Siftables

Please watch this AMAZING video ...I especially love the music bit at the end. This will seriously blow your mind. I cannot wait until the day that it is possible to have these as a class set. Wow.

A reflection on my inquiry; a compilation of thoughts and posts.

As a result of my Masters Inquiry Project, I have found myself to be remarkably changed. I am a professional learner, constantly yearning to gain more understanding of my students’ and their abilities. I seek to employ more effective methods in my own teaching, as well as share these insights with the colleagues with whom I collaborate. I do not feel that the classroom is a place for quiet, simple, traditional learning. Rather, I wish for my students to learn in constantly evolving ways. I desire for my students to add to my teaching abilities as much as I add to their basin of knowledge. I also expect my students to informally determine how I teach, sometimes dictating different teaching styles within a single class period. This inquiry helped me build upon this ability to be responsive, flexible and collaborative.

I believe that while I used the CST results as a preliminary data set for the analysis of my students’ achievement levels, I do not agree with lawmakers and policy determiners that this test is the only way in which students can be or should be assessed. If a teacher merely looks to this score to determine what to focus on each year, within each class, she is at a loss for differentiation. I am not a perfect teacher; I am far from the ideal instructor. I am not yet in my career highly effective either. However, using these scores as a determiner of student ability, may reflect on the ability of the teacher. Perhaps this test really is the mark of a good teacher, who does not teach to the test. Perhaps it separates those who lean on the crutch of standardized curriculum, and those who are capable of assessing their students and instilling the same knowledge in different and more effective ways. By using this standard to measure the children, I believe I am doing both my students and myself a disservice. However, when used in conjunction with other assessments—both formal and informal—I am able to truly create a differentiated instructional plan of the district-issued curriculum. In order to use this test more effectively, I did so in conjunction with other assessments and observations so that I could gauge my students’ abilities more precisely. I let it inform my research and rationale; however, what I did not let it do was dictate firm levels of ability for my students. I used it as a baseline from which to start my inquiry.

Lastly, in defense of my use of highly-involved strategies geared at the GATE-identified student, I would like to point out several reasons why I did not make immediate accommodations for my English Language Learners or my students with special needs. Distinguished Lecturer Eric Jensen reflected on GATE education in a lecture delivered at the district’s Office of Education titled “Enriching the Gifted Brain,” in the spring of 2009. He stated that enrichment is always positive, maximizing the capabilities of a student; “Enrichment is not what you do. There are no “enrichment strategies” unless they are contrasted with an impoverished condition.” I feel that this statement implies that for a student to be enriched, they must first come from a less enriched environment. I reflected on my other students, those who were not “gifted.” Jensen suggested that students who are identified as gifted thrive in school-based enrichment programs, because without them, gifted students become bored, disillusioned and are less likely to participate in school. Does this imply that because students are easily bored that we should provide them with more? I have found that through this inquiry, I have determined how to figure out when students are bored, and when they are overly challenged. I learned to truly observe my students and in doing so was able to modify the methods and strategies when necessary. However, I did not simplify the concepts. I felt this would have been a disservice to my students.

Indeed, does Jensen’s concept of providing enrichment then ring true with the non-gifted student who is also bored because he is having difficulty with a class? Should not the teacher then also provide a specific enrichment agenda for this student or class, whether or not the student is gifted? In my opinion, students—gifted or not—deserve a more enriched education. Jensen also provided “evidence” to support his claim that gifted students benefit more claiming that the “brains of the Gifted show far more connectivity between key spatial, language, math and working memory areas than more typical brains.” However, in one of my GATE certification classes, the professor discussed the development of the brain, stating that these synapses, these pathways of connectivity in the brain, are developed as a result of activity (enrichment). Should we not then again ask the question that the non-gifted brain would also benefit as greatly as the gifted one? That is why I chose to keep the concepts at an elevated level. I did not want to modify that piece of my inquiry for the English Language Learners. Instead, I chose to modify the way in which I taught those concepts. I provided more scaffolding within lessons, broke down assignments over more days, and in the future I will be making further modifications to the strategies and tools of instruction, rather than simplifying the curriculum and materials for my students at more basic levels. I know that they will benefit as much as my GATE-identified students did from this study, once I make these modifications to the delivery of the instruction.