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
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
October 2017
Categories |