Homework...One of the things that makes you go hmmmmmmm

Homework has always been a part of the instructional program of schools. The argument for and against homework has been widely debated, researched, and published. Is homework necessary to apply or practice what has been taught, or to prepare for what is expected to ensue during your next class meeting? How much is enough? Should it be required? Should we grade homework? Should we differentiate it?

Most parents and students will agree that homework is plentiful and time consuming. Many will also agree that there is inconsistencies among educators regarding how it is used, assessed, and applied to the instructional program. While variation may be a result of the curriculum of the course, it may be this variation that impacts the perceived value. The conversation of homework among educators varies and evolves. The most common justification for homework typically involves the need to check for understanding, provide opportunities to apply what has been learned, and compensate for limited instructional time in the classroom compared to the curriculum pacing requirements. On the surface these are valid and honest. One would assume that this rationale would result in a perceived value regarding the necessity of homework as we know it. However, it may not..

A hot topic in the evolution of homework is the "flipped classroom". This idea flips the process by having students review content through reading or viewing video segments for homework. In class the students apply what was learned through application under the oversight of their teacher and collaboration with their peers. This process allows a level of individualization and collaboration. It creates a paradigm shift in the classroom by having the teacher facilitate the application of skills, strategies, and content with less of a focus on whole class, direct instruction.

The conversation regarding homework has also focused on its role in measuring student achievement. In the era of high stakes testing and the mathematical measurement of achievement through standardized testing we have found ourselves creating a culture of students who focus on achievement through grades at the expense of deeper understanding. The dialogue regarding grading of homework varies. Educators approach this in varying ways by grading homework for completion, accuracy, or both. Others have aborted the need to grade homework and have made it optional for students. The reflective feedback among educators and researchers has raised the question of its relevancy as a measurement of student learning vs. student effort. Should effort be a percentage of student grades in which the grade represents student achievement?

There are bodies of research that insists learning requires the opportunity to take chances and make mistakes. Learning is ignited through reflection, receiving feedback, and making corrections. Should homework provide students the opportunity to make mistakes without a punitive consequence? Would that opportunity increase the perceived value with students? Would teachers observe similar or greater growth by increasing feedback and decreasing grading? Can we maintain the effectiveness of homework with a decrease in extrinsic motivators and would this approach increase intrinsic motivation? This topic requires further discussion and reflection. I invite your thoughts in the comments.

Start With Changing the Mindset

Merrian-Webster dictionary defines learning as, " the activity or process of gaining knowledge or skill by studying, practicing, being taught, or experiencing something" When we practice something we are identifying skills that we wish to improve on. We then apply repetition, reflection and instruction to improve in a particular area. The act of doing something over and over must be paired with instruction and adjustment in order to result in a change in behavior, action or understanding.


Athletes are not born professional. It takes countless hours of instruction, practice and adjustment. It is the instruction paired with practice that will most likely equate to growth. Albert Einstein defined insanity as the act of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same result. For this reason, we must embrace failure and not hesitate to change direction or seek instruction.

In our classrooms we need to cultivate a culture that takes risks, embraces misunderstanding, seeks instruction and can adjust. Only when our students can embrace that the first step in learning is not knowing can we move toward growth. How we provide an environment that encourages kids to participate, not be afraid to be wrong and recognize the strategies that can be employed to transition from not knowing to knowing?

I recently read Carol Dweck's book Mindset. The idea of a Fixed vs. Growth Mindset and it's influence on the classroom struck a chord with me. Our educational system provides variables that make it easy for students to develop a fixed mindset. Leveled classes, honor rolls, GPA's, and standardized testing establish labels and groupings that present students with a fixed interpretation of their ability.

The research presented by Dweck shows us that our brains are malleable. Our intelligence is not fixed, but can grow. Dr. Dweck presents a number of strategies that can be employed to develop the growth mindset. This mindset must be embraced by both students and teachers.

When working with our most at-risk students it is my belief that a counseling approach in which we can reroute the belief that their intelligence level is fixed is vital. As demonstrated by our most successful athletes, scholars, and entertainers it is a commitment to practice, recognition of weaknesses and perseverance that resulted in their development. As Malcolm Gladwell has proposed it takes 10,000 hours of emersion in your craft to produce an Outlier. I encourage educators to explore this idea and integrate its principles into their instructional practices .

