I had the opportunity the other day visit the STEM lab school for Adams 12 five star school district. The school is based around science and engineering projects and problems driving student’s education. The projects students were doing were authentic and creative and the school also has impressive test scores. This seems like a great a model for implementing standards that have a renewed focus on areas such as critical thinking, collaboration, invention, as well as relevance, but what does the research say about project based learning.
First off, let’s investigate what project based learning is; Bransford and Stein in 1993 defined project based learning as a comprehensive instructional approach to engage students in sustained, cooperative investigations. The project based learning website PBL-online.org defines project based learning as “a systematic teaching method that engages students in learning essential knowledge and life-enhancing skills through an extended, student-influenced inquiry process structured around complex, authentic questions and carefully designed products and tasks.”
In 1994 Brown and Campione identified two essential components of projects: (1) A driving question or problem that serves to organize and drive activities. (2) A culminating product(s) that meaningfully addresses the driving question. Blumenfeld in 1991 went further in writing that project based learning students should pursue solutions to problems by asking and refining questions, debating ideas, making predictions, designing plans and/or experiments, collecting and analyzing data, drawing conclusions, communicating ideas and findings, and creating artifacts (Blumenfeld et al., 1991).
All of this points to students being actively engaged in a meaningful problem solving activities where they have to produce some sort of product. Projects can integrate multiple concepts and disciplines and therefore help students make connections between math, science, social studies, art, and reading, writing, and communicating. Brain research shows that the more meaningful and real life connections students can make the more robust the learning, the kinds of authentic connections that must be made through well throughout and well planned projects. Mo and Choi indeed found in 2003 that PBL was more effective than traditional instruction methods in terms of acquiring knowledge and motivation. Project based learning has also been found to increase student motivation and intellectual engagement (Blemenfield, 1991 and Pintrec and de Groot, 1990).
Project based education really focuses on the outcome and supporting students achieving that outcome. So, given all these positive points, why isn’t project based education more wide spread? After all, the idea has been around since Dewey (1933). Well, not all the research is positive for example, the study Factors Influencing College Science Success out of Harvard University did not find doing projects a good indicator of college success. Also, project based education can also be challenging. Therefore it has been found that supporting teachers and students is crucial. Also teachers need to appreciate the complex nature of guiding students through projects that might involve difficult and reflective work (Blumenfeld et al.,1991).
Many teachers also feel that they don’t have the time or freedom to do project based learning in the standards based world. Yet the heart standards based education is a focus on outcomes not inputs, which is just what project based education is all about. And with the increase focus of standards on 21st century skills and conceptual understanding, projects are an ideal tool for teachers to use, as good projects really focus on 21st century skills such as critical thinking and collaboration. In addition by integrating the arts, sciences, literacy, and social studies into one project teachers might find the tool they really need to ensure mastery of all students with all standards.
For more information on project based education:
Bradley-Levine, J., Berghoff, B., Seybold, J., Sever, R., Blackwell, S. & Smiley, A. (2010). What teachers and administrators "need to know" about project-based learning implementation. Paper presented at Annual Meetings of the American Educational Research Association. Denver, CO. April, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/research/study/teachers_and_administrators_need_to_know.
Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1993). The IDEAL problem solver (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3 & 4), 369-398.
Bruner, J. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uiversity Press.
Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53, 499-518.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-272). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dewey, S. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. New Issue with Essay by Maxine Greene. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/research/study/pbl_is_not_minimally_guided.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 319-335).
Mo, K., & Choi, Y. (2003) Comparing Problem-based Learning with Traditional Instruction: Focus on High School Economics.
Sizer, T. R. (1984) Horace's compromise--the dilemma of the American high school : the first report from A study of American high schools, co-sponsored by the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the Commission on Educational Issues of the National Association of Independent Schools Boston : Houghton Mifflin.
Strobel, J. and van Barneveld, A. (2009) When is PBL More Effective? A Meta-synthesis of Meta-analyses, Comparing PBL to Conventional Classrooms. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning volume 3, no. 1
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Friday, October 22, 2010
RtI in Science
How do you make sure that you are meeting the needs of all students in your class? What do you do when you have students in your class there aren’t progressing as quickly as you would like or as fast as most of your students? Response to intervention (RtI) is an instructional model designed to help all learners in a class succeed.
As RtI gains more acceptance as a model of instruction many teachers are asking what this actually looks like in the classroom. Much of the focus for RtI so far has been in the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics. What about other content areas? Especially ones, like science and social studies, where the learning focus is more on concepts and content rather than skills?
The key to RtI is to make sure that the first tier in the RtI pyramid, the universal level, consists of a robust, standards based curriculum (one based on more than just a text book or program) that includes 21st century skills and good research based instructional practices that are intentionally aligned with the outcome that the teacher is looking for. Differentiated instruction is a critical component of universal instruction. All too often in schools, intervention programs have become the rule instead of the exception for instruction, essentially turning the RtI pyramid upside down. And often these intervention programs for reading, writing, and math take students away from core instruction in science, social studies, PE, and the arts.
If your school or district does not have a curriculum that is separate from your textbook or program, you might start asking administrators why and what you can help do about it. A great place to start thinking about how to write a curriculum is with books by Heidi Hayes Jacobs such as Curriculum 21 or Getting Results with Curriculum Maps both published by ASCD. Another source is the book Curriculum Leadership by Glatthorn, Boschee, and Whitehead. CDE is also working on a guide to curriculum that goes with revised standards that should be available winter of 2011.
It is also useful to understand the difference between accommodations and interventions. An accommodation provides a change in how a student accesses information and demonstrates learning. An intervention is usually direct instruction (from a teacher or para) that helps fill gaps in skills, knowledge or understanding.
Once you make sure that the universal level is strong, one can then start to think about accommodations and interventions. The first question about accommodations and interventions is when to start them. In the article Flagged for Success in the October 2010 edition of Educational Leadership, Robyn Jackson talks about how she set up an early warning system to catch kids who were struggling early. This type of early warning system seems essential for keeping students up with their classmates. Red flags might be getting below an 80% or a proficient score on a test or quiz, or an overall grade at or below 75% or partially proficient. Another red flag not to overlook is pre-assessment. Pre-assessments should be designed to let a teacher know if a student has the proper background knowledge to be successful for that unit or for the class. The point that Robyn makes is that your red flags need to be easy and obvious for the teacher so they can start their accommodations and intervention system early, not waiting until report card time, or until parent teacher conferences. Whatever you set as your red flags, when any student hits one, an intervention system should be started. If you find that more than 15-20% of your class requires interventions, however, it is likely time to reevaluate the universal instruction.
