Summer 2015 Reflection
Looking Back:
The summer meetings opened my eyes to more technology than I realized existed. I did not really focus too much on technology due to the nature of the available technology in my school. In the past, there have been many issues with Wi-Fi and available Chromebooks or computer labs. With a school as large as Lane Tech, we are still behind in that area. However, technology is not only electronic. I feel relief when I hear this, but I also fear what the administration understands technology to be – Chromebooks, iPads, and the like. Those hurdles will be addressed as I look forward.
My experience in the MSU-Wipro STEM Teaching and Leadership Program has allowed me to work with very engaging people who will help me continue my path as a teacher. It is always refreshing to hear what other people at other schools are doing in their classroom. From the teachers new to the profession, to the more experienced, from all levels, we all bring something to the table to share. I love that we are all very excited to learn more about what we more can bring to our students, to aid them in their journey of STEM education.
At first, I did not like the idea of being put outside my comfort zone. When the activities came up, I realized that all it was is thinking on my feet. As a teacher, you are used to doing just that. I guess my imagination just need to be a little shaken and stirred. The QuickFire Challenges worked best when we were paired or in trios. I found that in a bigger group there was always a person or two who withdrew. As a teacher, you know this happens a lot in small groups. For some, you chalk it up to their missing out. On the other hand, you want each group member to be comfortable sharing their ideas. All too often, when put on the spot, people withdraw. I do plan on trying to use a QuickFire Challenge. I am still thinking about how to implement due to space and construction on our campus. However, I think it will work. I cannot wait to try it with my students.
Curiosity is key to keeping our students to want to learn more. From Punya Mishra’s OlloClip to Steven Tow’s lesson on programming, allowing students to be curious and ask questions will help them be able to carry their STEM experience with them throughout their lives. When things are dry and stale, they are not memorable. Understanding does not take place on its own without curiosity and knowledge. The goal of this program is to keep our students wanting to learn more about STEM, and as I have taught before, may positive contributions to society.
Looking Forward:
In the past, I thought technology to only be electronic – the misconception many administrators of education have. Once I realized that I have been using all types of technology in my classroom, I felt a whole lot better about my teaching pedagogy. I felt I could expand upon different things in so many ways. Technology is way for us to enhance the learning process. If electricity is needed, then so be it. But, Chromebooks and other computers should not be the only types of technology needed to enhance the learning process for our students. Yes, this is the tech generation. However, students need to know how to work with their hands and their own minds. Most people do not realize how much work it takes to create programs, discover better modes of transportation, or make a better medicine. Past and current students tend to not really think about how stuff is researched, developed, and produced. Because of this, I feel that it is a blessing and a curse to be part of a first world country. We do not really know and/or understand what it is like to be without.
Too many times our students need to have the correct answer, or the “one most correct response”. When you think about it, the one most correct is not the only correct response, especially given a multiple choice test. When students are choosing A, B, C, D, or E on a multiple choice test, they cannot prove their answer. Why is there always only one answer? One thing I teach my students is that there is more than one way to get to an answer. And, if we round too much or too little, the one most correct choice does not always match. Or, sometimes there is more than one explanation. From there, students get caught up on reading comprehension or buzz words. The challenge, of course, is making sure students understand the value of instrumental understanding and relational understanding. As Skemp discusses in his 1978 article, “Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding”, instrumental understanding is useful for us to get to answers quickly and, for some, are easier to understand. Relational understanding is more adaptable. Sometimes what we learn in class will not match the assessment. Why does this always come across as a bad thing? If students can use both instrumental and relational understandings, they will achieve more in the STEM fields. The difference between knowledge and understanding takes time to evolve. It is the idea of mindfulness that is often missing in schools because students are often focused on many different things. Sometimes those “aha” moments come later, after our students have left our classroom. Is this such a bad thing? Wiggins and McTighe show in their table with knowledge and understanding side-by-side. I wonder at what point do students reach the level of understand that is asked upon teachers to bring our students to. Teenage brains are still developing, and as I tell my students, high school is helping the wiring so that they can go on and do great things in their lives. While I have only read chapter 2 of their book, Wiggins and McTighe ask these types of questions. How well they get answered depends upon our students. I have ordered the book to help understand more about this topic.
I feel the experiences that I will continue to have in the fellowship program will help me to be more mindful that dry and stale teaching does not cut it. Students need to be active, yet, they still need to be able to sit through a lecture – we are a college prep high school. My deep play group is researching aesthetics. I will continue exploring and incorporate those ideas to my classroom. My hope is to bring more excitement and understanding into my classroom.
Works cited:
Skemp, R. R. (1978). Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding. The Arithmetic Teacher, Vol. 26, No. 3 (November 1978), pp. 9-15.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. Understanding Understanding. In Understanding by Design, expanded 2nd Edition, ASCD.
