How the New SBAC Test is Different from the Old Standardized Tests

http://innovateschools.org/parent-guide/parent-guide-what-to-expect-on-the-new-state-tests/

Teaching Math Without Words: Interview with MIND Research Institute

This weekend, August 2nd, was the MIND Research Institute's first ever Math Fair, aptly called the Square Root of Fun. This inaugural event was held in the UCI Bren Center and consisted of various interactive math games and activities for school-aged children. Thousands of children and their families joined in the fun. Based on the apparent success, this fair might just become a yearly event!

In honor of the math fair and the work being done by the MIND Research Institute in helping to make math fun and attainable for all children, here is more information behind their mission and vision and how ST Math is being used in schools today.

By: TeachHUB Interview

The MIND Research Institute is on a mission revolutionize math education in America by helping elementary and secondary students excel to their full academic potential.  With help from their own JiJi the penguin, they are taking an innovative visual approach to teaching math concepts while aligning to state standards.

In this exclusive TeachHUB interview, get to know JiJi the penguin and learn how MIND Research Institute is teaching math without using words. 

How did MIND Research and the JiJi math program come to be?

Neuroscientists at the University of California identified a computer model of brain function which gave them the idea that we are all hardwired to recognize visual patterns, in space and in time. Dr. Matthew Peterson wrote visual game software to test out how well young children could do visual problem-solving. The findings were that they were surprisingly good at it, it was a universal skill, and it was trainable. The next step was applying this finding to help society, and the first thrust has been to provide a way for students to understand mathematics through solving visual “puzzles” via software and animating math concepts with interactive visual manipulatives.

How are MIND Research programs different from other online math games?

MIND’s programs are non-language based: they begin without any math symbols (like “+”) or math vocabulary (like “fraction”) or even any English words at all. This is the most simple, direct and rigorous way to introduce math concepts and problems. It thereby uses less working memory on non-mathematical abstractions.

The other difference is more subtle, but the instructional design has been honed through over 10 years of field-testing. For example, the real-time individual instructive feedback provided through animation is a common sense design principle which is not found in other software.

What kind of results have you seen with students using the program?

In trials at scale of between 600-10,000 students across the country, grade-average math proficiency growth has been double or more than those of comparable schools.

What are some typical responses from students and teachers?

Students become very engaged with computer games, of course, but the difference here is that they are engaged directly with solving a math puzzle – the game IS the math. The math is not an interruption to the game. Also, the math puzzles become progressively more difficult such that they are multi-step thinking exercises which are challenging for any adult – so the adults are impressed. Teachers see some of their more challenging students engaged, making progress, and productively learning math.

What we call a “JiJi Culture” starts to show up at school: math becomes a competitive and fun focus. Teachers and students believe they can all “win” at math, and JiJi the penguin starts showing up everywhere.

What are some comment complaints?

We commonly hear the question: How can we make the time in our already full schedule to spend 90 minutes a week on supplemental math software?

What obstacles do you think stand in the way of dramatically changing how math is taught?

No one is looking for dramatic changes – they are essentially looking for how we can do more of the same, but faster or more cheaply or more cleverly. By definition, a dramatic change is unanticipated.

We thought: wouldn’t it be great if everyone had been looking for a way to continue use of math manipulatives past kinder or 1st grade, and then this approach in software satisfied that demand? So, we find ourselves needing to educate the market about what is possible, rather than satisfy an existing demand.

How did you come up with the JiJi the penguin and his continual desire to cross the screen?

Dr.  Matthew Peterson was looking for a universally accepted animal “mascot” across ages and genders and cultures, and settled on JiJi the slightly befuddled penguin. The students think either they are helping the wordless JiJi to solve the math, or that JiJi is helping them. The consistency of removing an obstacle so that JiJi can cross the screen is helpful throughout the hundreds of games, so that the students recognize the game objective and when they have “won” – JiJi crosses the screen and gets to the next (harder) puzzle!

When doing the sample problems, I had trouble figuring out what I was supposed to be doing without any directions. Is this typical? What can teachers do to overcome confusion?

This is a typical problem for adults use to getting something right the first time. The children are in video game mode- even if there are directions, they won’t read or listen, they just start playing the game. Don’t worry when they fail a few times along the way, they will get the impression for the rules.

That said, we often have an animated tutorial to explain gameplay, and the gameplay (like clicking on JiJi when you’ve selected your answer) becomes quickly known to students.