Accommodations and Interventions should start with the least intensive and work up from there. Examples of low intensity accommodations include a student check-in, that is before or after class having a one-on-one conversation with the student about what triggered the red flag and asking the student what you can do to help; having students self correct answers they got wrong on a test or quiz; or having them redo a portion of a paper. Another strategy is checking that students actually understand the vocabulary being used in class and in their readings, as Lawrence, White, and Snow point out in the article The Words Students Need (Educational Leadership, Oct. 2010). Just because a student reads the word in an article or book or copied the down the definition doesn’t mean they know the word and can use it.
If those first low intensity accommodations don’t seem to be getting the student up to where you want them to be you then move into more intensive interventions such as having a review packet ready for students to help them understand the material they aren’t getting. This packet needs to be thoughtfully put together though; remember the student didn’t understand it the first time, so giving them just more of the same won’t necessarily help. A review packet needs be different than the initial instruction with more support such as lower level readings on the same concept or more explicit, student friendly definitions of content specific vocabulary along with repeated exposure to that vocabulary; perhaps more pictures and a different way of explaining things. The packet might also help build proper background knowledge, since many students struggle because they don’t have the background in the topic to build on.
Even more intensive interventions might involve remediation sessions that are held during lunch or before or after school, a parent, teacher, student conference, and/or more scaffolded instruction.
RtI in the science classroom should be thought of as a way to give more students access to the richness of science concepts and to help more students be successful in science. This is a chance to have fewer students fail science or come to think that science is only for the smart kids. Done in a thoughtful manner, RtI should enhance primary instruction and not become an overwhelming burden for teachers.
As RtI gains more acceptance as a model of instruction many teachers are asking what this actually looks like in the classroom. Much of the focus for RtI so far has been in the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics. What about other content areas? Especially ones, like science and social studies, where the learning focus is more on concepts and content rather than skills?
The key to RtI is to make sure that the first tier in the RtI pyramid, the universal level, consists of a robust, standards based curriculum (one based on more than just a text book or program) that includes 21st century skills and good research based instructional practices that are intentionally aligned with the outcome that the teacher is looking for. Differentiated instruction is a critical component of universal instruction. All too often in schools, intervention programs have become the rule instead of the exception for instruction, essentially turning the RtI pyramid upside down. And often these intervention programs for reading, writing, and math take students away from core instruction in science, social studies, PE, and the arts.
If your school or district does not have a curriculum that is separate from your textbook or program, you might start asking administrators why and what you can help do about it. A great place to start thinking about how to write a curriculum is with books by Heidi Hayes Jacobs such as Curriculum 21 or Getting Results with Curriculum Maps both published by ASCD. Another source is the book Curriculum Leadership by Glatthorn, Boschee, and Whitehead. CDE is also working on a guide to curriculum that goes with revised standards that should be available winter of 2011.
It is also useful to understand the difference between accommodations and interventions. An accommodation provides a change in how a student accesses information and demonstrates learning. An intervention is usually direct instruction (from a teacher or para) that helps fill gaps in skills, knowledge or understanding.
Once you make sure that the universal level is strong, one can then start to think about accommodations and interventions. The first question about accommodations and interventions is when to start them. In the article Flagged for Success in the October 2010 edition of Educational Leadership, Robyn Jackson talks about how she set up an early warning system to catch kids who were struggling early. This type of early warning system seems essential for keeping students up with their classmates. Red flags might be getting below an 80% or a proficient score on a test or quiz, or an overall grade at or below 75% or partially proficient. Another red flag not to overlook is pre-assessment. Pre-assessments should be designed to let a teacher know if a student has the proper background knowledge to be successful for that unit or for the class. The point that Robyn makes is that your red flags need to be easy and obvious for the teacher so they can start their accommodations and intervention system early, not waiting until report card time, or until parent teacher conferences. Whatever you set as your red flags, when any student hits one, an intervention system should be started. If you find that more than 15-20% of your class requires interventions, however, it is likely time to reevaluate the universal instruction.
Accommodations and Interventions should start with the least intensive and work up from there. Examples of low intensity accommodations include a student check-in, that is before or after class having a one-on-one conversation with the student about what triggered the red flag and asking the student what you can do to help; having students self correct answers they got wrong on a test or quiz; or having them redo a portion of a paper. Another strategy is checking that students actually understand the vocabulary being used in class and in their readings, as Lawrence, White, and Snow point out in the article The Words Students Need (Educational Leadership, Oct. 2010). Just because a student reads the word in an article or book or copied the down the definition doesn’t mean they know the word and can use it.
If those first low intensity accommodations don’t seem to be getting the student up to where you want them to be you then move into more intensive interventions such as having a review packet ready for students to help them understand the material they aren’t getting. This packet needs to be thoughtfully put together though; remember the student didn’t understand it the first time, so giving them just more of the same won’t necessarily help. A review packet needs be different than the initial instruction with more support such as lower level readings on the same concept or more explicit, student friendly definitions of content specific vocabulary along with repeated exposure to that vocabulary; perhaps more pictures and a different way of explaining things. The packet might also help build proper background knowledge, since many students struggle because they don’t have the background in the topic to build on.
Even more intensive interventions might involve remediation sessions that are held during lunch or before or after school, a parent, teacher, student conference, and/or more scaffolded instruction.
RtI in the science classroom should be thought of as a way to give more students access to the richness of science concepts and to help more students be successful in science. This is a chance to have fewer students fail science or come to think that science is only for the smart kids. Done in a thoughtful manner, RtI should enhance primary instruction and not become an overwhelming burden for teachers.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
The nature of teaching has changed
I recently was having a discussion with Dr. Kent Seidel an Associate Professor and Chair of the P-20 Leadership programs at the University of Denver. We were discussing how the job of teaching has changed over the last 10 or so years. It used to be the primary job of a teacher was to create a content based lesson, deliver that lesson to students, and check to the degree to which students had learned it.
A few trends have really changed this role. The first and biggest of these is the internet. My first year of teaching in the mid 90s our school had one internet connected computer hooked up to a dial up modem. By the year 2000 our school had over 100 internet connected computers with broadband connections. So by the year 2000, if I needed ideas about a lesson or activity, I now turned to the internet and the vast area of lessons and ideas that were there, and not just the activity tool box I had from my own experiences and education.
Another trend is in textbooks and materials. When I started teaching in the mid 90s the science textbook was primarily a reference book filled with factual information about science with just a few suggestions for hands on activities that students could do. I started to see a shift in what textbooks offered in the 90s first the It’s About Time’s publication of Active Physics. The textbook and teaching materials that went with it started to look more and more like a curriculum and lesson plans. I have seen this trend only increase with high quality, tested and vetted materials such Project Learning Tree and Project Wild, FOSS kits, and the SEPUP science program. With the rigor of thought and testing that goes into many of today’s materials teachers would be foolish not to use them.
