I thought I would start the discussion with the very first chapter, then you can add your comments to this chapter or add a title and post for a new chapter. I hope this sounds okay.
I reflected on the question - "How can we change our day-to-day teaching to reflect the changing (flattening) world?"
- On page 4 the paragraph that jumped out at me was the need to go "beyond teaching the basic skills, beyond requireing students to know how to perform procedures, and beyond offering recipes for solving problems that look alike. To limit our students to such a narrow view of mathematics is to barely equip them for the bottom tier of jobs that United States now outsources. We need to expect much more of all our students if they are to compete for the kinds of jobs that help businesses and societies solve the problems they face every day - problems no one yet knows how to solve; problems that call for the best creataive thinking and problem-solving skills we can bring to the table." I read this after two days of listening to principals say the students need to know their facts and trying to explain to them that Cognitively Guided Instruction and and inquiry approach to mathematics leads students to a deep understanding of numbers and their operations. Thus they will attain automoticity with numbers which is not synonomous with memorization. Memorizing does not mean they will know how to use those numbers and operations. How do we get passed this issue and focus on student understanding? As I begin work with the new teacher leaders this is also one of their major concerns. So, after reading this, I am thinking I need to take the stance of looking at our global community and how our students have faired in the past and how we want them to perform at the top of list as problem solvers and critical, creative thinkers and that takes much more than the basic skills for the future. What are your thoughts?
Chapter One validated most of our thinking today as we implement SDC in real SD classrooms. Many of the teachers I've worked with view CGI and an extra that you do with kids once they have completed their "real" math which of course involves algothrims rather than real problem solving. I believe there are two big obstacles to advocating for allowing kids to solve real mathematics problems. One is the standardized test and the other is the text book. Some teachers are so tied to the text book that they are afraid to venture out into the land of "real problem solving". They believe that having students work the "story problems" at the end of each chapter IS problem solving and that is good enough for them. Some of these same teachers believe that if they teach don't teach from the text book, they might not cover all the skills their students need to be successful on the test and we all know the fear that strikes in the hearts of educators. The good news is that I do see this changing in some SDC classrooms. For the teachers who have been brave enough to jump into SDC work in their classrooms and have seen the results with their students...no more convincing is necessary. Kids like math and are learning to be math problem solvers and communicators and yes, they can still do the facts with relative ease. The difference is that they know the concepts that go beyond rote memorization. Change is never easy AND I think you are making a huge difference in how mathematics is being taught in SD one classroom at a time!
ReplyDeleteJust adding my two cents. I often feel when reading Cathy Seeley she is preaching to choir – us. It is those who are interested in math and invested in learning as much as we can about how students learn that read these articles/books. In responding to both Marcia and Karen, first it is unfortunate that not all teachers, administrators, and parents think as we do. What’s the matter with them? On the other hand, we have seen some GREAT strides these last 3 years and look forward to seeing more with a new group of teachers and our continuing teachers – we can’t lose sight of that. Change IS hard but we have seen it happen. I believe we are moving our teachers and our state towards joining this “flattening world.” I am encouraged by the work done on the state math standards writing and hopefully we are on the crest of the wave that will not only impact how math is taught but how it is assessed and how teachers are trained.
ReplyDeleteNow, this brings me to administrators. They are our next challenge as there are many who pay lip service to the math we are doing or downright negate it. Much of this comes from fear – fear of not performing well on standardized tests. Many see more inquiry-based mathematics as a gamble and it is, but much more likely to fail without support. They seem to forget how they got into school improvement or lower test scores in the first place – weren’t most of them implementing primarily traditional math? How do we educate our administrators? We are beginning to present at math conferences (attended primarily by teachers) which is wonderful, however I am wondering if we don’t need to also begin focusing on those conferences for administrators (i.e., ASCD, or state/regional level administrator meetings) so that the administrators can see the evidence of success and how, with their support, that leads students to be more productive members of society as well as being more successful on standardized tests. Perhaps we can focus our work with those administrators who support student understanding of mathematics and who can then encourage others – just as we do with our teachers. Cathy Seeley indicates (p. 3, top of the page) that one of our advantages in the United States is that we can “see the big picture, understand connections, and build on relationships among people and among ideas.” Administrators bogged down by high-stakes testing have lost sight of the big picture. If we can realign their vision, perhaps that will encourage them to support their teachers more and put more pressure on test-making companies and states to revisit how we are assessing. (The whole issue of time and cost of tests can be addressed at a later date.)
Oops, that was page 5 (not 3.)
ReplyDeleteI agree, Lucy. Our next big frontier should be administrators. I have never worked on a project that was very successful without the support of administrators. I think the problem may be bigger....I'm wondering if administrators view themselves as "managers" rather than edcuational leaders. My limited experience with administrators is that most are excellent managers and very few are actually "educational leaders." I'm not sure how we change this attitude, but I think it is important work.
ReplyDelete