 |
DOCUMENTATION:
Analytical
&
Integrative
Thinking |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rate of Change - Slope
.
Professional
Development & Beliefs:
Professional development, along with
teacher beliefs, goes hand in hand with the discussion regarding
leadership. Teacher beliefs are just as
crucial to change as are those of the administrators.
If
the
teachers
beliefs
do
not
correlate
with
the
vision
for
the
mathematics in the school then there is conflict and confusion. If the beliefs of the teachers are similar
then collaborative sessions could be more productive and focused on the
same
goals. But a lot comes into play during
collaboration. Did the teachers have
professional development sessions embedded in their instruction to
educate them on the expectations of standards-based lessons? Is there an expectation that teachers will
plan together and create common assessments so that all teachers of the
same
course will have the same objectives and level of rigor?
Do teachers come together to
discuss assessment results and how to help those students who are not
as
successful as they should be? The big
question is if the teachers believe that they are supported in their
efforts of
implementing standards-based lessons. My
pilot study on implementing the function approach in algebra revealed
that
teachers did not feel supported and some were leery of even trying new
things
due to scores on benchmarks, SOL assessments, and thier observations
and evaluations by administrators.
The change process is cyclic. Guskey
(2002)
discusses
teachers
attending
professional
development;
hopefully
trying
what
they
have
learned
in
their
classrooms,
and
students
actions
becoming
evidence for the teachers to want to try to do more.
The more teachers attempt or practice reform
actions the more they will have the evidence that it works. Professional development needs to be
sustained so teachers will continue to be supported.
Principal’s attendance at professional
development sessions shows teachers that they are open to the changes
and are
supporting them by learning the expectations. Administrators will also
be able
to help determine additional professional development needs for
teachers of
varying levels. An understanding that
change takes time, that teachers and administrators need to have a
vision or
goal for mathematics in their schools that provides an opportunity for
all students to learn mathematics, that all stakeholders will go
through
times of disequilibrium, that monitoring and assessing teachers will
change due
to the expectations, and that knowledge (content and pedagogical
content) needs
to be a part of professional learning to support the work of teachers
in their classrooms and of administrators as instructional leaders.
Student A is a sophomore taking Algebra I during the first block of the day. By the time you graduate it is hoped by the teachers that you will pass the basic required courses in mathematics. Student B is an eighth grade student taking Algebra I and on the track to take higher and more rigorous math classes prior to graduation. Teachers in both classrooms know about the NCTM Process Standards and are encouraged by central office leadership to provide instruction that is reform based and student centered. The teachers still approach their classes differently. Teacher A wants to break down the concepts so that students can follow easily steps outlined for a procedure. Teacher B wants students to think, to problem solve, to own the mathematics, and to question their actions and responses. Both students are still taking the same course, Algebra I, so they should be allowed to learn the material at the same level of rigor. Student’s ability to problem solve when given a situation can be accessible at different levels or approaches. So do students in the same course have the same opportunity to learn mathematics to the same level of rigor and cognitive demand? All students in public schools take required mathematics courses so we then assume that they have an opportunity to learn the material. The phrase is also applied to situations of equity such as race, gender, or age. There is the opportunity to learn the material but Byrnes (2003) discusses the idea that there needs to be a willingness to learn the material and to be engaged in the classrooms as well as being able to take advantage of all learning opportunities. Stipek (2002) claims that instruction effects student engagement and their enjoyment of mathematics. The connections made by focusing on the “big idea” instead of individual and independently taught concepts will aid in involving students in learning and owning their learning (Bruner, 1977; Stipek). Why are students in all situations not given an equal opportunity to learn material? My pilot study on the function approach revealed that teachers are leery of implementing strategies that they are not comfortable with nor have experienced. There is the fear of SOL scores and benchmark scores not being at acceptable levels, of not having the “time” to allow students to problem solve, and the disequilibrium of the unexpected in student answers and how to respond to student needs. The teacher responses are all lead to administration and the belief that they are not supported in these endeavors. My questions are about whether administrators acknowledge and understand what is meant by doing mathematics, their beliefs about all students learning mathematics, mathematical reform efforts, and their expectations of the teachers in their building. How do they support teachers? What opportunities have they provided teachers to grow? Do the teachers, building administrators, and central office mathematics leaders have the same vision and beliefs about instruction?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||