I made the video below as part of an online portfolio that can be shared with principles, department chairs, and other administration as I begin searching for a teaching position. Enjoy!
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Monday, November 24, 2014
Job Insecurity
Well, its over. I'm finished with student teaching and catching up on several blog posts that I've been meaning to write. Keep checking back, there will be more coming.
I may have had somewhat of an epiphany. I think we all can think of teachers we have either worked with or had when we were students that are cynical and pessimistic about the average student's willingness to work hard. I've come up with at least one explanation for why this happens. As I look back, it is safe to say that teaching is a unique job in many ways. One way is that there are very few options for scapegoats when things go awry. There were times when students performed very poorly on tests or quizzes. As I thought about this problem, I realized there are only two explanations: either I didn't teach well, or the students didn't care and work hard. In this way, teaching brings out one's insecurities.
Is there a better way of doing this? Why didn't I think of that response in the moment? Are the students understanding what I am saying? Could I be explaining it differently that would make more sense? How are all the other teachers explaining it? Am I reaching all my students? Should I give more grace to these students or get tough on them?
Many times there is no way of knowing for sure. Many times, you go with your gut and hope for the best. Student teaching affords you a great asset - a gifted, experienced teacher to answer those questions, verify you are doing things correctly, and correct you where you aren't. I won't have that safety net next year.
When grades go down, its either me or them (or maybe a combination). Its incredibly uncomfortable to think its me, but it most likely is. There are things I could have been more clear about. There are topics I could have made more engaging. There are connections to the students' everyday lives I could have made. When students don't learn, that means you failed. No one likes to think they failed. No wonder there are teachers out there with negative views of students. Its a lot easier to think of your students as lazy, unmotivated, uninterested, and immature than it is to think of yourself as ineffective.
I may have had somewhat of an epiphany. I think we all can think of teachers we have either worked with or had when we were students that are cynical and pessimistic about the average student's willingness to work hard. I've come up with at least one explanation for why this happens. As I look back, it is safe to say that teaching is a unique job in many ways. One way is that there are very few options for scapegoats when things go awry. There were times when students performed very poorly on tests or quizzes. As I thought about this problem, I realized there are only two explanations: either I didn't teach well, or the students didn't care and work hard. In this way, teaching brings out one's insecurities.
Is there a better way of doing this? Why didn't I think of that response in the moment? Are the students understanding what I am saying? Could I be explaining it differently that would make more sense? How are all the other teachers explaining it? Am I reaching all my students? Should I give more grace to these students or get tough on them?
Many times there is no way of knowing for sure. Many times, you go with your gut and hope for the best. Student teaching affords you a great asset - a gifted, experienced teacher to answer those questions, verify you are doing things correctly, and correct you where you aren't. I won't have that safety net next year.
When grades go down, its either me or them (or maybe a combination). Its incredibly uncomfortable to think its me, but it most likely is. There are things I could have been more clear about. There are topics I could have made more engaging. There are connections to the students' everyday lives I could have made. When students don't learn, that means you failed. No one likes to think they failed. No wonder there are teachers out there with negative views of students. Its a lot easier to think of your students as lazy, unmotivated, uninterested, and immature than it is to think of yourself as ineffective.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
What's the Point?
Every now and then, and especially when you've been doing something for a while, its good to come back to the question, "Why are we doing this in the first place?" I have been mulling over this question recently when it comes to grading policies. I have two examples of the same problem:
1. Test Retakes. We allow students to retake their tests (if they get a D or F) to raise their grade on that test up to a 75%. In order to retake a test, students have to fill out a Google form, come in for help to go over what they missed, and then make time on a certain day to retake the test. However, we have begun to think about requiring students to complete and show us all their homework for the entire chapter before retaking the test. This would likely increase the students' work load if they want to retake a test (since their homework is daily, but only collected occasionally).
My concern with this is that, due to the increased required work, students will opt out of retaking tests, thus keeping their D or F grade. Megan pushed me to consider what the point of the retake is in the first place. Are we simply trying to give the students more points and higher grades? Or are we trying to get the students to learn the material? If the emphasis is on learning, then increasing the workload may be a good idea. The work is what causes the learning. If the emphasis is on points, then lets just let them retake it as much as they want to get more points. But why try the test again if you haven't learned any more of the concepts that you were missing in the first place?
