As a high school math teacher, I have spent the last five years trying to meet the challenge that I face daily. The challenge of teaching students mathematical concepts that most of them will never use, with context they know is contrived, mostly because the state requires them to pass a test and meet a core requirement so they can graduate. To really ramp up the task, in choosing math, I chose a subject that the vast majority of my students hate long before they meet me. As a new teacher, I set out to use inspiring stories, cool videos, state of the art technology, and innovative, research-based instructional strategies to hook my students and show them that math really isn't that bad and that they were all capable of doing it. After my first year, I realized that my supposedly compelling lectures and class demonstrations were nothing more than a dog and pony show designed to get me good teacher evaluations without ever really considering whether or not the students were actually learning the material (and I mean REALLY learning ... not just performing on a test). I decided to give my students a college-esque teacher evaluation sheet (link at the bottom of this page) to be filled out confidentially at the end of the year. As I poured through the student reflections, I realized, none of the responses mentioned any of the compelling lectures I had given, the cool homework we did, or the well designed tests I gave them. However, several of the responses referenced projects we had worked on, products we had produced, and discussions we had engaged in. After three years of similar responses, it finally occurred to me that I needed to listen to what they were telling me. Whether AP Calculus or repeater Algebra, my students were clearly telling me that they understood things they actively participated in. They engaged in things they did. They needed an expert in the room to help guide them, to provide them with the tools necessary to complete the next task, to answer questions when they got too far off base, and to hold them accountable to reaching the goals, but they did not like, nor did they retain anything from my thoughtfully designed lectures. This is not a new concept. For at least a decade, research has suggested collaborative, immersive techniques are are more effective. However, when I observe teachers, and when I reflect on my own classroom, I realize just how easy it is to fall into the trap of regurgitating my learning experience as a student instead of innovatively teaching for true learning. I realize that I am often guilty of making sure my kids can pass a series of tests but routinely fail to teach them how to actually learn. I spend too much time thinking about ancillary school things and not enough time planning quality units and lessons that truly inspire deep, meaningful learning. To break this cycle, I have forced myself to take sometimes grueling feedback from my students and listen to it. I have started designing my lessons with the end in mind. Focusing on what it is I hope my students can actually do instead of hoping they can perform on some test. I have come to understand that the test scores take care of themselves. It's a giant leap of faith, but I now truly believe that if we teach for deep, meaningful understanding, we don't have to do much in the form of test prep to have good scores. Of course, this type of teaching produces much more than good scores on arbitrary, mandated tests. It produces students who are self-directed, self-sustaining learners who are eager to prove their mettle instead of eager to find a good reason to avoid my class.
2 Comments
My mother is an accomplished pianist heralded for her "ear for music." Playing in churches all of her life, my mom developed a unique ability to fuse jazz chords with gospel syncopation to create beautiful versions of classic songs. As a stay-at-home mom, she took several years off before working to finish her undergraduate degree in music. By the time she went back to school, I was already looking for colleges for myself. In her late thirties she changed her major to music and started back to college. She thrived in the music classes (even theory which she had previously not been exposed to). However, my mom is now nearing retirement age and has still not received her degree. The problem? A College Algebra requirement she simply can't pass. I am exactly opposite my mom in many ways...especially academically. School always "worked" for me. At a young age I realized I was above average at math and science and that I was good at logic driven exercises. However, I also wanted to be good at music like my mom (and the rest of my family). I took several years of formal piano lessons and listened for hours as my mom would play and try to explain some of the things she was doing. I never got it. When I sit a piano today, I can't play a single song. Though I have had nearly four years of formal music lessons, I still cannot read sheet music (even the simple grade-school books). I am just not wired to "get" music in that way...certainly not on the same level my mom does. In 21st century education circles, it has become increasing popular and acceptable to claim that every student is capable of being accomplished in STEM related fields. While I do not disagree with this concept, I staunchly oppose the pigeon-holing that has emerged. It would be deemed outlandish for a stakeholder to host a press-conference and claim that every student in the country is capable of becoming a concert pianist, but politicians, educators, and directors are heralded for claiming that every student can be an engineer, architect, or computer programmer. Not only is this absurd, it is crippling. As Malcolm Gladwell suggests in Outliers, it sends the message to students that if you don't excel in STEM related fields, you are not "smart." I am called smart all the time, but there are tens of thousands of people who are much more advanced than I am in math and programming. I'm just better than average in those fields. Conversely, my mom is rarely referred to as smart, but many would