Not many people know this about me, but I am an avid reader. I know this doesn’t sound like a big deal but before I had kids I read almost a book a week. Which yes, meant I read close to 52 books a year. With two young kids I still read but not nearly as much as I would love to. I am averaging about 20-25 books a year. I state this because one of my connected learning experiences was with the application good reads. With it, I was able to find other readers who, like me, loved to read. I was connected to friends who I had on other social media apps but didn’t know read as much as I did. I found new authors and titles I might not previously have tried, and I was able to connect and ask questions with the authors. This small and single experience is and was a great one. I found a community and continued to grow. If this one experience for me was significant, I can only imagine how multiple communities of connected learning could do for kids, young adults, and adults.
As I was reading Ito’s article for this week, I kept on saying and thinking to myself, “how is this ever going to work in a math class?” Not necessarily the idea of connected learning but specific aspects of the whole. Math, when asked, most people would say, “ugh! or I was never good at math in school.” This mind set is one I try to change on a daily basis. As I was reading the framework of what connected learning was about, I realized I don’t necessarily have to embody everything it is (ie. Interest-driven; although I think this is important), but I could try to include parts of this framework to my class. I really enjoyed the design principles list; everyone can participate, learning happens by doing, challenge is constant, and everything is interconnected. I think this is something I could use. I already have students discuss on a daily basis and I help make connections, but I believe I could be better about making my class more hands on. I don’t have many students creating or doing. I have students playing the game I have created or completing an activity that I found online. I am not allowing the students to be the inventors in the class. I think I need to be better.
Still looking for ideas on interest-driven math ideas/cases, I choose to read the first chapter, Interest-Driven Learning of Teaching in the Connected Learning Classroom book. Although the chapter I read was full of great ideas, I felt most of those ideas pertained to English. One thing it did start was a thought about students creating an activity in Desmos (a great math and graphing tool for those unfamiliar) and possible partnering with each other to create it. I am not sure if this would be 100% interest-driven though. I have utilized mathalicious.com lessons before and these have some great real-world applications, I again am not sure if this is interest-driven. The only lesson I really have felt was interest-driven was when I taught statistics. When I teach this concept, I have students create their own question they want to answer and poll each other with many subset questions which pertain to the larger one and depending on the level of student we make it as in depth as the class can be. This is one of the few projects students have told me was really fun and creative and I believe it was because of their interest. “I finally saw when students have authentic choices in what they want to investigate, produce, and share, they become invested in their work in a way that is invigorating for the entire learning community” (Rami, Meenoo, 2014, p. 21).
When listening to the Jim Gee and Katie Salen Tekinbas, I realized when students are “playing” or “making” they start to take more of an interest in the topic and are more motivated to learn. So maybe I don’t have to start with students coming in loving math or even being interested in it but if I incorporate play in a meaningful and specific way, this might be the buy in the students need. Connected learning takes root …when academic institutions recognize and make interest-driven learning relevant to school …” (Ito, 2013, p. 8).
The only last thought that I want to bring to the table is the idea of grades. I think Clarissa states it best in Ito’s book, “you know how in school you’re creative, but you’re doing it for a grade, so it doesn’t really count?” (Ito, 2013, p. 10). I believe she was talking about the projects we do in school and how when we grade them this demission’s interest or possible depth we could be receiving from our students. So, I leave with the question, do we grade? Do we not grade? And if this is the case, how do we measure the class/individual? I think these questions and topics are ideas we as educators need to constantly be re-asking ourselves and reworking as we continue to dive into this ever-changing world we live in.
References:
Ito, et al.(2013). Connected Learning. pp. 4-12
Cantrill, C., et al. (2014). Teaching in the Connected Learning Classroom pp. 4-24
Hi Megan-
I enjoyed reading your post this week and agree it can be challenging sometimes figuring out how to get students interested. I wanted to address your question about grades. I believe we need grades for many purposes, one being many students are plain motivated by grades, but the bigger question to be asking is how do we grade. It definitely needs to be changed. If we are allowing students more freedom in choice then maybe we look at what was the purpose and relevance of that particular project/activity to the course standards/objectives and did that student exceed/meet/not meet expectations. I have recently adopted a policy of retakes/redo if students are able to explain what happened/reflect and provide corrections to the assignment/assessment or project. I believe this can help them identify issues they are having and become more prepared for the next graded assignment/assessment. I do not want them to use this policy as a crutch but rather help them to identify where they may need to focus more attention next time.
