As the math teacher, my daughter reaps the “benefits” of daily math facts flashcard practice. Although neither of us particularly looks forward to the drill and kill exercises, my experience of working with students in eighth grade who have not yet mastered basic computations reinforced the importance of such activities. Regardless of the level of enjoyment, it is absolutely critical to establish a strong foundation in basic mathematical skills in order to increase the likelihood of success in higher level math courses.
Bransford, Brown, and Cocking state that mastery and memorization are significant components of traditional education. However, research on development of expertise in a subject matter requires more than the recollection of facts. The child must have the opportunity to construct learning through inquiry-based instruction. Not only must teachers work to develop mathematical knowledge, but they must cultivate the students’ general problem solving skills.
I constantly look for everyday, hands-on activities that incorporate math skills. Simple actions such as working with my daughter in doubling a pancake batter recipe or keeping an accurate Yahtzee scorecard indirectly highlight the importance of performing mathematically-sound arithmetic operations. I find the integration of hands-on algebraic activities more difficult because algebra is infrequently used in everyday life experiences.
With the increase of technology and computer-based education however, relevant and engaging resources are becoming more widely available, although the quality of such tools is not guaranteed. Prior to using a program (web-based particularly), I ensure that the program is legitimate and worthy of the devotion of instructional time. To teach about slope and equations of linear and quadratic functions, I utilize a software program called Green Globs. I use Study Island, a web-based instructional tool aligned with state standards, to prepare students for PSSA testing. The Utah State University developed interactive algebra activities in its National Library of Virtual Manipulatives that are aligned with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards. This site includes activities that mimic classic games such as Peg Puzzle or Switch or Stick and the feedback is given immediately on the same screen.
Bransford, Brown, and Cocking advocate the practice of incorporating real-life problems and simulations into the classroom. In addition, they encourage opportunities in which learners receive feedback – whether it be from computer-based or directly from a teacher. These are just two of the numerous ways mentioned in “Conclusions and Recommendations for Research” chapter in which technology can assist with the establishment of effective learning environments.
As I continue to work to develop my algebra students’ mathematical abilities using a wide range of resources, I take great interest in assisting in the development of my daughter’s mathematical foundation by continuing the daily flashcard practice (against her wishes!) Although the world of virtual manipulatives, web-based tutorials, and Green Globs is remarkable, without a solid base in arithmetic operations, the activities are entirely ineffective.
References
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R.R., Eds. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Blog#9 - Oh No! Here Comes the SMART Board!
Nine years ago, I was perfectly content using my blackboard and chalk at the front of my first classroom. I invested in dust-free chalk and the best erasers I could find. Two years later, I cringed when our technology professional wheeled in a fancy overhead projector and installed a white screen above my beloved chalkboard. I remember wheeling the cart to the back of the room until I received a pre-observation notice in my mailbox and reluctantly began to use the projector.
Although at first my complaints, such as blocking students’ views and fan noise, outnumbered my perceived benefits, it was not long before using the overhead became practically second nature. Before I knew it, my chalk was tucked away and I had officially and successfully integrated technology in the classroom. As stated in Bransford, Brown, and Cocking’s “Technology to Support Learning” chapter, even though the chalk was “old”, it was still useful. I used the overhead for guided instruction and the chalkboard for students to display their independent practice.
By year six of my teaching career, my math course binders were extraordinary. Not only was each lesson planned accordingly, but my color-coded overhead transparencies were organized to perfection. Other than the occasional incorporation of a new teaching strategy, my planning was essentially complete…until I received word that I was the lucky recipient of one of three SMART Boards in the school.
The learning curve was steep and I tried deciphering the functions myself, but the task of operating the SMART Board seemed overwhelming. I initially treated it as an untouchable (intimidating) piece of equipment and continued using the overhead projector as long as I could, but eventually I took the plunge and connected the SMART Board.
After three years, I can state convincingly that utilizing this technology has significantly impacted student interest and motivation to learn. Students no longer have to mentally visualize geometric transformations. This powerful too allows them to see the rotations and reflections in action. Not only is the SMART Board colorful and dynamic, but it is interactive and reaches students with various learning styles. The vast majority of available research supports the view that interactive whiteboards have the potential to have a positive impact on teacher pedagogy and learner engagement.
Bransford, Brown, and Cocking agree that new technology extends possibilities and creates new learning environments. According to Snowman & Biehler (2006), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards proposed that teachers be “members of learning communities.” Likewise, Bransford, Brown, and Cocking endorse the establishment of electronic collaboratories, virtual learning communities that link students with field professionals. All of this is possible with a SMART Board!
Soon, the SMART Board will be considered an ancient artifact just like my chalk box seven short years ago. Another fascinating and more efficient piece of equipment will replace it and I actually look forward to the opportunity!
References
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R.R., Eds. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Snowman, J., & Biehler, R. (2006). Psychology applied to teaching, (11th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Although at first my complaints, such as blocking students’ views and fan noise, outnumbered my perceived benefits, it was not long before using the overhead became practically second nature. Before I knew it, my chalk was tucked away and I had officially and successfully integrated technology in the classroom. As stated in Bransford, Brown, and Cocking’s “Technology to Support Learning” chapter, even though the chalk was “old”, it was still useful. I used the overhead for guided instruction and the chalkboard for students to display their independent practice.
By year six of my teaching career, my math course binders were extraordinary. Not only was each lesson planned accordingly, but my color-coded overhead transparencies were organized to perfection. Other than the occasional incorporation of a new teaching strategy, my planning was essentially complete…until I received word that I was the lucky recipient of one of three SMART Boards in the school.
