So close, and yet so far.
I have 3 geometry classes; 2nd hour, 5th hour, and 6th hour. Technically, 2nd and 6th are Honors classes, but I generally don't put too much stock in that label.
Today's task was centered around the discussion. I needed to remind students of SBG and how it related to homework (SB.1 I can come to class prepared) and I needed to lay out the rules for class discussion (mostly just variants of "be respectful."). Most students had completed their HW (phase 1 - check), and most got to task whiteboarding the questions I assigned without any issue (phase 2 - check). Anybody with experiencing modeling will know that phase 3 is the tricky one. And with 35 10th graders in the room, I was a little nervous.
2nd hour went great, and that might be a bad thing. I only say that because it got my hopes up only to be dashed by my remaining classes. Just too many kids thinking that whispering is OK and throwing the entire discussion off the rails.
We only got through a couple of problems today, so my new schedule is that we finish the discussion tomorrow and quiz on Friday (that will complete 2 standards of the 6 total in Unit 1). Part of me really wants to let the class determine how fast we go, even if it means taking 4 days on a simple slope worksheet that was supposed to be review. But I also don't want to give them a negative impression of the class on the 2nd week.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Day 5: Instruction & Practice
The goal for today was to connect yesterday's activity (creating lines of people and then describing them) to the notion that equations are just a way of describing lines with symbols instead of words. The first half of class was discussion (led by me, but I'm serious - it was a discussion and NOT a lecture), and the second half was practice on U1 WS1.
A couple of thoughts:
A couple of thoughts:
- My guess is the because this is a review unit, the students think it's beneath them, so they shouldn't have to listen. I really don't think the approach is to blame here, because I can't imagine lecturing being any more engaging than the discussions we've been having. But at the same time, when it came time to practice on the worksheet, most kids got stumped FAST.
- These kids really just want to be right. To the point where if there's a chance they're not right, they'll just leave the question blank. It seems like all I heard today was "I need your help - is this right?" I just kept asking them to show how they got their answer (which they hate). One girl caught on real quick - she's already labelled me as part of Team No-Answer. Awesome.
- I felt kinda weird about the discussion as it doesn't seem very modeling-esque. But I reassured myself that there really are some things you can't discover, and the intro unit is a good place for that (I'm thinking of linearizing graphs in physics). At least I didn't lecture in the sense that I did NOT say "this is slope intercept form, memorize it" (or anything along those lines).
Tomorrow is where the rubber will meet the road as I ask groups to whiteboard and present selections from the worksheet. Can they manage a respectful discussion? Are they ok with presenting answers they might not be 100% confident with? Will the understand the importance of leaning by making mistakes? Tune in tomorrow to find out!
Monday, September 10, 2012
Day 4: Why is slope so important?
I started class by having kids read the standards we were going to be working on this week (S1.1 & S1.6). I reminded them about the different grading scale and talked about how the unit would progress over the next couple of weeks.
Then I solicited answers to the question: "Where might you use slope outside of a math class?" I wrote anything anyone said on the board and their responses ranged from architecture to predicting trends for business.
I varied with exactly how I intro'd the challenge, but I was happiest with this method: Start by asking one group to stand up and form a line. When they've settled, ask someone from the rest of the class to describe that line. Continue, asking probing questions when appropriate until they class feels they've created a specific-enough description that the line could be recreated by an outsider.
The challenge (with a description already written on the board behind me) is for every group to make their own line and write down their own description (on a whiteboard) that is specific enough to be recreated by another group. Give the groups 5-10 mins to make their lines and walk around the room checking on progress, asking leading questions where necessary.
My classes are all above 32, so I have 7 or 8 groups in each class which can make things tricky. Thankfully I have a lab class (for physics), so I have plenty of room to spread out.
When everyone is done, I asked students to return to their seats and I grabbed a group's whiteboard at random and read it aloud to the class. I then called on a group at random and had them attempt to recreate the line in the center of the room. I first check with the class as a whole if the line was recreated accurately to what was given on the whiteboard. I then ask the group that created the line if the new line looks *exactly* like theirs did. We repeated this for 3 or 4 groups (no need to do every group if the point is coming across).
I then asked some students (at random) if they had any ideas why we did that. There was a stark contrast here between my two Honors classes and my one "regular" class. I could generally get kids to come around to the idea that being able to describe a line accurately is an important skill (and harder than it looks).
Finally, I try to get students to connect the descriptions used in our lines (N, S, E, W mostly) to descriptions of lines commonly seen in math class. The honors kids quickly jumped on the "slope as direction" connection, but the regular class had to be led there more directly.
In general, students seemed to have a basic understanding of slope before class, but few readily made the connection to something other than math class. I was fairly satisfied with how the day went - obviously there are things I will do differently next year, but not bad for a first try.
Tomorrow I hope to lead a discussion of where slope-intercept form comes from, show some examples and get them practicing on their own.
Then I solicited answers to the question: "Where might you use slope outside of a math class?" I wrote anything anyone said on the board and their responses ranged from architecture to predicting trends for business.