2. Every section (i.e. chapter), students are required to take all the concepts from that section and explain or show how they all connect together into one coherent "big picture." The students almost unanimously hate doing this, and quite frankly, I hate grading it. Its always terrible, and the students complain about the grades they get. It has turned into "point-grabbing," where students are just doing it to get it done and get the points. They don't see the purpose in it because they don't really understand how all the concepts of the section are interrelated. Their idea of a connection is that we talked about temperature on two different days, therefore, those two lessons are connected. We have been grading them with points, but now we are shifting to only making it worth 1 point - you either did it or you didn't, and then giving feedback on how they can deepen their understanding of the concepts.
I spent several minutes today trying to get them to see that this requires a shift in mindset. They have to shift their thinking (and so do I) from getting a certain grade to learning the material. If they learn the material, the grade will be good. In talking about this connection sheet, they said they aren't going to do it because now it isn't graded, which shows that they are thinking about the points rather than the learning. To quote Megan, "Its not about the points, its about the learning."
This is a difficult paradigm shift for both myself and my students. All we've ever known is points. Get as many points as possible to get the good grade to get the good GPA to get into the good college to get a good job. Nowhere in that line of thinking is growth.
I think the more we can get our young people to have growth as their goal, rather than reward, the better off we will all be. Growth often requires discomfort, hard work, and error, which is why we shy away from it.
1. Test Retakes. We allow students to retake their tests (if they get a D or F) to raise their grade on that test up to a 75%. In order to retake a test, students have to fill out a Google form, come in for help to go over what they missed, and then make time on a certain day to retake the test. However, we have begun to think about requiring students to complete and show us all their homework for the entire chapter before retaking the test. This would likely increase the students' work load if they want to retake a test (since their homework is daily, but only collected occasionally).
My concern with this is that, due to the increased required work, students will opt out of retaking tests, thus keeping their D or F grade. Megan pushed me to consider what the point of the retake is in the first place. Are we simply trying to give the students more points and higher grades? Or are we trying to get the students to learn the material? If the emphasis is on learning, then increasing the workload may be a good idea. The work is what causes the learning. If the emphasis is on points, then lets just let them retake it as much as they want to get more points. But why try the test again if you haven't learned any more of the concepts that you were missing in the first place?
2. Every section (i.e. chapter), students are required to take all the concepts from that section and explain or show how they all connect together into one coherent "big picture." The students almost unanimously hate doing this, and quite frankly, I hate grading it. Its always terrible, and the students complain about the grades they get. It has turned into "point-grabbing," where students are just doing it to get it done and get the points. They don't see the purpose in it because they don't really understand how all the concepts of the section are interrelated. Their idea of a connection is that we talked about temperature on two different days, therefore, those two lessons are connected. We have been grading them with points, but now we are shifting to only making it worth 1 point - you either did it or you didn't, and then giving feedback on how they can deepen their understanding of the concepts.
I spent several minutes today trying to get them to see that this requires a shift in mindset. They have to shift their thinking (and so do I) from getting a certain grade to learning the material. If they learn the material, the grade will be good. In talking about this connection sheet, they said they aren't going to do it because now it isn't graded, which shows that they are thinking about the points rather than the learning. To quote Megan, "Its not about the points, its about the learning."
This is a difficult paradigm shift for both myself and my students. All we've ever known is points. Get as many points as possible to get the good grade to get the good GPA to get into the good college to get a good job. Nowhere in that line of thinking is growth.
I think the more we can get our young people to have growth as their goal, rather than reward, the better off we will all be. Growth often requires discomfort, hard work, and error, which is why we shy away from it.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Parent v. Teacher
Parents and teachers share something in common: They both want what is best for the student. What do you do, though, when the parent and teacher completely disagree on what is best for the child?
