Excerpts from a interesting CLTW online discussion:

I have several goals for my students in my math classes. One is to involve students in class discussions of possible outcomes of a math problem and different ways the problem was solved. I think this opens some avenues to students' thought processes and makes them aware of the differences concerning how other members of the class process and solve math problems. It hopefully creates and expands the way they think about math. However, I plan to target my shy students in class and try to involve them more often in sharing their ideas and thoughts during our class discussions.

I like to assign different problems that students are required to solve, but I run into snags. One is student reluctance to solve problems before they are shown a specific process. This often results in behavior management problems. I often place students in groups as I feel this is beneficial to help jump start reluctant learners. However, I still have several that moan and groan because they have to think on their own and provide possible solutions. The other snag is parents. The majority of my parents want math taught from the book. They use the math text as a resource to help their child with homework. This is an understandable frustration, but I am not sure how to fully address it.

Another strategy that I would like to implement in my classroom is the use of math projects. I have used one in particular in the past, but then have a large problem with getting students to complete the project. I think projects allow students to use other gifted talents they posses. Is their a specific web site or does anyone have a particular project that they are fond of and don't mind sharing? I would like to use more projects as a means of assessment.

I have one question in regards to the statement that "girls typically learn better through cooperative rather than traditional competitive instructional strategies." In my experience, I have not observed that cooperative learning was gender specific. I have only observed that some groups of students work well together and some do not, but it had nothing to do with gender. Can anyone shed any further light on this?

The strategies I currently use to better motivate my students do not always work, so I am grateful to have this chance to share with others and I am anxious to read others' responses. At the 7th grade level, there are usually two or three students (out of the 120 or so that I see every day) that my methods just have no effect on. These kids look bored, are trying to cover up inadequacies with poor behavior, and as a result, their performance and grade in my class suffer. I have tried so many things: praise, dyads, cooperative learning, rewards, modifying work, oral testing, student-written assessments, students choosing assignment, free assignments, candy, pops for 100's--you name it, I have tried it. What I see more and more each year is that my role is switching to "entertainer" rather than "teacher." The kids we are trying to teach have become increasingly used to being entertained with video games, R-rated movies, and each other, and I feel that if I don't put on a "show" in class, I have lost some of them right from the start. The two or three students I have trouble motivating are the ones who constantly say, "Are we going to do something fun today?" or "This is boring!" Because of my "creative" learning style (I'm the craft person), I really do try to liven things up. I use Origami in Geometry, we make geometric ornaments at Christmas, I have a yearly class mystery, I give the students cameras to use for a project involving math & the real world, we have built houses, we create life-size models of ordinary things for ratio, I use Geometer's Sketchpad (can you tell yet that I love geometry??) every chance I get, and we create story problem books. At FMMS, we track our students in math, and while this does make my job somewhat easier, it has definitely had an effect on equity issues, and I can see that. The kids know they are in the "low" or the "high" groups, but I disagree with what the article said about teachers who "dummy-down" their methods of instruction for lower-ability students. I strive to NOT do that--my lowest-ability students do not get worksheets or drill & kill practice on skills. I believe that there is a way to teach any kind of student anything in math, IF the right approach is used. You know what they say: "Different strokes for different folks"--and I let that phrase guide my teaching.

Concerning ability grouping, while our math curriculum is definitely ability grouped and our literacy and language arts are also relying more on pull outs and ability grouping (basically due to CSAP test), in science I get all the students from the low special education student to your gifted and talented. I use cooperative learning activities quite often as it involves all the students in the learning process. At the beginning of the year I place the students in groups of three to four students and using the levels test scores our district uses, put a high reading level student in each group, a lower skills reader in each group, and then fill in the rest of the group members with students of varying levels between those two students. I often explain that the students will not only be evaluated on the final project but also by how well they work together and how involved all the group members are in the task assigned. Of course sometimes personalities clash and I need to intervene or when I create new groups each quarter, keep some students apart. I also am a great believer in modeling or demonstrating when introducing new learning strategies or before each lab activity. I also like to develop the students listening skills by having the students create flow charts to reinforce the demonstrations.

As Jane explained in her response the problem we encounter more and more each year is a lack of motivation on the part of some students. I am lucky in that I teach science, especially life science that most of the students have a high interest in. Still there are some students who seem to have a problem with motivation even when doing labs and activities. They have a problem following the directions, again even after modeling and listening to them and even have a bigger problem with writing any thing on their paper. They sometimes end up being held out of a lab because of their behavior and the parents are often frustrated and have the same problems with the student at home and are at a loss of what to do. The problem is especially more evident in a few of our students we have this year. I am sure there is something that probably would spark their interest but finding it is very difficult. I also wonder how these students will function in the real world if they cannot conform to societies mores. These are some of the issues I hope we address this spring in our equity issues.

