My driving question focuses on the relationship between growth mindsets and performance levels on performance tasks. Below are the international, national, state and local contexts for math performance.
Internationally, the American education system has seriously underperformed other comparable countries. According to TIMSS, America ranks at #11 for 4th grade student performance and #8 for 8th grade student performance of all countries that participated in TIMSS and TIMSS Advanced. While scores have shown long term improvement over the last twenty years, scores plateaued heavily during No Child Left Behind and have not measurably improved from 2011. As Darling-Hammond also illustrates, countries that currently outperform America have varying styles of education. This suggest there are many factors such as culture and economy that go well beyond the walls of the classroom. Thus, non-academic factors, such as a growth mindset, merit exploration. Another point of interest from the TIMSS study is that the bottom 25% of students are the ones who are experiencing the most drop off in their scores. The upper 25% has continued to grow steadily to preserve the overall average, but the inequity in mathematics education is apparent. National data paints a similar picture. NAEP shows scores actually dropped between 2013 and 2015. The scores are better than 1990, but have not been measurably improving yet with the implementation of Common Core. NAEP data is also consistent with the data from TIMSS showing that the bottom 25% of students are falling off rather than improving and that minorities continue to struggle in the American education system. Math education is becoming even more of an equity issue. In California specifically, the data gets worse. In mathematics, for grades 6-8 in 2016, less than 40% of students meet or exceed academic standards. More than 25% in fall into the Standard Not Met band In the Concepts and Procedures claim, more than 75% of students between grades 6-8 are Near or Below Standard. In Problem Solving and Modeling & Data Analysis, 80% of students between grades 6-8 are Near or Below Standard. Finally, Communicating Reasoning also has 80% or more students between grades 6-8 at Near or Below Standard. While the data is not acceptable in any category, Problem Solving and Communicating Reasoning are the worst for students between grades 6-8. Again diving deeper into the data show minorities are suffering. The development of Common Core began in 2009 as an equity issue. States all had varying standards and varying definitions of proficiency. This was one of the driving forces behind the development of the Common Core State Standards which would begin to be ratified and adopted starting in 2011. The Common Core standards put a strong emphasis on deep, conceptual learning and less emphasis on formulaic thinking and skills. This complements the problem solving structure of PrBL. The grit developed from a growth mindset also enables students to go deeper with concepts and curriculum. In 2001, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) was formed. P21 is an organization focused on prom oting the 4 C’s, Life and Career Skills, and Technology Skills for students. This framework for students also synergizes well with PrBL and a growth mindset. PrBL frequently uses technology to enable more authentic problems, relies on students to use agency and collaboration to tackle larger tasks, and introduces or prepares students for future opportunities in college and career. In the context of Common Core and given the low scores in the Problem Solving and Reasoning claims, it is clear that a change is necessary. Growth mindset research has been going on almost a decade and can consistently point to improving achievement. PrBL has been found to foster "unseen potential" in students. These are two possible factors to explore when looking at the equity issue of math achievement.
0 Comments
Mathematics is an area of weakness in American education. There is no beating around the bush there. America’s international ranking has dipped significantly in many areas of education, but especially in math. More and more American jobs in the STEM fields are being outsourced to non-Americans. Our school system is not properly preparing our students on a big picture scale. A focus on standardized test performance has not changed this trend. A focus creating formulaic students has not changed this trend. However, some countries, such as Hong Kong, have found success in this approach and consistently outscore American students on international measures. So, it is worth considering that perhaps the mode of instruction alone is not the solution. Perhaps culture and attitudes towards math are worth exploring.
