onto the horizontal axis of the plot, then grab a second attribute that might have a relationship, like pack weight, and drag and drop it on the vertical axis. Separate the data both vertically and horizontally to get a scatter plot, and determine if indeed there is a relationship. In this case, there is a positive correlation between body weight and pack weight.  Add a moveable line and create a line of best fit, which shows the equation of the line using the attributes from the problem, making the function fit the context of the situation. 

What?!!!

That's what I think a student might say if they read something like that in a textbook.  But - never fear - there are pictures that show what is happening:
 Are you getting the sense of movement? Do these pictures convey the relationships that exist between the variables? Do they convey the relationship between the data, attributes and graphs?

Now, look at the exact same problem done in the dynamic environment where you can actually do what was described and see the data change as you explore and manipulate:
 


I think my point is dynamic geometry software is a technology tool that makes mathematics come alive for students rather than be a static subject they read about, look at, but never interact with in a way that helps them see and make connections. My hope is that etextbooks and online assessments and other technology resources that will become more commonplace in this ed tech focused environment will consider doing things dynamically, rather than simply replicating the static words and images that currently exist. Giving students the ability to create, explore, change and manipulate on their own is powerful and exciting. It makes math engaging rather than boring, expanding rather than limiting.


Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Ed. D vs. Ph.D. - Do the letters really matter?




I have had a bad week and was feeling a little uninspired.  I even missed my weekly #edchat, so feel disconnected from my PLN.  Which perhaps explains my very negative reaction to the article from Education Week entitled "The Ed.D. Dilemma: Why Harvard's Decision Could Harm the Quest for Teacher Professionalism".  And actually, it's not the article, it's Harvard's decision and the implication that an Ed.D. is not as worthy as a Ph.D.

My thoughts - well, my thoughts are not appropriate so I will keep them to myself.

Here is the line that got my ire up: "Within the field of education, Ed.D. programs had for a long time been assumed to be inferior to Ph.D. programs, and only marginally useful to the improvement of educational practice, policy, and administration."  Now, granted, past tense is used here and Ted Purinton was just stating a fact that is unfortunately, quite true. From my own personal experience, when I tell people I am getting my Ed.D., I do actually get a rather negative reaction because it's NOT a Ph.D. Which is ridiculous, as I am working just as hard, took all the same courses, had to take the exact same comprehensive exams, have to do the exact same dissertation process and research. The main difference - research vs. practice in the field.

When I went into my doctoral program years ago, I had the choice to take the Ph.D. path or the Ed.D. path.  When I asked what the difference was, besides a 12 hour difference in credits required, I was told, if you want to do research, it's probably better to do the Ph.D. path, but if you want to be out in the field, practicing and doing what you learned, then Ed.D. is more appropriate. Naturally - I chose Ed.D. That's where I want to be - out doing, not researching.

But does that mean my program is less rigorous or less worthy or less useful?  No.  In fact, from my personal point of view, I think it is MORE useful and worthy because I am putting into practice what I have learned to help improve education. I am helping those teachers and administrators and schools take research proven practices and learn to actually implement them. Is my program less rigorous? No - in fact, looking at the two programs side by side, the main difference is a few more required dissertation hours (9 vs. 6)(though I will end up with 9 myself), and then a few more required credits for course work focused on research practices.  That's it. So..really, neck in neck, pretty much the same.  I had to take all the same qualitative and quantitative research and statistical courses, same leadership courses, same technology courses, etc.....I am simply NOT going to become a researcher. I have no desire to spend my time writing and doing studies and analyzing - I want to be out there, with teachers, with schools, with students, helping to improve and change education technology practices.

Does this mean I will be less of a 'expert' than someone with a Ph.D.? I certainly don't think so - I have worked myself to death for a long time, reading, researching, writing, learning, practicing, implementing, connecting with others in the field, trying to use what I have learned to help others and improve student learning. I just have a different end goal in mind.