When I reflect upon equity issues I face or have faced in my teaching career, I find myself focusing on two points. The first point is that equity in the classroom is not necessarily based strictly upon gender, race, ethnicity or socioeconomic factors, but more importantly addressing the needs of all students. The second point of concern to me is the importance of conveying the equity issues to the students and the parents.

Having spent my teaching career in smaller, rural schools, most of the equity issues that I have encountered have not been based upon the standard criteria (gender, race, etc.), but rather upon the pre-conceived notions from the staff/faculty or community. For example, I am tired of hearing such comments as, “Well, John should be doing better work than the rest of his class, after all remember how talented his sister was?”; or “How can you expect Sally to get good grades, after all her brother dropped out when he was a freshman.”; As a teacher, I strive to evaluate each student upon the individual merits they bring to the classroom, regardless of their family history and/or the student’s previous experiences (successes) in the science classroom. I don’t compare students with each other, previous students or their family members. Although this may not be what most people think of when discussing equity, it makes perfect sense to me. To truly treat people with equity, they need to be treated and taught as the individuals that they represent. This presents the challenge of meeting each individual student’s needs and learning style in the traditional or standards-based classroom. I have the advantage of smaller class sizes; however, it is still difficult to address the learning styles of each student on a daily basis. To attempt to accomplish this feat, at least in each unit, I implement a variety of not only teaching styles, but also evaluation procedures. While some students respond well to verbal questioning, others excel in the production of written work or a visual presentation. For every topic, I attempt to present the material or allow the students to discover the content through at least three different delivery styles. I do make the effort to provide a balance of materials and resources available (based upon credibility) to the students that reflect diversity in not only cultural/social beliefs but also the thought process. I strive to provide equal access to both the information and solutions available, and encourage the students to be open to multiple approaches to the solution. Although not perfect, I have been relatively successful in modeling equity in this manner.

Where I have had success in teaching the individuals in my classroom, I have not been as successful in dealing with the perception of equity with parents and in some situations, the administration. I once had the opportunity to team-teach with a colleague who spent the first day of class explaining to her students the differences between “equal” and “fair”. I wish I could remember her strategy, because following her lesson; there were never any concerns amongst the students as to why some students received different assignments/evaluations than others; why certain groups of students were challenged to participate in some activities. The students became very aware of what their individual needs and abilities were, and they became very successful at reaching the high expectations set for them. I should probably mention that the expectations established in our classroom were equally high for all the students, it was just the route each student used to meet these goals varied. Through this experience the students became more comfortable with their learning styles, and no longer felt self-conscious about asking questions in class or coming in after class for remediation or extensions. Unfortunately, the parents and the community did not understand how it was “equitable” for students in the same class to have different assignments, assessments and instruction. The student’s enjoyed the challenges of meeting their personal learning goals (thus solving any motivational problems), but the parents felt that some students were given too much work while others were “sliding by” with less rigorous work and everyone was being graded on the same criteria. (I could use some input on how to solve this parental mind-set!)

I guess I look at ability grouping and tracking in the science classroom in a slightly different manner than most. To begin with I have training in differentiated instruction, primarily as it is focused upon Gifted & Talented students. (I am our district’s G/T Coordinator.) This training, and the research supporting it, has provided me with a different perspective on ability grouping and tracking.

First of all, there is a distinct difference between ability grouping and tracking. Traditionally, tracking has been a “permanent” grouping of students based upon their current ability level, with little or to no room for movement, in either direction. Once a student is “tracked”, a label is often associated with that track and the students are forced to continue on that track, regardless of their need for remediation or advancement. This usually places students into low, middle and high achievement. The students are then restricted to meeting the standards and expectations of that classification. The way I like to describe ability level grouping is the establishment of temporary student groups (possibly for a unit project or a day’s discussion) based upon the student’s background knowledge, motivation/interest level and/or ability. Research has shown that students who work in groups with others of the same ability (on a specific topic or for a specific task) express themselves more freely, contribute more to the collaboration, and achieve a greater level of advancement when compared to mixed-level groupings. The end result is a significant improvement in comprehension for all the students involved in properly designed ability-groupings. Unfortunately, in a mixed level grouping, where the goal is to use the higher ability students to tutor or foster the growth of the lower ability students, the opposite results are often displayed. The lower ability students become very self-conscious and withdraw, often gaining nothing from the experience. The higher ability students become resentful of the lack of challenge and the task of assisting others all the time, or are bored and become a distraction. The other possibility is that the upper-level student may deal with “perfection” issues and completely takes over the project to ensure that it is done properly. These situations obviously do not promote an appropriate nor effective learning environment.