Thanks to the internet and these new types of materials, no longer did I need to come up with my own inquiry based activities based on my prior knowledge, experience, PD, and research. Lesson planning became much more streamlined and a little less creative.
At the same time standards based education became much more prominent where teachers were asked to focus on what kids learned in a class, not what the teacher covered (focusing on outputs instead of inputs). Schools often had the mentality the students had the right to fail if they wanted to and this was not the teacher’s problem. But now the idea of assessment is much expanded. Now one must assess not just to see to what degree students learned what was taught, but assess the students learning progression along the way in order to adjust instruction to make sure that students are achieving mastery.
Time saved by the streamlining of coming up with high quality lessons and activities was replaced by tailoring these lessons and activities to individual students.
In the last decade we have also learned much more about how the brain works and how people really learn. The importance of making connections (to prior knowledge, to other content areas, to life outside school) in order for real learning to happen. We know the importance of processing time and sense making for the brain to make these connections.
On top of this we also layer 21st century skills and RtI and we can see the switch in the nature of teaching. Teaching is now about knowing your kids, knowing your content, having a pool of resources to draw on, then adapting the resources to where your students are and where you want to take them, and then make connections for kids, push their thinking, have them work collaboratively on problems related to a concept so they have to think creatively.
It is certainly a different view of teaching, but an evidence based science teaching approach wouldn’t have it any other way.
A few trends have really changed this role. The first and biggest of these is the internet. My first year of teaching in the mid 90s our school had one internet connected computer hooked up to a dial up modem. By the year 2000 our school had over 100 internet connected computers with broadband connections. So by the year 2000, if I needed ideas about a lesson or activity, I now turned to the internet and the vast area of lessons and ideas that were there, and not just the activity tool box I had from my own experiences and education.
Another trend is in textbooks and materials. When I started teaching in the mid 90s the science textbook was primarily a reference book filled with factual information about science with just a few suggestions for hands on activities that students could do. I started to see a shift in what textbooks offered in the 90s first the It’s About Time’s publication of Active Physics. The textbook and teaching materials that went with it started to look more and more like a curriculum and lesson plans. I have seen this trend only increase with high quality, tested and vetted materials such Project Learning Tree and Project Wild, FOSS kits, and the SEPUP science program. With the rigor of thought and testing that goes into many of today’s materials teachers would be foolish not to use them.
Thanks to the internet and these new types of materials, no longer did I need to come up with my own inquiry based activities based on my prior knowledge, experience, PD, and research. Lesson planning became much more streamlined and a little less creative.
At the same time standards based education became much more prominent where teachers were asked to focus on what kids learned in a class, not what the teacher covered (focusing on outputs instead of inputs). Schools often had the mentality the students had the right to fail if they wanted to and this was not the teacher’s problem. But now the idea of assessment is much expanded. Now one must assess not just to see to what degree students learned what was taught, but assess the students learning progression along the way in order to adjust instruction to make sure that students are achieving mastery.
Time saved by the streamlining of coming up with high quality lessons and activities was replaced by tailoring these lessons and activities to individual students.
In the last decade we have also learned much more about how the brain works and how people really learn. The importance of making connections (to prior knowledge, to other content areas, to life outside school) in order for real learning to happen. We know the importance of processing time and sense making for the brain to make these connections.
On top of this we also layer 21st century skills and RtI and we can see the switch in the nature of teaching. Teaching is now about knowing your kids, knowing your content, having a pool of resources to draw on, then adapting the resources to where your students are and where you want to take them, and then make connections for kids, push their thinking, have them work collaboratively on problems related to a concept so they have to think creatively.
It is certainly a different view of teaching, but an evidence based science teaching approach wouldn’t have it any other way.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Critical thinking in science education
Welcome to the 2010 – 2011 School Year. I hope this year to continue to bring you semi-regular updates around issues in science, science education, the revised Colorado Academic Standards in Science, and most specifically Evidence Based Science Teaching.
To start this school year I want to focus on critical thinking and the role of critical thinking in the science classroom. Colorado has identified critical thinking as one of the essential 21st century skills that all students in Colorado need in order to be competitive in the 21st century workplace.
The focus of education is changing. In the past a well educated person had a mind full of facts as well as the mental tools to pull those facts together in meaningful and unique ways, to draw connections and make conclusions. It seems that as the number of facts has risen exponentially and as knowledge that can be measured on a multiple choice standardized test took center stage, the number of facts to be memorized grew and the emphasis on developing students mental tools for doing meaningful and unique things with those facts diminished.
But in our information rich world, what is valued in the world education largely based on multiple choice tests (knowing the facts) and what is valued by society (being able to do meaningful and unique things with the facts) has diverged. An educated person is no longer one with a brain full of facts, because there are too many to memorize and because you can look them up in seconds on your phone. Instead the world needs people who can do things with the plethora of facts now available at their finger tips.
Critical thinking has always had a place in science education, unfortunately that place has been in what is often referred to as the hidden curriculum. The hidden curriculum is defined by Glatthorn in Curriculum Leadership (2009) as “those aspects of schooling, other than the intentional curriculum, that seem to produce changes in student values, perceptions, and behaviors.” In the revised Colorado Academic Standards critical thinking has moved from the hidden to curriculum up to the intentional curriculum. The realization is that we need to make 21st century skills, like critical thinking, more explicit and more intentional.
So why has Colorado chosen to bring critical thinking to the fore front and make it an explicit part of the Colorado Academic Standards? Tthe web site criticalthinking.org says it well, “much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life.”
So what is critical thinking? Many definitions abound, but I like this one, again from criticalthinking.org
“A critical thinker:
• raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
• gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively;
• comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
• thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
• communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.”
That sounds exactly like good science education to me!
The revised Colorado Academic Standards in science get to this type of critical thinking by having students “ask testable questions” “gather, analyze, and interpret data” “develop communicate, and justify evidence based scientific explanations” and “Critically evaluate scientific claims made in popular media or by peers”. The challenge now is to make sure that curriculum and instruction in science now reflect these critical thinking pieces.
Critical thinking is also crucial in science because science is constantly under attack by those who don’t like or feel threatened by science. Critical thinking is crucial for citizens as well to make sure that they are not taken in by false claims made by those who wish to profit off of our fears and human nature with pseudo-science, such as alternative health folks, the anti-vaccine movement, young earth creationists, astrologers, and the like. Students also need critical thinking skills in science to make critical civic decisions about how to vote when candidates take standards on issues of science (like should creationism be taught in the schools or should homeopathic medicine receive Medicare/Medicaid money).
For students to really be able to think through these types of issues and avoid becoming victims they need to not only be able to look at data and come to well-reasoned conclusions, but they also need to recognize logical fallacies so they don’t fall victim to others faulty reasoning. The Skeptics Guide to the Universe provides a great resource for spotting logical fallacies (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx) and identifies the top 20 that people often use in arguments. While these are not called out in the revised Colorado Science Standards, they could be explicitly called out in district curriculum so that these important thinking skills are also a part of the intentional curriculum of schools and not the hidden one.
