Authentic Problems

As TeacherWife and I were talking to a Kindergarten teacher friend of our's, an aside comment came out:

...That is what I don't like very much about our math curriculum, it is difficult to integrate problem-based learning into it... and to connect the curriculum with authentic problems.

Ahhh, a problem I have been thinking about myself. The materials we use spiral quickly, which can be a good or bad thing (depends on your point of view). One view is that the quick spiral doesn't allow students to become proficient, let alone master, skills that they are faced with. Without proficiency, students will find trouble as they advance in their mathematical lives. But isn't the concept of mastery or proficiency a way of gatekeeping? The quick spiral gives students a chance to see that concept a myriad of times, and not simply in one concentrated effort.

The spiral was my issue, but I feel far better about it now. Where I struggle now is in connecting the materials (more specifically, the lessons as laid out) to an authentic problem. Part of the job, as a teacher, is to make kids care about what we are teaching. Why should I care about coins today, and polygons tomorrow?

All of this thinking comes as I am reading dy/dan's post about a ball hitting a can!

Reflections Eternal

The first full day is in the books. No one got hurt, no one got lost, kids were engaged, and kids were happy. Student teaching is an odd land where the classroom is in the control of someone new while still being the classroom of the master teacher. To help kids meet the learning objectives, you need to be sure you are clear about your expectations (or so I feel).

Crafting and demonstrating expectations in timely efficient way is an art. I bogged down while spending additional time in being clear with expectations. For the most part, it was effective as I'd say that 75% of the kiddos met those expectations and worked hard throughout the day. The other 25% weren't quite with it, and struggled to acclimate. I think some of that is pushing boundaries to see if I would push back or if I would relent. Another part of it is being clear, direct, and continuing to repeat those directions and expectations to them. They're kids, not robots, and they need many reminders.

Instructionally I felt ok. I was able to get through 4 reading conferences, and feel like I have a good idea where they are. Some other kiddos were tying up a literacy project, so the entire literacy block doesn't feel cohesive. Math was fantastic, and is probably where I feel the most comfortable currently. I was successful in integrating the virtual manipulative for money, which rolled straight into my own spin-off of the Everyday Math activity for the day. Writing is still a work in progress, which isn't surprising. Alas...

I live to give it another go tomorrow with the wealth of today's new found knowledge.

Math and Democracy

In our Math Methods course on Wednesday I was struck by a statement from our professor. To paraphrase: the curricular materials are a guide for the material that needs to be covered, but it isn't the bible; you can supplement and teach in many ways to meet the needs of your kids assuming you cover the same content. I'm sorry if that doesn't do the actual wording due diligence, but that is how I internalized it.

That led me to a Saturday morning conversation with my wife, a 2nd/3rd grade teacher. I told her what I learned, as state above, to which she said that it depends on where you are (good point). If you are in some districts, say Bellevue, you are expected to stay close to the script. Teachers essentially become actors in a play of content dispersal, and the art of teaching is reduced to the act of reading a set of cue cards.

What does that have to do with me? Well I am reading through the lesson for tomorrow, Attribute Rules in Everyday Math's 1st Grade Lesson Guide. Much of the lesson has the teacher directing students, instead of having the teacher set up an environment where they can explore and classify shapes. Why have the teacher tell the students with red shapes go to a place in the room? Why not instead have the students try to work out what is in common, and classify? Why not seek more student input, and get them engaged in the process? There are certainly some great parts of the lesson guide, but I wish there was a more concerted effort to have students share their ideas with their peers in small/whole group settings.