Please follow this link to my inquiry blog
inventingunderstanding.blogspot.com
Happy Holidays
Melanie
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Chapter 11 – Looking to the Future
When I first began this chapter I was certain that I would find that teaching methods and grouping practices at Amber Hill had changed to resemble those at Phoenix Park.....imagine my surprise to learn that the opposite had occurred....and all because of pressure from some “big wig” inspector who believed in and encouraged transmission models of teaching and the pressure put on the school by new middle-class parents.
Boaler uses her study to show “what is possible” when teachers try to deliver instruction in a way that stretches thinking and supports all students, but in this final chapter she shows what is possible when people are not willing to accept that there is a better way to teach mathematics other than a procedural approach, an approach which according to Boaler “has served few students well in the past - offering limited opportunities for understanding, identification, and affiliation with mathematics.”
Is this the same “back to basics” approach we hear of so often? An approach which Cheek and Castle question whether it was actually ever abandoned? I had an interesting conversation with a friend a while back, he works as a math itinerant with a school district and frequently hears teachers talk of adopting a “back to basics” approach in their mathematics classrooms, to correct and remediate deficiencies students bring with them from other grades.....it should stand to reason then if such an approach is successful that we will stop hearing of students who “don’t know their basic facts”, however, if everyone is using such an approach, then why then are the problems still there? Is it because math is not about knowing, but about understanding....I think so. Disconnected pieces of knowledge and rules will not serve students well in the long run, it might get the test, but it will not get them through life.....it will not allow them to transfer their knowledge to new situations, nor will it allow them to feel confident in their problem solving abilities.......why then is such an approach favoured by many? Is it because, like ability grouping, it is an easier approach for the teacher?
As I finish up this course I am wishing more and more that I had a classroom of my own, a classroom in which I could allow students to explore, inquire, create and understand...... I am certain I would need guidance along the way, but I can clearly see than such an open approach would allow students to experience greater success, much like those at Amber Hill......and it would allow them to really get back to basics.....to get back to creativity.....thank you Jo Boaler and Sir Ken Robinson for opening my eyes......
Boaler uses her study to show “what is possible” when teachers try to deliver instruction in a way that stretches thinking and supports all students, but in this final chapter she shows what is possible when people are not willing to accept that there is a better way to teach mathematics other than a procedural approach, an approach which according to Boaler “has served few students well in the past - offering limited opportunities for understanding, identification, and affiliation with mathematics.”
Is this the same “back to basics” approach we hear of so often? An approach which Cheek and Castle question whether it was actually ever abandoned? I had an interesting conversation with a friend a while back, he works as a math itinerant with a school district and frequently hears teachers talk of adopting a “back to basics” approach in their mathematics classrooms, to correct and remediate deficiencies students bring with them from other grades.....it should stand to reason then if such an approach is successful that we will stop hearing of students who “don’t know their basic facts”, however, if everyone is using such an approach, then why then are the problems still there? Is it because math is not about knowing, but about understanding....I think so. Disconnected pieces of knowledge and rules will not serve students well in the long run, it might get the test, but it will not get them through life.....it will not allow them to transfer their knowledge to new situations, nor will it allow them to feel confident in their problem solving abilities.......why then is such an approach favoured by many? Is it because, like ability grouping, it is an easier approach for the teacher?
As I finish up this course I am wishing more and more that I had a classroom of my own, a classroom in which I could allow students to explore, inquire, create and understand...... I am certain I would need guidance along the way, but I can clearly see than such an open approach would allow students to experience greater success, much like those at Amber Hill......and it would allow them to really get back to basics.....to get back to creativity.....thank you Jo Boaler and Sir Ken Robinson for opening my eyes......
Chapter 10 – Ability Grouping, Equity, and Survival of the Quickest
If I were to provide advice to Boaler as to how she could improve this book for further editions I would suggest that she rename Chapter 10 – “DIS-ability” Grouping.
The disconnect between student and teacher needs, student and teacher beliefs and student and teacher ideas regarding ability grouping became very clear as I read this chapter and prepared to lead the discussion.
I was shocked first and foremost by the fact that the set decisions (and set implications) are often hidden from students, and that they may actually spend a great deal of time working in a class unaware of the set that they are in. The rationale for this is that students often become demoralized and unmotivated when set decisions are made known.....and with just cause I believe.....wouldn’t you be upset to know that no matter how hard you work, that even if you know 100% of the material you can still only receive a low grade on a standardized test, I know I would. I think I would be even more upset if this knowledge was withheld from me for a long period of time, if I thought I was doing well, only to find out that I was doing so well because I was actually working at a much lower level than I had thought. So who does this decision to withhold set decisions from students really benefit? The teachers of course, they don’t have to deal with students acting out or not completing work because “what’s the point if you can only get a low grade?”