The learning curve was steep and I tried deciphering the functions myself, but the task of operating the SMART Board seemed overwhelming. I initially treated it as an untouchable (intimidating) piece of equipment and continued using the overhead projector as long as I could, but eventually I took the plunge and connected the SMART Board.
After three years, I can state convincingly that utilizing this technology has significantly impacted student interest and motivation to learn. Students no longer have to mentally visualize geometric transformations. This powerful too allows them to see the rotations and reflections in action. Not only is the SMART Board colorful and dynamic, but it is interactive and reaches students with various learning styles. The vast majority of available research supports the view that interactive whiteboards have the potential to have a positive impact on teacher pedagogy and learner engagement.
Bransford, Brown, and Cocking agree that new technology extends possibilities and creates new learning environments. According to Snowman & Biehler (2006), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards proposed that teachers be “members of learning communities.” Likewise, Bransford, Brown, and Cocking endorse the establishment of electronic collaboratories, virtual learning communities that link students with field professionals. All of this is possible with a SMART Board!
Soon, the SMART Board will be considered an ancient artifact just like my chalk box seven short years ago. Another fascinating and more efficient piece of equipment will replace it and I actually look forward to the opportunity!
References
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R.R., Eds. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Snowman, J., & Biehler, R. (2006). Psychology applied to teaching, (11th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Blog#8: Teacher Learning...in Atlantic City?
Upon reflecting upon my education, I now remember fondly not the most popular mathematics teachers (whose nicknames were typically something along the lines of “Easy A (fill-in-the-blank)” or were just plain cool), but those who were structured, disciplined, and truly mastered the art of teaching. The teachers I now recall most favorably are those who challenged me and those from whom I learned the most mathematical content. These teachers could easily be identified by gauging my progress early in the following school year when we reviewed the previous year’s concepts and I felt confident and not especially in need of the review.
It is amazing how maturity influenced my assessment of pedagogical practice. After reading Bransford, Brown, and Cocking’s “Teacher Learning” chapter, I began to contemplate all of the factors that affect teaching practices such as self-reflective abilities, prior experiences, professional development opportunities, and post-graduate education. It is difficult to compare teachers, as no two teachers I have had are all that similar in practice or demeanor. These differences exist as a result of many factors, including past educational experiences, teacher preparation programs, frequency of incorporation of self-inquiry and reflection exercises to improve practice, quality and quantity of profession development opportunities, and continuing education. These aspects result in an educators’ melting pot. Experience forms the person and likewise influences teaching methodologies.
While several of these factors are inherent, the one area in which schools are directly responsible is professional development. New teachers in my district are required to attend 60 hours of professional development seminars and courses during their first year (6 additional hours required in the event of each snow day). After the first year, the number of hours required for professional staff is 18. There exists a comprehensive (and impressive) professional development program within the district that offers many interesting opportunities for growth. However, loopholes in executing the professional development plan often cause the cancellation of these quality programs due to lack of interest. Most teachers I know “earn” their hours through summer team meetings (in Atlantic City or at the local pub) or other non-professional development events such as website maintenance and compiling team clothing orders, practices which have been approved year-after-year by building administrators ever since I joined the district five years ago. Although these activities build rapport and organizational skills, in my opinion, they do not enhance teaching and should not count towards the teacher’s mandated hours.
Professional development is an area in which every educator in the melting pot may be inspired to grow, or in the least, encouraged to reflect upon current practices which promotes self-improvement. If professional development trends remain similar, my hypothesis is that the popular “Easy-A” teachers back in the day may have frequented the same establishments as some of my colleagues for their so-called professional development. I cannot help but wonder how many of the teachers who positively impacted my life actively participated in professional development opportunities during their career.
References
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R.R., Eds. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
It is amazing how maturity influenced my assessment of pedagogical practice. After reading Bransford, Brown, and Cocking’s “Teacher Learning” chapter, I began to contemplate all of the factors that affect teaching practices such as self-reflective abilities, prior experiences, professional development opportunities, and post-graduate education. It is difficult to compare teachers, as no two teachers I have had are all that similar in practice or demeanor. These differences exist as a result of many factors, including past educational experiences, teacher preparation programs, frequency of incorporation of self-inquiry and reflection exercises to improve practice, quality and quantity of profession development opportunities, and continuing education. These aspects result in an educators’ melting pot. Experience forms the person and likewise influences teaching methodologies.
While several of these factors are inherent, the one area in which schools are directly responsible is professional development. New teachers in my district are required to attend 60 hours of professional development seminars and courses during their first year (6 additional hours required in the event of each snow day). After the first year, the number of hours required for professional staff is 18. There exists a comprehensive (and impressive) professional development program within the district that offers many interesting opportunities for growth. However, loopholes in executing the professional development plan often cause the cancellation of these quality programs due to lack of interest. Most teachers I know “earn” their hours through summer team meetings (in Atlantic City or at the local pub) or other non-professional development events such as website maintenance and compiling team clothing orders, practices which have been approved year-after-year by building administrators ever since I joined the district five years ago. Although these activities build rapport and organizational skills, in my opinion, they do not enhance teaching and should not count towards the teacher’s mandated hours.
Professional development is an area in which every educator in the melting pot may be inspired to grow, or in the least, encouraged to reflect upon current practices which promotes self-improvement. If professional development trends remain similar, my hypothesis is that the popular “Easy-A” teachers back in the day may have frequented the same establishments as some of my colleagues for their so-called professional development. I cannot help but wonder how many of the teachers who positively impacted my life actively participated in professional development opportunities during their career.
References
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R.R., Eds. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)