argue she is nearly genius level in her natural musical abilities. As a teacher, I believe it is my job to find my students' genius and make my content fit. It is my responsibility to tailor my content to their innate strengths in order to help them develop their whole mind. However, I also believe we have a problem entrenched in American education. There is no good reason every student needs to pass Algebra 2 to indicate they are ready to excel in college. Why do we require students with non-STEM genius to prove themselves in STEM classes? Math came easy for me so this wasn't an issue. But, if you told me I would have to acquire 4 piano, or 4 art, or 4 drama credits to graduate, not only would my GPA have cost me scholarship opportunities, it might have kept me from getting my diploma. Surely we can revamp this system and celebrate student strengths equally (whether deemed valuable by manufacturing/tech industries or not)! --Comments, opposition, questions are always welcomed...that's how I learn best :) NOTE: I intentionally mention STEM related fields and not "STEM techniques." I do believe that with modern technology demands, all students need to develop learning strategies that align closely with the STEM movement. I am referencing STEM as the basic acronym Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. For what seems to be the better part of the last three decades, educational leaders have been researchers how students learn from a psycho-social viewpoint. Most educational experts agree with Howard Gardner's work on Multiple Intelligences which explains that students can be "smart" in more genres than simply traditional academic intelligence. Additionally, research indicates that in order to teach a classroom filled with students that are strong in a wide array of these intelligences, it is essential to (education buzz word coming) differentiate instruction. To this point, millions of dollars and thousands of hours have gone into training teachers how to differentiate their instruction. Programs have been designed that attempt to equip teachers with a myriad of strategies, most of which are in some way based on cooperative learning techniques (check out this video for a funny bit that covers the basics of cooperative learning http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvvTE6i9cA).
I have a particular concern with this on a conceptual level. Doesn't it seem ironic that we in education almost exclusively revert one specific strategy, or common spin offs of it, as we attempt to differentiate our instruction to engage students of all ability levels and of all types of intelligences? Here is what I think needs to happen. I open every semester at school with a presentation to my high school students explaining to them that I understand that they are smart, just maybe not in the traditional academic sense. When I tell them that I truly believe they can all master high school Algebra, undoubtedly I get quite a few students with looks or comments that clearly indicate that they "know" that they cannot do the math we will be learning. To counter this, I ask the kids to all take out their cell phones. We place all of them in a bag and then mix them up. The cell phones are then randomly assigned to the students. I give them 1 minute and ask them to send a text to their phone number. Without hesitation the class opens the phones and the students quickly begin to text themselves. After the minute is up we return the cell phones to their owners. Typically, the students are curious as to why we did this. The following dialogue ensues: T: "Did you use a phone that was the same model as yours?" S: "NO" T: "Could you have used the random phone to get on the internet, take a picture, or look up a number?" S: "Yeah. It's easy." T: "Would you have used a manual for the new phone if it had been available to you?" S: "No! Phones don't come with manuals." T: "Has an adult ever asked you to show them how to use their phone?" S: "Yes" T: "Describe that situation." S: (last semester's response) "My mom got a new phone and she asked me to show her how to text and send pictures on it. She said she had read the manual but just couldn't figure it out." T: "How long did it take you to teach your mom how to send a picture?" S: "Forever. She kept writing down every little step and then would look back to her notepad to use her phone. She eventually decided it wasn't that important to be able to do and said she would just not use (that function)." The point is that millennials have been conditioned to intuitively think like a computer. With little or no computer programming background, teenage students are able to master complex task on mobile phones in less than two or three minutes. How? It is because they learn by intuition instead of memorizing procedures. If I want to teach an adult to use facebook, I have to give them screenshots and pages of step-by-step procedures, or they just resolve themselves to only using the simplest functions because it is not practical to memorize all of the procedures. Students, on the other hand, master social networking sites with ease. After making the connection to how the students learn, I ask them to consider how we could learn algebra the same way. We often teach math procedurally; follow this step, then that, then that one. As students move into more advanced math and sciences, it becomes increasingly difficult (maybe even impossible) for them to remember how to do all of the steps. Instead, I challenge my students to learn to "think like math" much the same way they "think like a cell phone." Why do kids master technology quickly? They understand it deep enough that they acquire new information about it intuitively instead of procedurally. How powerful would it be if we could tap into this intuitive processing in an academic arena? What if kids came to class and "just figured out" math, science, etc.? It can be done, and I think the first step is to convince students to take responsibility for how they pursue academic knowledge and to challenge themselves to begin to develop a mindset