A few great web resources about critical thinking:
http://www.criticalthinking.org/starting/index.cfm
http://www.p21.org/route21/index.php?Itemid=167&id=21&option=com_content&view=article
http://www.criticalthinking.com/series/087/index_c.jsp
To start this school year I want to focus on critical thinking and the role of critical thinking in the science classroom. Colorado has identified critical thinking as one of the essential 21st century skills that all students in Colorado need in order to be competitive in the 21st century workplace.
The focus of education is changing. In the past a well educated person had a mind full of facts as well as the mental tools to pull those facts together in meaningful and unique ways, to draw connections and make conclusions. It seems that as the number of facts has risen exponentially and as knowledge that can be measured on a multiple choice standardized test took center stage, the number of facts to be memorized grew and the emphasis on developing students mental tools for doing meaningful and unique things with those facts diminished.
But in our information rich world, what is valued in the world education largely based on multiple choice tests (knowing the facts) and what is valued by society (being able to do meaningful and unique things with the facts) has diverged. An educated person is no longer one with a brain full of facts, because there are too many to memorize and because you can look them up in seconds on your phone. Instead the world needs people who can do things with the plethora of facts now available at their finger tips.
Critical thinking has always had a place in science education, unfortunately that place has been in what is often referred to as the hidden curriculum. The hidden curriculum is defined by Glatthorn in Curriculum Leadership (2009) as “those aspects of schooling, other than the intentional curriculum, that seem to produce changes in student values, perceptions, and behaviors.” In the revised Colorado Academic Standards critical thinking has moved from the hidden to curriculum up to the intentional curriculum. The realization is that we need to make 21st century skills, like critical thinking, more explicit and more intentional.
So why has Colorado chosen to bring critical thinking to the fore front and make it an explicit part of the Colorado Academic Standards? Tthe web site criticalthinking.org says it well, “much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life.”
So what is critical thinking? Many definitions abound, but I like this one, again from criticalthinking.org
“A critical thinker:
• raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
• gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively;
• comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
• thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
• communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.”
That sounds exactly like good science education to me!
The revised Colorado Academic Standards in science get to this type of critical thinking by having students “ask testable questions” “gather, analyze, and interpret data” “develop communicate, and justify evidence based scientific explanations” and “Critically evaluate scientific claims made in popular media or by peers”. The challenge now is to make sure that curriculum and instruction in science now reflect these critical thinking pieces.
Critical thinking is also crucial in science because science is constantly under attack by those who don’t like or feel threatened by science. Critical thinking is crucial for citizens as well to make sure that they are not taken in by false claims made by those who wish to profit off of our fears and human nature with pseudo-science, such as alternative health folks, the anti-vaccine movement, young earth creationists, astrologers, and the like. Students also need critical thinking skills in science to make critical civic decisions about how to vote when candidates take standards on issues of science (like should creationism be taught in the schools or should homeopathic medicine receive Medicare/Medicaid money).
For students to really be able to think through these types of issues and avoid becoming victims they need to not only be able to look at data and come to well-reasoned conclusions, but they also need to recognize logical fallacies so they don’t fall victim to others faulty reasoning. The Skeptics Guide to the Universe provides a great resource for spotting logical fallacies (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx) and identifies the top 20 that people often use in arguments. While these are not called out in the revised Colorado Science Standards, they could be explicitly called out in district curriculum so that these important thinking skills are also a part of the intentional curriculum of schools and not the hidden one.
A few great web resources about critical thinking:
http://www.criticalthinking.org/starting/index.cfm
http://www.p21.org/route21/index.php?Itemid=167&id=21&option=com_content&view=article
http://www.criticalthinking.com/series/087/index_c.jsp
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
After attending a lecture by Dr. John Medina last month I decided to buy and read his book “Brain Rules” where he talks about some of the things we know about the human brain and ways that it might inform what happens in the classroom. It is a great read. One of the points he makes is how those in the communication industry often use what we know about the brain to be more effective. What strikes me about this is, what is education if not communication! Why aren’t educators using more of what we know about effective communication and how the brain works in our day to day lives?
I then listened to the latest episode of “Lab Out Loud” which is a podcast by two science teachers sponsored by the NSTA. In this episode they interviewed Randy Olson the author of “Don’t Be Such A Scientist”. One of the things Randy talks about is how scientists are often bad communicators. There have also been discussions on the “Skeptics Guide to the Universe” about why pseudo-science is popular and why scientists have trouble getting their message across.
What seems to come out from all these sources is that scientists and science educators seem to think that because they have data that people will just believe them. Unfortunately this is not the case. What we are learning is that facts alone won’t change a person’s mind about a topic, and the way that scientists and science educators often position themselves as the authority on a topic can turn people off even more.
So what can we do? First off science educators have to think of themselves as the front line in the battle for people’s hearts and minds. Science educators have a narrow opportunity with a captive audience to engage them in thinking about why science offers a view of the world that they should value and trust. To do this science educators need to change their own behaviors and attitudes. I have heard many science educators complain that they aren’t entertainers and should have to be. This is the wrong attitude. While educators don’t need to entertainers per se they do need to be engaging and expert communicators (and what else is good entertainment?) Randy Olson points out in his Lab Out Loud interview about attending an acting class and how that changed some of his communication ability. It is time for scientists and science educators to seek out some of the things that entertainers, advertisers, and communication majors know, connect that with what we know about the brain, and about effective instruction so that we engage our students in science and not shut them down about science.
To that end here are my next 10 simple things that you can do increase the engagement and therefore the achievement of students. All these strategies are based on good communication skills and what we know about how the brain works.
Intentionality
I was watching some videos of teachers the other day with a few other educators and one of them pointed out how some of the teachers seemed to plan the strategies they used very carefully and later on could explain why they picked that particular strategy while others, while maybe good teachers, couldn't explain why they did what they did. This gets to the idea of intentionality.
Teachers must be intentional about the strategies they use…
Many teachers do a great job without knowing why what they do is great and why it works well, but most teachers need to be intentional about the strategies they use.
Teachers should constantly be asking these questions.
• For this content, what is the best strategy?
• Why do I think it will work well (why does the strategy match the content and intended outcomes and what is the evidence (research base) to back that up)?
• How will I know it is working?
• What will I do if it is not working with every student?
You can’t be an evidence based teacher if you don’t know and use the research base about teaching strategies to drive your classroom.
Constantly evaluating what you are doing.
