In Chapter 11 of the Skillful Teacher, the authors review eight main models of teaching, patterns of instruction, the difference between the two categories, and offer current outlooks on the topics. The models of teaching are grouped into four "families" of information processing, social, personal and behavioral. Each family focuses on a different area of the learner's development and leverages that area to transfer knowledge and skills.
What I found most interesting was the description of the Advanced Organizer Method. It gave a description of a method that helps students to find meaning in the content due to the subject's own interrelatedness. It cited math as a specific example and it was easy to see how this might help to push students forward. If I (or any other teacher for that matter) was able to get students invested enough in math, this approach could easily lock them into continuing to stay invested. Getting ninth graders to recongize the intrigue of how math all comes together would be the lynch pin for maximizing this model.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Indirect Teaching Methods: Let's find out together, shall we?
Moore, Kenneth D. Effective Instructional Strategies. Chapter 6: Using Indirect Teaching Methods
In this chapter, Moore tackles the more progressive styles of teaching, indirect methods that follow discussion-based and heuristic strategies. The Discussion Method is a valuable, if underused, technique that allows students to supply much of their own content and to reach conclusions mostly on their own. The two main heuristic strategies examined were discovery learning and inquiry learning. Each method relies on the students to engage new material (armed with background knowledge and a bit of teacher guidance) to solve or explore problems independently. These methods can yield an impressive amount of self-motivation and retention but also are very costly in terms of planning time and structure.
As an Algebra teacher, I see room for this technique, but only for certain topics within my content. Algebra requires a great deal of skill development and serves as an essential foundation for all other math and science, thus lending itself less to consistently indirect teaching methods. For other subjects such as science, social studies, and language arts, the utility of these methods is far more transparent to me. Students can see a chemical reaction and surmise how is occurred or they can study events in history and literature and develop theories on the impact of those events.
For mathematics, we can work together to derive some formulas and Properties, but the value in students discovering these things on their own seems lower than for other content areas. As I have discussed before, I also harbor concerns about how effective this type of strategy is in classrooms where self-motivation is lacking. In my mind, self-motivation would have to be established in order to use these indirect methods effectively.
In this chapter, Moore tackles the more progressive styles of teaching, indirect methods that follow discussion-based and heuristic strategies. The Discussion Method is a valuable, if underused, technique that allows students to supply much of their own content and to reach conclusions mostly on their own. The two main heuristic strategies examined were discovery learning and inquiry learning. Each method relies on the students to engage new material (armed with background knowledge and a bit of teacher guidance) to solve or explore problems independently. These methods can yield an impressive amount of self-motivation and retention but also are very costly in terms of planning time and structure.
As an Algebra teacher, I see room for this technique, but only for certain topics within my content. Algebra requires a great deal of skill development and serves as an essential foundation for all other math and science, thus lending itself less to consistently indirect teaching methods. For other subjects such as science, social studies, and language arts, the utility of these methods is far more transparent to me. Students can see a chemical reaction and surmise how is occurred or they can study events in history and literature and develop theories on the impact of those events.
For mathematics, we can work together to derive some formulas and Properties, but the value in students discovering these things on their own seems lower than for other content areas. As I have discussed before, I also harbor concerns about how effective this type of strategy is in classrooms where self-motivation is lacking. In my mind, self-motivation would have to be established in order to use these indirect methods effectively.
Direct Teaching Methods: Get to the Point Already
Moore, Kenneth D. Effective Instructional Strategies. Chapter 5: Using Direct Teaching Methods
Moore outlines the major pros and cons of direct instruction in the fifth chapter of his book, Effective Instructional Strategies. While direct instruction has gotten a bad rap for being too traditional and teacher-focused, Mr. Moore was able to illuminate both sides of the debate. On one hand, there is merit to the current criticism; direct instruction is a low student-involvement method that is often employed due to the limited planning required. Conversely, it is an efficient way to express material and can be done in a manner which invites engagement. Specifically, the way in which questioning is used to augment the lecture can allow a teacher to turn a potential ineffective method into a potent way to transfer knowledge and skills to students.
In reading this chapter, it struck me that a great weakness with lecture is that it is often used as a crutch to take the place of more considered instruction. When teachers are using plain vanilla lecture as a way to means of simplifying their lives, no doubt it is an ineffective strategy. In my experience, when I give lessons in a lecture format but supplement them with student questioning and numerous examples, I feel as though I have intentionally chosen an efficient, effective method. Making certain to use questioning to extract potential misunderstandings (Are you sure that's a negative 7? Why wouldn't it be positive?) and involving students with solving small parts of large equations has proven successful in mitigating the downsides of lecture.