According to NAEP, in 2015, the national average for mathematics scores went down. Concerningly, female students had an overall drop in both 4th and 8th grade. A handful of demographics remained unchanged compared to 2013. Most significant in my eyes, English Language Learners remained unchanged as a group, when both genders experienced an overall drop. Obviously, this data is far to scarce to draw any significant conclusions, but it is certainly interesting to think about. ELL’s did not exactly boast strong scores before the Common Core changes. Are other demographics sinking down to where their scores were? Or is there something in Common Core that is providing a bit of extra support to ELL’s to keep them from sliding? Only time can answer these questions. The only real bright side is that scores are higher than they were in the early 90s. So, we have not backslid several decades worth of progress. However, whether this is a ghostly artifact of NCLB’s obsessive focus on testing or a sign that Common Core is a move in the right direction is unsure. In a few years, when the dust has settled more, we may be able to see some significant data. An examination of the CAASPP results report shows a mild increase from previous years’ results. However, none of them are significant and when you drill down into a deeper demographic breakdown, the meager growth vanishes into a widely varying set of performance levels from different groups. The short of it is, Common Core was not miracle fix people were hoping for. It still holds a lot of potential as a system, but needs time to take root in the minds of students. Common Core is a K-12 system, so it should not be surprise that it is not exploding after only a few years. On an international level, according to TIMSS, 65% of testing is comprised of higher order thinking skills. A student taught to simply follow formulas steps will struggle obtain higher than a 50% a test written that way. Students need problem solving skills and the self-efficacy to engage in them. Students need perseverance to hang onto tough problems. Looking to Singapore, it is instilled in students that they are their nation’s greatest resource. That is a culture that leads to self-improvement, efficacy, and growth. Looking to South Korea, educators are held in high regard. It is difficult to have a high regard for a professional and not also hold their craft in high regard. When education is highly respected, students can find value in pursuing it. It is clear that on an international level, developing positive dispositions towards education in general (and towards math) are prevalent in countries that have high functioning education systems In America, we champion our tech billionaires who never finished college. We idolize celebrities and musicians, in general, who would not be caught dead in a university course. I am may be getting off on a tangent and away from cold, hard data, but it is easy to notice cultural differences between America and the top performing countries in education. Back to topic, California has responded to the need for improvement in education by implementing the Common Core and creating the CAASPP tests in an attempt to steer instruction towards 21st Century Skills. My district has adopted a heavy focus on the 6 C’s via their partnership with the New Tech Network and my specific site has embraced PBL via the Buck Institute and the NTN. Math has certainly lagged behind the curve, but we are now approaching Inquiry Based Learning. As we step up the level of thinking we ask of our students and rise to the rigor and deep, conceptual learning of Common Core and the Mathematical Practices, students will need to develop more grit to be successful. Carol Dweck, and a swarm of researchers following her, have extensively explored the positive benefits of growth mindsets on students. What remains to be seen is how that interacts with Common Core and how it can benefit students on higher order thinking problems such as performance tasks. In a previous post, I discussed a potential driving question for research and discussed the value of that line of research. That question was “What influence does a growth mindset towards mathematics have on standardized test performance?” Now onto some Need to Knows and Next Steps. Need to Knows:
Realistically, there are many more need to knows for this question but those are the most crucial to me at the moment of writing this. I am particularly concerned with Need to Know #2. Carol Dweck, a leading researcher on growth mindsets, released commentary on growth mindset in Education Week after her work begin to receive a large amount of public attention. That commentary can be found here. One issue Dweck discusses is that growth mindsets have seemed to become the “right” thing to have in education and, as is when things become the “correct” thing to do, many educators and students have developed ‘false’ growth mindsets. So, being able to measure a genuine growth mindset is crucial to the success of this research. It is also crucial that I can be sure that growth mindset encompasses mathematics. I believe that many pieces of our culture lend themselves naturally to a growth mindset. We, as a culture, tend to accept that in order to improve in sports and music you need to practice. We accept that those are areas where natural talent can take you far but hard work and experimentation also lead to greatness. In contrast, mathematics has a heavy stigma attached to it. Even people who do not consider themselves athletic can go to a gym and improve their physical health. I do not believe many people have the same attitude towards mathematics. The last large concern I have is Need to Know #5. How ethical is it to use a control group in this research? There is an abundance of research suggesting growth mindsets are powerful and valuable. However, there are education systems in the world that outperform America that do not seem to emphasize a growth mindset with their practices. So, is it unethical for me not do the growth mindset scans and activities with a control group? Even if it is ethical as a researcher, it does bother me as an educator to withhold what I believe to be a good instructional practice from students. To wrap up, I currently believe my next steps to be:
Any thoughts or suggestions? |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
October 2017
Categories |