Using videos in the classroom

When Lippi mentioned using videos to teach concepts and students learning on their own at home, I remembered The Khan Academy's website:

www.khanacademy.org

Their philosophy is that students can use the videos to learn at their own pace and then spend classroom time in one-on-one interaction with the teacher (i.e. what we would give now as homework questions are now done in class).

I understand people's fear of a) students not having the access to technology to view the videos, and b) students not being motivated (or not having the time, in many cases) to watch these videos on their own. The more I think about it though, it seems like if we are advocating for more inquiry-based tasks and that students can learn the mathematics by working on the activities, it would be better to spend what class time we have to work on group-worthy tasks and having that one-on-one time with students, helping them with questions individually...even if they didn't all have a chance to view the videos the night before, working through the class activities can often result in the students learning the material anyway.

Reform: When and how?

It was very refreshing to read this article since it gives a new perspective to researchers. Even though i am pro multicultural education, differentiated instruction and inclusion i somehow felt that different aspects were being left out in reform articles that focused on various aspects of education.
The framework provided by William Tate seems to cover the three most important aspect of education : time, quality and design. Upon reading each aspect I could identify how models outlines by Talbert and McLaughlin and Spillane are integrated in some ways as well. I feel that sometimes its the external factors that inhibit various reforms. Tate's framework is open-ended yet structured well enough to explain for various external factors that could determine teacher and student success/responses in a classroom with respect to reform.
Its amazing how we get bogged down with the process without understanding the factors that might limit us in implementing reform successfully. Kitchen (2003) emphasizes the importance of being able to understand and analyze specific contexts in order to be able to be successful in implementing reform that supports equity. The article shows that by understanding and investigating the problems that affect “time and quality” we would automatically reform the design as a result of this understanding. Design , which the third component of the framework relies on the first two and it would be crucial for us factor in all the possible limitations and the reasons for it , which obviously would be context specific and then develop a system that better supports the teacher as well as the student in that particular context to overcome these limitations.

Digging Deeper

This article was an interesting read to me because I read it from the perspective of a professional development provider, not as a classroom teacher.  So, while Rousseau and Powell's questions were specific to their study,  they are also my questions.  I've been grappling with them the past three years as a math coach.  It is the main reason I enrolled in the M.Ed. program.

Why did the professional development program not appear to result in more substantial and consistent change in her teaching practice?  Why did Teacher A seemingly make more progress along the continuum of traditional-to-reform? (p. 29)

While I agree that using Tate's framework offers "attention to factors associated with equity", I would have liked Rousseau and Powell to dig deeper into the individual characteristics of these teachers.  Again, I agree that attributing Teacher B's narrow implementation of reform mathematics to "personal traits or lack of effort" is inappropriate.  But, I think a discussion of each teacher's self-efficacy would have added depth to our understanding of what happened at the classroom level of implementation.  My request comes from two specific quotes found on page 27:

"..Teacher A appeared to feel less pressure to focus on test preparation.  He expressed confidence that his students would pass the test, even without explicit efforts on his part to prepare them"

"Teacher B repeatedly expressed not only her concern that her students pass the test but also her view that teacher for understanding and preparing students to be successful on the test were, to a large extent, conflicting goals"


Bandura (1997) describes self-efficacy as ‘beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to produce given attainments”. Teachers with a strong sense of individual efficacy believe that they can and will make a difference in student learning. They believe that all students can and will learn (Goddard, Hoy & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000).

Teacher A appears to have strong self-efficacy, despite not having a math degree, rich tasks, or teaching mathematics for the second year.  This made me wonder:  What was he like as a learner of mathematics?  What is his vision of successful implementation of reform mathematics?  

Teacher B appears to have lower self-efficacy because she did not believe that teaching for understanding would have prepared her students for the state test.  Surely, her participation in the professional development would have exposed her to that data that indicates that "reform students do as well on skills as students on an understanding of concepts and problem solving" (Schoenfeld, 2002)?  

Therefore, I had the same questions for her. Gabriele & Joram (2007) suggests that one reason why the transition from traditional to reform-based mathematics teaching may be particularly difficult for teachers is that typical sources of evidence that teachers use to judge their teaching success, which in turn support their sense of teacher self-efficacy, are no longer operative. Success is defined differently when teaching reform-based mathematics, therefore self-efficacy is threatened. Was this the case for Teacher B?

While I agree that understanding the "barriers to change experienced by teachers in different contexts is to better support the implementation of reform", I think we also need to understanding what experiences and beliefs teachers bring to these contexts.

References
Bandura, A. (1997) Self –Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman

Gabriele, A. J., Joram, E. (2007) Teachers' Reflections on Their Reform-Based Teaching in
Mathematics: Implications for the Development of Teacher Self-Efficacy. Action in Teacher Education,
29 (3), 60-74.

Goddard, R., Hoy, W.K., Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000) Collective Teacher Efficacy: It’s meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507.

Schoenfeld, A. (2002) Making Mathematics Work for All Children: Issues of Standards, Testing, and Equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), p. 13-25

It is unfair to paint everyone with the same brush

“The context, therefore is important” (Rousseau & Powell, p. 29)

This article and this line in particular really hit me in a unique way because recently I ran a workshop at a school that is struggling to find the right path that will enable their students to improve their test scores and for the school to stay open. It really struck me talking with this group of dedicated teachers how lucky I have it to work in a school that where I have classes of sizes twelve to twenty, students have laptops and resources are fairly easily attained. Here was a group of teachers that were learning about a new programme that the administration have decided to try and implement to help ‘turn things around’. There were times where I felt awkward because I would talk of expectations, resources and ideas that would help ensure the implementation of a successful programme, and I believe they were thinking ‘when and how am I going to do this?’ It was so easy for me to talk about how wonderful this programme was, but I didn’t really understand what their day-to-day teaching life was like. I didn’t fully comprehend how adding these new expectations could potentially overburden an already heavy and highly pressurised workload. In other words, I wasn’t fully aware of the context that these teachers were working in, but how could I? I was brought in to talk about the programme, but I learned very quickly that these teachers were unaware of the potentially sweeping changes that were coming their way. What this experience taught me for future workshops – never make assumptions and always make sure to learn about what constraints these teachers may face in their schools as you may just never know that what may be a straightforward implementation of a programme to you, may be an overwhelming prospect for others.

