Lynnae+Boudreau+Artifact

Individual Culminating Artifact
(Now what?)

__Genesis__

The 21st century cohort has spent a year researching best practices for teaching in the 21st century: student-centered, focused on core competencies (communication, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and connection to a wider community). The approaches include inquiry learning, project-based learning, constructing knowledge to some extent, and web-based platforms for developing and sharing this knowledge. With an emphasis on the process of learning as much as any "right" answer, the ultimate goal is to engage students as much as possible in deep, authentic learning.

These approaches require new thinking about the role of the teacher in the class room-- now more of a facilitator, rather than the answer person. They require a different balance of depth and breadth in curriculum. And they emphasize team learning vs. individuals in separate class rooms.

I witnessed 21st century learning in action this past fall, in an inquiry-based physics class taught by Dr. Tina Davis. She had trained through a science inquiry program developed and sponsored by Arizona State University, and brought the model back to Lovett class rooms. She and two other teachers, Sue Wingate and Chris Bertha, used it to teach regular physics for the year.

Dr. Davis had used inquiry in her Science Methods course; she presented complex, open-ended problems to students, provided resources, and shepherded them through the processes of finding answers and asking more questions. The focus is on guided inquiry, guided discovery with students at the center of the work. They are expected to engage in creative, critical thinking-- the big questions are WHY, and WHAT IF.

There were a number of challenges with incorporating inquiry into physics. It took a while for students and parents to catch on to new expectations and methods. The pace was much slower than expected, which meant that students missed a unit (next year they will go more quickly). And it took teachers more time to develop open-ended curriculum-- just deriving the right answers would have been faster. Still, Dr. Davis considers the year a success. It was an eye-opening year for teachers, as students explained their work more deeply and teachers found (and corrected) unexpected misconceptions. And they had more concrete measures of student learning. For the first time this year, students took the Force Concept Inventory Test in the fall and again after studying mechanics. The numbers for Lovett students indicated a level of learning well above the national norm, even though students hadn't covered all the material. The numbers could reflect simply covering material at slower pace, but even so, Dr.Davis feels about half the difference is due to a change in pedagogy.

In shifting the model to physics-- a course taught by several teachers-- she brought in two other colleagues to share the approach. Her advice after a year's collaboration: consider others' input objectively, be willing to compromise, and help students see inquiry (and projects) as more than just a series of unattached assignments.

From that class in September, I developed the vision for my own classes.

__Project__

I would like to replicate the results I saw in physics: students presenting their work to classmates, answering "why" and "what if" questions. I would also like to share with math colleagues. To that end, I plan a three-pronged project for next year.

1. Class room.

Those physics students were collaborating with each other in the room. I want a platform for students to collaborate 24/7, so we will develop a class wiki; it will serve as chat room, repository for class documents and student work, and portal to share with a wider world.

The science department uses a great deal of technology, much of it similar to what "real" scientists use. Texas Instrument has a hand held calculator with CAS (computer algebra system), that will enable math students to explore, create, and test conjectures, similar to what "real" mathematicians do. In addition, CAS is compatible with the TI Navigator network, which will connect all hand held units and allow students to collaborate with each other and easily share equations and graphs, again, like they do it in the real world. I will use both CAS and Navigator to promote exploration and assess student understanding, as well as track how these tools support 21st century teaching.

2. Math department

Dr. Davis shared that, although they haven't measured data, she expects that students who have learned in an inquiry environment would fare better-- certainly this is the conclusion of education experts; students can fill in gaps better and are better trained to think on their own. This is also what I've read in [|Darling-Hammond], and implied in [|Wagner]. But I remain concerned about the negative effects on students of moving from my courses to more traditional teaching. And I think other teachers would enjoy creative approaches in their class rooms. I wonder if there might be a way to extend some sort of inquiry learning beyond my walls.

To that end, I've enlisted the aid of three colleagues to design specific projects to incorporate in regular and honors level Pre-Calculus courses, as a step toward more project-based learning. We will complete some summer work and start the new format in the fall. We have several questions to consider. First, which units lend themselves best to this sort of learning? Some topics need more explanation than others, and some are better suited to exploration. Then, because projects take more time, we need to prioritize units, so that we can drop those we deem less critical as the year progresses. We also have to determine an overall assessment scheme, to place projects appropriately. Finally, we need a way to assess whether students are learning better (or differently) than with more traditional approaches. I expect that our tools will evolve over the year.

3. Upper School

Our cohort reading has repeatedly emphasized the importance of colleagues working together in this educational endeavor. We can support each other, help refine our methods, and ultimately better help students. Early on, Laura Deisley and I planned a PLC to include the Pre-Calculus teachers and a couple of non-math teachers also engaged in inquiry learning. The plan has changed (reference Boudreau [|blog] postings), but what we will actually do next year is great. Called a "study group," functioning like a PLC, a cohort of US teachers from across disciplines will research inquiry learning-- what it is, how it's done, and who's doing it-- during the year. I'm looking forward to the work.

__Goals__

1. Students

Each year the students I teach get a slightly better education. They always learn a lot of math, and they always reach a bar set high, but the nuances of their learning improve as my technique improves. Next year should bring a marked improvement. I expect their journal writing to sharpen, as they use a public platform to post entries--the stakes will be higher. I hope the CAS and Navigator equipment make collaboration more smooth and enjoyable, and help me know better what students know, so we can fill in gaps or correct misconceptions. I'd also like students to better understand quite how well they're learning; the only gauge they seem to have now is test grades, and there's so much more to education than those numbers. In the end, I really want them to engage more deeply with the math, and finish the year with sound mathematical reasoning, confidence in their ability to do the hard stuff, and a sense of accomplishment

2. Self

Maybe I need to adjust how those grades are determined. I plan to revise grades and assessments to include those that mark the process, and help students see their progress. I need to learn and use two tech systems (a wiki and TI), and allow students to teach me as we go. I must play well with colleagues as we pioneer our project program, and then I must fold those projects into my own classes. I will read and share in the study group. This is the short list.

Less "list-able," but certainly important, are the communication requirements: with parents, with students, and with colleagues. For example, how much is too much transparency? This year I tried to be very clear with students about why I would, say, usually send them to each other for answers before I answered a question. Or why tutorials were structured the way they were. I thought it would help them understand what I asked of them, but instead, it only served to make the course more foreign, and cause them to feel more insecure. It took a semester to get in the groove. Perhaps simply setting the requirements, without background explanation may work better for these learners-- they may not be used to the "why's" behind the rules. For now. And I've grappled with ways to get parents into the loop. I want them to have a sound sense of the course and what we do in the room, but not flood them with unwanted information, or promote the impression that they need to be in their son or daughter's back pocket. Would a Parent Open House on a student presentation day be a good idea? Would that make students more shy about sharing their work?

Inquiring minds want to know.

http://screencast.com/t/M2RiMWMxZ