I am completely insulted by Harvard's decision, but I think it just exemplifies the rather elitist attitude of many schools and Ph.D. holders - that somehow they are more worthy or they worked harder than those of us who have or will have soon, an Ed.D. I for one beg to differ with this belief - I have held down a full-time job the entire time I have been pursuing my Ed.D., and have had the distinct advantage of being able to directly apply everything I have learned and researched directly into my work.  Helping schools, helping teachers, helping students. My studies and my work have complemented each other, making my learning, my 'degree' applicable, practical, and HELPFUL to the educational community at large.

Ted Purinton, in his article, ends with a challenge to colleges & universities to take Harvard's decision not as a mandate that Ed.D. programs should be stopped, but rather to use this as "an invitation to bolster the reputation of educational practice—through Ed.D. programs, as well as through many other measures—rather than to shy away from it in fear that educational practice (and a degree that seeks to signify such expertise) continues to maintain its low status, not only among other professions, but within the field of education itself . I certainly hope this is the case and that more schools don't decide to drop their Ed.D. programs. It's not really a question of which degree is better, but really a matter of purpose - each has a different purpose and focus, and anyone who has earned an Ed.D. or a Ph.D. has worked equally hard in their field of study to become an expert.  The letters shouldn't matter - what we do with the letters and why we do it should be what matters.


Thursday, May 10, 2012

Follow-up on Planning for Hybrid PD (part 6) - Final F2F Feedback

I am feeling like a proud parent after my final face-to-face meeting with my two teacher cohorts.  After 6 months together, this final meeting was all about them sharing what they each have been doing in their classrooms with Sketchpad and Sketchpad LessonLink and focusing on Common Core Standards while integrating technology into math instruction. Just like a parent, I merely started them on the path and guided as needed. They, through personal motivation and interest as well as with the support and guidance from each other, have personalized what they have learned, adapted it to fit their needs, and shown change not only in skills but in confidence about teaching the Common Core Standards, teaching with technology, and listening to their students and helping students deepen mathematical understanding.

From my most recent post, my final lesson was:
Lesson Six: Provide the opportunity for sharing, presentation and peer feedback to model the professionalism, collaboration, and support that will be needed to sustain use of PD learning.
We spent a good portion of the time together having everyone share a lesson they had chosen and done with students.  Everyone had picked a different lesson, which was nice.  Teachers who were resource teachers had actually collaborated with others in the class, so a few presented as 'teams', which was really exciting to see.

What struck me most was that everyone was so supportive of each other, asking questions, sharing their experiences, connecting what they had done to what was being shared. It was a truly collaborative environment.  I also was struck by the diversity of how everyone is actually using Sketchpad with their students.  Some are doing whole class demonstrations for just review, others have students at the computer doing activities individually, while others are doing things with small groups of students or creating centers for students to rotate through.  Each person was definitely taking what they had learned and using it in a matter that fit their comfort level, teaching style, and students needs.  But, what was strikingly similar was all of their descriptions of their students - how engaged the kids were in the math, really focusing on the different way they have been forced to question students and help students develop their understandings.

If I had to sum up what I think the biggest changes that have occurred in all these teachers as a result of this long-term, hybrid professional development it is the following:
1) They are more confident in their own ability to provide students with different ways to learn mathematics
2) They have more focus on questioning students, are more willing to let students struggle and discover, and are more focused on understanding student misconceptions
3) They WANT to use technology because they realize how powerful engagement and visualization is in helping students understand mathematics

One final note that almost everyone in each group said - they were looking forward to summer and having the time to really plan for next year because they wanted to try to use Sketchpad right from the very beginning. I am excited!

More in a few weeks, after we finish the final component - the last online unit.  At that point, I will do a bit of summing up and share some of their personal goals as a result of participating in this long-term pd experience.  

For the complete Hybrid PD series, click on the links below:

Planning for Hybrid PD - Comfort Level and Confidence First
Follow-up On Planning for Hybrid PD - Day 1 
Follow-up On Planning for Hybrid PD - Day 2
Hybrid PD - Online Community Development Pt 1 
Planning for Hybrid PD (part 2) - Develop Community and Supportive Environment 
Follow-up On Planning for Hybrid PD (Part 2) - F2F Feedback 
Hybrid PD - Online Community Development Pt. 2 
Planning for Hybrid PD (part 3) - Make it Relevant 
Follow-up On Planning for Hybrid PD (part 3) - F2F feedback 
Hybrid PD - Online Community Development Pt. 3 
Planning for Hybrid PD (part 4) - Teacher Input  
Follow-up On Planning for Hybrid PD (part 4) - F2F Feedback 
Hybrid PD - Online Community Development Pt. 4 - Student Focused!
Planning for Hybrid PD (part 5) - Make the PD Learning Their Own 
Follow-up for Hybrid PD (part 5) - F2F Feedback 
Planning for Hybrid PD (part 6) -Sharing and Collaboration