Moore outlines the major pros and cons of direct instruction in the fifth chapter of his book, Effective Instructional Strategies. While direct instruction has gotten a bad rap for being too traditional and teacher-focused, Mr. Moore was able to illuminate both sides of the debate. On one hand, there is merit to the current criticism; direct instruction is a low student-involvement method that is often employed due to the limited planning required. Conversely, it is an efficient way to express material and can be done in a manner which invites engagement. Specifically, the way in which questioning is used to augment the lecture can allow a teacher to turn a potential ineffective method into a potent way to transfer knowledge and skills to students.
In reading this chapter, it struck me that a great weakness with lecture is that it is often used as a crutch to take the place of more considered instruction. When teachers are using plain vanilla lecture as a way to means of simplifying their lives, no doubt it is an ineffective strategy. In my experience, when I give lessons in a lecture format but supplement them with student questioning and numerous examples, I feel as though I have intentionally chosen an efficient, effective method. Making certain to use questioning to extract potential misunderstandings (Are you sure that's a negative 7? Why wouldn't it be positive?) and involving students with solving small parts of large equations has proven successful in mitigating the downsides of lecture.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Standards-Based Instruction
Thompson, Carla J. “Preparation, practice, and performance: An empirical examination of the impact of Standards-based Instruction on secondary students' math and science achievement.” Research in Education; May2009, Issue 81, p53-62. EBScohost 16 Sept 09.
Preparation, practice, and performance: An empirical examination of the impact of Standards-based Instruction on secondary students' math and science achievement” provides an analysis of a study done in Oklahoma City from 2000-2002. The study involved over 10,000 student participants and tracked the impact of the use of Standards-based Instruction (SBI) on students standardized test scores. The research showed that there was empirical support for the effectiveness of SBI, in particular the P3: Preparation, Practice, and Performance framework. The study was significant both because of its magnitude (and correspondent reliability) and because of its affirmation of the claims made by SBI reform advocates.
In addition to the overall conclusion that SBI is effective, there were many intriguing trends between varying gender and ethnic groups. For example, it was found that for females manipulatives and self-assessment were effective in math where males’ success was more likely to be achieved through the use of calculators. My personal experience in teaching math aligns well with this claim. I have certainly seen the males in my classroom rely on calculators due to poor arithmetic skills where the females are more likely to need tools for the bigger picture of concepts.
One potential weakness that I detect in the study is the issue of how frequently SBI techniques are employed. It discusses the reality that SBI is just taking root, but it concerns me that rather than an attribute of the current educational landscape, the rarity of SBI is cause for a greater weakness in the study. Supposing that the primarily innovative, reflective teachers are the ones that choose to pursue the newer SBI methods, are those also likely to simply be better teachers? Regardless of the type of activity that is being used, a better teacher should have better results. I would be curious to see how well that discrepancy could be accounted for in future studies.
Preparation, practice, and performance: An empirical examination of the impact of Standards-based Instruction on secondary students' math and science achievement” provides an analysis of a study done in Oklahoma City from 2000-2002. The study involved over 10,000 student participants and tracked the impact of the use of Standards-based Instruction (SBI) on students standardized test scores. The research showed that there was empirical support for the effectiveness of SBI, in particular the P3: Preparation, Practice, and Performance framework. The study was significant both because of its magnitude (and correspondent reliability) and because of its affirmation of the claims made by SBI reform advocates.
In addition to the overall conclusion that SBI is effective, there were many intriguing trends between varying gender and ethnic groups. For example, it was found that for females manipulatives and self-assessment were effective in math where males’ success was more likely to be achieved through the use of calculators. My personal experience in teaching math aligns well with this claim. I have certainly seen the males in my classroom rely on calculators due to poor arithmetic skills where the females are more likely to need tools for the bigger picture of concepts.
One potential weakness that I detect in the study is the issue of how frequently SBI techniques are employed. It discusses the reality that SBI is just taking root, but it concerns me that rather than an attribute of the current educational landscape, the rarity of SBI is cause for a greater weakness in the study. Supposing that the primarily innovative, reflective teachers are the ones that choose to pursue the newer SBI methods, are those also likely to simply be better teachers? Regardless of the type of activity that is being used, a better teacher should have better results. I would be curious to see how well that discrepancy could be accounted for in future studies.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Assessments: Self vs. Teacher Administered
“Student Self Evaluation, Teacher Evaluation, and Learner Performace.” Oline, Zone and Howard J Sullivan. Educational Technology Research & Development; 2004, Vol. 52 Issue 3, p5-22, 18p. Ebscohost. 16 Sept 09.
