I read a post on facebook today about things in the real world that students don't learn in school. It got me thinking about how we spiral everything in Geometry and Algebra 2. Here's how it works...
We teach a brand new unit for about 2 weeks. During that time, we review something from a particular previous unit each day so that by the end of those two weeks, they have learned all the new material a little bit each day and reviewed all the "spiral" material a little bit each day. Then we give two tests, one over the new material and one over the "spiral" material. By doing this, they will experience all material once as new and a second time as spiral. This will allow them to take two tests over every unit. Their first test score affects their grade, but if they score higher on the second test, they get to keep just the higher score. If they score lower on the second test, we average the two test scores. Most students score higher on the second test because of the continued practice and our ability as teachers to address their misconceptions and target what they didn't do well on. We do our best to use their first test as formative data to help improve student understanding before they retest a few weeks later.
Students now ask things like, "Is this test new or spiral?" and "So this is the one that actually counts?" There are numerous kids that pass Geometry and Algebra 2 because they get to test everything twice. If they only got one chance, we would have quite a few more kids failing, we would be dealing with the nightmare of retesting outside of class time and kids that end up being a unit behind for the rest of the year... We have more kids passing, more kids showing learning and retention, students remember more when it comes to the final semester test, and that's a good thing, right?
Well, there are also negatives... Let's say Bob gets a B in Algebra 2. Had he only had one test over everything he would have gotten a C or a D. Bob thinks he's pretty much a natural at math. He didn't do any work outside of class, but he saw the material over and over because of spiraling and that resulted in a higher grade for Bob. He legitimately learned the material at a B understanding, but that was in thanks to the repetition he received in class and not the outside work that he put in to get questions answered, misconceptions cleared up, and to prepare for tests. Bob hits Trig/Pre-Calc and things change... He only gets one chance to test over each unit. He goes into the class thinking, "I got a B last year, and I didn't have to do a thing! This math stuff is a breeze." Then he gets a D or an F on his first test and the first words out of his mouth will inevitably be, "so when can we retake this?"
In real life what you do the first time matters. You don't get to learn everything twice in college. You don't get to make a presentation to your boss or to potential clients multiple times. Your first impression, the work you initially put in, and your PRODUCT - not product over time - are what you're judged on. In school we make judgments based on students' products, but then we say it doesn't matter because we're going to expect you to redo it again in a few weeks after we reteach it all!
Here is where I'm torn. I am totally behind standards based grading and giving students scores based on their current level of understanding. I don't want to hold a student back because they didn't know something in October, but by November they were able to show me they knew it perfectly. I want to find a way to allow them to show understanding, but still teach them the importance of putting in their full effort to learn and understand the first time.
Ideas:
1. If students get a B or higher on the first test, as long as they maintain a B or higher on the second test, they will automatically get whichever one is higher.
2. If a student fails a test, they cannot play a sport, play in a concert, etc... until they do something to show they've made up that learning (an assignment, a good score on the next test, ...)
3. If a student scores a C or higher on every single first test we take, they get some sort of bonus at the end of the semester like a cushion on the final or some extra credit.
4. Students should not be allowed to take a test unless they have put in the work (practice) to prepare for the test. This means if students don't do homework, they don't take the test. If they don't take the test, they don't get to participate in sports/music until they do the work.
5. Students that score below a C on the first version of a test should be required to attend some sort of help sessions. I didn't say advised or referred. I said REQUIRED to attend something on their own time.
The problem right now is that kids are learning the math and that's great, But kids are not necessarily learning the life skills they'll need after school. They need to learn to be responsible and give their best effort every time, not just when it "actually counts." It's a tough balance that I worry we're missing the mark on.
We teach a brand new unit for about 2 weeks. During that time, we review something from a particular previous unit each day so that by the end of those two weeks, they have learned all the new material a little bit each day and reviewed all the "spiral" material a little bit each day. Then we give two tests, one over the new material and one over the "spiral" material. By doing this, they will experience all material once as new and a second time as spiral. This will allow them to take two tests over every unit. Their first test score affects their grade, but if they score higher on the second test, they get to keep just the higher score. If they score lower on the second test, we average the two test scores. Most students score higher on the second test because of the continued practice and our ability as teachers to address their misconceptions and target what they didn't do well on. We do our best to use their first test as formative data to help improve student understanding before they retest a few weeks later.