Finally, the games are designed to go sequentially through levels of difficulty (Level 1 before Level 2 before Level 3, etc.) and if you wade directly into Level 4, most anyone is at risk of not understanding what’s going on. So, start with Level 1.

What is the teacher’s role with this program?

The teacher has a vital and central role in the math education process. First, the games are challenging and students get “stuck” and fail. By design, the program alerts the teacher to excess stuck time, and the teacher then helps the student in 1:1 or small groups to think their way through the stuck point logically and mathematically.

Second, the teacher references the game during conventional math instruction (e.g. direct instruction in class) and helps the student make the connection between the math concepts they have learned and seen animated in the games, and those same math concepts underlying math symbol manipulation in a problem example in a text.

Third, the teachers talk to the students and get them to talk back about the games, symbols, and procedures to assess whether the students understand and can communicate about the math. When all of this is working properly, the teachers report they get through their conventional math lessons more quickly and with deeper understanding for more students.

For more of this interview click on this link: Teaching Math Without Words

How Praise Can Harm, and How To Use it Well.

How Praise Can Harm, and How To Use it Well. When, What, and How to Criticize. Why Bright Children (and Talented Athletes) Stop Working and What To Do About It. How To Communicate The Values That Bring Success.

No parent thinks “I wonder what I can do today to undermine my children, subvert their effort, turn them off learning, and limit their achievement.” Of course not. They think “I would do anything, give anything, to make my children successful.” Yet many of the things they do boomerang. Their helpful judgments, their lessons, their motivating techniques often send the wrong message.

In fact, every word and action sends a message. It tells children – or students or athletes – how to think about themselves. It can be a fixed mindset message that says: “You have permanent traits and I’m judging them.” Or it can be a growth mindset message that says: “You are a developing person and I am interested in your development”...

Messages About Success

Listen for the messages in the following examples:

“You learned that so quickly! You’re so smart!”
“Look at that drawing. Martha, is he the next Picasso or what?”
“You’re so brilliant, you got an A without even studying!”

If you’re like most parents, you hear these as supportive, esteem-boosting messages. But listen more closely. See if you can hear another message. It’s The ones that children hear:

“If I don’t learn something quickly, I’m not smart.”
“I shouldn’t try drawing anything hard or they’ll see I’m no Picasso.”
“I’d better quit studying or they won’t think I’m brilliant.”

Messages About Failure

Nine-year-old Elizabeth was on her way to her first gymnastics meet. Lanky, flexible, and energetic, she was just right for gymnastics, and she loved it. Of course, she was a little nervous about competing, but she was good at gymnastics and felt confident of doing well. She had even thought about the perfect place in her room to hang the ribbon she would win.

In the first event, the floor exercises, Elizabeth went first. Although she did a nice job, the scoring changed after the first few girls and she lost. Elizabeth also did well in the other events, but not well enough to win. By the end of the evening, she had received no ribbons and was devastated.

What would you do if you were Elizabeth’s parents?

1. Tell Elizabeth you thought she was the best.
2. Tell her she was robbed of a ribbon that was rightfully hers.
3. Reassure her that gymnastics is not that important
4. Tell her she has the ability and will surely win next time.
5. Tell her she didn’t deserve to win.

There is a strong message in our society about how to boost children’s self-esteem, and a main part of that message is: Protect them from failure! While this may help with the immediate problem of a child’s disappointment, it can be harmful in the long run. Why?

Let’s look at the five possible reactions from a mindset point of view [and listen to the messages:]

The first (you thought she was the best) is basically insincere. She was not the best – you know it, and she does too. This offers her no recipe for how to recover or how to improve.

The second (she was robbed) places blame on others, when in fact the problem was mostly with her performance, not the judges. Do you want her to grow up blaming others for her deficiencies?

The third (reassure her that gymnastics doesn’t really matter) teaches her to devalue something if she doesn’t do well in it right away. Is this really the message you want to send?

The fourth (she has the ability) may be the most dangerous message of all. Does ability automatically take you where you want to go? If Elizabeth didn’t win this meet, why should she win the next one?

The last option (tell her she didn’t deserve to win) seems hardhearted under the circumstances. And of course you wouldn’t say it quite that way. But that’s pretty much what her growth-minded father told her. Chapter 7 tells you what he told her and what happened.

You can use messages to help your children cultivate a growth mindset. 

Read more at:

Mindset Link 

Infographic- Ineffective Teachers’ Devastating Ripple Effect

How can we continue to let this happen to our kids?

