Going into this program, I already knew how to use Desmos and Geogebra as a student, but was not really aware just how many resources they have for teachers. Recently a peer gave a presentation on Teacher Desmos, and showed that students can join a Desmos class online, where the teacher can assign interactive activities in-class or as homework. There are many already prepared activities, some made by the Desmos team and some by teachers. These can easily be remixed and edited. Geogebra too has many activities ready to go.
I will almost certainly be using these resources in the future. I’m impressed at the simplicity of setting things up, of blending synchronous and asynchronous work, and of monitoring and assessing students.
This week my class learned about how a teacher is using Google Classroom. Something important I hadn’t thought much about before is that teachers can share entire courses they’ve taught before. That drives home how beneficial it could be to have a learning network. In one way it’s a small difference from just sharing documents, but the convenience seem huge. I’m imagining being able to import a course, edit, and then just run with it. That’s a lot less time uploading documents and more time that could be spent editing them, or otherwise preparing for class.
On the other hand, I am not a fan of letting large tech companies reach into every corner of our lives. There may not be much actual harm in using Google Classroom, but it creeps me out a bit.
Last week EdTech class had a guest speaker from BCEdAccess. It seems like making education equitable is going to be a constant struggle, but there is some support available. We are going to have to get used to using such technologies as automatic transcription, screen-readers, and hearing aids in the classroom, as well as any other helpful tools get created in the future.
This week I have been thinking about assessment and evaluation, which have come up often as topics of discussion. A physics teacher at one of the local high schools recently gave a talk on how he does grading. His main idea was that he was looking for evidence of individual competencies, and any time a student showed that would be sufficient. Therefore, his final exams were unique to each student, and only tested what that student had not yet mastered. It could only bring a grade up, not down. He stressed that the reason this method works for Physics is due to a cumulative nature of those courses: foundational techniques are continually reapplied in more and more complex situations. He said that the same thing may not work for other subjects (such as in Math and French), where such repetition is not built-in. An example given by one of my peers is French verb conjugation: if you get it right on the midterm, but not on the final exam, it could be hard to say proficiency has been shown.
However, as I think about it again, this may be a reason to consider restructuring the “typical” way a course is taught. Should not such skills as factoring and verb conjugation be practiced within the context of many different situations?
Regardless, I created some Google spreadsheets (which you can view and comment on here) as examples that might-could be used in end-of-term evaluations. The first (Whole-curriculum) uses a similar method to that of that physics teacher, though maybe less sophisticated. The criteria are directly copied from the curriculum, including both the curricular competencies and the content. For each individual item from the curriculum, we take the highest level of proficiency shown in any evidence type. Averages are taken within categories, and then a weighted average across categories represents an overall mark.
The second type uses just the criteria categories from this framework (available with other classroom assessment resources here). More specific criteria are not yet available for all subject areas and grade levels in that framework, but one can create one’s own. However, my idea for this type of sheet was just to assume that’s done elsewhere, possibly with a rubric. These sheets will just give an overview of how the student is doing within the five categories, and take an average, weighted across evidence types as appropriate. Since that framework document breaks down assessment categories for four different subject areas covering pretty much all of academic work at high school, I made one of these sheets for each: Math, Science, Social Studies, and Language Arts.
For both kinds of sheet, I used one method to convert from the proficiency scale into a grade and percentage. It’s based on this document on converting between proficiency and the old performance-based letter grades, and this document which relates those letter grades to percentages. Creating it has renewed my bitter disdain for this whole idea of representing student achievement as a number, and brought me to utter confusion as to how anyone could have thought the statement, “The student demonstrates very good performance in relation to expected learning outcomes for the course or subject and grade,” in any way clarifies what a B should look like. The only thing varying between most of the letter grades is a single adjectival phrase: “not minimally acceptable, minimally acceptable, satisfactory, good, very good, excellent or outstanding.” 😑🙄😂🙃😬😠 Anyway, my finding is as follows: No evidence is (unfortunately) 0%, Emerging is 30%, Developing is 55%, Proficient is 80%, and Extending is 100%. I chose those values to stay within the guidelines but also create a nice shape suggesting consistent improvement. Thanks once again to Desmos, I found a formula that creates a smooth, simple curve close to that shape: proficiency x on a scale from 0 to 4 becomes the percentage 1-(1-x/4)^(117/110).
it’s basically a line, so if you want to just divide by 4 instead, that’s cool too
And if you would like to copy any of the sheets for your own use, please do!
