Some of the things that I learned from the class were different uses of technology, about different professional websites, and how to create a curriculum.
During this class, I tried to get out of my comfort zone and try out some new ways to deliver an assignment. I had never used VoiceThread, Prezi, or created a Podcast. By having exposure to these, I see many uses for them in a classroom. One VoiceThread, you can have discussions with the students and they can give feedback to others. For Prezi, older students can create cool looking presentations. I would probably use a Podcast to place on my teacher website. It could explain a lesson, an assignment, etc.
I was also able to do some researching on professional websites like Edutopia and Free Technology for Teachers. They had great ideas that would make things so much easier in the classroom and ideas of things you can do in the classroom.
I am also more comfortable if I would need to create a curriculum. In the past, I always had someone guiding me along the way, telling me what I had to do. Now, I can work with others to help create a curriculum. I just need to remember the "golden rule:" if we figure out the goal we have in mind, we just work backwards from there to find out what students will be doing and what we will be teaching to get the students to that goal.
I am hoping to keep this blog to be able to talk with other people about teaching, curriculum and different ideas that we can share.
I think having a blog among teacher is out district would be a great idea! We don't always get to see each other and this would be a great place to share ideas, clarify things that are going on, etc. I may mention this to my administrator. I think it would be great to have a place where we can share our ideas.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Monday, September 8, 2014
Key Ideas
One of the key ideas that Jacobs talks about is that teachers should determine what it is that they want students to know and be able to do before creating an activity. By knowing what our end result should be, it is easier to plan. Teachers will know what the objectives are and what they expect their students to know and accomplish. If teachers don't have an end point, how will they know when to stop teaching? How will they know when students have learned what was suppose to be taught? How will they know when the standard has been met? If teachers design their lesson backwards, then they will know what they want the results to be, making it easier to create a curriculum.
Another key idea that Jacobs talks about is to modernize our education. She says that we can't modernize it by using computers instead of typewriters. We need to start with the basics; we need to start evaluating our assessments. If we revise our assessments, we will know what standard we want our students to meet. Once we have revised the assessments, then we move on to the content and the skills that are being taught. If we only revise the assessment, we won't be teaching the right skills for students to learn to pass the assessments. Again, if we start at the end and work backwards, it will be easier. How can you create a curriculum if you don't know what you want your students to gain from it? If we change our assessments to standards-based, it will be a step in the right direction. Then we will know what we have to teach to our students so they can meet the standard.
A question that Jacobs asks is "Are the students in the United States being prepared for the present and the future...? When I was in school, which wasn't that long ago, I was taught the same way school is taught now, and there are a lot of people that I know that are successful, so why can't we keep teaching this way? We can't because the world is constantly changing. When I think of changing technology, I think of cell phones. You buy a cell phone and within six months, they have a new version of your phone and yours is considered ancient. If the world is changing this quickly, we need to try to stay up to speed, so our students can be ready to face college, or the employment world, once they leave high school. I feel that our students are "ready" for the future, but there is so much more that we can show them so they are truly ready. We can introduce them to different careers, different ways of learning, different ways to showcase their learning, etc. Students need to be introduced to multiple things to make them a well-rounded learner. They need to be challenged more. If they can show that they know how to add 4 digit whole numbers, have them explain their steps and why they are doing those steps. The more we get our students to think, the more they exercise their brains, the more successful they will be.
Jacobs says that one way we can upgrade our curriculum is by doing the following: change the schedule, change the grouping pattern of learners, change the grouping pattern of professionals, and change the space. If we change the way a school day looks, our students might be more successful.
If we put students on learning pathways, they get introduced to careers that they are interested in. This way they can determine if this is something that they want to do when they are older or if they wouldn't like it at all. By being introduced to a career early, they won't have to go through college, work a few years in the career they chose, and then realize that they don't like it. Then they go back to college to try to find something else they would like. We need to have our students experience the different career choices. We need to put them in a hospital, if they want to go into the medical field, or put them in a potato field if they want to be an agricultural farmer. We need to change the way we prepare our students, so they can be successful once they leave high school. The school days could be extended, giving more learning opportunities; the teachers wouldn't be limited on time. If we have longer days, we could have short weeks. Students could go to school from Monday to Thursday. On Fridays, they could take online classes, college classes or go out in the community and gain some work experience. The high school in Fort Kent offers a program that allows their high school students to take a certain amount of college classes a semester. This gives the students an advantage for when they go to college because (1) they will have almost a whole year done when they graduate and (2) they will have experienced college classes, so they will know what to expect. We can change the grouping of the professionals by try to get more male teachers to teach at the elementary level and more women to teach at the high school level. Also, instead of always having teachers teaching, have professionals come into the school to teach the kids something. Having a different face and a different way of teaching can help students be more successful. They may create a connection to a different teacher and want to learn more from them because they find them interesting. The more exposure that students have to different people teaching them things, the more experiences they will gain. To change the space of learning may be a little more difficult. One change could be that students are at home listening to the lesson being taught instead of being in the classroom. The students could be out working in the fields they are interested in, instead of sitting in a classroom. Changing the grouping of pattern learners worries me a little. I am worried about the second grade student who is reading at a middle school level being grouped with middle level students. Socially and emotionally, this isn't a good idea. If students are to be grouped according to their learning abilities, I feel that they should be grouped at an elementary level, a middle/high school level. Elementary students should be no where near middle and high school students. How would that second grader feel? How would the middle level student feel? I understand that if they are ready to be learning at that level then they should be, but this is why we have differentiated instruction. Within a classroom, or small learning groups, teachers should be able to challenge all levels of learning in their classrooms.
