Greenhaus Education and Other "Effects"

There are a lot of Open Educational Resources out there, which is exciting if you are a teacher, as you can find myriad of lessons and ideas.  The big issue with OER is of course the quality of what you find, does it really align to your instructional goals, and naturally, do you have the time to search through possibly hundreds of resources to find that perfect fit. In my recent work, I have been exploring The OER Commons website, which is a digital library and network of Open Educational Resources. It allows you to search, with a search feature that really lets you refine down to exactly what you are looking for - whether that be full lesson plans, videos, full units of study, online courses, etc. You can also review and comment on resources, which is a nice feedback feature that allows for others to gain from those who have used a resource. You can create your own content to share or link to others and collaborate. Fig 1 What I particularly like, as a certified Common C...

I participated in an interesting #edchat this past Tuesday, as I try to do every Tuesday at noon (Eastern time) if it fits into my schedule.  The topic for this hour long chat was: Education should reflect culture of the country, but do politics and religion have too much influence in American education? My immediate reaction and response was yes, religion and politics have way too much influence in  American education. Two prime examples are the current hot-button issues of The Common Core Standards  and whether the word "God" should be included in the Pledge of Allegiance. Here are my personal opinions on both: "God" in schools/Pledge of Allegiance -  First of all, God was not included in the original pledge, written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. "under God" was added in 1954 in response to the Communist threat of the times But, regardless of when "under God" was added, this is just a political & religious ploy to get everyone up in ...

I swore to myself I wouldn't do my next post on the Common Core, but I just get so irritated by the postings I see out there about it, I can't help myself! On Facebook, I see silly things like this: And then the current huge controversy about the math quiz and the teacher grading the problems wrong: Let's not forget the multitude of articles and storylines on the news talking about parents being angry and states opting out. Thank goodness there are some people who are trying to bring reason back to this madness about the Common Core. Great response here to the quiz example above by Andy Kiersz. Or this one in response to a parents obnoxious use of what he calls "Common Core Math".  I have already written my own response to my nieces and sisters hatred of what they perceived as Common Core math in a post last year, Common Core: It's Not the Devil . The problem with all these pictures and stories and examples of problems that are "common c...

In my final in this Common Core Structure series, I want to just spend a little time discussing the three Key Shifts of the Common Core: Focus, Coherence, and Rigor . The CC are standards - states have always had standards. The difference here is a clearer set of aligned standards, throughout K-12, that ensured the standards built on each other within a grade, between the grades, and provided a cohesive set of understandings, skills and application. Hopefully the previous four posts have given a clearer understanding of how the structure of the CC was designed to support these shifts, so now lets actually look at these three shifts in depth. I am going to use some specific standards to exemplify each shift, as I think it helps make sense of them. Focus The CC is really focused on students conceptual understanding of mathematics and their ability to apply these understandings to real-world problems. So, within each grade, there are "less" standards, and more focus to help ...

In my last post , I went in great detail into the structure of the Common Core Math Standards for K-8.  Long story short, the picture at the right is a visual of the structure showing the funnel effect – where the standard itself is the end product of so much more: Introduction, Domain, Cluster. The gist of the last post was that it is important to look at all the components, not just the specific standards themselves, so that you understand how the standard fits into the learning progression. When looking at the high school content, the structure of the standards is the same, with an additional component, the conceptual categories.  There are six conceptual categories at the high school level: Number and Quantity, Algebra, Functions, Modeling, Geometry, and Statistics & Probability. Within these conceptual categories, there are the Introduction, Domains, Clusters and specific standards.  The idea behind the conceptual categories is that students acquire th...

My last two posts focused on the structure of the Common Core Standards of Mathematical Practice.  The big idea of those posts was the title of the practice is NOT enough - you need to read the narrative to get to what students should be doing and saying. The theme of this post is much the same - the Common Core Math Content standard alone is NOT enough to truly understand what it is students should know and be able to do if they have mastered the content. The content standard, which is often what is posted in textbooks or put on the board, is in fact, a small part of the big picture and without seeing the big picture, we end up teaching isolated skills and facts. Understanding the structure of the content standards provides a big picture at each grade level (focusing on K-8 right now) of where students are going, and how the standards, as a whole, are continuing to develop and expand mathematical content knowledge. It is a "learning progression".I am going to focus on K-...