Assessing Student Understanding With RAFT Writing

The translation of knowledge, opinion and understanding into a written response can be a challenge for a number of students. Teachers across content areas often discuss the challenge of not only improving the quality of student writing, but also having it be a reflection of what students know. The typical protocols for developing written voice involve a variety of strategies and resources including pre and post writing strategies. Graphic organizers, journaling, conferencing, word webbing and collaborative authoring and review through online documents are just a few of the strategies employed. Typically students are presented with a prompt and asked to formulate a written response that includes supporting evidence. The guiding words used in such prompts are typically who, what, when, where, why and how. 

RAFT writing takes a more holistic approach to the process, but segments the objective into four components that students can easily understand. It also provides an authentic and engaging connection to the content.

• Role of the Writer: Who are you as the writer? A movie star? The President? A plant? 

• Audience: To whom are you writing? A senator? Yourself? A company? 

• Format: In what format are you writing? A diary entry? A newspaper? A love letter? 

• Topic: What are you writing about?

* Read Write Think - http://www.readwritethink.org/professional-development/strategy-guides/using-raft-writing-strategy-30625.html

Image - https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpjOER7B6ZkeNXbc6m69_n8857iJSs-L6PW1KruyMtNZdjDfOVkFT_p__XGKBk8dZ6cvQuV5_vd1OGbWcnOCBAroZxl4s9IwuwccBE-DhrXQ9k4ApWJN5NDv7cYRNOz4c709ikpZcr6Hs/s640/RAFT+Graphic+Organizer.png

The flexibility, choice and alternative formats offered with this strategy offer differentiation and authenticity to the task at hand. The final product presents a higher order understanding of the content presented.

I recently observed a U.S. history course in which the students were being introduced the the viewpoints of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists with regards to the ratification of the Constitution. A simplified explanation of the objective was for students to understand the supportive and opposing views of establishing and investing in "big government"

The RAFT writing strategy may be applied to this lesson in a variety of formats:

• Role - A concerned citizen

• Audience - State Senator

• Format - Letter

• Topic - Your concern regarding the proposal to unite all of the schools in Morris County, NJ into a single school district. 

• Role - George Washington

• Audience - Self

• Format - Diary Entry

• Topic - The opposition to the ratification of the constitution

The infusion of a RAFT writing task may be utilized to introduce a topic or as a formative or summative assessment.   There are a variety of resources available including online random generators.  I have curated many of them within the Wiki linked below.

RAFT Lesson Ideas

Quick Writes - An Underutlized Instructional Strategy

During a recent classroom observation I observed the use of a quick write strategy. While this is not new or something I have not used myself I reflected on its value. A quick write strategy is simple by design, but powerful in many ways.  A teacher poses a high quality question to the class and asks students to jot down their thoughts regarding the question. After providing some time the teacher asks students to share their thoughts.

The quick write strategy offers the following advantages in the classroom:

• All students in the class are provided the opportunity to reflect on the question and organize a response. 
• Students who are slower processors are provided time to formulate a response before sharing with the class. 
• Teachers may use this strategy as a formative assessment by circulating the room to view what students have written.
• Students may use this as a self-assessment by analyzing what they wrote in comparison to what other students in the class share. 
• A quick write might be assigned as a "do now" in order for students to activate prior knowledge or  as a closure activity to reflect on a lesson. 

The quick write instructional strategy provides an opportunity for everyone in the class to have a voice and reflect on the content. It levels the playing field and ensures active participation and engagement. 

What will I see when I search?

Last week I had the opportunity to present to a creative writing class in our high school. Being in the role of assistant principal it's not often that I have the opportunity to teach a mini lesson. I was asked to introduce students to the idea of creating a digital portfolio in which they will publish the various formats of writing that they will be crafting in this class. The teacher and I developed a template using Google Sites for students to work with as they develop their portfolios.

While this opportunity could have been a simple tutorial in which I demonstrated the "technical intricacies" of Google Sites, I was compelled to pair this with a discussion on online reputation management and the power of publishing.

In the era of social media, smartphones, and mobile apps the ability to publish online is not only accessible, but enticing. Sharing online is the most common form on communication among students.

Over the years we have educated students about the danger of online publishing. Our message has been about protecting your identify and minimizing the availability of personal information. We have also spoke about the dangers of anonymity. The talk of 'being safe' expanded to reputation management. Students have been exposed to conversations regarding their digital footprint. We have focused on the permanency of what we share online and the outcomes that may be a result of these actions.

In speaking to this class of students I asked how many of  them have ever Googled themselves. I was surprised to see only about 10% of the students responded yes. When I asked them what they have learned about online publishing they were quick to cite the topics I discussed above. In my conversation with them I challenged the idea of protecting your identity online.

