Cooper Chapter 5
Chapter five focused on the different effective methods of differentiating teaching styles and lessons to accommodate students with lower than average performance or difficulties. It focuses on using initial assessment techniques to not only identify those students having problems or requiring attention, but also generating methods of incorporating different teaching approaches, materials and standards in order to best help those students learn and hopefully integrate back into the normal performance range. I definitely thought the emphasis on initial assessment was a good idea, as many teachers are faced with the dilemma of not knowing exactly how much students learned or retained from the previous year. It's been communicated to us that reports, especially superficial ones with only grades or percentages, or obtuse language, can provide little feedback to a students real abilities, so the methods shown here would really help teachers assess their students from the beginning, and develop lessons which can address their actual level. I especially liked the student survey, asking them to assess their own reading abilities and level, and also what makes them a good/poor reader. Seeing some of that feedback would definite provide teachers ways to address their students in a meaningful way. If someone was a good reader because they read quickly, or a poor reader because they read slowly, or stutter, or don't read on their own, all of these pieces of information would be amazing to use in your lesson planning. Another element introduced which I really enjoyed reading about was the need to assess course texts for reading level. That seemed like an issue that wasn't brought up before, and as someone new to teaching, I was having a really hard time selecting texts or books for different levels. Most books have suggested reading levels printed on them, but how old are those standards? How are they judged? And how do they apply to new curriculum's or student abilities? That issue gets even murkier when we talk about graphic novels, picture books, or anything introducing more controversial or mature themes. I guess you would have to approach all the texts on reading ability/difficulty and also age appropriateness, but that doesn't sound as easy or simple as I would have liked. I found the reciprocal reading approach to be very similar to inquiry based learning or learning circles, which sounds like it would be an effective way in which to engage under performing students and also have higher level students be interested. Differences in reading ability/skills could be offset by creativity, comprehension and interest. I think that inclusion of students of different levels would also hopefully motivate those who normally would feel left out, seeing that they can actually contribute to book discussion, predicting future developments and posing questions, giving them incentive to read more and be more active in class. While reading the Cloze procedure section, I was intrigued by it's application and use as an assessment tool for reading ability. But another idea came into my mind, and that was how frequently that method was employed when I was teaching English in Japan. It seems that standardized tests for English in foreign countries use that technique, and many others (ie. Scramble sentences) A LOT, but honestly, from my own experience, they are used sparingly in our education here. Now, I could definitely be wrong about that, since I am out of touch with elementary and middle school curriculum's now, but I wonder if students, especially young learners, would benefit more from such 'problem solving' reading assignments? I think we focus a lot on reading books, passages or large sections, and summarizing, or responding to those readings, but simple mechanical drills are not used as often. Just an idea I was wondering about, how maybe the manner in which ESL is taught overseas might help inform best practices for our own literacy courses and curriculum. Finally for this chapter, I was a little skeptical about the assessment rubric and how it is applied. Cooper makes a very direct point about not adjusting the grading rubric because then it loses its value as a measurement tool. However, he does suggest giving some students different material to be graded upon, so the same rubric applies, but to different assignments. Isn't that basically the same thing? Yes technically you are using the same rubric, so students of different abilities can both be performing at a level 3 proficiency, but if you have to put an * next to one and write *Level 3 based upon lower grade materials, isn't that adjusting the measuring stick? I'm not saying I don't see the value in giving them ability specific material to help them learn, but their grades should still reflect their actual ability in relation to where they should be for their level. Giving them a higher grade for work on a lower grade is really judging them on a different criteria, and doesn't reflect their actual grade abilities. