I stopped short on page 23 at the following: "Developing understanding
requires more than connecting new and prior knowledge; it requires a
structuring of knowledge so that new knowledge can be 'related to and
incorporated into existing networks of knowledge rather than connected
on and element-by-element basis.'" As a Stage 3 leader in my district
charged with informing the development of a coherent K-12 STE
curriculum, a classroom teacher and an avid disciple of the Frameworks
and NGSS, this statement both affirms the "natural" way that children
learn and the design of NGSS. My question is how best to ensure that a
particular continuum of learning about one of these elements is realized
as a child's "network of knowledge" expands?
NGSS doesn't set forth performance expectations for skills such as
measurement, for example, but rather relies on us as practitioners to
integrate teaching practical skills where needed in order to meet
particular expectations. In discussions with our high school staff over
the years, the recurrent frustration is that remediation is always
needed in measurement skills. So where and when does that need to
happen?
to the best of my knowledge, Measurement as a discrete category of
practical skills appears in Common Core Math in grades 1-4 and
disappears thereafter. Application of measurement in math is required to
advance through CC Math grades 5-12. Measurement targets aren't
explicitly addressed in NGSS, but need to be realized through the
Practices. In short, to resolve the frustration at the high school
level, the elements of the "network" of knowledge need to be
well-understood by stakeholders, especially teaching staff.
Hmmm. Our K-4 staff are well-equipped with materials and lessons through
the curriculum our district has provided. In grade 6, students change
buildings, dialog vertically between staff becomes almost non-existent,
and the transition to high school is another barrier as Science becomes
Geology, Biology, Chemistry and Physics. As Maureen Fortier and others
wrote in our blog about Equity, small victories are to be celebrated.
That's certainly going to be the case here. Are there Fellows or
Mentors who are in a district that you feel has an effective way to
delve into the discrete needs at a particular level and can analyze the
"network of knowledge" to verify a continuum of a particular element?
-Ann Putney
Ann, as I read your post I wondered about a local assessment system. Should districts develop an assessment system to evaluate whether or not students are developing these skills and essential understanding as they move through the grades? Your example about measurement is one that my district shares. It is a common complaint of the middle school teachers that students are lacking these skills. If elementary teachers understood the "network of knowledge" maybe there would be a stronger focus on these skills.
ReplyDeleteOh boy, Nancy. Your reply hit on the day I presented my PLCs "STE" document to our building leadership team. They loved the plan, but then worried that "every department, even Guidance will want to have one." "It's more than the Superintendent asked for." And my principal echoed their concerns. If departments can't share their threads in the network within a building, how can it happen between buildings? I'm beginning to think that my Governor's Academy training and insights give me a very different perspective (more global, that's certain) than most of my colleagues have.
DeleteAs far as elementary teachers understanding the "network," I think they have a pretty good idea, as they are self-contained, maybe better than a single-subject high school teacher, for example the Algebra teacher. But the understanding of how it unfolds vertically is lacking at all levels.
Performance based report cards should help, don't you think? But where are the resources for the kids who only earn 1 and 2? Who will tell them they can't advance? Lots of questions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat conversation. As an elementary teacher who now teaches STEM and once taught the skill of measuring as a classroom teacher using Everyday Math, I have perspective on the disconnect between teaching a skill and being able to apply a skill. You can never teach enough measuring, but in math the teaching is isolated and short with little relevant application. I see this now when 3rd and 4th graders come to STEM - they have learned measurement in class but I often re-teach it so they can measure accurately. I am wondering if students had more opportunity to apply these discreet skills when it mattered, would they retain it? Because of this lack of opportunity (there are so many discreet skills that we run out of TIME to apply them..hmmm...) I think we are collectively to blame for not building this vertical alignment - performance assessment may help this? In my district I too hear high school complain about middle school, middle school complain about elementary, elementary complain about home.
ReplyDelete