Original Infographic Link

Education is Dynamic (at least it should be)

Editorial:
We have the mission, we have the vision, we have the petition, the only thing we are now missing is the approval to actually open.

We have been working on this project for two years now. Along the way, adapting to all of the current changes in Common Core Standards, English Language Development (ELD) standards, Local Control Funding Formulas, accountability requirements, up-to-the-minute technology as well as many other changes occurring currently in education.

Parents in the community are anxious for our school to open its doors.

Unfortunately, regardless of all of the parental support, community support, achievement data showing the great need for another educational option, and a well detailed plan to open and implement a new and innovative way to increase academic achievement for our at-risk community, our petition has failed to receive an approval.

This is a fail for our students...our future community members...our future society.

The team working on this project has over 60 years of cumulative experience working in education with at-risk students. We KNOW what is missing and how to engage at-risk students to enable them to achieve academic success. We know that our model will fill the voids left by the current educational model.

Education should be dynamic. However, this mindset don't necessarily translate well onto a plan or petition because most plans are expected to be written in a very traditional manner mirroring the current educational system. No two students are alike, yet the current system tries to educate them as if they were.

Our school will be able to adapt to the changing needs of the students and address their individual needs because of our school's culture. A culture that includes flexibility in adapting and teaching what the students need, when they need it. In other words, the teachers are adapting to the students, not the other way around. In addition, our small school's size will support a culture of relationship building with our students from kindergarten through sixth grade. This will enable teachers adapt to and support the great emotional needs many of our students must overcome before learning becomes a priority. There's no better way to explain it than to say that the education at our school will be dynamic.

We are willing, able and ready to demonstrate our capacity, and feel terrible that every year that passes, more students will continue to hate going to school, tune out, and then drop out. We have so many bright children who are falling through the cracks because their needs (both academic and emotional) are not being met.

We know we can make a positive difference ...if only our school was given a chance.

Rethinking Homework~ The Research Behind the Myth

Rethinking Homework

By Alfie Kohn

After spending most of the day in school, children are typically given additional assignments to be completed at home.  This is a rather curious fact when you stop to think about it, but not as curious as the fact that few people ever stop to think about it. 

It becomes even more curious, for that matter, in light of three other facts:

1.  The negative effects of homework are well known.  They include children’s frustration and exhaustion, lack of time for other activities, and possible loss of interest in learning.  Many parents lament the impact of homework on their relationship with their children; they may also resent having to play the role of enforcer and worry that they will be criticized either for not being involved enough with the homework or for becoming too involved.

2.  The positive effects of homework are largely mythical.  In preparation for a book on the topic, I’ve spent a lot of time sifting through the research.  The results are nothing short of stunning.  For starters, there is absolutely no evidence of any academic benefit from assigning homework in elementary or middle school.  For younger students, in fact, there isn’t even a correlation between whether children do homework (or how much they do) and any meaningful measure of achievement.  At the high school level, the correlation is weak and tends to disappear when more sophisticated statistical measures are applied.  Meanwhile, no study has ever substantiated the belief that homework builds character or teaches good study habits.

3.  More homework is being piled on children despite the absence of its value.  Over the last quarter-century the burden has increased most for the youngest children, for whom the evidence of positive effects isn’t just dubious; it’s nonexistent. 

It’s not as though most teachers decide now and then that a certain lesson really ought to continue after school is over because meaningful learning is so likely to result from such an assignment that it warrants the intrusion on family time.   Homework in most schools isn’t limited to those occasions when it seems appropriate and important.  Rather, the point of departure seems to be:  “We’ve decided ahead of time that children will have to do something every night (or several times a week).  Later on we’ll figure out what to make them do.”

I’ve heard from countless people across the country about the frustration they feel over homework.  Parents who watch a torrent of busywork spill out of their children’s backpacks wish they could help teachers understand how the cons overwhelmingly outweigh the pros.  And teachers who have long harbored doubts about the value of homework feel pressured by those parents who mistakenly believe that a lack of afterschool assignments reflects an insufficient commitment to academic achievement.  Such parents seem to reason that as long as their kids have lots of stuff to do every night, never mind what it is, then learning must be taking place.

What parents and teachers need is support from administrators who are willing to challenge the conventional wisdom.  They need principals who question the slogans that pass for arguments:  that homework creates a link between school and family (as if there weren’t more constructive ways to make that connection!), or that it “reinforces” what students were taught in class (a word that denotes the repetition of rote behaviors, not the development of understanding), or that it teaches children self-discipline and responsibility (a claim for which absolutely no evidence exists).

