Walter Wick bringing a New Perspective to Math...

On a Sunday afternoon that the family finally had a free moment, my wife took the family to the Woodson Art Museum to view the Walter Wick exhibition. Walter Wick is the photographic illustrator of the I SPY series, and the author/illustrator of the Can You See What I See? series.  Besides see some amazing photography and reflecting on a bit of my own past, I had so many moments of game changing instructional opportunities.  

The first came from a pair of photos called Balancing Act, of which one is pictured at the right.  The photo shows many objects seemingly placed at random all balancing on a single piece of LEGO.  Mr. Wick mentions the process of getting everything to balance took over a week with much trial and error and several crashes along the way.  What I saw was the amount of math that could be extracted and then performed from such a starting image.  From 7th grade ratios and proportions to symmetry all the way through the upper levels of mathematics.  What intrigues me the most is that almost every student will have objects similar to these sitting in their home.

Next to this photo was another called Sorting and Classifying from the I SPY School Days.  From my experience teaching Geometry to planning earlier math lessons the concept of a Venn Diagram is not the easiest concept to grasp when applying it to mathematics.  However, what if the class started with a photo of Sorting and Classifying followed by the simple question, "What is the purpose of the rings?"  Instead of teaching students what the Venn Diagram is, allow students to discover its' purpose and what they sort in this situation.

The final photo thatI felt it was important enough to share is Mirror Maze.  This photo is created by using mirrors in the shape of an equilateral triangle to make the maze.  I sat in front of this photo for at least 15 minutes just following the reflections and identifying where I felt there could be inconsistencies while also looking for justifications of the inconsistencies.  This is the type of thing that would make Geometry much more intriguing.  The number of places it could fit in during the year is almost limitless.

All these are just pieces to a puzzle I have been trying to solve in my head and in the classroom for some time.  Students have a limitless amount of stimulus throughout the day that take their attention away from the classroom.  However, rarely do they find something that they could just stare at and be intrigued.  The other piece to these photos is not only the depth of the mathematics but the access to many other levels of math.  For example, most of a typical Geometry course could be made up with just these three photos and connecting the concepts between them.

My thoughts now settle on the art that I am missing to further enhance mathematics.  On a side note and for our M.C. Escher enthusiasts.  Check out Going Up and Tricky Triangle.  These are not drawings, which often lead students to find M.C. Escher "cool" but not with the same curiosity as something real.  These are photographs of real objects.  Go ahead and find the intrigue.

                                                   

Why a Retake doesn't enhance Learning...

Recently, a post on a listserv I am part of was discussing retakes at the secondary level and how different schools have structured them. The thread was well responded to and well thought out. We had responses from giving them in every case no questions asked to not ever allowing a retake. Some schools require certain things before a retake can begin, others allow a certain maximum number of retakes in a semester.

Throughout the thread, I read, but didn't respond. I wanted to know if my thoughts about retakes were unique, or being rather reflective, on the right track. In my experience, retakes have been frustrating to say the least. The culture of the my school has changed so drastically since the advent of the retake, it puts in question the core concept of should retakes happen. It has been pointed out to me that I never statistically determined that the retake is the cause of the cultural issues. Nope, I haven't. Personally, I don't feel I need to. When student's respond on the first assessment of the year that they "just want to look at it and take the retake tomorrow," I don't need a statistical analysis to determine there is a cultural issue and retakes, at minimum have something to do with it.

My beliefs about retakes are simple. Not only should they happen but they are an essential component of education.  My guess is you may be a little surprised at that statement.

Retakes and RTI need to go hand in hand.  If a student is retaking an exam, the question really needs to be why, not what percentage it should take in the grade.  We should also be asking questions such as:  What did the student do to not earn a passing grade?  Do they have prior gaps preventing them from learning?  Do they have poor work habits?  Is our test based on work habits or learning?  How can we design their day to best help enable them to succeed?  Could the issue be a home issue and this is a one time instance?   Or, is there a different underlying issue?

 

I feel it is too easy to pull the student responsibility card and much harder to look at it from an individual student perspective.  It is important to remember that these are kids we are working with even though in most cases we want them to act as adults.  This doesn't mean there are no consequences from poor choices.  On the contrary, it means the complete opposite.  If a student legitimately didn't do anything prior to the exam the true reaction should be they don't take the original assessment.  Wouldn't this be more effective than allowing the student to fail initially.  The retake needs to be used as a teaching tool, not a gift.  Retakes don't lead to learning.  If a retake needs to happen what is the reason.  That is where the learning occurs.  Should they happen, yes...after we have figured out what the root cause of the lack of learning is.  Otherwise we are just perpetuating a viscous circle.

Most Likely to Succeed

So here I sit late at night while sleep evades me.  Not because it normally does but because of a movie.  I read the book Most Likely to Succeed but the movie was far more powerful.  Still not as powerful as a brief few words by an administrator at NTC but powerful.

Never am I one to swing the pendulum too far to one side.  Let me explain.  I see most of the "new things" in education as advancements that have both good and bad to them.  Taking a look as some of the most recent best practices such as the flipped classroom and personalized learning leads to some very interesting conclusions.  First, neither is showing much for results.  Second, both are dependent on the right student culture.  Third and most important both are only as strong as the teacher in the classroom.  I like aspects of the flipped classroom just like I can see value in parts of personalized learning.  I just don't see sustained success in either one individually.

Today's student is a new breed.  Taking out the top 1/3 of the students that would succeed regardless of how they were instructed we are left with a mixed bag of students.  Most of which would rather sit at home playing video games than trying to dig into something new.  These students have a rather large issue coming at them.  For the first time in my almost 2 decades of teaching I believe the world they are entering has the potential to be vastly different than the one we were in.  I just don't think other teachers see this yet.  For the past several decades not much has changed.  Don't get me wrong, tons has but most people have a job, went on to school and became what they wanted to become.  Now, unemployment is sustaining at a high rate in part I believe because technology is replacing people at a much faster rate than in the past.  Furthermore, the climate of business almost promotes these changes.  Normal manual labor is still necessary and to a degree will always be there.  However, the jobs that are harder to find are the more skilled positions.  Computers are taking those jobs and keeping them.

Most math teachers have a certain pride in our level of expertise to teach math.  I must admit I really don't believe the students I produce become mathematicians.  I just want them to be thinkers.  Regardless nobody does the math we teach anymore.  To respond to the pundits out there, yet some do but play the math game.  Maybe 1 out of your entire building, not classroom, will go on to actually calculate/create using the math we teach.  Computers do all the work.  So why do we teach all of it?  Why even bother?

Speaking for one I am done teaching the stuff that really doesn't matter.  I am tired of preparing students to take an assessment that shows zero student success past the first year of college.  I want to prepare students to succeed in life.  My problem is where is the midpoint of all this transition. We can't just give up on all math.  Students/Families will require us to have certain cognitive understandings.  While at the same time I really want to see students thinking, creating, doing...  How do we determine where to begin?

Where is the balance between enough background skill and enough group interactive skills to ensure a child succeeds?  Then, even when we find it how do we communicate it?

Oh so many questions.  I think it is going to be a long night...