I took off points for THAT on the quiz, you'd think they learned!

I've been a part of a handful of conversations lately that go something like this:

-----------
"On the quiz last week, students were asked to label their graphs.  Half the class didn't, so I took off two points."

"Oh, really?  That's pretty frustrating."

"On the test today, guess what?  The same kids forgot to label their graphs.  I tell you, Matt, it was right there in the directions...you'd think they learned...."
---------

We (math teachers) think that taking off points for incorrect or missing labels, forgetting to answer part of a question or not turning in homework is THE solution.  Does it really work though?  In my experience, for the most part, the same students continue to make the same mistakes over and over.  They need to be taught soft skills of becoming more detailed readers and writers or following directions carefully - some of them need help...reading!  By taking off points, what message are we sending to students?

I don't know the answer.  Maybe more critical conversations with students rather than relying on points and grades to do the talking?  Thoughts?  Leave 'em in the comments.

Mile wide and an inch deep...is there a sliver of value in this approach?

Warning: unpolished thoughts (a.k.a. rambling) follow...

A colleague recently sent an article describing the age-old problem of math topic coverage being a mile wide and in inch deep.  A few excerpts from the article are enough to illustrate the main points math curriculum crisis transpiring in the state of Florida right now:

"The problem with the old standards, educators say, is that many topics were covered lightly and then repeated year after year."
 and
"Because the state's annual test measured performance on the 89 standards, Kuches and other teachers had no choice but to race through them in the hope that students would learn. The results were not always good, especially for slower learners."
I used to think that this problem could be quickly fixed...just teach fewer topics and explore them from many different angles so that ALL students can understand them.  After a dozen or so semesters teaching, Geometry, I still think this is a good idea in theory, but I have also realized that some young minds just aren't mature enough to comprehend certain math topics.  Think about Bloom's Taxonomy (or a more specific math example, van Hiele levels of geometric reasoning) and how some students struggle with the knowledge or comprehension level of many topics in school.  In Geometry, our curriculum (i.e. proofs, inductive and deductive reasoning) implies students should be synthesizing and evaluating geometric ideas.  From my experience, that's just not cognitively possible for some students as fifteen or sixteen year-olds.  It might not be possible until they are seventeen or eighteen.  If the topics don't repeat themselves, at least a little bit, students will be missing out on the opportunity to be exposed to these ideas later on in their "math career." 

I do like the approach of only teaching several big ideas each year during middle school math, but I'm just not sure if its reproducible at the high school level.  Some spiraling of topics seems to make sense, but how much is too much given what we know about adolescents' cognitive abilities?  I am by no means an expert in adolescent psychology, so I'm hoping y'all are able to chime in with your thoughts and experiences.

ICTM 2010: How do you know if they know?

Presentation given at the Iowa Council of Teachers of Mathematics Conference, February 19, 2010.

Title:
How do you know if they know? Re-examining assessment through the lens of learning


Brief description:
This session will highlight “assessment for learning” techniques from a secondary math classroom teacher's perspective.  Come to get your beliefs about assessment and reporting learning challenged and refined as they relate this Iowa Core Curriculum characteristic of effective instruction.




Additional resources are available here.

------------------------------------------
Slidecast (slides and audio recording) from the conference presentation:

What do pre-service education departments need to know?

In April, I will begin serving a two-year term on the advisory committee for the education department at a small liberal arts college here in Iowa.  The commitment is two one-hour meetings per year.  Members include the general public, two students majoring in education, teachers (that's me) and administrators who work in schools that the college places their student teachers. 

"The role of the council is to advise the department on issues related to curriculum, pre-service methods classes, student teaching, and other matters related to the field of education."  
Aside from David Cox's suggestion of bringing up standards-based grading (don't worry, I will!), what else do pre-service education departments need to know from classroom practitioners?  Leave your thoughts in the comments below.  I'll do my best to represent YOU, my faithful blog readers. :)

Making sense of standards-based grading with parents

Do you think your grading system confuses students and parents?  An email I received this morning confirms it:

 (click through to view larger image)

This is yet another repercussion of grading pollution - parents want to help their children, but they aren't sure what the source of the low grade is...effort or understanding!

My guess was that the parent had not talked with her son, because she did not know that I report out learning target understanding rather than single assessment scores (i.e. Test 1: 95%).  Either way, here was my response:

--------
Good morning, _______,
The grades you see in PowerSchool report both _____'s work ethic and his understanding of Geometry.  You will not see any "test" scores in PowerSchool.  Instead, you will see the concepts from each chapter listed and how well _____ understands each concept.  Take a look at the screenshot of ______'s Geometry grades in PowerSchool:


 (click through to view larger image)
 
If you click on "Ch. 1 L2" you will see the concept that _____ was tested on.

 (click through to view larger image)
 
_______ is currently at a "2" level (out of 4) when it comes to understanding basic terms of Geometry.  The scale for each learning target is:

Each Learning Target is scored using a 4-point scale:
4 – demonstrates thorough understanding
3.5 – high level of understanding, but with small errors
3 – demonstrates understanding, but with significant gaps
2 – shows some understanding, but insufficient for a passing grade
1 – Attempts the problem

This means that he does not understand this particular concept very well at all.  Does that make sense? 
You will also see scores that report out ______'s work ethic.  I enter in how many assignments _____ has turned in each week.  For example:


 (click through to view larger image)
 
Last week, ______ did not turn in several assignments.  If you click on the "Weekly assignments and warm-up: 2/8 - 2/12" you can read more information about the week's assignments that were turned in.  The actual practice homework assignments are listed daily on my website.....

---------------------

Two thoughts that came to mind from this email conversation:
  1. Reporting out homework completion to parents may be a good data point, even though it doesn't make sense for it significantly impact a student's final grade. 
  2. Contrary to lesson #1, would it have been easier if I didn't report out weekly homework completion, so that my response would have merely been, "I only report student understanding of learning targets.  It is safe to assume that if your child is not doing well, it is because he/she doesn't understand the big ideas."  
On a side note, perhaps the teacher next door and I are starting a revolution in grading practices in our building.... and all this communication about grades will be unnecessary in a few years?!