Being intentional means constantly evaluating how what you are doing is working. Are the students getting it? Is everyone with you? Is everyone engaged? Does everyone feel safe (positive feedback to every student is very important to creating a safe learning environment)? If not, how are you going to change what you are doing to get everyone back on track? (in live entertainment this is often known as reading your audience)
Feedback
We know that feedback is one of the keys to learning. If we don’t get feedback how can we correct our mistakes? But people also need positive feedback. What are they doing right? Students will shut down if they think they can’t do something, so make sure you are giving plenty of positive feedback.
Movement
Have you ever been exercising or out for a walk and have an “aha” moment. A time when your brain clears and you think of an answer to a problem? Well our brains were designed for movement. According to Dr. John Medina, the ideal operating envelope for the brain is “To make decisions about survival, while moving, in an unstable environment”.
Create opportunities for students to move, according to Dr. Ken Wesson just standing up increases the glucose to the brain by 5%, walking 15% If you want to engage the brain, people need to move. So have kids stand up to change papers, stand up to get supplies, have standing discussions…
• Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity standing up
• Victor Hugo wrote Les Miserables while standing
• In Jewish “Yeshivas,” the Bible is memorized standing and sometimes walking
• In Muslim “Madrassas” students memorize the entire Koran while rocking and reciting (from Dr. Ken Wesson)
Dr. Wesson also suggests replacing student chairs with fitness balls. Again the idea is to keep students moving.
Emotional Content
Our brains don’t pay attention to boring things, but they do pay attention to emotionally competent stimuli...
Every ten minutes or so the brain needs a hook that triggers an emotion (fear, laughter, happiness, nostalgia, incredulity…) The hook must be relevant to the class to be meaningful. (Dr. John Medina, Brain Rules) This could be a anecdote, A quick historical story... This is the creative side of being a good communicator and a good teacher.
Two minute paper
The two minute paper is a formative assessment tool and a way to engage students’ brains by taking advantage of a person’s own self interest and by having them make their learning relevant or attaching emotion to it. It was first described by Davis, Wood, & Wilson (1983), then popularized by Cross and Angelo (1988).
The method is simple. Have students write for one to two minutes based on a prompt.
Potential prompts (from Skip Downing “On Course”)
Interest:
• Without looking at your notes, what was most memorable or stands out in your mind about today’s class?
• What was the most surprising and/or unexpected idea expressed in today’s discussion?
• Looking back at your notes, what would you say was the most stimulating idea discussed in today’s class?
• For you, what interesting questions remain unanswered about today’s topic?
Relevance:
• In your opinion, what was the most useful idea discussed in today’s class?
• During today’s class, what idea(s) struck you as things you could or should put into practice?
• What example or illustration cited in today’s class could you relate to the most?
Attitudes/Opinions:
• Would you agree or disagree with this statement: . . .? Why?
• What was the most persuasive or convincing argument (or counterargument) that you heard expressed in today’s discussion?
• Was there a position taken in today’s class that you strongly disagreed with, or found to be disturbing and unsettling?
• What idea expressed in today’s class strongly affected or influenced your personal opinions, viewpoints, or values?
• Analysis:
• What did you perceive to be the major purpose or objective of today’s class?
• What do you think was the most important point or central concept communicated during today’s presentation?
• Conceptual Connections:
• What relationship did you see between today’s topic and other topics previously covered in this course?
• What was discussed in class today that seemed to connect with what you are learning or have learned in other course(s)?
Make sure you give feedback (esp. positive feedback) to the students on their papers.
Meta-cognition
Get students to think about their own thinking. Here are some prompts for that. These could also be used for two minute papers.
What do you think?
Why do you think that?
What is your evidence?
How can you use it?
Other meta-cognition prompts from Dr. Ken Wesson
Before an activity:
• What do you know/think about this concept, idea or phenomenon?
• What would you like to know?
• How would you/we go about finding out?
During an activity (Metacognitive monitoring) :
• What is this (object or event) similar to? What does it remind you of? (Prior knowledge: Building bridges from what is known to what is new by deploying the appropriate metaphors).
• Are there other approaches to solving this problem/answering this question?
• Is there another way and/or a better way to answer this question?
• What is/was predictable here?
• If we changed one variable, what might be an alternative outcome?
• What other questions are beginning to surface? How can we answer them?
Following an activity (new understandings that support acquired knowledge):
• What did we investigate?
• What were we looking for?
• What did we do/see? How did we quantify or measure it?
• What did we learn? What conclusion(s) can we draw?
• Is there evidence to to support our conclusion(s)? (Scientific reasoning)
• What else do I already know that might support this new conclusion? (Synthesizing)
• What was most memorable/surprising about this investigation?
• What questions came up during our investigations? Were we able to answer them? What resources can we use to find answers?
• What do I/we still need to know in order for this concept to be clear?
• What other investigations could we conduct to discover more about this scientific phenomenon?
• What is the benefit of knowing what we have just learned?
• Create a short list of “what if” questions about the subject of your investigation.
• Can you proffer an answer to any of your “what if” questions?
KWLUP
Here is a new twist on a technique educators have been using for decades by Dr Ken Wesson. To the traditional KWL, add “How will you use it?” and “How would you prefer to learn it?”
What do you know?
What do you want to know?
What have you learned?
How will you use it?
How would prefer to learn it?
Processing time – Auto Ponder
During the class, or as students are leaving the classroom give them a problem without an answer, a riddle or question that is relevant to the topic at hand. Then let them put their brains on auto-ponder. You have probably experienced this effect when you wake up in the middle of night with the solution to a problem, or you remember someone’s name hours after you meet them (usually when you are moving...going for a walk or a run). Don’t make it an assignment, but do talk about it the next day with the class. This is an excellent way to start a class with a discussion, that is meaningful and may have an emotional content to it. Teachers need to take advantage of how the brain naturally works.
Stimulate the senses (Dr. Wesson and Dr. Medina)
Dr. Medina points out that “The learning link. Those in multisensory environments always do better than those in unisensory environments. They have more recall with better resolution that lasts longer, evident even 20 years later.” How might educators use this? We need to make sure that our classrooms are multisensory environments where students just hear about ideas, but they are exposed to pictures and movies, sounds, smells, and textures. Remember the more senses that are engaged the more robust the learning.
I then listened to the latest episode of “Lab Out Loud” which is a podcast by two science teachers sponsored by the NSTA. In this episode they interviewed Randy Olson the author of “Don’t Be Such A Scientist”. One of the things Randy talks about is how scientists are often bad communicators. There have also been discussions on the “Skeptics Guide to the Universe” about why pseudo-science is popular and why scientists have trouble getting their message across.
What seems to come out from all these sources is that scientists and science educators seem to think that because they have data that people will just believe them. Unfortunately this is not the case. What we are learning is that facts alone won’t change a person’s mind about a topic, and the way that scientists and science educators often position themselves as the authority on a topic can turn people off even more.