This disconnect between students desire to do well and their opportunities to do well remained on my mind as I read the rest of the chapter. Students felt cheated by a system that teachers put in place because they feel it is not realistic to assume that all students can achieve A-levels......but why should the decision to decide who can try for A-levels rest with teachers? Why should the decision be made so early? Shouldn’t all students (like those at Phoenix Park) be given the same opportunities to learn and succeed, and then if the set-up of the exam requires that students be placed into sets can’t the decision be made much closer to the exam (much like at Phoenix Park).......oh, wait.....to teach in such a way requires much more work on the part of the teacher.....which brings me to my next point....
The nature of the lessons in ability grouped classes allows teachers the ability to work at a fixed pace, to deliver lessons using a one size fits all approach.....with little regard for understanding or students ability to keep up to the pace of the work; some students will become bored, some will become frustrated, but that’s the way the games is played.....
Speaking of games, the set up of the ability grouped classes encourages competition among students, which is alright for some, for the students who are competitive by nature, who do well in a competitive environment. But what about the students who experience anxiety and constant pressure because they feel as they are constantly being judged against their peers....what about those top set girls? The competition may have caused them more harm than good, and again, the competition was for the benefit of the teachers, not the students.
The grouping of students also appears to have been done for the benefit of the teachers, with some students reporting that they had been placed in a lower set than would have been expected due to their behaviour. This is discomforting to think that we would restrict a students potential based on their behaviour as opposed to examining factors, such as boredom or frustration that might be influencing their behaviour.
It’s interesting to note that ability grouping was designed to maximize student potential and achievement, but the data presented by Boaler is in sharp contrast to this. The students at Phoenix Park performed much better than Amber Hill student on the GCSE’s even though initial assessments suggested that achievement levels ought to have been similar? And if Amber Hill students were taught using a method that was designed to increase potential shouldn’t they have done much better than Phoenix Park’s students.......they were expected to....
But the measures put in place to bring about those high expectations did not meet the needs (or expectations) of students. The methods would put in place largely to assist teachers in maintaining structure in lessons, in planning one lesson to deliver to all students; they were not designed to stretch and support thought and understanding as did the lessons at Phoenix Park, they were not designed to maximize student enjoyment and success. The design of lessons at Amber Hill and the decision to ability group results in DISabled thought, DISabled achievement levels and DISaffected learners.......
The disconnect between student and teacher needs, student and teacher beliefs and student and teacher ideas regarding ability grouping became very clear as I read this chapter and prepared to lead the discussion.
I was shocked first and foremost by the fact that the set decisions (and set implications) are often hidden from students, and that they may actually spend a great deal of time working in a class unaware of the set that they are in. The rationale for this is that students often become demoralized and unmotivated when set decisions are made known.....and with just cause I believe.....wouldn’t you be upset to know that no matter how hard you work, that even if you know 100% of the material you can still only receive a low grade on a standardized test, I know I would. I think I would be even more upset if this knowledge was withheld from me for a long period of time, if I thought I was doing well, only to find out that I was doing so well because I was actually working at a much lower level than I had thought. So who does this decision to withhold set decisions from students really benefit? The teachers of course, they don’t have to deal with students acting out or not completing work because “what’s the point if you can only get a low grade?”
This disconnect between students desire to do well and their opportunities to do well remained on my mind as I read the rest of the chapter. Students felt cheated by a system that teachers put in place because they feel it is not realistic to assume that all students can achieve A-levels......but why should the decision to decide who can try for A-levels rest with teachers? Why should the decision be made so early? Shouldn’t all students (like those at Phoenix Park) be given the same opportunities to learn and succeed, and then if the set-up of the exam requires that students be placed into sets can’t the decision be made much closer to the exam (much like at Phoenix Park).......oh, wait.....to teach in such a way requires much more work on the part of the teacher.....which brings me to my next point....
The nature of the lessons in ability grouped classes allows teachers the ability to work at a fixed pace, to deliver lessons using a one size fits all approach.....with little regard for understanding or students ability to keep up to the pace of the work; some students will become bored, some will become frustrated, but that’s the way the games is played.....
Speaking of games, the set up of the ability grouped classes encourages competition among students, which is alright for some, for the students who are competitive by nature, who do well in a competitive environment. But what about the students who experience anxiety and constant pressure because they feel as they are constantly being judged against their peers....what about those top set girls? The competition may have caused them more harm than good, and again, the competition was for the benefit of the teachers, not the students.
The grouping of students also appears to have been done for the benefit of the teachers, with some students reporting that they had been placed in a lower set than would have been expected due to their behaviour. This is discomforting to think that we would restrict a students potential based on their behaviour as opposed to examining factors, such as boredom or frustration that might be influencing their behaviour.
It’s interesting to note that ability grouping was designed to maximize student potential and achievement, but the data presented by Boaler is in sharp contrast to this. The students at Phoenix Park performed much better than Amber Hill student on the GCSE’s even though initial assessments suggested that achievement levels ought to have been similar? And if Amber Hill students were taught using a method that was designed to increase potential shouldn’t they have done much better than Phoenix Park’s students.......they were expected to....