The summer meetings opened my eyes to more technology than I realized existed. I did not really focus too much on technology due to the nature of the available technology in my school. In the past, there have been many issues with Wi-Fi and available Chromebooks or computer labs. With a school as large as Lane Tech, we are still behind in that area. However, technology is not only electronic. I feel relief when I hear this, but I also fear what the administration understands technology to be – Chromebooks, iPads, and the like. Those hurdles will be addressed as I look forward.
My experience in the MSU-Wipro STEM Teaching and Leadership Program has allowed me to work with very engaging people who will help me continue my path as a teacher. It is always refreshing to hear what other people at other schools are doing in their classroom. From the teachers new to the profession, to the more experienced, from all levels, we all bring something to the table to share. I love that we are all very excited to learn more about what we more can bring to our students, to aid them in their journey of STEM education.
At first, I did not like the idea of being put outside my comfort zone. When the activities came up, I realized that all it was is thinking on my feet. As a teacher, you are used to doing just that. I guess my imagination just need to be a little shaken and stirred. The QuickFire Challenges worked best when we were paired or in trios. I found that in a bigger group there was always a person or two who withdrew. As a teacher, you know this happens a lot in small groups. For some, you chalk it up to their missing out. On the other hand, you want each group member to be comfortable sharing their ideas. All too often, when put on the spot, people withdraw. I do plan on trying to use a QuickFire Challenge. I am still thinking about how to implement due to space and construction on our campus. However, I think it will work. I cannot wait to try it with my students.
Curiosity is key to keeping our students to want to learn more. From Punya Mishra’s OlloClip to Steven Tow’s lesson on programming, allowing students to be curious and ask questions will help them be able to carry their STEM experience with them throughout their lives. When things are dry and stale, they are not memorable. Understanding does not take place on its own without curiosity and knowledge. The goal of this program is to keep our students wanting to learn more about STEM, and as I have taught before, may positive contributions to society.
Looking Forward:
In the past, I thought technology to only be electronic – the misconception many administrators of education have. Once I realized that I have been using all types of technology in my classroom, I felt a whole lot better about my teaching pedagogy. I felt I could expand upon different things in so many ways. Technology is way for us to enhance the learning process. If electricity is needed, then so be it. But, Chromebooks and other computers should not be the only types of technology needed to enhance the learning process for our students. Yes, this is the tech generation. However, students need to know how to work with their hands and their own minds. Most people do not realize how much work it takes to create programs, discover better modes of transportation, or make a better medicine. Past and current students tend to not really think about how stuff is researched, developed, and produced. Because of this, I feel that it is a blessing and a curse to be part of a first world country. We do not really know and/or understand what it is like to be without.
Too many times our students need to have the correct answer, or the “one most correct response”. When you think about it, the one most correct is not the only correct response, especially given a multiple choice test. When students are choosing A, B, C, D, or E on a multiple choice test, they cannot prove their answer. Why is there always only one answer? One thing I teach my students is that there is more than one way to get to an answer. And, if we round too much or too little, the one most correct choice does not always match. Or, sometimes there is more than one explanation. From there, students get caught up on reading comprehension or buzz words. The challenge, of course, is making sure students understand the value of instrumental understanding and relational understanding. As Skemp discusses in his 1978 article, “Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding”, instrumental understanding is useful for us to get to answers quickly and, for some, are easier to understand. Relational understanding is more adaptable. Sometimes what we learn in class will not match the assessment. Why does this always come across as a bad thing? If students can use both instrumental and relational understandings, they will achieve more in the STEM fields. The difference between knowledge and understanding takes time to evolve. It is the idea of mindfulness that is often missing in schools because students are often focused on many different things. Sometimes those “aha” moments come later, after our students have left our classroom. Is this such a bad thing? Wiggins and McTighe show in their table with knowledge and understanding side-by-side. I wonder at what point do students reach the level of understand that is asked upon teachers to bring our students to. Teenage brains are still developing, and as I tell my students, high school is helping the wiring so that they can go on and do great things in their lives. While I have only read chapter 2 of their book, Wiggins and McTighe ask these types of questions. How well they get answered depends upon our students. I have ordered the book to help understand more about this topic.
I feel the experiences that I will continue to have in the fellowship program will help me to be more mindful that dry and stale teaching does not cut it. Students need to be active, yet, they still need to be able to sit through a lecture – we are a college prep high school. My deep play group is researching aesthetics. I will continue exploring and incorporate those ideas to my classroom. My hope is to bring more excitement and understanding into my classroom.
Works cited:
Skemp, R. R. (1978). Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding. The Arithmetic Teacher, Vol. 26, No. 3 (November 1978), pp. 9-15.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. Understanding Understanding. In Understanding by Design, expanded 2nd Edition, ASCD.