Last school year I switched from teaching 4th grade to 6th grade at my elementary school. When I took on this role I was fortunate enough to intercept the role of advanced pre-algebra math teacher for the 6th graders. I teach my small group of students (17 this year) with the intent to prepare them all to be in the 7th grade gifted algebra class in middle school next year. Now, in reality, only about 3-5 students from my school will probably score high enough on all the various tests to get in, but my instruction is driven from the standpoint that those 3-5 students have to REALLY know the curriculum this year to make it next year. Now 6-9 of them could probably hang in the class, but because there is only 1 gifted algebra class for 7th grade (5 elementary schools come together to create the middle school) it is pretty cut throat who gets in and who doesn't. The different components looked at include: the Orleans-Hanna Algebra test, a district-made computation test, the OLSAT test to determine their SAI combination of verbal/nonverbal, a report card average of ALL grades, and teacher recommendations. If they don't make it into the "gifted" algebra class, they will be placed into the Honors Pre-Algebra class.
So as an educator I feel this immense pressure from the district, my school, my math students' parents, and myself to prepare these students to the best of my abilities. Well last year was my trial year where I barely stayed afloat with knowing the content and how the whole preparation for the various tests worked. I felt like I was a very average math teacher.
This year I was determined to be very organized and direct with my instruction to try and give them the best chances possible of getting on this gifted "track" as some people see it. Now I would never recommend a student to be in the class, just to be labeled "gifted," who I thought would struggle or really didn't have the capabilities needed. But there are often students in the 6th grade class that end up sitting in the Honors Pre-Algebra class bored out of their minds, because they're seeing almost all the same material again and again. So I realized that I had a complex problem - how to instruct and meet the needs of all these different leveled students, and how to maximize my placement of students in that math class for next year.
The first solution I thought of, would be to push for a second gifted algebra class. I brought this up to the middle school counselor at our junior high transition meetings and my newness to the position really shined...apparently the gifted algebra class at the junior high, actually used to be 2 classes, and just in the past 3 years they have brought it down to one class due to the failure rate of so many of the kids in that "track" down the road.
Like any class today, the current group of math students I teach need all sorts of differentiated instruction. I have the students who need to see examples 5-10 times before they grasp a concept, I have the students that understand concepts after 1 viewing, and I have students who already know the concepts before they walk in my class, and I have the students that need hands-on, active learning to really stay engaged during instruction.
Creating another math class at the middle school wasn't feasible, so I decided that my instruction must provide the perfect balance of remediation, enrichment, challenging projects, modeling, engagement, and proper pace to make sure I get through the course material (which I didn't last year).
I started by using the textbook and state standards to organize my instruction for the entire year, leaving a flex day every week and a half. This day has been greatly utilized, because there is always something that comes up that delays us or extra practice is needed. By seeing everything I needed to teach in a calendar format, I proved to myself that I could actually get through it all. I also built in various independent and collaborative projects involving technology that would allow my hands-on learners the opportunity to interact more with the concepts (rather than the same old paper and pencil summative assessments). It also allowed my students to present their mastery through alternative assessments. Using the
Multiple Intelligences Theory of Howard Gardner, and my desire to integrate technology as much as possible, I have been trying to make sure this is a part of my students' day where their various learning styles are met.
So how do I know the problem is solved (or on the right track to being solved)? Well to start with, the overall engagement of my learners has been noticeably better! I became much more proficient in using a SmartBoard and creating interactive lessons, by becoming a
SmartBoard certified trainer this summer. The quality of the products that have been produced in this reciprocal teaching environment have been phenomenal. For example, my students created Smart Recorder review videos of something that was specifically challenging for them in Ch.3. These were put on my website for our class (and anyone), to review
click here to see their work. Two chapters later, they completed another alternative assessment by creating a
Photostory of geometry in their everyday life. This project involved digital cameras, microphones, scanners. Audacity, and other sound recording programs. I have also been giving them formative algebraic assessments throughout the school year to see how they understand and relate all the concepts that build upon each other in our book. And I have been doing a lot of spiral review to ensure Ch. 1 and 2 concepts are mastered as we continue to plow through the curriculum.
From Gardner's viewpoint, I attacked my math instruction problem based on my strengths (preparation, organization, visual organizers, technology, hands-on learning projects). I was able to build upon the things I am good at, rather than focus on my weaknesses.
From Bloom's Taxonomy viewpoint, I first had to recognize what knowledge I had (do I know how to teach the math, do I understand it all, by attending the Smart Training sessions I attained more knowledge). Then I had to comprehend/understand what my problem was with the previous year's instruction (it's not that I didn't know it was mediocre, it's just that I didn't have the time or the resources to make it a great teaching year --more knowledge!) After I understood the new skills presented at my summer SmartBoard courses and my Masters TIE courses - I applied it to the creation of my lesson plans. I designed math Smart notebook pages for each lesson I was going to teach. I designed math projects that integrated technology and math concepts. I was able to analyze my plan by breaking it down into various parts --- curriculum on the calendar, objectives, hands-on expectations, regular formative assessments, test results, etc... Evaluation of my problem has been going on all year. I have been very pleased with my students' progress and the time frame I laid out has proven pretty successful. There are obviously more things I could have done to attack this problem - like focus more on new methods for teaching algebraic concepts, but that is what next year is for. Right now I am revising and creating a new sequence for next year's class already (reflection).