I have come across a case like this in one of my classes. One student, we'll call him Charlie, is consistently on the verge of failing. He often is distracted by his phone, other students, or is content to simply sit and do nothing rather than work on the task at hand. He rarely comes prepared for class. He is a nice kid, and he is intelligent, too, but he just doesn't seem to care about how well he does in school, let alone chemistry. We think that he needs to show more effort and initiative, and that we can be more diligent about checking in with him, but that he is placed in the right class.
However, the parents disagree. They see that he is failing and have initiated a request to move Charlie down to KI (Key Ideas) Chemistry, a lower level class. This logic makes sense: Charlie is failing general chemistry, so let's move him into a class that goes at a slower pace with more supports so that he can keep up. The administration has really dragged their feet, though, since we believe that moving Charlie will not be beneficial for him, and therein lies the rub. The parents have become quite frustrated with this - and rightfully so. If I thought my kid needed to be moved to a different class, and the administration would not respond, I'd be very frustrated. Parents should have the say over their children's education, shouldn't they?
At the same time, teachers and their administrators should have strong input. They are, after all, the professional educators in the situation, and they see how the student interacts with the material on a daily basis. The teachers and administrators also have a deep understanding of the situation - they know exactly how the KI and general classes compare. In this case, KI would be worse for Charlie - he doesn't need more cognitive support at a slower pace - he needs to put in some work and apply himself. He would have the same problem in KI.
What do you do, then, when teachers and administration completely disagree on what is best for the student? Both parties want to do what is best for the Charlie, but they view the solution in polar opposites. This one has not yet been worked out. We are pushing for extra support (like daily check-ins) in the meantime to keep Charlie on pace. We'll have to wait and see what the outcome is.
I have come across a case like this in one of my classes. One student, we'll call him Charlie, is consistently on the verge of failing. He often is distracted by his phone, other students, or is content to simply sit and do nothing rather than work on the task at hand. He rarely comes prepared for class. He is a nice kid, and he is intelligent, too, but he just doesn't seem to care about how well he does in school, let alone chemistry. We think that he needs to show more effort and initiative, and that we can be more diligent about checking in with him, but that he is placed in the right class.
However, the parents disagree. They see that he is failing and have initiated a request to move Charlie down to KI (Key Ideas) Chemistry, a lower level class. This logic makes sense: Charlie is failing general chemistry, so let's move him into a class that goes at a slower pace with more supports so that he can keep up. The administration has really dragged their feet, though, since we believe that moving Charlie will not be beneficial for him, and therein lies the rub. The parents have become quite frustrated with this - and rightfully so. If I thought my kid needed to be moved to a different class, and the administration would not respond, I'd be very frustrated. Parents should have the say over their children's education, shouldn't they?
At the same time, teachers and their administrators should have strong input. They are, after all, the professional educators in the situation, and they see how the student interacts with the material on a daily basis. The teachers and administrators also have a deep understanding of the situation - they know exactly how the KI and general classes compare. In this case, KI would be worse for Charlie - he doesn't need more cognitive support at a slower pace - he needs to put in some work and apply himself. He would have the same problem in KI.
What do you do, then, when teachers and administration completely disagree on what is best for the student? Both parties want to do what is best for the Charlie, but they view the solution in polar opposites. This one has not yet been worked out. We are pushing for extra support (like daily check-ins) in the meantime to keep Charlie on pace. We'll have to wait and see what the outcome is.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Change, The Only Constant
Yesterday, York administered a practice ACT test to all students in the morning. After they were finished around noon, the students went home and the rest of the day was time for teachers to meet, collaborate, and get ahead or caught up on anything we need to. What I want to focus on is one of the meetings we attended. Administration split us up to meet with teachers we don't normally rub shoulders with. The meeting was meant to be a reflective and constructive discussion of how we can engage students more consistently and identify when they are engaged in the class and material. We used a few readings to launch the discussion, the first about the speed at which our society is changing and that we need to teach students how to learn and adapt to change more than to teach a certain set of facts or a rigid skill if they are going to be employable in a society that changes drastically from one decade to another - a fascinating point and topic, if you ask me.
Not everyone found it so fascinating. After reading it, a few teachers just dismissed it immediately, "I don't buy it." Another said, "This isn't a very balanced view, so I question its validity."