So what can we do? First off science educators have to think of themselves as the front line in the battle for people’s hearts and minds. Science educators have a narrow opportunity with a captive audience to engage them in thinking about why science offers a view of the world that they should value and trust. To do this science educators need to change their own behaviors and attitudes. I have heard many science educators complain that they aren’t entertainers and should have to be. This is the wrong attitude. While educators don’t need to entertainers per se they do need to be engaging and expert communicators (and what else is good entertainment?) Randy Olson points out in his Lab Out Loud interview about attending an acting class and how that changed some of his communication ability. It is time for scientists and science educators to seek out some of the things that entertainers, advertisers, and communication majors know, connect that with what we know about the brain, and about effective instruction so that we engage our students in science and not shut them down about science.
To that end here are my next 10 simple things that you can do increase the engagement and therefore the achievement of students. All these strategies are based on good communication skills and what we know about how the brain works.
Intentionality
I was watching some videos of teachers the other day with a few other educators and one of them pointed out how some of the teachers seemed to plan the strategies they used very carefully and later on could explain why they picked that particular strategy while others, while maybe good teachers, couldn't explain why they did what they did. This gets to the idea of intentionality.
Teachers must be intentional about the strategies they use…
Many teachers do a great job without knowing why what they do is great and why it works well, but most teachers need to be intentional about the strategies they use.
Teachers should constantly be asking these questions.
• For this content, what is the best strategy?
• Why do I think it will work well (why does the strategy match the content and intended outcomes and what is the evidence (research base) to back that up)?
• How will I know it is working?
• What will I do if it is not working with every student?
You can’t be an evidence based teacher if you don’t know and use the research base about teaching strategies to drive your classroom.
Constantly evaluating what you are doing.
Being intentional means constantly evaluating how what you are doing is working. Are the students getting it? Is everyone with you? Is everyone engaged? Does everyone feel safe (positive feedback to every student is very important to creating a safe learning environment)? If not, how are you going to change what you are doing to get everyone back on track? (in live entertainment this is often known as reading your audience)
Feedback
We know that feedback is one of the keys to learning. If we don’t get feedback how can we correct our mistakes? But people also need positive feedback. What are they doing right? Students will shut down if they think they can’t do something, so make sure you are giving plenty of positive feedback.
Movement
Have you ever been exercising or out for a walk and have an “aha” moment. A time when your brain clears and you think of an answer to a problem? Well our brains were designed for movement. According to Dr. John Medina, the ideal operating envelope for the brain is “To make decisions about survival, while moving, in an unstable environment”.
Create opportunities for students to move, according to Dr. Ken Wesson just standing up increases the glucose to the brain by 5%, walking 15% If you want to engage the brain, people need to move. So have kids stand up to change papers, stand up to get supplies, have standing discussions…
• Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity standing up
• Victor Hugo wrote Les Miserables while standing
• In Jewish “Yeshivas,” the Bible is memorized standing and sometimes walking
• In Muslim “Madrassas” students memorize the entire Koran while rocking and reciting (from Dr. Ken Wesson)
Dr. Wesson also suggests replacing student chairs with fitness balls. Again the idea is to keep students moving.
Emotional Content
Our brains don’t pay attention to boring things, but they do pay attention to emotionally competent stimuli...
Every ten minutes or so the brain needs a hook that triggers an emotion (fear, laughter, happiness, nostalgia, incredulity…) The hook must be relevant to the class to be meaningful. (Dr. John Medina, Brain Rules) This could be a anecdote, A quick historical story... This is the creative side of being a good communicator and a good teacher.
Two minute paper
The two minute paper is a formative assessment tool and a way to engage students’ brains by taking advantage of a person’s own self interest and by having them make their learning relevant or attaching emotion to it. It was first described by Davis, Wood, & Wilson (1983), then popularized by Cross and Angelo (1988).
The method is simple. Have students write for one to two minutes based on a prompt.
Potential prompts (from Skip Downing “On Course”)
Interest:
• Without looking at your notes, what was most memorable or stands out in your mind about today’s class?
• What was the most surprising and/or unexpected idea expressed in today’s discussion?
• Looking back at your notes, what would you say was the most stimulating idea discussed in today’s class?
• For you, what interesting questions remain unanswered about today’s topic?
Relevance:
• In your opinion, what was the most useful idea discussed in today’s class?
• During today’s class, what idea(s) struck you as things you could or should put into practice?
• What example or illustration cited in today’s class could you relate to the most?
Attitudes/Opinions:
• Would you agree or disagree with this statement: . . .? Why?
• What was the most persuasive or convincing argument (or counterargument) that you heard expressed in today’s discussion?
• Was there a position taken in today’s class that you strongly disagreed with, or found to be disturbing and unsettling?
• What idea expressed in today’s class strongly affected or influenced your personal opinions, viewpoints, or values?
• Analysis:
• What did you perceive to be the major purpose or objective of today’s class?
• What do you think was the most important point or central concept communicated during today’s presentation?
• Conceptual Connections:
• What relationship did you see between today’s topic and other topics previously covered in this course?
• What was discussed in class today that seemed to connect with what you are learning or have learned in other course(s)?
Make sure you give feedback (esp. positive feedback) to the students on their papers.
Meta-cognition
Get students to think about their own thinking. Here are some prompts for that. These could also be used for two minute papers.
What do you think?
Why do you think that?
What is your evidence?
How can you use it?
Other meta-cognition prompts from Dr. Ken Wesson
Before an activity:
• What do you know/think about this concept, idea or phenomenon?
• What would you like to know?
• How would you/we go about finding out?
During an activity (Metacognitive monitoring) :
• What is this (object or event) similar to? What does it remind you of? (Prior knowledge: Building bridges from what is known to what is new by deploying the appropriate metaphors).
• Are there other approaches to solving this problem/answering this question?
• Is there another way and/or a better way to answer this question?
• What is/was predictable here?
• If we changed one variable, what might be an alternative outcome?
• What other questions are beginning to surface? How can we answer them?
Following an activity (new understandings that support acquired knowledge):
• What did we investigate?
• What were we looking for?
• What did we do/see? How did we quantify or measure it?
• What did we learn? What conclusion(s) can we draw?
• Is there evidence to to support our conclusion(s)? (Scientific reasoning)
• What else do I already know that might support this new conclusion? (Synthesizing)
• What was most memorable/surprising about this investigation?
• What questions came up during our investigations? Were we able to answer them? What resources can we use to find answers?
• What do I/we still need to know in order for this concept to be clear?
• What other investigations could we conduct to discover more about this scientific phenomenon?
• What is the benefit of knowing what we have just learned?
• Create a short list of “what if” questions about the subject of your investigation.
• Can you proffer an answer to any of your “what if” questions?