But the measures put in place to bring about those high expectations did not meet the needs (or expectations) of students. The methods would put in place largely to assist teachers in maintaining structure in lessons, in planning one lesson to deliver to all students; they were not designed to stretch and support thought and understanding as did the lessons at Phoenix Park, they were not designed to maximize student enjoyment and success. The design of lessons at Amber Hill and the decision to ability group results in DISabled thought, DISabled achievement levels and DISaffected learners.......
Chapter 9 - Girls, Boys and Learning Styles
Girls just wanna understand........no wait.......girls just wanna have fun........but can they enjoy mathematics and "have fun" if they don't understand?
As I read this chapter (and many others) my own mathematical experiences started to make a little more sense and I gained a new level of confidence that had been lacking for many years. Boaler asserts that “women tend to value connected knowing, characterized by intuition, creativity and experience, whereas men tend to value separate knowing, characterized by logic, rigor and rationality.” This is especially interesting because when I took advanced mathematics in high school the class was almost entirely females, yet the teaching style seems to have catered more towards the learning style of males, lessons were presented much like those at Amber Hill, in a series of disconnected ideas, sequential steps to practice and “know”, things that you didn’t “need” to understand, you just had to “remember”.......but I couldn’t remember, I couldn’t “know” something without understanding it, so rather than stay in a program which I knew I was unlikely to experience success in I switched to the academic math program. This class consisted of far more males than females, yet the teaching style was directed more towards that of females. There was more time allowed to make connections and build understanding, math was no longer simply a game with rules that had to be followed. The pressure and competition of the advanced class had been removed, and there was time to ask questions that related to understanding, time to try our own way of doing things or to figure out just why “the rules worked”.
I sympathize with the girls at Amber Hill, aware of the fact that instruction was not meeting their needs, but unable to do anything about it. Students at Amber Hill were assigned to sets and were not able to make the choice to move between them, I had that choice, but in doing so I had to make some sacrifices, for example, I knew that by switching to the academic class that the math classes I could take in university would be restricted would be restricted; however this was just fine with me at that point, as I had no desire to take math classes beyond high school, looking back now I wish I had taken more math classes in University and that I had remained in the advanced program, but alas hindsight is 20/20.....
A question that remains with me after reading is why should the girls at Amber Hill have been expected to compromise their desire for understanding and replace it with a desire for speed akin to that of the boys? Why should they change who they as learners to meet the teacher’s needs? Is there an approach that would allow both genders to be successful........enter Phoenix Park, the open ended inquiry projects allowed boys and girls to experience success with mathematics, why then is such an approach not emphasized and utilized everywhere? Is it because it is an approach that requires more of the student, but far more of the teacher that the direct instruction method?.......this leads to the next chapter and ability grouping.....
I wish I had been present for the discussion on this chapter, it would have been interesting to hear what others had to say on this topic, to hear their experiences and ideas related to gender and learning styles. Hopefully the blog posts will allow me to gain a sense of the discussion.
As I read this chapter (and many others) my own mathematical experiences started to make a little more sense and I gained a new level of confidence that had been lacking for many years. Boaler asserts that “women tend to value connected knowing, characterized by intuition, creativity and experience, whereas men tend to value separate knowing, characterized by logic, rigor and rationality.” This is especially interesting because when I took advanced mathematics in high school the class was almost entirely females, yet the teaching style seems to have catered more towards the learning style of males, lessons were presented much like those at Amber Hill, in a series of disconnected ideas, sequential steps to practice and “know”, things that you didn’t “need” to understand, you just had to “remember”.......but I couldn’t remember, I couldn’t “know” something without understanding it, so rather than stay in a program which I knew I was unlikely to experience success in I switched to the academic math program. This class consisted of far more males than females, yet the teaching style was directed more towards that of females. There was more time allowed to make connections and build understanding, math was no longer simply a game with rules that had to be followed. The pressure and competition of the advanced class had been removed, and there was time to ask questions that related to understanding, time to try our own way of doing things or to figure out just why “the rules worked”.
I sympathize with the girls at Amber Hill, aware of the fact that instruction was not meeting their needs, but unable to do anything about it. Students at Amber Hill were assigned to sets and were not able to make the choice to move between them, I had that choice, but in doing so I had to make some sacrifices, for example, I knew that by switching to the academic class that the math classes I could take in university would be restricted would be restricted; however this was just fine with me at that point, as I had no desire to take math classes beyond high school, looking back now I wish I had taken more math classes in University and that I had remained in the advanced program, but alas hindsight is 20/20.....
A question that remains with me after reading is why should the girls at Amber Hill have been expected to compromise their desire for understanding and replace it with a desire for speed akin to that of the boys? Why should they change who they as learners to meet the teacher’s needs? Is there an approach that would allow both genders to be successful........enter Phoenix Park, the open ended inquiry projects allowed boys and girls to experience success with mathematics, why then is such an approach not emphasized and utilized everywhere? Is it because it is an approach that requires more of the student, but far more of the teacher that the direct instruction method?.......this leads to the next chapter and ability grouping.....
I wish I had been present for the discussion on this chapter, it would have been interesting to hear what others had to say on this topic, to hear their experiences and ideas related to gender and learning styles. Hopefully the blog posts will allow me to gain a sense of the discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