This is a perfect example of what is called "confirmation bias," when we tend to trust something that confirms what we already hold to be true and distrust anything that doesn't align with our preconceived ideas.
The conversation quickly devolved into a few of the teachers complaining about how the students don't take ownership of their learning, how they are inattentive and lazy, how parents don't cooperate with teachers, and several other macro level problems with education and society. Meanwhile, the other half of the teachers sat quietly for the most part. I became frustrated because all I saw was this "woe is me" victim mindset when we could have been talking about what we can do to be better teachers. I tried to redirect the conversation with a question back to the reading, but it went nowhere. The entire time, I was balancing two things in my head as I thought about whether I should speak up more: 1) Everything I say will be disregarded because I'm the student teacher in the room and 2) I have nothing to lose - I'm done in two weeks.
At the end, Jill (the other chem teacher in our group and expert on all things Google) spoke up with a great phrase: the only thing constant is change. I think it fell on deaf ears, but it was her last ditch effort to bring reality to the forefront.
The three of us walked away with one question: How can you get someone who is convinced they are doing everything right to become open to the idea of changing what they have been doing for years?
Not everyone found it so fascinating. After reading it, a few teachers just dismissed it immediately, "I don't buy it." Another said, "This isn't a very balanced view, so I question its validity."
This is a perfect example of what is called "confirmation bias," when we tend to trust something that confirms what we already hold to be true and distrust anything that doesn't align with our preconceived ideas.
The conversation quickly devolved into a few of the teachers complaining about how the students don't take ownership of their learning, how they are inattentive and lazy, how parents don't cooperate with teachers, and several other macro level problems with education and society. Meanwhile, the other half of the teachers sat quietly for the most part. I became frustrated because all I saw was this "woe is me" victim mindset when we could have been talking about what we can do to be better teachers. I tried to redirect the conversation with a question back to the reading, but it went nowhere. The entire time, I was balancing two things in my head as I thought about whether I should speak up more: 1) Everything I say will be disregarded because I'm the student teacher in the room and 2) I have nothing to lose - I'm done in two weeks.
At the end, Jill (the other chem teacher in our group and expert on all things Google) spoke up with a great phrase: the only thing constant is change. I think it fell on deaf ears, but it was her last ditch effort to bring reality to the forefront.
The three of us walked away with one question: How can you get someone who is convinced they are doing everything right to become open to the idea of changing what they have been doing for years?
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Creating Controversy
We have recently begun our weather unit, which is different from a typical weather unit in science. The curriculum uses a main theme to tie several concepts together. In the weather unit, things like phase changes and the behavior of gases are related to weather, so the other day, we talked about proportions using rain gauges. This is the introductory question:
One class in particular really got into the discussion of this question. It was a little controversial - why do we measure rain in inches, rather than in cups, milliliters, or fluid ounces? Some students took a stand that the bucket would be the best because it would catch the most water. Other students were convinced that the beaker is the best because the sides are straight up and down. Does the size of the rain gauge really matter? After they started going back and forth a bit, they all got really confused and were puzzled by the question. I "made it rain" with a watering can into a beaker and a test tube, showing that they both collect the same height of water, even though one is much larger, because height is proportional to volume.
I was impressed with how much this little bit of controversy or confusion got the students engaged in the class. Some students were literally waving their hands, saying "Pick me!" because they wanted to participate in the discussion. I usually struggle to get more than a few students talking at the beginning of class. Note to self: if they aren't talking, introduce a little controversy.
One class in particular really got into the discussion of this question. It was a little controversial - why do we measure rain in inches, rather than in cups, milliliters, or fluid ounces? Some students took a stand that the bucket would be the best because it would catch the most water. Other students were convinced that the beaker is the best because the sides are straight up and down. Does the size of the rain gauge really matter? After they started going back and forth a bit, they all got really confused and were puzzled by the question. I "made it rain" with a watering can into a beaker and a test tube, showing that they both collect the same height of water, even though one is much larger, because height is proportional to volume.