KWLUP
Here is a new twist on a technique educators have been using for decades by Dr Ken Wesson. To the traditional KWL, add “How will you use it?” and “How would you prefer to learn it?”
What do you know?
What do you want to know?
What have you learned?
How will you use it?
How would prefer to learn it?
Processing time – Auto Ponder
During the class, or as students are leaving the classroom give them a problem without an answer, a riddle or question that is relevant to the topic at hand. Then let them put their brains on auto-ponder. You have probably experienced this effect when you wake up in the middle of night with the solution to a problem, or you remember someone’s name hours after you meet them (usually when you are moving...going for a walk or a run). Don’t make it an assignment, but do talk about it the next day with the class. This is an excellent way to start a class with a discussion, that is meaningful and may have an emotional content to it. Teachers need to take advantage of how the brain naturally works.
Stimulate the senses (Dr. Wesson and Dr. Medina)
Dr. Medina points out that “The learning link. Those in multisensory environments always do better than those in unisensory environments. They have more recall with better resolution that lasts longer, evident even 20 years later.” How might educators use this? We need to make sure that our classrooms are multisensory environments where students just hear about ideas, but they are exposed to pictures and movies, sounds, smells, and textures. Remember the more senses that are engaged the more robust the learning.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The brain, communication, and education
I recently had the opportunity to attend a lecture about the brain, neuroscience, and education. It again struck me how brain unfriendly the classroom and much of our current education system is. The scientist giving the talk, Dr. John Medina, author of the book “Brain Rules” pointed out that one thing we do know about the brain is its operating envelope, it is “designed to solve problems related to survival in an unstable outdoor environment, and to do so in nearly constant motion”. Could anything be further from many of our classrooms today!
So what can education learn from brain research. Unfortunately this is not a simple question. But there are several great researchers tackling this issue such as Marcia Tate and Eric Jensen. I think we can also add John Medina to that list. Unfortunately we don’t know nearly enough to really put many of the theories of brain research in action in the classroom, this is simply because the kinds of studies need to guide teachers are hard, expensive, and take a long time to carry out. For example an article was recently published in Psychological Science where a panel concluded that there wasn’t evidence support the learning styles hypothesis (that learners are primarily auditory, visual, or kinesthetic). It has since then mushroomed to the point where educators are saying research shows that we shouldn’t worry about learning styles. Really? Let’s look back at what the Psychological Science panel said, that there wasn’t evidence to support the hypothesis, not that the hypothesis was wrong, the learning styles hypothesis may be right or maybe wrong, we just don’t know, because doing the study that would prove it is really hard and expensive. This is the case with much of what we think we know about the brain and learning.
So what should educators do?
Go with what we do know. For example, regardless of what type learner a student might be, if one explanation of something doesn’t resonate or make sense to that student for some reason, we have to use a different way of explaining it to that student. This is sometimes called adaptive instruction and is a big piece of RtI (response to intervention). Simply put school and classroom practice must shift based on the needs of students. For this to be effective educators must constantly gather evidence on how their students are progressing toward mastery of a concept or skill. But beyond this, educators also need to know the early signals that students may be having problems, so that they can make informed instructional decisions and modify their day to day lessons to adapt to the needs of the students. This is the role of formative assessment, which plays a key role in evidence based science education.
We also know that the brain seems to have a working memory, but information in this memory is lost if not repeated in 2 hours. If the information is repeated within two hours it is recruited for long term storage. Think of the implications of this to the school schedule and for homework, how can schools use this notion of a 2 hour window to its advantage? Also it can take years for concepts (especially complex one) to be cemented into long term storage in such a way that it can be recalled and used accurately. Yet in education we often go over complex processes only once and expect students to master it.
We also know that the brain won’t pay attention to boring things for very long, and is particularly interested in how information connects to a storyline. A stimulus (be it in or out of the classroom) has less then 600 seconds to attract and keep the brains attention. If it fails to do so in that time, the brain will wander off on its own. We also know that brains working memory can only hold and work on 5 – 7 ideas at a time. Any more than this and the brain purges information without committing it to long term memory.
What all this means for education is that we need to rethink our information dense and brain unfriendly classrooms. We need to get our students moving and talking and thinking. We need to connect information into coherent story lines. We need to make sure that important information is repeated and students understand the themes that connect one content area with another. Most of all we need to recognize that learning and remembering things is an active process that specific rules, and for teachers to be successful they must follow those rules.
So what can education learn from brain research. Unfortunately this is not a simple question. But there are several great researchers tackling this issue such as Marcia Tate and Eric Jensen. I think we can also add John Medina to that list. Unfortunately we don’t know nearly enough to really put many of the theories of brain research in action in the classroom, this is simply because the kinds of studies need to guide teachers are hard, expensive, and take a long time to carry out. For example an article was recently published in Psychological Science where a panel concluded that there wasn’t evidence support the learning styles hypothesis (that learners are primarily auditory, visual, or kinesthetic). It has since then mushroomed to the point where educators are saying research shows that we shouldn’t worry about learning styles. Really? Let’s look back at what the Psychological Science panel said, that there wasn’t evidence to support the hypothesis, not that the hypothesis was wrong, the learning styles hypothesis may be right or maybe wrong, we just don’t know, because doing the study that would prove it is really hard and expensive. This is the case with much of what we think we know about the brain and learning.
So what should educators do?
Go with what we do know. For example, regardless of what type learner a student might be, if one explanation of something doesn’t resonate or make sense to that student for some reason, we have to use a different way of explaining it to that student. This is sometimes called adaptive instruction and is a big piece of RtI (response to intervention). Simply put school and classroom practice must shift based on the needs of students. For this to be effective educators must constantly gather evidence on how their students are progressing toward mastery of a concept or skill. But beyond this, educators also need to know the early signals that students may be having problems, so that they can make informed instructional decisions and modify their day to day lessons to adapt to the needs of the students. This is the role of formative assessment, which plays a key role in evidence based science education.
We also know that the brain seems to have a working memory, but information in this memory is lost if not repeated in 2 hours. If the information is repeated within two hours it is recruited for long term storage. Think of the implications of this to the school schedule and for homework, how can schools use this notion of a 2 hour window to its advantage? Also it can take years for concepts (especially complex one) to be cemented into long term storage in such a way that it can be recalled and used accurately. Yet in education we often go over complex processes only once and expect students to master it.
We also know that the brain won’t pay attention to boring things for very long, and is particularly interested in how information connects to a storyline. A stimulus (be it in or out of the classroom) has less then 600 seconds to attract and keep the brains attention. If it fails to do so in that time, the brain will wander off on its own. We also know that brains working memory can only hold and work on 5 – 7 ideas at a time. Any more than this and the brain purges information without committing it to long term memory.