I varied with exactly how I intro'd the challenge, but I was happiest with this method: Start by asking one group to stand up and form a line. When they've settled, ask someone from the rest of the class to describe that line. Continue, asking probing questions when appropriate until they class feels they've created a specific-enough description that the line could be recreated by an outsider.
The challenge (with a description already written on the board behind me) is for every group to make their own line and write down their own description (on a whiteboard) that is specific enough to be recreated by another group. Give the groups 5-10 mins to make their lines and walk around the room checking on progress, asking leading questions where necessary.
My classes are all above 32, so I have 7 or 8 groups in each class which can make things tricky. Thankfully I have a lab class (for physics), so I have plenty of room to spread out.
When everyone is done, I asked students to return to their seats and I grabbed a group's whiteboard at random and read it aloud to the class. I then called on a group at random and had them attempt to recreate the line in the center of the room. I first check with the class as a whole if the line was recreated accurately to what was given on the whiteboard. I then ask the group that created the line if the new line looks *exactly* like theirs did. We repeated this for 3 or 4 groups (no need to do every group if the point is coming across).
I then asked some students (at random) if they had any ideas why we did that. There was a stark contrast here between my two Honors classes and my one "regular" class. I could generally get kids to come around to the idea that being able to describe a line accurately is an important skill (and harder than it looks).
Finally, I try to get students to connect the descriptions used in our lines (N, S, E, W mostly) to descriptions of lines commonly seen in math class. The honors kids quickly jumped on the "slope as direction" connection, but the regular class had to be led there more directly.
In general, students seemed to have a basic understanding of slope before class, but few readily made the connection to something other than math class. I was fairly satisfied with how the day went - obviously there are things I will do differently next year, but not bad for a first try.
Tomorrow I hope to lead a discussion of where slope-intercept form comes from, show some examples and get them practicing on their own.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Updates
I updated the overviews for the first 4 units (after the sequencing change I already mentioned) as well as the standards. They're in Google Docs that allow commenting if you want to offer up some constructive criticism. Look back at the 'sequence' post for the links.
Tomorrow is the first day of the experiment - here's hoping I didn't waste my summer!
Tomorrow is the first day of the experiment - here's hoping I didn't waste my summer!
Friday, September 7, 2012
Day 3 - Bureaucracy
I wrote out a whole post describing what happened in class today and then I thought that nobody really cares to hear about why nothing got done, so I scrapped it.
TL; DR - administrative nonsense (aka: things that aren't geometry related) forced me to lose a class period today, possibly another next week, and definitely three more throughout the school year.
TL; DR - administrative nonsense (aka: things that aren't geometry related) forced me to lose a class period today, possibly another next week, and definitely three more throughout the school year.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Day 2: Why we need to do things differently
Since yesterday was something of a 'fun' day, I needed to get through the class business today. After going through the syllabus and showing students the class website (www.mrfuller.net), I had two major goals for class: give a brief overview of standards based grading, and point out the flaws in the traditional model for school.
The kids seemed to appreciate how straightforward SBG is - they looked at the 6 standards for Unit 1 and were optimistic that this class wouldn't be too hard (Unit 1 is all about slope, which they should remember from Algebra). Students also liked the idea that they'll be able to focus their energy on specific things they've struggled with, as opposed to worrying about retaking an entire unit test.
As for the meat of the discussion, I stole the bulk of the ideas from Frank Noschese who reposted the ideas from Eric Brunsell (beg, borrow, and steal, right?).
I started by asking the class if they would classify themselves as a "good" student. I clarified that while "good" can mean a lot of things, I was looking for students who thought they knew how to succeed - whether or not they actually did. A vast majority of students self-identified as a "good" student, so I put them to the test and had them watch a video on plant reproduction (also linked in the page on Frank's website) while answering some basic questions about the topic. Most did OK after one viewing, but all wanted a 2nd chance to catch things they might have missed. We went over the questions as a class and everyone came to consensus on the answers.
Then I asked if the sequence we just went through - content delivery, confidence check, more delivery, then discussion & agreement - mirrored most students' experiences in school. They agreed for the most part, but some were quick to point out that not every class was like that (*phew*). But I reminded them that they labelled themselves as "good" students, so even if it's not the best way, they'd find a way to make it work, right?
I moved directly from that comment to showing the video on the retro encabulator. I love that video. I worked in automotive engineering before teaching and I still have no idea what that guy is talking about. I've watched the video a dozen times, and I still can't repeat his gibberish with proper placement of verbs and nouns. The kids are obviously all stymied and most can't make it through the 2 minute clip without voicing their frustration. This time I waited until after the video to hand out the questions and then I asked if they noticed what I did. We watch it again, and the kids are quick to point out that the questions aren't in order and that's not fair.
It all builds to a discussion of how silly the old model is and I try to probe for their own ideas on how to make it better. Most will come up with stuff along the lines of "learning by doing" and agree that I should not be unilaterally presenting content in any form (video, presentation, textbook). I'm really satisfied with how the day went and I hope the kids remember the point in a few weeks when they're struggling with the content and working collaboratively.
TL;DR Point out flaws in traditional teaching, get students to buy in on a different approach.