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but it seemed an odd difference for him to first point out, and then address in a different way. Chapter 6 This is another one of those chapters where I was basically nodding my head most of the time, saying deep things like “Hmmm...” and agreeing with most of the ideas. One thing that became clear when talking about how important statements of assessment are and learning goals, was how dependent I am on them now, and it was only in University when things like syllabus' and more detailed assignment breakdowns were really given. I mean, now, if I don't get a syllabus detailing everything, I basically feel almost violated and demand one from the Professor. They would have been amazing in high school as well, and I'm surprised I never thought of that before. I would definitely love to incorporate that into my teaching strategies, no matter what level. Providing anchors for assessment samples was another similar example. I have definitely been in desperate need of them in these classes, especially the one's asking for lesson plans and assessment rubrics. I'd probably be lost without them. I think perhaps teachers assume students know what they are expected to do, or that the assignment is so simple, it's obvious, but don't provide enough feedback and examples, like an anchor, to really guide them. I did enjoy the fishbowl idea of modeling sample peer feedback and assessment, but what really caught my attention was the snowball activity. I have heard of the basic idea before, but not as a review and peer assessment tool. I thought that was really good, because it would definitely allow for students having problems with the material to be brought up to speed in an inclusive way. The traffic lights idea was also informative, I think a lot of the times I forget how much peer pressure plays into a students willingness to admit some kind of knowledge deficiency and ask for help. Giving that kind of anonymous feedback would be perfect to address that issue. Cooper's point about how assessment for learning must contain not only feedback, but feedback that has an impetuous and reason to be used and demonstrated was very important. I definitely had a lot of experiences of receiving feedback, but it really only being a “do this next time” kind of approach, with next time being a semester or year later, which of course rendered the advise pretty useless. On another feedback related note, at the very end Cooper deals with marking, and I have definitely experienced a lot of University professors making 'mandatory' marking notes, that started on the first page, a few scribbles and circles, but by page 4 of my 20 page paper, the marks simply stopped. Consistently attentive marking is something I definitely want to approach, but also incorporating Cooper's idea of lessening the work load by ensuring the high standards of finished work through self assessment (checklists, etc) and peer assessment. One last big highlight from this reading was the Mrs. Howdwedo example. I really really enjoyed that perspective of reviewing class work as a body, without any emphasis on grades or performance and comprehension being the real goal. I can't imagine too many teachers are doing that, especially in math classes, where quizzes and marks are designed to show progress and gradual development of understanding. I would love to see this implemented in the arts programs, but I think it would need some tweaking. One final idea, and this is more of a general comment on all the readings, we are being given a lot of new, seemingly innovative and progressive methods for teaching, assessment and educational theories. But of course, when we step into the real world, a lot of that is not being implemented. I wonder how much of this will end up with us trying to “undo” the previous status quo for teaching and student habits, and how much will be undone of our own efforts the next year after kids leave our classes. Even in University and high school, I remember some classmates freaking out if a teacher took a new, innovative approach to classes or assessment, and they complained, all they wanted was the stock, assignment/test/grade formula, and they didn't want people playing games with their University chances. It's interesting to see how much push back there is from established teachers and also how many stereotypes of being a 'fad' or 'trendy' implementing new ideas faces. I know we should basically look at it from a personal perspective and see how we can use these lessons to teach the best we can and help the students as much as we can, but there is a lot at work as well, politics, stereotypes, egos, etc etc. Just some food for thought I'm currently mulling over. Gregory and Chapman,Chapter 6: Instructional Strategies for Student Success This chapter had quite a bit of information packed into it, most of which was very useful, some of it I'll probably disregard (jiggsaw learning I've found to be less than effective, I'll get into that later). Some of the things which I guess really struck me was that this was the first time direct reference to neurological and epistemology studies have been used in our course, and while I do love those topics, I found some of the information a little brief at best, and sometimes misleading. From the beginning, it cites the work of Lev Vygostky for his development of a constructivist theory of learning. Right away, I had some issue with the second point in that theory, “2. To learn, one needs a more knowledgeable other (teacher, coach or mentor).” Wait, what? Why is that a necessity? What about learning through inquiry, discovery, self assessment, trial and error, or all the other ways people learn when they don't have someone with all the answers around? Also, even if that were true, you would have to completely redefine a more “knowledgeable other”. Does that include a calculator? What about your cellphone, google, wikipedia or any other social media or internet based fount of knowledge. Even learning from animals or nature itself, where does that factor in? Also the third point, “3. Students will perform a task better and with more pleasure if