Germaine Marie Iglesias started her teaching career at agana heights in the late 90's. She followed the content standards and performance indicators. A few years later, the district tried to work on the first phase of a metaphorical facelift.
Germaine Marie Iglesias started her teaching career at agana heights in the late 90's. She followed the content standards and performance indicators. A few years later, the district tried to work on the first phase of a metaphorical facelift.
Germaine Marie Iglesias started her teaching career at agana heights in the late 90's. She followed the content standards and performance indicators. A few years later, the district tried to work on the first phase of a metaphorical facelift.
Teaching mathematics has gone through many facelifts over the past few decades. This evolution is a result of the demands of todays work force and more importantly, technological innovation. The educational system attempts to address this by providing professional development to educators centered on effective instructional strategies for teaching and learning, but the question is, is this enough? The following narrative accounts for my experiences as a teacher transitioning into an Instructional Leader. I started my teaching career at Agana Heights Elementary in the late 90s. The manner in which I taught math mirrored my Master teachers teaching style. I followed the content standards and performance indicators by cherry picking what I felt my intermediate students needed to know for the next grade level. I used the textbook to guide me with what content to teach. The vehicles for teaching were simple; I taught the lesson using the textbook and then gave students opportunities to practice individually. The emphasis was mainly on isolated procedural memorization of skills. I rarely went through processes that required critical thinking. If I did, it was because the textbook had a problem solving question at the end of the unit. My goal at the time was to finish the textbook. I wanted my students to be exposed to the breath of the content, not necessarily the depth. I didnt employ any type of effective instructional strategy. In my mind, I knew I had to use concrete materials to accompany my lesson practice sessions. I assumed, if I finished the entire textbook, then, my students would be ready for the next grade level. The next assumption that followed was, if I provided manipulatives, my students would acquire the target skill. Looking back, I now know that I didnt understand the root of the skills embedded in the standards. The professional development opportunities afforded to me at the time were limited to asking my former Master teacher or a fellow colleague. No one ever provided me with feedback so that I could improve my lesson delivery or learning forum. So, I assumed that teaching to the textbook, cherry picking standards and providing manipulatives was the correct way to teach students math. A few years later, the district attempted to work on the first phase of the metaphorical facelift. It started to adopt reform programs targeting low performing students. The actual curriculum became secondary to these 1
reform programs, later known as Direct Instruction (DI). The assumption
here was that this program would address all low performing Elementary level students. For the most part, the program had some impact on instruction but, did not allow for growth beyond the higher levels of the depths of knowledge. The teaching remained the same, teachers stuck to a scripted textbook and the goal was to finish certain lessons by the end of the year. The professional growth catered to the program. The training centered on fidelity and the structured ways to teach the direct instruction math lessons. That is using clapping, tone and pacing. Even years later, the math instruction didnt have much depth to the teaching with regards to student thinking on their own. In 2009, I decided to re-enter the administrative field as an instructional leader. During that time period, the teachers at the school I am currently assigned to, stopped using the Direct Instruction reform program. There was a period of disarray. Teachers were trying to revisit how to teach without the DI structured script. They ended up relying heavily on the textbook and worksheets to facilitate math lessons. Collaboration with regards to student progress was not evident during these years, nor was essential/ target skills or common assessments. My observations of the way teachers taught math mirrored the way I use to teach math in the early years of my career. The instruction relied heavily on the teacher directing the learning and not the student. The concepts grazed the surface level of the depths of knowledge. It rarely required the students to dig deep, find meaning to the concepts and then apply what they learned. Teachers continued to teach abstract math concepts using the textbook and a worksheet. The most recent facelift the department had undergone was the adoption of the common core state standards in 2012. Along with an awareness phase, everyone had to unpack the standards and make meaning of what the teaching expectation was for each math standard. In addition, there were mathematical practices or ways of thinking tied along to the CCSS math expectations. I was privileged to attend training that built my capacity as an administrator. The training revealed that the manner in which teaching was occurring defied the laws of effective teaching and what students needed to succeed in the real world. Skills such as critical, global and collaboration were not fostered. Almost immediately professional development started to focus on how to collaborate as a team, use effective instructional strategies and understand target standards and skills. Teaching now became a 2
collaborative effort that was supposed to be guaranteed and viable. Not to
mention teaching math to test every three weeks using a common formative assessment. With all these mechanisms in place, one would assume that effective teaching would yield high student achievement. This was not necessarily the case. I assumed that if I provided multiple opportunities for district level and school wide professional development centered on all that was mentioned above, students would be exposed to critical, global and collaborative style thinking while being engaged in math lessons. Yet, I was more than baffled at what the data revealed form the mini observations. Maths instructional component showed less than 1% of rigor and was mainly teacher led. After reflecting on the data and analyzing what exactly wasnt being done, I came to one conclusion. Teachers did not understand how critical it was for students to make meaningful connections of the foundational concepts. They didnt understand that the concepts werent meant to be taught in isolation. Students were rarely given opportunities to own their learning by using critical thinking skills for application. With this data, I knew that the focus of professional development needed to be on strategies that yielded more rigor and relevance. In February of this school year, PD centered on rigor in the classroom. Almost immediately, my mini observations went from worksheets to students standing in front of the class explaining in partner groups, why fractions were simplified. The new face of teaching mathematics today, includes collaboration amongst the team members in a vertical and horizontal fashion. Teachers cant cherry pick standards but are expected to follow the staircase of complexity. Teaching must include rigor and relevance with opportunities to make students own their thinking rather than teachers doing all the learning. There is a great deal of work that needs to be done with regards to changing the mindset of teachers and students. That includes revisiting the mathematical practices regularly. It isnt enough to teach directly from a textbook using a worksheet to assess learning. After all, when was the last time you walked into any store that had paper or manual machines to provide you with a total for your items? Or how uncommon is it for a two year old to be seen navigating a mini IPAD? The ways we see our world is every changing and teaching and learning must reflect that.