A Busy Night

Well Denis missed some wonderful presentations. I hope both Gary and Denis are feeling better soon.

It was very interesting to hear the Kaiser report once again. The last time we discussed it was back at the beginning of the course, and I like to think that some of my opinions and thoughts have been shaped and molded since I read the report some time ago. Lana gave an interesting perspective on the report. When organizations are involved in big research studies I immediately become suspect. Like Mike pointed out in his previous post, I was surprised that the data suggested kids today are still just as active as the kids before media use was so prevalent. I see two trends at my school: kids who play every sport, and who are involved in everything; and kids who are not so active. Either way all of these kids have cell phones, i-pods and can multitask. I thought it was very insightful for Lana to give the example of the two students in her class and how they interact with technology. For one student he was able to benefit and get his work done when listening to music, and for another she was "rocking out" and could not get anything done. As a teacher it would be very hard to convince the individual kids of such differences, and it would be even harder to allow one kid to use the i-pod and another one not to use the ipod in the same class. I allow kids to use i-pods during silent study/work time. This study verifies for me that most kids can in fact multitask. At the same time students see media as primarily an entertainment device so we must be careful about the use of media in the classroom. It is a lot more fun to play a game on your i-pod than it is to use the calculator on it so it puts teachers in a difficult position. I am almost at the point where I will take the risk in my classroom and allow students to use i-pods and other wireless devices on a more consistent basis. All I need to do is trust them.

The e-learning presentation by Roman was equally interesting. The main point from this article as I see it is, e-learning will not take off until it is supported by faculty. These programs are more expensive to run than traditional classrooms, and they take more time to run. Why would someone knowingly sign on to something that will take more time out of their lives without being appropriately compensated? As a result, e-learning is only ever going to be popular and successful in the case where there is need; and the need is in rural areas that do not have the same educational opportunities of bigger centers.

Roland's presentation on 21st Century Skills was well done. The background into the American political structure was both informative and entertaining. As Roland pointed out the battle between the left and the right has been going on for a long time now. This battle is no different than the one that has been going on in mathematics: The traditional standards versus the reform standards. I am currently reading a book entitled Assessing Mathematical Proficiency by Alan H. Schoenfeld, and Schoenfeld cites several studies that assert that the chosen standards do make a difference:
Students who experienced skills-focused instruction tend to master relevant skills, but do not do well on tests of problem solving and conceptual understanding. Students who study more broad-based curricula tend to do reasonably well on tests of skills (that is, their performance on skills-oriented tests is not statistically different from the performance of students in skills-oriented courses), and they do much better than those students on assessments of conceptual understanding and problem solving. (pp. 63-64)
I agree with a lot of what the 21st document has to say, but it is not about creating new courses it is about infusing those ideas into our core curriculum. Reform based math calls for all of the skills that are in the 21st Century Document. Creativity, critical thinking, problem solving, flexibility, and leadership are a few of the skills that need to be stressed in our math classes. Students need to see math being used in appropriate contexts so that they can identify with the math and see it as something useful. Please click on the following link and read this quote by Schoenfeld:
In short, if you believe that mathematics is not supposed to make sense, and that working mathematics problems involves rather meaningless operations on symbols, you will produce nonsensical responses such as these. (p. 70)

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2007). Assessing Mathematical Proficiency. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Learning, Training, Olympics and Drinking

Well it seems like an eternity since I lasted blogged so I have a lot of catching up to do. Firstly, the presentations I have been viewing over the last few weeks have been very well done. It is amazing how much information is getting packed into these 30 minute sessions.

The first presentation on the Kirschner article was a welcomed relief to math teachers who still teach math as they were taught. This method of teaching is the traditional instructional approach that follows two basic steps. Step One: Here are some examples. During this step the teacher puts the examples and the board and the students copy them down (never to look at them again). Step two: The students are assigned the odd number exercises in the text book. During this step the students complete 53 questions exactly like the examples, and if they get stuck they should refer back to the examples and try to think harder. If they get stuck a lot then they should take consumer math.

Luckily no teacher that I know is like this. Most Teachers fall somewhere in between a traditional (guided) instructional approach and a minimally guided instructional approach. When I first started teaching I was more on the side of traditional instruction; After all mathematics consists of right and wrong answers with set procedures to help you arrive at the correct answer. What I began to notice was that following this approach students eventually started losing their ability to think. If there was any sort of twist to a problem, students would become discouraged, frustrated and give up. (Now I am sounding like Oppenheimer). To students in a traditional classroom, it is all about the right answer, and what they are learning seems insignificant. To encourage my students to become better problem solvers, I have adapted an inquiry approach to many of the concepts that we discuss in class. Students figure out for themselves, for example, how different formulas relate to graphs. How the discriminant determines what the quadratic graph will look like. One point that I totally agree with Kirscher is "discovery learning is only successful when students have prerequisite knowledge...."(p. 82) The teacher must demonstrate good mathematics, but at the same time allow the students develop their own context for mathematics. The way I see math is very different from 10 years ago. Now I see my role as developing problem solvers; to not only show students how to think, but to allow them to think. Ten years after my students have left high school math, they will forget most of the procedures and algorithms I taught them; but hopefully they are still good problem solvers. If they are good problem solvers then they are well on their way to having a good life.

Another point that came up in several presentations is the importance of training teachers how to use technology. During my presentation I shared with you that schools should budget 25% for software; 25% for hardware, 50% for planning, training and other support. Oppenheimer stated that most schools only leave 10-15% for both maintenance and training. It is sad to think that all the money is spent before the teachers learn how to use the technologies. What a waste. I do see evidence of this at my school. What about you guys?

Lastly I will not talk too much about the "Maple leaf Forever" song other than to say that O'Canada was all used up so they needed to go with another standby. It was a great song, but the world wide viewing audience (myself included) was not aware of the history that surrounds this song. It was all about the entertainment value, and the song happened to fit. The whole image around the Vancouver Olympics was quite interesting. My Principal was mentioning how it is shocking of the number of athletes that were drinking on television. She, being a national athlete herself, is well aware that athletes can drink and celebrate with the best of them, but was disappointed that this was reported on so extensively during the games by the media. I really think the "reporting" was a successful attempt to make Vancouver and Whistler appear to be hip. How many times did we hear "Canadians can really party!" during these games? I think Apple and Whistler are trying to attract the same demographic: The young twenty and thirty something reality TV generation that has money to spend and likes to party. The level of excitement surrounding the Games is similar to the “consumer level of excitement” that the technology industry strives to create. Hmm, excitement! Maybe Whistler for spring break!