Above all, principals need to help their faculties see that the most important criterion for judging decisions about homework (or other policies, for that matter) is the impact they’re likely to have on students’ attitudes about what they’re doing.  “Most of what homework is doing is driving kids away from learning,” says education professor Harvey Daniels.  Let’s face it:  Most children dread homework, or at best see it as something to be gotten through.  Thus, even if it did provide other benefits, they would have to be weighed against its likely effect on kids’ love of learning.

Click here to read the entire article.

Delaying Gratification~ As Important as IQ

The following article from Bloomberg Business Week (Link to Business Week Article) gives us an insight to the famous marshmallow test and suggests that supporting children in having success later in life not only depends on delayed gratification, but persuading them that there is something worth waiting for when they grow up.

Walter Mischel’s marshmallow test is one of the best-known studies in the history of psychology. In the 1960s, Mischel, then a professor at Stanford, took nursery-school students, put them in a room one-by-one, and gave them a treat (they could choose a cookie, a pretzel stick, or a marshmallow) and the following deal: They could eat the treat right away, or wait 15 minutes until the experimenter returned. If they waited, they would get an extra treat. Tracking the kids over time, Mischel found that the ability to hold out in this seemingly trivial exercise had real and profound consequences. As they matured and became adults, the kids who had shown the ability to wait got better grades, were healthier, enjoyed greater professional success, and proved better at staying in relationships—even decades after they took the test. They were, in short, better at life.

Mischel’s work has been enormously influential, making its way into popular culture (most recently in this year’s romantic comedy The Five-Year Engagement) in a way that few academic studies have. It has changed the way educators and psychologists think about success: The lesson is that it’s not just intelligence that matters, but self-control and patience and being able to tame one’s impulses—from the desire to eat the marshmallow to the desire to blow off an exam or have an affair.

A new study (PDF), however, suggests that we may be taking, at best, an incomplete lesson from Mischel’s work. Celeste Kidd, a cognitive science graduate student at the University of Rochester, is the lead author on the paper. When she was younger, Kidd spent some time working in shelters for homeless families. She began to wonder how growing up in such a setting, full of change and uncertainty, might shape the way kids responded to the sort of situation Mischel’s study presented. “Working there gave me some strong intuitions about what kids who were in that situation would do, given the marshmallow task,” she says. “I’m fairly sure those kids would eat the marshmallow right away.” Not because they were weak-willed, but because very little in their upbringing had given them much reason to believe that adults would do what they said they would. What was missing from Mischel’s famous experiment, Kidd argues, was trust.

Kidd’s own version of the marshmallow study was designed to test the effect of trust. First, the three- to five-year-olds in the study were primed to think of the researchers as either reliable or unreliable. In the first part of the study, the researchers handed over a piece of paper and a jar of used crayons, then told a child to either use those crayons or wait for a better set of art supplies. In the second part of the study, the experimenter gave the child a small sticker and told the young subject to either use that one or wait for bigger, better stickers. For half the kids, the experimenter kept the bargain, returning with a loaded tray of markers, crayons, and colored pencils, then several big stickers. For the other half, the experimenter returned a few minutes later to say, apologetically, that there weren’t in fact any better art supplies or any better stickers.

After this, the kids were given the marshmallow test. The results were dramatic: Nine out of the 14 kids in the reliable condition held out 15 minutes for a second marshmallow, while only one of the 14 in the unreliable condition did. If kids were unsure they were going to get a second marshmallow, they didn’t bother to wait.

As it turns out, Mischel himself has looked at the role trust and confidence play in a person’s ability to delay gratification. Reached while traveling in Europe and asked about the new study, he responded with an e-mail linking to three of his early papers. One of them, from 1961, looked at whether coming from a fatherless household affected a child’s willingness to wait for a reward.

But the descriptions of Mischel’s work have focused mainly on determination and grit, and many of the charter schools and educational researchers that have taken the marshmallow results to heart tend to see self-control as a unitary quality that can explain both our childhood decisions and our adult outcomes. In Kidd’s study, the willingness to wait is more of a situational trait. Rather than being engaged in a desperate struggle against their own appetites, the young subjects of her study were carefully calculating the likelihood that they would actually get a second marshmallow. Her work suggests that getting kids to be better at waiting—in the lab and in life—is a matter of persuading them that there’s something worth waiting for.