By challenging our students and giving them many learning opportunities outside of the classrooms, I hope we are getting them ready for the future.
Another key idea that Jacobs talks about is to modernize our education. She says that we can't modernize it by using computers instead of typewriters. We need to start with the basics; we need to start evaluating our assessments. If we revise our assessments, we will know what standard we want our students to meet. Once we have revised the assessments, then we move on to the content and the skills that are being taught. If we only revise the assessment, we won't be teaching the right skills for students to learn to pass the assessments. Again, if we start at the end and work backwards, it will be easier. How can you create a curriculum if you don't know what you want your students to gain from it? If we change our assessments to standards-based, it will be a step in the right direction. Then we will know what we have to teach to our students so they can meet the standard.
A question that Jacobs asks is "Are the students in the United States being prepared for the present and the future...? When I was in school, which wasn't that long ago, I was taught the same way school is taught now, and there are a lot of people that I know that are successful, so why can't we keep teaching this way? We can't because the world is constantly changing. When I think of changing technology, I think of cell phones. You buy a cell phone and within six months, they have a new version of your phone and yours is considered ancient. If the world is changing this quickly, we need to try to stay up to speed, so our students can be ready to face college, or the employment world, once they leave high school. I feel that our students are "ready" for the future, but there is so much more that we can show them so they are truly ready. We can introduce them to different careers, different ways of learning, different ways to showcase their learning, etc. Students need to be introduced to multiple things to make them a well-rounded learner. They need to be challenged more. If they can show that they know how to add 4 digit whole numbers, have them explain their steps and why they are doing those steps. The more we get our students to think, the more they exercise their brains, the more successful they will be.
Jacobs says that one way we can upgrade our curriculum is by doing the following: change the schedule, change the grouping pattern of learners, change the grouping pattern of professionals, and change the space. If we change the way a school day looks, our students might be more successful.
If we put students on learning pathways, they get introduced to careers that they are interested in. This way they can determine if this is something that they want to do when they are older or if they wouldn't like it at all. By being introduced to a career early, they won't have to go through college, work a few years in the career they chose, and then realize that they don't like it. Then they go back to college to try to find something else they would like. We need to have our students experience the different career choices. We need to put them in a hospital, if they want to go into the medical field, or put them in a potato field if they want to be an agricultural farmer. We need to change the way we prepare our students, so they can be successful once they leave high school. The school days could be extended, giving more learning opportunities; the teachers wouldn't be limited on time. If we have longer days, we could have short weeks. Students could go to school from Monday to Thursday. On Fridays, they could take online classes, college classes or go out in the community and gain some work experience. The high school in Fort Kent offers a program that allows their high school students to take a certain amount of college classes a semester. This gives the students an advantage for when they go to college because (1) they will have almost a whole year done when they graduate and (2) they will have experienced college classes, so they will know what to expect. We can change the grouping of the professionals by try to get more male teachers to teach at the elementary level and more women to teach at the high school level. Also, instead of always having teachers teaching, have professionals come into the school to teach the kids something. Having a different face and a different way of teaching can help students be more successful. They may create a connection to a different teacher and want to learn more from them because they find them interesting. The more exposure that students have to different people teaching them things, the more experiences they will gain. To change the space of learning may be a little more difficult. One change could be that students are at home listening to the lesson being taught instead of being in the classroom. The students could be out working in the fields they are interested in, instead of sitting in a classroom. Changing the grouping of pattern learners worries me a little. I am worried about the second grade student who is reading at a middle school level being grouped with middle level students. Socially and emotionally, this isn't a good idea. If students are to be grouped according to their learning abilities, I feel that they should be grouped at an elementary level, a middle/high school level. Elementary students should be no where near middle and high school students. How would that second grader feel? How would the middle level student feel? I understand that if they are ready to be learning at that level then they should be, but this is why we have differentiated instruction. Within a classroom, or small learning groups, teachers should be able to challenge all levels of learning in their classrooms.
By challenging our students and giving them many learning opportunities outside of the classrooms, I hope we are getting them ready for the future.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Persistent Issue
An issue that I think my school has is tracking student progress. There is always talk about it, but it seems like no one does it. After doing a little research, it seems like tracking student progress is beneficial to the student. They get the see how they are progressing throughout a unit.