the task is within reach [...].” I find that also fairly misleading. Students love doing things for the first time, especially if the outcome or goal is a complete surprise. Students are also often motivated by unrealistic or unattainable goals, but they strive for them and often find creative ways to reach them. So yeah, did not start off this article agreeing with everything. Next was the presentation of how the brain works, which is largely accurate, but I thought left out some of the nuances it should have contained, specifically when dealing with building long term memory. It goes into briefly how our brains create neural pathways associated with new memories, and how short term memory and long term memory differentiate. Oddly though, it does not discuss that stronger memories are formed by creating more, and more unique pathways and bridges, and that the more distinct, scary, shocking or interesting something is, the stronger the neural bonds that will be created with that memory. So yes, kids having fun while studying is a good technique, but you could also make important information or concepts VERY memorable by infusing shocking, unique or bizarre imagery. So if you wanted to remember Napoleon's birthday, if you just had a fun lecture on it, that's one thing, but if you created a mental image of Napoleon peeing into a big snowbank, and in the snow he spells out the year of his birth with pee, you would remember that MUCH more clearly. This is the same technique used by memory geniuses and really is part of just a large system for developing memory. Why it isn't developed more in education and taught properly really boggles my mind. (I did hear about one class of history students learning it in the US, but that's about it.) Most of this information I've read from Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking: Fast and Slow which I believe is absolutely fantastic (although I know even that has some new studies out which advance or retort some his own research) and other pieces on mental cognition. One thing I find interesting is that in modern society, media and advertising has really hacked into these mental cognitive patterns and loopholes we all have, social engineering, group conformity bias, etc, and they exploit it all the time for personal gain. However, if we wanted to use these same techniques for education, making kids learn more, better and apply that knowledge, it would be unethical since it's akin to brainwashing. How can we allow it to sell products, but not to make us better humans? Quite an interesting contradiction. Another related book which I have really enjoyed reading recently is Quiet by Susan Cain, which brings up the fallacies and problems in our society when it comes to over valuing socially outgoing and loud people. She argues we have moved from a character based society in North America, to a personality (popularity) based one. And in many ways I believe she is correct. More importantly for this argument, Susan goes to great lengths to break down these commonly held ideas about group work, team building and leadership, which seems to dominate all spectrum's of education and values. She argues that group work rarely encourages more opinions to be heard, usually latches on to only the most popular or confidently delivered argument or idea, and allows for the herd mentality and peer pressure to gloss over better alternatives. As social beings, we have an innate desire to fit in, and when our sense of right or justice interferes with fitting in, we develop severe anxiety, fear and discomfort. So turning to group activities, especially larger one's, is not as ideal as this chapter would have it seem. Cooperative group learning can be effective, but it can also masquerade as real learning and simply push the agenda or ideas of the most dominant group member. All in all, I'm wary of all these kinds of suggestions, wary but not close minded I should add, and I try to assess how much of my own experience ties into the application and effectiveness, and also where my own bias and failures have affected me. For instance, the jiggsaw method that was illustrated, I've used that before, and have had it used on me, but usually with very mixed results. Yes sometimes members do retain more from their own respective part they've studied, but they usually do not develop strong memory associations with the other parts, and often are distracted when listening because they are focused on their work. I found it too disjointed and the portion where everything comes together underwhelming and not having the greatest impact. All in all, I still enjoyed this chapter, was very glad it presented more evidence for why teaching methods are effective, and I just kind of knit picked a little too much I guess. But that's a good thing ... right? :p
1 Comment
linda radford
10/6/2015 06:03:00 pm
Dear Peter, From the length of your blog post, it would seem that you are really enjoying your exchange with Cooper. On the topic of Chapman's work, I really appreciate how you have brought other texts into the conversation and have shared what each sheds light on in regards to learning. I think your perspective as to why there has been so much push back around Cooper's big ideas is quite astute. The ministry has spent a ton of money trying to change practice around assessment, but, at this point, I think they are going to need to continue investing in professional development projects that target assessment practices and their link to instruction!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
September 2016
Categories |