Late night thoughts on Assessing Prior Knowledge

So it’s 11:50 pm on a Tuesday night, so what?  I can still think critically, right?  It was the last day of classes and I had an amazing day, but then all of a sudden Twitter started gearing up and lots of discussions began and my mind started racing.  I had planned on writing a blogpost about a student’s awesome inquiry project (which, it ends up, took me about 2 hours to figure out a way to make an iBook on my iPad into a video to try to post on my blog, so that will have to wait), but then I read a great post by Andrew Shauver (@hs_math_physics)

Mr. Shauver writes about the pros and cons of direct instruction vs. inquiry learning but has a great balanced viewpoint towards both of them. In this post, he is discussing the how and when teachers should or can use either method of instruction.  It is important, Shauver states to remember that “inquiry can work provided that students possess the appropriate background knowledge.”

I would totally agree, but I’m just wondering how we assess that – does it really work to lecture for a day and then say they now possess the appropriate background knowledge?  Do we lecture for two days and then give them a quiz and now we know they possess it?  I wonder how we know?  At some point, don’t we have to look at each student as an individual and think about what they are capable of bringing to a mathematical task?  We should set up the problems so that there is some sort of triggering of prior knowledge, communication between peers, resources available for them to recall the information?

Joseph Mellor makes a great point that in PBL most of the time you might plan a certain outcome from a problem, or set of problems, but the triggering didn’t work, or the kids didn’t have the prior knowledge that you thought.  He says that he is often either pleasantly surprised by their ability to move forward or surprised at how much they lack. In PBL, we depend on the students’ ability to communicate with each other, ask deep questions and take risks – often admitting when they don’t remember prior knowledge – hopefully to no suffering on their part. This can be a big hurdle to overcome and can often lead to further scaffolding, a deeper look at the writing of the problem sequence, fine tuning the awareness of their true prior knowledge (not just what the previous teacher said they “learned”) or yes, maybe a little direct instruction in some creative ways.  However, I do believe that given the opportunity a lot of students can be pleasantly surprising.  What do you think?

Be the Change You Want to See

I just finished listening to a great “blogcast” that Tony Wagner gave as an interview for Blogtalkradio about his new book “Creating Innovators:The Making of Young People Who Will Change the World.” Kind of a neat idea for a book in which he has done some great research looking into how some new ideas got started by young people, how their creativity was fostered in their childhood, parenting and education, etc.  Definitely worth taking a listen to.

Listen to internet radio with Steve and Mary Alice on BlogTalkRadio

One of the things that Prof. Wagner talks about in his interview is the idea of fostering the creativity that leads to innovation.  As he spoke to these great innovators that he interviewed, they could all name at least one teacher in their career who had a “significant impact” on their learning.  Interestingly, the characteristics of that teacher were often very similar, Wagner said.  They were known for encouraging collaboration and often assessing it, creating a classroom that was often interdisciplinary and problem-based (of course) and empowered his or her students to be creative in their problem-solving and make mistakes.  Why is this not surprising?  To all of us who strive to foster the practice of creativity and hope to allow our students to become innovative and original thinkers, we have known that these are the values that we should uphold in the classroom. I’m so glad that Wagner did this great research and wrote this wonderful book.

However, we also know the realities of the limitations that many of us teachers have that come with the system within which we teach.  I have spoken to so many teachers from around the country who, with all good intentions are striving to make their classrooms more problem-based and encourage creativity.  They are truly trying to be the change they want to see in mathematics education today.  But the fear of standardized testing that is not assessing these values, affecting their evaluations or public awareness of parental or administrative dissatisfaction or vocal disagreement with these goals, needs to be balanced with a teacher’s desire to move ahead.  Limitations of a teacher’s time, energy and their own creativity keep them from being able to proceed without support from like-minded colleagues and leaders in their district.

At the end of the interview, Prof. Wagner talks about his move from the Harvard GSE to his new position in the Technology and Entrepreneurship Center at Harvard.  He says something like he’s found that he doesn’t belong in a school of education because he’d like to be somewhere where the focus is “explicitly on innovation.”  My question is why can’t that be a school of education? or a school at all?  Why can’t learning be explicitly innovative and thought about as innovation in general? I believe all of us are capable of thinking of our schools as places of learning where students are being innovative as they learn.  Every day I ask my students in my classroom to attempt to think of something new to them.  It may not be innovative to me, but as long as it is in their eyes and their brain is attempting to see something in a new way on their own, I believe they are being innovative.

I would encourage us all to continue to be the change that we want to see in schools and not try to find other places where we think we belong.  It’s so important that we continue to make these changes no matter how small and I hope to continue to be a resource in your own classroom innovation!