“Student Self Evaluation, Teacher Evaluation, and Learner Performance.” reported on a study that researched the efficacy of different assessment methods. The comparison was drawn between different administrators of assessment: self, teacher, or self-plus-teacher (along with a control without in-program evaluation). Using eight teachers and 341 high school students, the study was conducted in Latvian school over the course of a 12 lesson long program of study. An independent evaluator rated the efficacy of each method and determined that the students who used self-plus-teacher evaluations were best. Additionally, the evaluator determined that while those students earned higher ratings, there was a ancillary benefit for students who did self-evaluation because of the increase in self-confidence in their mastery of the unit.
Many of the conclusions made were simply logical and none-too-surprising. The most comprehensive form of assessment proved to be the most effective, not doubt because it offers the widest cross-section of students with a method that worked for him or her personally. Without explicitly differentiating each lesson, this format does build in differentiation because students will experience their preferred method at least some of the time. This could certainly supplement any displeasure or frustration with the misfit of the non-preferred method.
The study evoked much more curiosity from me during the discussion of the self-administered assessment. Student expressed a concern about not know if they were being sufficiently objective in their evaluations. One subject gave the following quote, “I think that is very difficult to evaluate oneself. When writing your work you already think that it is the best. And you write it in a way that you find the best. I don’t know. It is very hard [to evaluate oneself].” This student does not sound like the majority of my students. While many teachers lament the lack of student questions, my experience is that students will (persistently) ask questions when confused and are often helpless to move forward until given assistance.
What would the self-assessment model look like for my keiki or for low-achieving students in general? I can’t imagine most of my kids telling me they are sure that they think most of their answers are “the best” or even correct. I suspect that they would be all too likely to grade only at the extremes. In my use of self-reflective behavior grades, I saw many ratings of A and D but many fewer B and C grades. Whether this has to do with their academic profiles or could be corrected with a clear rubric to explain expectations, I am not sure. I am much more sure that I am more confident in the idea of moderation in all things and the use of mixed self-and-teacher evaluations.
“Student Self Evaluation, Teacher Evaluation, and Learner Performance.” reported on a study that researched the efficacy of different assessment methods. The comparison was drawn between different administrators of assessment: self, teacher, or self-plus-teacher (along with a control without in-program evaluation). Using eight teachers and 341 high school students, the study was conducted in Latvian school over the course of a 12 lesson long program of study. An independent evaluator rated the efficacy of each method and determined that the students who used self-plus-teacher evaluations were best. Additionally, the evaluator determined that while those students earned higher ratings, there was a ancillary benefit for students who did self-evaluation because of the increase in self-confidence in their mastery of the unit.
Many of the conclusions made were simply logical and none-too-surprising. The most comprehensive form of assessment proved to be the most effective, not doubt because it offers the widest cross-section of students with a method that worked for him or her personally. Without explicitly differentiating each lesson, this format does build in differentiation because students will experience their preferred method at least some of the time. This could certainly supplement any displeasure or frustration with the misfit of the non-preferred method.
The study evoked much more curiosity from me during the discussion of the self-administered assessment. Student expressed a concern about not know if they were being sufficiently objective in their evaluations. One subject gave the following quote, “I think that is very difficult to evaluate oneself. When writing your work you already think that it is the best. And you write it in a way that you find the best. I don’t know. It is very hard [to evaluate oneself].” This student does not sound like the majority of my students. While many teachers lament the lack of student questions, my experience is that students will (persistently) ask questions when confused and are often helpless to move forward until given assistance.
What would the self-assessment model look like for my keiki or for low-achieving students in general? I can’t imagine most of my kids telling me they are sure that they think most of their answers are “the best” or even correct. I suspect that they would be all too likely to grade only at the extremes. In my use of self-reflective behavior grades, I saw many ratings of A and D but many fewer B and C grades. Whether this has to do with their academic profiles or could be corrected with a clear rubric to explain expectations, I am not sure. I am much more sure that I am more confident in the idea of moderation in all things and the use of mixed self-and-teacher evaluations.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