Now the real challenge is to implement this research into the classroom and to develop strategies that work effectively. I have been experimenting with a variety of ability groupings in my classes. Some have been more successful than others. The one common thread that I have found is that the students seem more willing to work together, accomplish more, and produce work of higher caliber when they work with their contemporaries.

I would like to add that just because a strategy works to motivate a particular group of students one year, it may never work again. A bit depressing when you think that you finally have something that will get all kids on the same page and it falls flat. Guess that's why we love teaching so much - it's a challenge, and definitely a very dynamic process.

I recently tried peer evaluation for group projects. The project groups were given a rubric to use to evaluate the participation of the members of the group. I found this very effective. Group members were given time to discuss why they gave the scores they did. I was a bit apprehensive that kids would just score everybody high because they didn't want to hurt anybody's feelings. Or score somebody they don't particularly like low.

This didn't seem to be the case.

The students that generally sat back became actively involved, and those that generally took over and did everything because they were afraid the project wouldn't turn out right were more receptive to others opinions and ideas when they found out that their grade depended on how their group members viewed their contribution to the project. I realize this strategy will not work all the time with every group of students, but it seems to have worked for the most part when I used it.

Finally, I would just like to add that there are some students that we will not be able to reach in spite of all our efforts. I think this is the hardest part of teaching.

It is too easy to get caught in the game of covering content (especially if your district is requires you to cover a certain topic on a certain date). I do not work in a district like that but I do feel the pinch for preparing for CSAPs. The two strategies for closing the achievement gap that jumped out at me were emphasizing reading skills and routinely reteaching. I do make an honest effort at keeping my students reading a variety of science material, so it was nice to see my efforts reinforced. I do not however take time to reteach content that my students do not do well on. I know from personal experience that I have usually learned better from my mistakes than from what I got right the first time so it would only make sense that my some of my students would learn that way too. I know that from now on I am going to reteach material that students do not show proficiency on. I do always start class with a short review of the material covered in the last lesson and I do try to use a variety of strategies for lesson presentation. I do not have students correct their answers on their tests nor do I routinely select the topics that most students were not proficient on. That is not to say that I am not aware of student performance, I just do not take the time to review missed test items.

I do not notice an achievement gap based on race in my classroom as my school does not have a large minority population. I do however notice an achievement gap based on the very essence that my school is rural. Rural students often assume the attitudes that, due to their isolation, they are held to lower expectations and they are receiving an inferior education. To deal with these situations I am always sharing stories about people from rural areas who have been successful in the sciences and other areas. I have tried to expose my students to new experiences through field trips and opportunities which usually only urban kids are exposed to. I also participate in professional development which will be meaningful to my classroom and I always share that with my students so they know that I care about their learning.

I really pondered on these questions and reflected on my interactions with my students. I have high expectations for all my students. However, I do discuss future plans with my low acheiving students and those that are failing all of their classes. These kids I target specifically in comparison to the ones that are sucessful academically. I have been also known to get 'high and mighty' when a female student shares with me her plans to get married and have a family as soon as she graduates or before and not necessarily in that order. Some of my female students, at this point in their lives, have no intention of attending college or trade school. I think my reaction to this avenue of thinking is based on my personal views concerning females and their role in society. Even my sons were known to say "to the dunking stool ya wench" to which I responded like Mount Vesuvius! In my relationship with my students, I do have a tendency to encourage my female students to attend college and seek jobs other than the traditional occupations currently held by women. I am even more bold with my opinions when conversing with my hispanic girls because they are looking for husbands at the ripe old age of 14 and 15. I have lost one of my eighth grade girls this year to a 28 year old male. Though for the life of me I don't know how this can be an legal arrangement. I was under the opinion that 28 year old males couldn't marry 15 year old girls. I realize this is acceptable in their culture, and I truly have no right to suggest that my culture is better. (I pray that they don't view my opinion in that light!) But on the flip side, I am sincerely concerned with the increasing number of young women who are heads of the household and are solely responsible for the rearing of several children. Then to compound the situation, they lack the necessary skills to obtain a job that offers decent wages. Many of them are forced to work more than one job. My discussions with boys is geared to possible jobs that would require attendance in a trade school if college is not currently in their realm of thinking. I try to encourage them to at least try a trade school in the hopes of discouraging dropping out of high school.

In the classroom, I make an effort to interact and respond to all students. I engage those that are quiet and make an attempt to question both male and females equally. I make up basic word problems that deal with wallpapering, painting a room, recipes, installing fences, or carpeting a house. Many of my students will respond to my questions with remarks such as, "I'll hire it done!', or "I'll let my husband or wife figure it out". The later comment usually starts some fur flying in the classroom. I truly try to sway their thinking that what I consider survival skills are not gender specific. But I have to admit that this line of thinking has deep roots in the foundation of our society, and it will take time for those attitudes to change.