The kids seemed to appreciate how straightforward SBG is - they looked at the 6 standards for Unit 1 and were optimistic that this class wouldn't be too hard (Unit 1 is all about slope, which they should remember from Algebra). Students also liked the idea that they'll be able to focus their energy on specific things they've struggled with, as opposed to worrying about retaking an entire unit test.
As for the meat of the discussion, I stole the bulk of the ideas from Frank Noschese who reposted the ideas from Eric Brunsell (beg, borrow, and steal, right?).
I started by asking the class if they would classify themselves as a "good" student. I clarified that while "good" can mean a lot of things, I was looking for students who thought they knew how to succeed - whether or not they actually did. A vast majority of students self-identified as a "good" student, so I put them to the test and had them watch a video on plant reproduction (also linked in the page on Frank's website) while answering some basic questions about the topic. Most did OK after one viewing, but all wanted a 2nd chance to catch things they might have missed. We went over the questions as a class and everyone came to consensus on the answers.
Then I asked if the sequence we just went through - content delivery, confidence check, more delivery, then discussion & agreement - mirrored most students' experiences in school. They agreed for the most part, but some were quick to point out that not every class was like that (*phew*). But I reminded them that they labelled themselves as "good" students, so even if it's not the best way, they'd find a way to make it work, right?
I moved directly from that comment to showing the video on the retro encabulator. I love that video. I worked in automotive engineering before teaching and I still have no idea what that guy is talking about. I've watched the video a dozen times, and I still can't repeat his gibberish with proper placement of verbs and nouns. The kids are obviously all stymied and most can't make it through the 2 minute clip without voicing their frustration. This time I waited until after the video to hand out the questions and then I asked if they noticed what I did. We watch it again, and the kids are quick to point out that the questions aren't in order and that's not fair.
It all builds to a discussion of how silly the old model is and I try to probe for their own ideas on how to make it better. Most will come up with stuff along the lines of "learning by doing" and agree that I should not be unilaterally presenting content in any form (video, presentation, textbook). I'm really satisfied with how the day went and I hope the kids remember the point in a few weeks when they're struggling with the content and working collaboratively.
TL;DR Point out flaws in traditional teaching, get students to buy in on a different approach.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
First Day
I really hate the idea of handing out a syllabus and going over class business on the first day. My #1 reason is because that's what every other teacher in the building does which means all of us start to run together in the minds of the students. #2 is probably more of an adaptation to the way my building is run. Student schedules are often not firmed up until the second week of school, let alone the first day, so why waste time going over something I'm going to have to repeat to a handful of new kids tomorrow?
So this year I tried something new. A coworker had forwarded an image of nested squares to the math dept staff as his plans for a generic first day activity. I wanted to connect it to my teaching philosophy and what goals with modeling for the class, so I adapted it to become a class long activity.
I started by passing out a copy of the image to every student and asking that they take ~5 mins to count the squares *by themselves.* That last part needed emphasis because on the first day with what was obviously a blow-off assignment, the kids wanted to see what their neighbor got and talk about it. When they were done, I informally polled the class to get a range of responses - generally from 16 to 36 if no one has seen the image before. I also asked students to rate how confident they were in their response.
Stage #2 involved giving each group (my desks are set for groups of 4) a laminated copy of the same image and a wet-erase marker. Repeat. This time I asked questions like "how much *more* confident are you?" and "what else could I have done to make this easier?" (access to different colored markers was the common answer to the second one).
Then we go through the image as a group and make sure we account for every square. I honestly didn't know the right answer when we started and I make sure the kids know that too. The concluding discussion revolved around the importance of the process vs. the correctness of the answer. I wanted the kids to buy in to the idea of working collaboratively and taking full advantage of the resources at their disposal. And if there is a "right" answer to be found, there shouldn't be an arbitrary end point by when it has to be given.
So this year I tried something new. A coworker had forwarded an image of nested squares to the math dept staff as his plans for a generic first day activity. I wanted to connect it to my teaching philosophy and what goals with modeling for the class, so I adapted it to become a class long activity.
I started by passing out a copy of the image to every student and asking that they take ~5 mins to count the squares *by themselves.* That last part needed emphasis because on the first day with what was obviously a blow-off assignment, the kids wanted to see what their neighbor got and talk about it. When they were done, I informally polled the class to get a range of responses - generally from 16 to 36 if no one has seen the image before. I also asked students to rate how confident they were in their response.
Stage #2 involved giving each group (my desks are set for groups of 4) a laminated copy of the same image and a wet-erase marker. Repeat. This time I asked questions like "how much *more* confident are you?" and "what else could I have done to make this easier?" (access to different colored markers was the common answer to the second one).
Then we go through the image as a group and make sure we account for every square. I honestly didn't know the right answer when we started and I make sure the kids know that too. The concluding discussion revolved around the importance of the process vs. the correctness of the answer. I wanted the kids to buy in to the idea of working collaboratively and taking full advantage of the resources at their disposal. And if there is a "right" answer to be found, there shouldn't be an arbitrary end point by when it has to be given.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)