I completely agree with you! I also allow retakes/redos in my class but unfortunately I feel that it is a crutch for many students in our school because every teacher allows in almost all classes so students are expecting it. I have students who will already ask before even receiving the quiz/test when is the retake. I feel that I want to change this mentality but do not know how when it is so ingrained into our school culture.
I too taught math and was always trying to find a way to motivate the kids to want to know. I tried to connect it to real life problems as much as I could. But then I started teaching physics. Physics uses math to teach about the real world. I do so many lab challenges working with toy cars, rolling balls, flying objects and probes that it seems like I am not even the one in charge anymore. But that is the direction that we want to go. I think we need to provide activity after activity on a particular topic until they become a master at it. I look at my job now as an activity planner. But now back to you. I always wondered how I would go back and teach math now. Knowing what I know after teaching physics, would I go back to presenting example after example and then assign homework. Absolutely not! I would find a challenge, that the students need to know the skill in order to accomplish, and sit back and watch them collaborate and figure it out. I enjoy watching the light bulb turn on for my students. Good luck in your math class. You can always get ideas out of a physics book.
I like the idea of finding a challenge. Any ideas that are mathematically based? I know many for trig, geometry topics but struggle with some of the more abstract like systems of equations, substitution etc. Also last question, how do you set up this challenge? Do you give them it on paper and have them start and when they cannot figure it out, guide them with the background knowledge? Thanks!
Hello Megan,
I agree that playing and making are great ways to engage students in the learning process, but the key is making it meaningful. In my classes, I think it is easier for me to do this because I teach a language. However, I sometimes wonder if what we play and do is as meaningful as it should be, but then again I only teach levels 2 and 3. Whenever I read articles like this I wonder if I am doing what I need to. I have gone away from giving tests and have actually been doing a lot of projects. I feel like tests are more memorization than application. So, I am making progress in the right direction, but I have a long way to go.
I am sure finding something to do for math is probably more difficult than finding something for a language. I don’t think our math teachers are doing anything remotely close to what we have been learning about through these last couple videos and articles. One of our teachers is using technology, but I think she is doing flipped videos. She is just recording herself introducing the new material, the students watch her and then do their assignments. What they are doing is not interest driven. I think they hate having to do it to. They are only doing it to prepare themselves for college.
As far as assessing the students, I have the same thoughts. Do we or don’t we? How do we determine if they go on to the next level if we don’t? Is the department of education going to be okay with the fact that we aren’t assessing them?
I think language would be a great subject to make interest driven activities but I am sure you find students that still might not like the subject. Math it just seems like there are more of them. With the testing, since math is a high stakes subject it is extremely hard to move completely way from traditional testing. I try to incorporate performance tasks and projects when I can but have not been able to cut testing completely like you have. Thanks for your comments!
Hi Megan,
I really liked that you started with a personal story about good reads! I’ve used it a bit to explore books for myself, but mainly I use it to find great gifts for my dad – also an avid reader. I agree that math is a tough subject to give students freedom with and let them take control. Seeing practical applications and playing games is definitely a good start, but many of these learning opportunities were either humanities-based or science/technology-based. Basically the STE of STEM. Sometimes I also wonder if all play is useful? Sometimes I feel like we get caught up in play for the sake of play because the students find it interesting, but is it really helping them learn? That ties right into grades, too. If the games and projects are useful, how do we change the way we assess? It’s tough to change the way we teach, think, and grade, especially when standardized tests carry so much weight. In foreign language, Pennsylvania doesn’t even have official state standards much less a standardized assessment, so I can’t even completely relate to how difficult it must be to think about making these changes when there’s a high stakes test in math that judges your students and reflects on your teaching.