What all this means for education is that we need to rethink our information dense and brain unfriendly classrooms. We need to get our students moving and talking and thinking. We need to connect information into coherent story lines. We need to make sure that important information is repeated and students understand the themes that connect one content area with another. Most of all we need to recognize that learning and remembering things is an active process that specific rules, and for teachers to be successful they must follow those rules.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The role of assessment in Evidence Based Science Teaching
Research tells us that good assessment plays a key role in the teaching and learning process. But what kind of assessments should teachers be using? How can teachers be intentional and efficient about the use of assessment? How do teachers keep from being overwhelmed by assessment tasks?
For the purposes of this essay assessment is broadly defined as any intentional practice that allows the teacher to intentionally track the progress of students toward a defined learning outcome. It is important to give the definition of assessment here because the word is often given other meanings, such as, referring only to a standardized test, or state assessment, or very broadly defined when teachers grade everything that a student produces.
Many teachers get overwhelmed by the task load of grading student assessments, yet as we know assessment, and more importantly the feedback students get from teachers based on assessment is a key to learning. So how can we know that a student has learned while still keeping teachers sane?
The answer is that teachers need to be very thoughtful about what really constitutes evidence of student learning. When thinking about assessment, teachers should ask themselves, what evidence would show me how my students are progressing toward specific learning goals? This is where standards based report cards can be wonderful, but even if your school or district doesn’t use standards based report cards, a teacher should still be able to set up their own grade book in a way that it becomes a record of evidence for learning.
Science teachers are great at showing students different ways of capturing and presenting data to make it meaningful yet are often terrible at setting up their grade books to do the same thing. At worst many grade books are a mere record of how many students completed nightly homework assignments rather than a body of evidence that shows what a student does and does not understand. Many times this is even true of “standards based grade books”. Teachers should ask themselves this: Does my grade book reflect what my students know and are able to do? Does it allow me to see what my students’ strengths and weaknesses are? Can I use it to explain to parents what students do and do not understand?
For a grade book to be truly standards based and fit into a scheme of evidence based teaching it must go beyond just reorganizing the traditional grade book in different way, it must function different than the traditional grade book.
Now that the Colorado State Academic standards, as well as many of the national standards efforts, includes both content and skills at a grain size that you can collect evidence for, setting up this type of grade book should be much easier. It all comes down to: What are the content and skills that students should master? What evidence will tell you that they have mastered it? What are the steps it takes to get to mastery? What evidence would show you when a student has achieved those steps and is ready to move on?
So an evidence based, standards based grade book contains markers about a student’s progression toward mastery as well as indicators that a student has achieved mastery. This is very different from the traditional model where the grade book ranks how well a student did on individual assignments. In an evidence based, standards based system how well students do on individual assignments is secondary to charting a student’s progress toward mastery. While seeing how well a student completed individual assignments may provide some valuable information, it does not necessarily get at the goal of a class, for students to progress to mastery.
This kind of system also allows a teacher to be more selective in what they grade, making them more efficient. And this efficiency is not just what the teacher grades and put into the grade book, but also about the types of assignments that they give students, thus making their student’s more efficient. Students often complain about school or homework that they view as busy work. The reason students see it as busy work as they don’t know the purpose behind the work and where the work will lead. So even if it isn’t busy work to the teacher, it can still be perceived as busy work by students. If students know, instead, that when they have an assignment, it is part of a bigger, well thought out system, the less chance they will think that it is just busy work.
So what does kinds of assignments should kids spend their precious time doing and what types of assignments should teachers spend their precious time grading? Only those that provide evidence of a student’s progress toward mastery. This still encompasses a wide variety of assignments, but should free up both the teacher and student from unnecessary work, because all work should have meaning for both the student and teacher.
For the purposes of this essay assessment is broadly defined as any intentional practice that allows the teacher to intentionally track the progress of students toward a defined learning outcome. It is important to give the definition of assessment here because the word is often given other meanings, such as, referring only to a standardized test, or state assessment, or very broadly defined when teachers grade everything that a student produces.
Many teachers get overwhelmed by the task load of grading student assessments, yet as we know assessment, and more importantly the feedback students get from teachers based on assessment is a key to learning. So how can we know that a student has learned while still keeping teachers sane?
The answer is that teachers need to be very thoughtful about what really constitutes evidence of student learning. When thinking about assessment, teachers should ask themselves, what evidence would show me how my students are progressing toward specific learning goals? This is where standards based report cards can be wonderful, but even if your school or district doesn’t use standards based report cards, a teacher should still be able to set up their own grade book in a way that it becomes a record of evidence for learning.
Science teachers are great at showing students different ways of capturing and presenting data to make it meaningful yet are often terrible at setting up their grade books to do the same thing. At worst many grade books are a mere record of how many students completed nightly homework assignments rather than a body of evidence that shows what a student does and does not understand. Many times this is even true of “standards based grade books”. Teachers should ask themselves this: Does my grade book reflect what my students know and are able to do? Does it allow me to see what my students’ strengths and weaknesses are? Can I use it to explain to parents what students do and do not understand?
For a grade book to be truly standards based and fit into a scheme of evidence based teaching it must go beyond just reorganizing the traditional grade book in different way, it must function different than the traditional grade book.
Now that the Colorado State Academic standards, as well as many of the national standards efforts, includes both content and skills at a grain size that you can collect evidence for, setting up this type of grade book should be much easier. It all comes down to: What are the content and skills that students should master? What evidence will tell you that they have mastered it? What are the steps it takes to get to mastery? What evidence would show you when a student has achieved those steps and is ready to move on?
So an evidence based, standards based grade book contains markers about a student’s progression toward mastery as well as indicators that a student has achieved mastery. This is very different from the traditional model where the grade book ranks how well a student did on individual assignments. In an evidence based, standards based system how well students do on individual assignments is secondary to charting a student’s progress toward mastery. While seeing how well a student completed individual assignments may provide some valuable information, it does not necessarily get at the goal of a class, for students to progress to mastery.
This kind of system also allows a teacher to be more selective in what they grade, making them more efficient. And this efficiency is not just what the teacher grades and put into the grade book, but also about the types of assignments that they give students, thus making their student’s more efficient. Students often complain about school or homework that they view as busy work. The reason students see it as busy work as they don’t know the purpose behind the work and where the work will lead. So even if it isn’t busy work to the teacher, it can still be perceived as busy work by students. If students know, instead, that when they have an assignment, it is part of a bigger, well thought out system, the less chance they will think that it is just busy work.
So what does kinds of assignments should kids spend their precious time doing and what types of assignments should teachers spend their precious time grading? Only those that provide evidence of a student’s progress toward mastery. This still encompasses a wide variety of assignments, but should free up both the teacher and student from unnecessary work, because all work should have meaning for both the student and teacher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