Students now ask things like, "Is this test new or spiral?" and "So this is the one that actually counts?" There are numerous kids that pass Geometry and Algebra 2 because they get to test everything twice. If they only got one chance, we would have quite a few more kids failing, we would be dealing with the nightmare of retesting outside of class time and kids that end up being a unit behind for the rest of the year... We have more kids passing, more kids showing learning and retention, students remember more when it comes to the final semester test, and that's a good thing, right?
Well, there are also negatives... Let's say Bob gets a B in Algebra 2. Had he only had one test over everything he would have gotten a C or a D. Bob thinks he's pretty much a natural at math. He didn't do any work outside of class, but he saw the material over and over because of spiraling and that resulted in a higher grade for Bob. He legitimately learned the material at a B understanding, but that was in thanks to the repetition he received in class and not the outside work that he put in to get questions answered, misconceptions cleared up, and to prepare for tests. Bob hits Trig/Pre-Calc and things change... He only gets one chance to test over each unit. He goes into the class thinking, "I got a B last year, and I didn't have to do a thing! This math stuff is a breeze." Then he gets a D or an F on his first test and the first words out of his mouth will inevitably be, "so when can we retake this?"
In real life what you do the first time matters. You don't get to learn everything twice in college. You don't get to make a presentation to your boss or to potential clients multiple times. Your first impression, the work you initially put in, and your PRODUCT - not product over time - are what you're judged on. In school we make judgments based on students' products, but then we say it doesn't matter because we're going to expect you to redo it again in a few weeks after we reteach it all!
Here is where I'm torn. I am totally behind standards based grading and giving students scores based on their current level of understanding. I don't want to hold a student back because they didn't know something in October, but by November they were able to show me they knew it perfectly. I want to find a way to allow them to show understanding, but still teach them the importance of putting in their full effort to learn and understand the first time.
Ideas:
1. If students get a B or higher on the first test, as long as they maintain a B or higher on the second test, they will automatically get whichever one is higher.
2. If a student fails a test, they cannot play a sport, play in a concert, etc... until they do something to show they've made up that learning (an assignment, a good score on the next test, ...)
3. If a student scores a C or higher on every single first test we take, they get some sort of bonus at the end of the semester like a cushion on the final or some extra credit.
4. Students should not be allowed to take a test unless they have put in the work (practice) to prepare for the test. This means if students don't do homework, they don't take the test. If they don't take the test, they don't get to participate in sports/music until they do the work.
5. Students that score below a C on the first version of a test should be required to attend some sort of help sessions. I didn't say advised or referred. I said REQUIRED to attend something on their own time.
The problem right now is that kids are learning the math and that's great, But kids are not necessarily learning the life skills they'll need after school. They need to learn to be responsible and give their best effort every time, not just when it "actually counts." It's a tough balance that I worry we're missing the mark on.
Hmm. I went to a presentation/discussion led by the principle at Sioux Center's middle school and she talked about standards-based grading. I hadn't considered the implications you've talked about, where they aren't practicing real-life skills. I would encourage you to think about the purpose of school, however. Is it to learn the content or the life skills? Obviously you would like both, but it seems like the choices here require an emphasis on content learning or learning to succeed in the job market.
ReplyDeleteA student a few years ago went to DMACC (our community college) and after failing a class asked the professor, "What do I need to do to for component recovery?" (Component recovery is how some of our students can fail a class, but do something after the fact to get a "P".) Whether we want to focus on real life stuff or not, I feel like at the high school level definitely it's our responsibility as teachers to prepare students for real life. To be honest, I think that's more important than teaching the specific math content I teach, and I think that's part of the reason I feel like I'm failing sometimes; because what we do in the class feels so out of touch and inauthentic.
ReplyDelete