Instead of getting assignments or tests back with a numerical grade on it, teacher could place a "grade" of 1-4. With this "grade", the students can track it on a chart that is posted on a wall, in their folders etc. These charts can be used to show parents how their child has been progressing throughout the school year. When students know their charts are going to be displayed, they try harder.
Teachers can, and should, check student progress during a lesson also. They shouldn't keep moving through the lesson without stopping to give feedback or to see if students are understanding the material. Teachers can check students' understanding by asking them to show them their understanding on a scale of 1-4. 1 being they don't understand and 4 being that they understand and can demonstrate their learning. By having this quick check, teachers can help students on the spot and not when its too late into the lesson. For example, if a student doesn't understand the second step in long division, then they won't be able to complete the problem. If the teacher stops and ask if they are understanding the material, they can help at the second step instead of moving on the finish the problem.
The only issue that I think tracking would pose would be honesty. Students are going to have to be honest when they track their progress or hold up their fingers to show their understanding. If a student says that they understand the material, but they actually don't, then they are actually hurting themselves. A solution to this would be to give entry or exit tasks as well. This way the teacher will be able to see where the students are solving the problems wrong.
Instead of getting assignments or tests back with a numerical grade on it, teacher could place a "grade" of 1-4. With this "grade", the students can track it on a chart that is posted on a wall, in their folders etc. These charts can be used to show parents how their child has been progressing throughout the school year. When students know their charts are going to be displayed, they try harder.
Teachers can, and should, check student progress during a lesson also. They shouldn't keep moving through the lesson without stopping to give feedback or to see if students are understanding the material. Teachers can check students' understanding by asking them to show them their understanding on a scale of 1-4. 1 being they don't understand and 4 being that they understand and can demonstrate their learning. By having this quick check, teachers can help students on the spot and not when its too late into the lesson. For example, if a student doesn't understand the second step in long division, then they won't be able to complete the problem. If the teacher stops and ask if they are understanding the material, they can help at the second step instead of moving on the finish the problem.
The only issue that I think tracking would pose would be honesty. Students are going to have to be honest when they track their progress or hold up their fingers to show their understanding. If a student says that they understand the material, but they actually don't, then they are actually hurting themselves. A solution to this would be to give entry or exit tasks as well. This way the teacher will be able to see where the students are solving the problems wrong.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Common Core
After reading the articles about Common Core, I am not sure where to stand, for or against. At first I was for Common Core. My principal explained it so well. It sounded like students will be more successful with the Common Core than what was in place before. She talked about "learning pathways" that students could take. If students were interested in nursing, they would take a lot of science classes and maybe attend the vocational school's nursing program. Or if someone wanted to go into business they would take math and computer classes. This all sounded so great!
Then I read Diane Ravitch's article. It changed my mind. She makes Common Core sound like educators had nothing to do with the making of it. She makes it sound like it was all political. She talked about how NCLB and Common Core rely on standardized tests. There are some schools that would only teach to the tests. If the students were going to be tested on math and literacy, that is all they taught. How can we get students to become well-rounded learners if they aren't learning about science, social studies, arts, P.E., health, etc.? What if some of those students were our next astronauts, scientist, or historians? They would have never gotten to experience all those subjects that would have made them great.
Ravitch also stated that our students are the most over-tested students in the world. So, what are the other high-preforming countries doing differently? Their students are successful and preforming great on standardized tests.
One thing that Common Core or standardized test measures is the child's home life. Some of these students come from foster families, a home with one parents, some are hungry, and some haven't bathed, some come from low income families. Some students come from homes with two, loving parents, homes with books, plenty of food, and clean clothes. These students are going to perform differently on a test than the students that are hungry. Some how, this needs to be incorporated on how we evaluate out students.
Ravitch also stated that the Common Core will take 12 years to show any effect. In 12 years our government will be moved on to something else!
So, is the Common Core good, or bad?
Then I read Diane Ravitch's article. It changed my mind. She makes Common Core sound like educators had nothing to do with the making of it. She makes it sound like it was all political. She talked about how NCLB and Common Core rely on standardized tests. There are some schools that would only teach to the tests. If the students were going to be tested on math and literacy, that is all they taught. How can we get students to become well-rounded learners if they aren't learning about science, social studies, arts, P.E., health, etc.? What if some of those students were our next astronauts, scientist, or historians? They would have never gotten to experience all those subjects that would have made them great.
Ravitch also stated that our students are the most over-tested students in the world. So, what are the other high-preforming countries doing differently? Their students are successful and preforming great on standardized tests.
One thing that Common Core or standardized test measures is the child's home life. Some of these students come from foster families, a home with one parents, some are hungry, and some haven't bathed, some come from low income families. Some students come from homes with two, loving parents, homes with books, plenty of food, and clean clothes. These students are going to perform differently on a test than the students that are hungry. Some how, this needs to be incorporated on how we evaluate out students.
Ravitch also stated that the Common Core will take 12 years to show any effect. In 12 years our government will be moved on to something else!
So, is the Common Core good, or bad?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)