This week I was reminded that sometimes we will not be able to use the tool we want due to time, budget, or lack of knowledge. In particular, in a class on using image manipulation software, it was pointed out that PowerPoint can be used to quickly cut out foreground objects. But that’s only true of the desktop version of the software, not the browser-based one. I don’t use Microsoft office, and if I did get the desktop version, it would take up 28% of the total space on my hard drive. Maybe that’s a sign that my computer is too tiny and outdated, and the times call for having more than a 57GB drive. Be that as it may, if I wanted to cut out an image in a timely fashion, I would have to use a different tool.
I do use a desktop office suite. If you’re someone out there looking for an alternative to paying for “software as a service”: LibreOffice. It’s free and open source and only takes up 2.6% of my machine’s space, which is a bit less.
As as teacher, but also as an inhabitant of the modern world, I am going to want to be able to draw on resources quickly. In the past, I have used browser bookmarks to keep track of thing, and the nice thing about that is bookmarks can be imported across browsers and synchronized across devices using the same browser. However, that only connects you to your files if you keep your files online. I would prefer to not have to rely solely on google drive for file management, especially for once I start writing lesson plans and improving them from year to year.
I am interested in the Obsidian app and will give it a try. I am imagining using it to organize a linked collection of old lesson and unit plans. One could get really into it, and link lessons between grades based on how they develop ideas from year to year.
Once I have tried that out a bit, I will try to add some example material to this post.
I learned the basics of editing audio and video a long time ago, out of interest. It’s not a skill I’ve practiced much, but I can see that as a teacher, it will be a useful way to create resources. Just for example, there is an audio clip in my inquiry post for this week. I recorded it on my phone and then edited it on my computer, in Audacity. The edits were small, but took it from almost unusable to almost decent. Admittedly, it would have been better without the sound of the keys thumping back into place, but eliminating that is not so easy.
After our EDCI 336 class had a guest presentation that talked about educator’s use of social media, I realized something about how my digital footprint could evolve. Currently, I have no published music or stories, but in the future I likely will. In that case, my being an educator influences the decision on whether to publish under my own name or a pseudonym. So it’s kind of lucky I haven’t published anything yet, and still have time to think about it.
The two novels I’ve worked on so far would likely be marketed as YA, with broad themes of dealing with emotional scars. Of course there is a basic conflict of interest possible between myself as a teacher and as an author. But actually, my main consideration is that in prose fiction, especially novels, one can infer the author’s beliefs, taste, and personality. So a student who finds and reads one of mine would form personal impressions that affect the student-teacher relationship.
hypothetical effects of publishing media under real name:
Pros
no need to maintain disconnection between real name and pseudonym
possible student benefits:
catharsis due to theme
bonding with an adult
inspiration to be creative
getting into reading
Cons
need to consciously avoid self-promotion
later works, if deemed too risky, would have to be published under pseudonym, and therefore could not contain textual connections to works under real name
possible student detriments:
reminders of traumatic memories
distaste for creative work could generalize to teacher and classroom
I am of the opinion that it is usually better to be honest and open, and that it improves relationships even with people who disagree with you at a fundamental level. But that does not settle this quandary!
This week we learned about some models of the use of technology in the classroom.
TPACK is an acronym for technological, pedagogical and content knowledge. It represents the intersection of those areas of knowledge, and is the domain in which technology can benefit instruction. It seems likely that as technology and especially as software constantly develop, content and pedagogy will be the more stable parts of the triad. That means they are the most crucial, but it also means that making effective use of technology will require keeping up to date on new tech and use-cases.
There is also the model in which learning outcomes shape teaching-learning strategies and methods of assessment, while the latter two also influence one another and are where technology is found.
Finally there is SAMR. Another acronym, this one standing for substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition. It represents the different levels of technology use in the classroom.
The current BC math curriculum includes the use of technology in a way that is at the very least augmentation. For example, using graphing software to explore functions and geometry. In my methodology course I am seeing examples of how this can be implemented in lesson plans and lead to deep understanding. Importantly, it seems that manipulating things in software can be totally analogous to using physical manipulatives, for learners.
The first thing that struck me about “Most Likely to Succeed” was how reluctant students were to get into the socratic discussion, and at the same time, the value of it. Students leading discussions is a great way for them to learn about the subject content, and at the same learn how to communicate as part of a team. I fully intend to integrate this type of discussion into my teaching style.
Taking further inspiration from the classroom of former math teacher of my own, I’m considering a math class format using that central desk and chair arrangement, with several whiteboards/blackboards available on the outside. Ideas would be introduced in circle discussion, and then in-class exercises would be done at the boards, like so:
A concern is that classrooms will often have too many students or too little room accomplish this effectively, as it’s not very space efficient.