We discussed who may be looking for you online. Employers, college admissions officers, friends and family were discussed. My approach regarding this audience shifted their thinking from "be careful with what I share" to "what are you publishing online under your full name that adds value or differentiates yourself?" "How can you create a digital footprint that puts you at an advantage over others when applying for a job or seeking admission into a University.

When working with students we should be modeling best practice strategies in online publishing. Students should be sharing their best work, thoughts, ideas and creations for the world to discover. A Google search of your name should uncover the products that best represent you. Examples may be not only writing portfolios, but art work, images, or comments on publications.

As educators we should be working to develop the skills required to publish online. Authoring for the web requires an understanding of how we read online. The quality of the content must be paired with an appreciation and understanding of intuitive design and rich presentation.

Why do we grade everything?

The common core standards and the next generation science standards have provided a common framework that represents the skills and content knowledge that we expect students to master in order to be prepared for college and careers. The standards and correlated high stakes tests are designed to assess students on the application of these skills and content.

If we accept these standards as "what kids need to know and do" then we need to develop curriculum and assessment that scaffolds students toward this goal. How we get students their should be variable. The activities, technologies, lesson design and products should be representative of the dynamics of your class. Students should be given what they need based on observation, data and their feedback. While this represents the "art" of teaching, close consideration should be given to best-practice instructional strategies. It is at this stage that collaboration among teachers may result in improved instructional practice.

If the goal of our efforts is "student learning" vs. "teaching"  we need to consider the opportunities we provide students and teachers to check for understanding and progress towards learning.  Learning is defined as "the acquisition of knowledge or skills through experience, study, or by being taught" Research and experiences has proven that failure is an essential component to growth, development and learning.  How can we provide opportunities for students to not fear failure in order to provide them a chance to take risks, recognize areas to focus improvement and channel resources? How can we provide teachers with a true understanding of where students are on the learning curve? 

The use of formative assessments provide opportunities for this type of measurement. Whether its a do now, exit slip or a short quiz these types of "check for understanding" assessments are effective. If we eliminate the grading of these assessments we take away the punitive nature of these assessments. The assessments may now be on-demand and unannounced. There will not be grade inflation representative of study guides, tutoring or intensive review. The feedback is immediate, authentic and relevant.

When we provide formative reviews of student learning our instructional practices can align to what students need vs. what we have to 'cover'.  The summative assessments, aligned to the standards can then represent a greater weighting of the overall grade and will result in a course grade that better reflects student understanding.

 

Teaching and Testing vs. Student Learning and Assessment

In a 2011 issue of Ed Weekly, Peter DeWitt published an article discussing how our focus on testing should be shifted to assessment. This idea of assessment, whether formative or summative, has been widely spoken and debated for quite some time. Our movement towards common core standards and PARCC assessment has forced our shift to summative testing. In other words, we are preparing students for end of course summative assessments that provide an "autopsy" of how well the students have mastered skills and content. By incorporating "Student Growth Percentage Scores (SGP's)" in teacher evaluations we are also assessing how well teachers have done in ensuring such mastery with a defined group of students. 

While there is value and relevance to summative assessments, our goal as educators is not to teach, it is to ensure student learning. In order to meet that demand we need to employ formative assessment to constantly check for understanding. The results of which will impact our pacing, lesson plans, follow-up assessments, interventions and support models.

In most schools teachers embark on this challenge in isolation. They develop tests, quizzes and other formative assessments  on their own. Teachers calculate percentage scores, averages, and hopefully varied levels of itemization resulting in data analysis for their group of students.

The work of DuFour, DuFour and Eaker support a hybrid approach to formative assessment by introducing common formative assessment.  The advantages of teachers teaching the same content developing common assessments are highlighted in their many works.  It is important to note that they are speaking of assessments and not content tests. These assessments provide a variety of prompts, questions sets and tasks that assess the skills, critical thinking, problem solving and content connected to the standards. The results of each assessment are itemized and discussed collaboratively. Interventions, curriculum changes, and  instructional planning are developed collaborative as a result of the data.

"If five teachers teaching the same course or grade level are responsible for ensuring all students acquire the same knowledge and skills, it make sense those teachers would work together to determine the best methods to assess student learning. A team of teachers could divide responsibilities for creating a unit and developing assessments. Teachers working in isolation replicate and duplicate effort. They work hard, but they do not work smart.", (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, 2007).  Other advantages cite equity, collaborative problem solving, improvement of individual and teams of teachers, systematic interventions and increased student achievement.

Teachers of the same content working together to develop 3 or 4 benchmark assessments, aligned to standards, presented timely, and analyzed and discussed collaboratively will undoubtedly have a greater opportunity to ensure student learning than high stakes, summative tests.