I was impressed with how much this little bit of controversy or confusion got the students engaged in the class. Some students were literally waving their hands, saying "Pick me!" because they wanted to participate in the discussion. I usually struggle to get more than a few students talking at the beginning of class. Note to self: if they aren't talking, introduce a little controversy.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Staying on Track
York, along with most other larger high schools, places students into one of three tracks. These tracks represent three different ability level groups that the students are placed in when they enter high school. At York, they are called Honors, General, and KI (Key Ideas) in the science department. In theory, tracking is a great way to meet the needs of the students - higher performing students can be grouped together and given more challenging material to push them while lower performing students can be grouped together and given the support they need as a whole class. Practice, though, doesn't always equal theory. There is a ton of research done and being done on tracking and its negative effects (Janmaat,
2011; Welner
& Oakes, 1996; Conger, 2005; Trent, 1997). It results in the two groups drifting further and further apart, and usually not because the honors students are achieving so much, but rather because the lower level classes get further and further behind. Now, this doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's consider the alternative: is a class of 1/3 honors level kids that are bored, 1/3 of general kids that are challenged, and 1/3 KI kids that are overwhelmed any better?
All this is background to what I have seen recently in two different students, X, and Y.
X has been struggling for some time in my general level class. She is in my lowest performing section of general chemistry. I have seen how her peers in that class add to her obstacles rather than helping her overcome them. Her peers in that class are not helpful, because they also often don't know what they're doing and contribute to the distractions. X recently moved from my class to KI, since she just couldn't keep up. I think she certainly could have kept up. She could have put in some extra time with Megan or I and got back on track (no pun intended). As Megan and I talked about her move, though, we came to agree that moving to KI isn't really going to support her any more. The material moves slower, but KI classes are often full of even more distractions, less challenging material, and lower expectations. I think X moved from a bad environment to a worse one, and now she is stuck there for the year and likely will stay as a "KI kid" in the years to come.
Y is a struggling student in my highest performing general chemistry class. She came up as we were talking about X. She's a great example of someone who is benefiting from her peers. Because she just happened to be placed in a section of chemistry with a lot of other hard working, motivated, and intelligent students, she reaps the benefit of that positive environment. Had she landed in one of my other sections, I think she would be struggling even more. Her lab group partners help her understand the material and the atmosphere in the classroom helps to keep her engaged and pushing herself. She is certainly still struggling, but she is better off just because of the people she happens to sit with.
There are a ton of factors in each student's development and education that are just "the luck of the draw." Sometimes, I begin to take this truth too far, though. Just because there are random forces acting on us, that doesn't mean we are just getting tossed to and fro in the waves of a great ocean. We can swim, too, you know, and we have a responsibility to do so.
All this is background to what I have seen recently in two different students, X, and Y.
X has been struggling for some time in my general level class. She is in my lowest performing section of general chemistry. I have seen how her peers in that class add to her obstacles rather than helping her overcome them. Her peers in that class are not helpful, because they also often don't know what they're doing and contribute to the distractions. X recently moved from my class to KI, since she just couldn't keep up. I think she certainly could have kept up. She could have put in some extra time with Megan or I and got back on track (no pun intended). As Megan and I talked about her move, though, we came to agree that moving to KI isn't really going to support her any more. The material moves slower, but KI classes are often full of even more distractions, less challenging material, and lower expectations. I think X moved from a bad environment to a worse one, and now she is stuck there for the year and likely will stay as a "KI kid" in the years to come.
Y is a struggling student in my highest performing general chemistry class. She came up as we were talking about X. She's a great example of someone who is benefiting from her peers. Because she just happened to be placed in a section of chemistry with a lot of other hard working, motivated, and intelligent students, she reaps the benefit of that positive environment. Had she landed in one of my other sections, I think she would be struggling even more. Her lab group partners help her understand the material and the atmosphere in the classroom helps to keep her engaged and pushing herself. She is certainly still struggling, but she is better off just because of the people she happens to sit with.
There are a ton of factors in each student's development and education that are just "the luck of the draw." Sometimes, I begin to take this truth too far, though. Just because there are random forces acting on us, that doesn't mean we are just getting tossed to and fro in the waves of a great ocean. We can swim, too, you know, and we have a responsibility to do so.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)