Teaching math in a problem-based manner pays dividends…

So end-of-grade test scores have come back. I’ve spent this year co-planning mathematics lessons with a 3rd grade teacher, Laura, at a school near my university in Charlotte. Laura is a 2nd year teacher and graduated from here (UNC Charlotte) 2 years ago. At the beginning of the year we committed to doing things right– planning a balanced math curriculum that was heavily standards-based and very focused on problem solving.

At the beginning of the year her students ranged from Level II to Level III….all students have to reach Level III by the end of the year in order to move to 3rd grade. 22 of her 23 students passed the first time and all of them showed growth from the pre-test score. The one student who retested passed on the retest…giving her a 100% pass rate!!

For me, the commitment that we made to teach problem solving and use a standards-based approach was not a risk. I was confident in it. But for Laura it was a risk. While we had planned and worked together the year before, teaching nearly the whole year from a standards-based approach was a risk that she was willing to step and take.

During the year we knew the kids were learning. When they were able to solve tasks like the classic 8 + 4 = __ + 5 or multi-step, multi-operational tasks, we had a hunch they were moving in the right direction. They talked about mathematics and reasoned at a high level. Still, we were uncertain how it would carry over into a standardized testing situation. It is refreshing to know that in this case, the commimtent paid off and there was evidence of student learning, not only in students’ communication and reasoning, but also on the state mathematics exam.

Rethinking assessment

Here is a link to the Framework for Change, a report published by the North Carolina General Administration, that calls for a major overhaul of the state’s testing and assessment system.

Of the changes recommended and being instituted…

1) Essential standards are tested that represent a deep and more narrow curricular scope. Instead of testing a myriad of standards, fewer standards will be tested and these standards represent ‘essentials’ needed for each grade level.

2) Assessments are performance-based and encompass short-answer, free-response, online simulations and other demonstrations of knowledge and skills. Multiple choice testing will still be included but only as a component of state-wide assessments

3) Schools and teachers will be supported with formative assessments and materials to address learning difficulties prior to the end of the year.

4) Writing assessments will be done across the curriculum (math, science, social studies, reading) and will be a portfolio capturing students’ performance across time rather than just on one day during the 4th grade year.

5) Bloom’s Revised taxonomy will serve as the framework for standards and the creation of test items.

The phrase “21st Century skills” appears numerous times in this document as well as other materials published by the policy makers at the state level. As we approach the 9th year of the 21st Century it seems as if these changes will be positive- as we begin to assess students more on higher-level skills, their understanding of content and their ability to apply, synthesize and create representations of their knowledge.

Common Assessments based on state standards: Using Power Standards

In my work last week at a local elementary school, I participated in a team meeting where teachers were in charge of choose 8-12 state standards that would be assessed on a common assessment at the end of the semester. This process is being done for both reading and mathematics.

During the conversation, the phrase “power standards” came up a few times. What administrators and teachers meant by “power standards” were state standards that are complex, typically higher-level skills that have other state standards as pre-requisites for these “power standards.”

An example that came up was the idea of students asking possible, how, why and what if questions based on text. As a “power standard” in order for students to meet this standard, they need to be able to read, comprehend and understand text in enough detail that they can ask worthwhile questions.

As we think about common assessments and the use of these “power standards” it is interesting to consider how authentic assessment should more specifically examine whether and how well students meet the standards. Perhaps the traditional multiple choice format can address this, but as we get into higher-level skills and more complex “power standards” it makes sense to consider more authentic ways to assess students’ performance of state standards.

Just some ideas floating around….