Peer Coaching of a Developmental Math Course
Areas of Focus
1. Level of Effort
2. Thinking within Learning
3. Leveraging of team learning
Strengths
1. Paired learning that then validated their process of working through a fraction calculation by teaming a pair with another pair. The conversation of describing what they did provides new perspective to the other group and helps to elevate both teams understanding of what went on. The energy among the team increases as the dynamics increased.
2. Challenging the level of thinking 2/3 + 9 – what does that really mean – the tendency to go to a formula, without thinking – the challenging of critical thinking changes the level of thinking in a classroom
3. The use of public performance – having students go up to the board – this helps other students assess the thinking and performance and verify their own understanding.
4. The dynamics of switching from public (large group) back to small group is very effective in helping group dynamics.
5. Constantly analyzing the issues of learning and performance to help students to determine what are the issues they need to address. E.g. notation, common mistakes, In the appendix of the new edition provide a summary of the common or most frequent mistakes and the reasons for it? TI – lets brainstorm that list (currently there is an activity)
6. Willingness to model exactly at the same level of the students the thought processes that need to be addressed. This models documentation, key issues of thought, neatness, form, and conventions of language.
7. The second division problem you gave them a chance to work through before doing it in front of the class – this gives them a reading of where they are in solving a problem.
8. The dynamics of the environment is very conducive to students responding and talking about what is going on – the more communication the more the thinking is involved.
9. Asking the student – how do you check it – this forces more thinking about how do you validate your calculation in each situation.
10. The consistent rotation of team in presenting and the peer pressure of all team members to present involves all students into the process.
Improvements
1. The language of feedback should eliminate as many negative words as possible – e.g. right or wrong was used. (why we get into trouble) – language of success and not the language of non-success.
2. Having two students go up to the board allows them to share the risk and verify their own thinking – assign a spokesperson and a validator.
3. Have the students verify and challenge each other and replace your role as quality control – let them question and challenge each other – put each student team on the spot by having them commit to either verify or challenge an answer.
4. Being able to communicate what they are doing when they are doing it – have a second person to articulate what someone is doing as the other is thinking through it on the board.
5. Need to determine what the students in the room are thinking and learning when something is modeled on the board – have the students take time to explain to each other what they did.
6. When you do a problem on the board – give the students 60 seconds to think through the problem and identify the top issues that cause them to make errors.
7. Simultaneous reporting where two teams put up their responses thus get to validate and have the class validate and leads to discussion of why things are different.
Insights
1. First class in the morning is always much quieter in energy and start-up thus need means to engage students minds. The energy after the public performances were much higher in energy after 30 minutes.
2. What a culture of all females mean – the dynamics change – risk taking and confidence changes.
3. The natural culture of a classroom is to have the faculty member to constantly do the thinking – assessing, explaining understanding, asking questions, diagnostics, and challenging – the students are so willing to step back and let the faculty member do this.
4. Around week 7, there were 13 students on time. Additional person came 25 minutes late. 2 more people came in 35 minutes late – one of the students left after 45 minutes. 2 more came in at 45 minutes late (males) another came in at 48 minutes late. Another came in 52 minutes late. (Was there school on Nov 11?) Another came in 65 minutes after the start (21 total for the day)
5. The role of rules that are memorized, versus understanding why things work – e.g. multiplication of fractions – do we need common denominators (yes or no), do we flip?, do we cross multiply, do we add are all questions going through the mind – Question is what is multiplication? What is an expression? (Couldn’t remember how to do it!) When do we flip? When do we reduce?
6. The students have a nice set of professional demeanor – Wanda articulated her calculation with quality and followed up by the next person modeling that communication.
7. Mental math was needed throughout the daily session – mostly single digit calculations with a few multiple digit calculations – none needed to be done by a calculator, but absolutely were done quickly by the students or the instructor.
8. A lot of language by instructor and students about remembering stuff. Do mathematicians remember stuff or understand stuff?
9. What is the ratio of males to females at Baker college 1 to 2 or 1 to 3 or 1 to 4?
10. The addition of zeros to number in science drive them crazy in relation to the significant digit issues.