Chapter 6 - What Could They Do?

I wanted to return back to the questions I asked during my lead discussion in class on Chapter 6 here within my blog. These questions were a reuslt of stunning quantitiative data Boaler presented to us in her study.

Firstly, she stated that 94% of AH and PP students correctly answered questions on the test concerning angle calculations whereas only 63% of those same students in AH and 83% of PP students correctly estimated the roof's angle in the activity. Also, the AH students in the highest sets (1 and 2) did worse that the students of AH ins ets 3 and 4. Are our teaching styles prompting inappropriate learning cues by our students? In AH and in many of our classrooms the answer is sadly yes. We are caught up in a system so focused on testing that we teach students to find clues within a question that would turn them to a particualr recipe for answering teh question correctly. Often times these cues mean the student has to do so little thinking the work becomes mechanical, thoughtless, robotic, useless. Are we truly aware of the implications such hints whether verbal or written are having on the independence of student thought and learning. We've become so good at this cueing that our students sometimes cannot succeed without it. They too have become conditioned to needing these explicit instructions in order to correclty answer many of their questions. In so many of our classes students arrive at nonsensical answers, unaware of the obvious errors in their answers. Many times it's because they take a word in the question out of context and do not have a full mastery of the outcome beng tested.

Students at both schools reported enjoying the activities immensely, particularly the AH students, many of whom asked if they could do more work of a similar nature. Are we doing a good enough job to make math class enjoyable for our students? Again, I must revert back to the system we as teachers have innocently and blindly taken as the "way" things must be done. We use the timelines from governement, the pressures from districts for improved marks, and the established doctrine of teaching to the test as all crutches for why we've taken so much of the poential fun and enjoyment out of math class. Replacing the investigations and modelling sessions we give them endless practice sheets to prepare for the summative evaluations months away. When times gets short something enjoyable is always the first to be cut because we think it's not as important as "time on task" routines of pencil and paper work. Again, it's not intentional, and some will say we don't know any better. However, Boaler is telling us better, she is now ensuring we do know better. She found only 3% of AH students added any creativity in their flat designs compared to 33% of PP students. We can create demanding cognitive takss while still having students adhere to certain rules within the class. So, let's listen to her. Let's try her approach.

Success on the GCSE exams was important for students at PP but their teachers were cavalier about exam preparation. PP provided no calculators to students needing them and the school was void of any real motivation or "gearing up" for exams. Are we giving our students enough responsibility? In many ways we, as teachers, are making our students more responsible and ready to learn. We ask them to show up to class on time, bring their supplies, complete the assigned work both in and out of class, hand in projects on time. I could go on. However, we bend ever so quickly, extend wilingly on times, and believe it or not become more stresses out over students responsibilites than they do themselves. Many of us bring the wiriting tools, the calculators, often the paper itself for our students to complete their work. Especially at test time we scurry around to bum calculators and scrap up things our students should have brought but didn't. Yes, we all forget things sometimes and there's nothing wrong in helping at times like this. However, we go to the extreme many a time. I think many of us in a desperate plea for improved scores in exams will cater to our students. I personally try to be as nice as I can when moments of "oops" come from my students. I have loaned loaned my own calculator and I have turned students away too to fend for themselves. It's a tough act to adhere to and one that we must practice every opportunity we get.

A question that raised a lot of interest in class was: How often and to what extent do we talk and stress CRT, public exams to our students, making it the focus and purpose of the course? It would be very interesting to do such a study in our classrooms, making note of the number of times we defer to "tests" as a reason for learning a concept, as a reason for paying attention, as the reson for doing well in the course. I have a fear that student hear more references to testing in their classes than any other feature of their education. From day 1 in the syllabus we highlight public exams 10 months down the road, instilling perhaps fear withint he class that everyone is here for one reason only: to be ready for that test. Again, I say our language is often deferred to test preparation because that is the system of education created and followed year after year. The top-down, hierarchial system demands a concentration on testing, on these results as a way to justify funding or lack there of, to declare success of a program or its failure. However, we as teachers are the adult, often the only adult in the classroom. We are the voice the students hear and from us they hear too much about testing, too much about getting ready for tests. Instead of putting emphais on learning for its own sake and relating it to the world around our students, we exhaust them with test prep and success. Next time, let's try to catch ourselves before we use the test as the focus of our conversations with our students. No doubt, it will be tough.


Of all the results revealed in this chapter the one that stood out to me the most was that only 9% of the AH top set of students retained the material they learned just a few months after it was assessed. PP students retained four times the amount that some AH students had.Therefore, are our tests giving a realistic picture of what our students are learning? These results show the damage, real damage that the current teaching and learning styles are having on our students long term retention and understanding. Tests really aren't all they're cracked up to be, yet we still use them to draw a line in the sand, separating those who know from those who don't. These tests determine really who succeeds, who make it, and who gets left behind. It's time to revisit the value of these test papers and their role in shaping our student's education and their futures.

Scott