Now this may seem like a story that digresses from this article, but I think there is a tie-in and that is when judgements are being made about teachers and the lack of apparent success according to outsiders, one needs to better understand the context by which these teachers are working under. Although NCTM talks about equity as “ALL students should have access to the type of high quality mathematics curriculum and instruction” (p. 20) in their documentation, which is certainly a key goal, it is critical to understand what might be stopping teachers from ensuring this from happening in the classroom. Outsiders need to take a closer look at what is happening in the classroom and in the schools and understand the concerns as expressed here (large class sizes, student absenteeism and state exams) by Teacher B that is stopping the implementation of reform mathematics. It must be disheartening for teachers who are working hard to teach mathematics in the best possible way to be judged by one set of exams. As these authors have illustrated, one should not make sweeping judgements without fully understanding the context – it is unfair to everyone involved.

Article Rant…Significance of Context: …Equity and Reform

“…those of us in mathematics education have yet to take seriously, from an equity perspective, the significant differences between teaching contexts with respect to mathematics reform.” (Rousseau & Powell, 2005, p. 29)

My efforts at a mathematical reform pedagogy kept hitting roadblocks and this article nicely articulates all of those blocks (and I have a couple others I could have added). Yet, looking at those mentioned is at least a hopeful starting point for change towards equity. Far too often much of this type of research has been dismissed as an American issue that is not as relevant here in Ontario. I and many other educators that I had previously discussed similar issues with did not see the disparity in educational equity as drastic here, in Toronto as that of the experiences of “those Americans”, but for me that had recently changed.
When I began my own change in pedagogy towards mathematical reform I started to experience many of the same constraints to change as mentioned in the article. I had no time for instruction in the classroom (in addition to barriers that were mentioned in the article, a lot of my time was also spent on teaching social skills and group dynamics), and I had very few available resources. The NCTM lists what should be in every classroom as a basic for student resources/manipulatives, but in my school this does not exist. The less than adequate number of resources for a K-8 school is located in one open math resource room. Thus, it is not easily possible to gather supplies when needed and student use of manipulatives at their free will does not exist (I have spent hundreds of dollars of my personal money trying to remedy this). In addition, planning time is wasted on moving from room to room finding an area to work, trying to gather/beg for resources, doing redundant paper work and filing instead of preparing class activities, planning and reflecting on practice (not to mention the wish of moderated marking).
The disparities became even more apparent when I experienced a concurrent comparison of Toronto (urban) and Peel (suburban) classrooms. I had recently changed the school my daughter attended from TDSB to Peel district and hearing her perspective on the differences in classrooms as well as my own observations of the differences reinforced the inequities. Last year she was in grade 4 while I taught grade 4 at the school in toronto that she had left. This year she is in grade 5 as I teach grade 5 in the same school in toronto. She is still in contact with many of the students in my class (through msn, phone, emails, on line games etc.) and still attends gatherings with them. Therefore, I constantly hear from my students and her (regarding curriculum and class activities) “how come they did not do this, how come she gets to do that, how come they did not learn this, how come she got to go there? Although I am very glad for the opportunities and experiences my daughter gets, I am extremely frustrated at the lack of opportunities my students in an urban setting are afforded, especially when it is known that these students need the opportunities even more (students of colour in lower SES communities).
I am not sure how long it will take before the message of Rousseau and Powell, on these systemic constraints, has a great impact on what is happening in our urban schools, but it really is time to stop blaming the individual teachers for the inequitable progression of these students.
Sorry for the rant, but that is how I felt after reading the article.

The significance of the context

As I was going through this reading, I found that I was continually asking why. Why are students that we already know are disadvantaged getting access to the fewest resources? Why are their teachers getting less time to prepare and less professional development? Why are their class sizes the largest? I realize that the purpose of this article is not to address these questions, but that was my reaction over and over again.
It also made me reflect more critically on my own teaching practice. I wonder where I am on the spectrum of traditional and reform teaching and what I can do to move further toward what I know is the best for students.
When we looked last week as large scale assessment, we briefly discussed teacher pressure to teach to the test. The major difference between Ontario and the Classroom B context is that the EQAO is based on the Ontario curriculum, which means that by teaching the curriculum, teachers are preparing their students for the test and by preparing them for the test, they are teaching them the curriculum. I also agree that there are different pressures in different contexts about how important test results are and that this can change how willing teachers are to take risks with new teaching methods, even if they have research backing.
I also had some personal conflict with the content in this article because I teach at an independent school where my students come with significant economic and social advantages. I also have more preparation time, smaller classes, no standardized tests, access to many resources and weekly teacher development. I realize that in some ways, this is how the world works – those who have money, will pay for the best. At the same time, I wonder what can be done so that all students have teachers with the same support. Rather than stop independent school from providing this, I think that public schools should also have the resources and support that I get (although that might put me out of a job!)

Blogfolio hint

I discovered that if you look at the list of blogs on the right (grouped by month) that the blogs you posted or commented ar in grey instead of brown (with a few exceptions).

It made it much easier to find the posts I forgot to save in a folder.