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Planning for Hybrid PD (part 6) - Sharing and Collaboration

I am preparing for my final face-to-face meeting with the two cohorts of middle and high school math teachers I have been working with the past 6 months.  We will still have one more online component, which ends in June.
I am a little sad about the fact that our journey is coming to an end, as it has been one of my most rewarding professional development experiences, in large part because I was able to really get to know these teachers both personally and professionally and actually see the progression of change and confidence as they learned and integrated Sketchpad into their mathematics instruction.

A quick recap of the five previous face-to-face lessons, or focus you might say:
Lesson One: Begin professional development experiences assessing background skills of participants.
Lesson Two:  Work on building a sense of community and support among participants, where they feel comfortable sharing their struggles, their experiences, their ideas and expertise.
Lesson Three:  Make the activities and learning relevant to the teachers every-day teaching practice.
Lesson Four: Provide teachers with a choice in what the professional development focuses on.
Lesson Five: Provide suggestions and examples of taking the activities/content of the professional development and modifying (adding to, deleting from, etc.) to meet the diverse needs of their students.
This face-to-face each participant will actually be sharing a Sketchpad lesson they did with their students, focusing on why they picked the lesson, how it addressed both their curriculum and Common Core State Standards (a focus of our hybrid PD), and what they might have done to modify or enhance the lesson to address their students needs. Each person has 10-15 minutes to basically show us what they have learned about both Sketchpad and integrating technology.  As you can imagine, there is quite a bit of nervousness around this, which I have sensed in the online discussion forums.  I find this both humorous and sad. The fact that teachers who face a roomful of middle school and high school students on a daily basis for hours each day are scared and nervous about presenting a 10-15 minute demo for their peers is really funny and unbelievable. But, it's sad that teachers do not feel comfortable to share their teaching expertise with colleagues who will not only learn from it but will also share their own expertise. Perhaps that is a sign of what we don't do right in the teacher profession - share and collaborate as a regular component of continued learning and improvement.

Which brings me to my sixth and final lesson, or focus, for face-to-face professional development:
Lesson Six: Provide the opportunity for sharing, presentation and peer feedback to model the professionalism, collaboration, and support that will be needed to sustain use of PD learning.
Not enough time or opportunity is given to teachers to model for each other and to share and explore new strategies and skills in a collaborative, supportive environment, and it is so crucial to improving practice. Just as our students learn from their peers, so do teachers, and it is important to be able to share and present and get feedback from others in order to make improvements or consider alternatives.

My hope is that these presentations, hard as they may be for a few of the participants, will open the door to the next phase for each of them to become a model of technology integration in their own schools.

For the complete Hybrid PD series, click on the links below:

Planning for Hybrid PD - Comfort Level and Confidence First
Follow-up On Planning for Hybrid PD - Day 1 
Follow-up On Planning for Hybrid PD - Day 2
Hybrid PD - Online Community Development Pt 1 
Planning for Hybrid PD (part 2) - Develop Community and Supportive Environment 
Follow-up On Planning for Hybrid PD (Part 2) - F2F Feedback 
Hybrid PD - Online Community Development Pt. 2 
Planning for Hybrid PD (part 3) - Make it Relevant 
Follow-up On Planning for Hybrid PD (part 3) - F2F feedback 
Hybrid PD - Online Community Development Pt. 3 
Planning for Hybrid PD (part 4) - Teacher Input  
Follow-up On Planning for Hybrid PD (part 4) - F2F Feedback 
Hybrid PD - Online Community Development Pt. 4 - Student Focused!
Planning for Hybrid PD (part 5) - Make the PD Learning Their Own 
Follow-up for Hybrid PD (part 5) - F2F Feedback