that attempts to think like the subject instead of trying to regurgitate information. However, this also requires teachers to embrace the notion that grading students through traditional testing mechanisms simply is not adequate or appropriate. It will take a generation of teachers to change this mindset, but the the last decade of changing technology has set the table for all students to walk into our classrooms with minds already cultivated for the intuitive assimilation of knowledge. Now, we must take advantage of this situation and change the way we think about teaching. In doing so, we will revolutionize the industry, and ultimately, provide a better, more equal education for all students. I recently found myself sitting at a STEM ceremony listening to Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke speak about the value of quality education for the community at large. In his talk, he mentioned the importance of reaching all of our students where they are and giving them all a chance to become successful citizens. To be truthful, I checked out of the rest of the speech because my mind began racing. It wasn't the first time I had heard this idea articulated, but it was the first time I realized a solution instead of thinking of all of the reasons why it is seemingly impossible to do what he was suggesting. I was reminded of the classic illustration of The Boy (or girl in the video) and the Starfish. It goes something like this: I heard that for the first time when I was a teenager and it was one of those moments when I can distinctly remember thinking "I have to find a career where I can make a difference." As I sat at the commencement, I realized this illustration is outdated. It is a compelling story and certainly is a wake up call for many of us. Far too often, I see fellow educators who have become disillusioned by the system. They have been burned or burned out and they have started using the excuse that since they can't help all of the students, they stop trying to help any of them. Andy Stanley says this kind of thinking can be crippling. We don't have to be fair. When we try to be fair, we often handcuff ourselves to the point that we never make a difference to one because we can't feasibly make a difference to all. The other trend I have noticed is that there are a lot of high quality, energetic teachers who have resigned themselves to making sure their students get a quality education even if they can't change the course of the educational titanic for the better. In other words, they have bought into this illustration perhaps too much. They are making a difference for some, but are quickly giving up trying to make a difference for all for a myriad of reasons. That was my epiphany. Twenty years ago, this story was relevant because it showed a young person who cared enough to make a difference, no matter how small. However, today, what would we expect from the girl in the video, the boy on the beach? After realizing how to make a difference, the middle school-aged child would not start throwing starfish back as fast as possible. She would pull out her smartphone, text her friends, tweet an invite, and post a picture or two on Instragram imploring anyone who was willing to spring to action. The tweet might say, "Just found a way to save thousands of starfish. Meet me at ABC beach ASAP to help. Retweet please. #MakeADifference." As I sat in the STEM commencement I had to admit to myself, I had become complacent. I had resigned to making sure the kids I came in contact with would get a quality education from me, and that I would just basically ignore the blaring issues that needed to be addressed. I was making a difference to a few, but was becoming increasingly complacent about the many. What if we start finding the teachers who are making a difference to a few starfish, and have them rally more people to start making difference to all of them? I am quickly becoming persuaded that this looks like collaboration amongst teachers and educational experts. It means policy makers need to take more of a hands off approach to liberate quality teachers to refine their craft and then to share it with others. It looks like great teachers using multiple mediums to share their strategies. Not only will we develop the best ways to educate our youth, we will re-ignite a viral passion for educating that very well could push us back to forefront of education! |
Michael StoneClick here to read about the blog's author. My BooksKeynotesCleveland Rotary Club
Innovating Education Through Community Partners NEA Foundation The Promise of Public Ed Leveraging Teacher Leadership to Increase STEM Education US Senate Briefing The Need for a National Organizing Body of Digital Fabrication NACCE California Symposium Scaling Innovation through Partnerships Volkswagen eLab Ribbon Cutting Why Digital Fabrication can't be an Option NSTA STEM Leadership Developing, Incubating, and Implementing Public/Private Partnerships that Matter Chattanooga Fab Institute Revolutionizing Learning through Digital Fabrication HCDE Future Ready Institute Launch Developing PBL Units with Business Partners STEM Fellows Celebration Community Partnerships for Teacher Leadership TSIN Summit Scaling Innovation in Schools Remake Learning Days Dig Fab in the Community America Achieves Public/Private Partnerships Panel DigiFabCon Chicago Digital Fabrication in the Modern Classroom Redesign for Student Success (San Diego) Scaling Innovation through Digital Fabrication GE Leadership Summit Leveraging Innovative Technologies for Learning Texas Open Innovation Emerging Innovations in Education Indiana University Authentic PBL FFT Leading & Learning Boston, MA Connecting Global Ed reMake Education Summit Keynote National Governor's Asc. Coding with Governors US Dept of Education Round Table with Secretary John King TSIN Summit K-12 Pathways for CS Google Headquarters Ed Foo NASA Headquarters K-12 Education Panel White House Reducing the Racial Gap in Computing Boston Museum of Science Teaching with Toys US Dept of Education MSP CS Proposition Archives
October 2018
|