Productive Disciplinary Engagement:

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Silicon Valley Math Initiative Professional Development Series
Advertisements

Level 1 Recall Recall of a fact, information, or procedure. Level 2 Skill/Concept Use information or conceptual knowledge, two or more steps, etc. Level.
December 11, 2013 Algebra and 8 th Grade Kimberly Tarnowieckyi Last time together October 23. Think back over your lessons form October 24 to December.
Learning Outcomes Participants will be able to analyze assessments
Systems Engineer An engineer who specializes in the implementation of production systems This material is based upon work supported by the National Science.
Exploring Foundational Principle: “Provide assessment and evaluation in mathematics that supports student learning.”
The Standards for Mathematical Practice
The Use of Student Work as a Context for Promoting Student Understanding and Reasoning Yvonne Grant Portland MI Public Schools Michigan State University.
© 2013 Boise State University1 What the Shifts in the Standards Mean for Learning and Instruction Michele Carney, PhD Spring 2014.
High Cognitive vs. Low Cognitive 1. An effective mathematical task is needed to challenge and engage students intellectually. 2.
NCTM Overview The Principles and Standards for Teaching Mathematics.
CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT LESSONS Region 5 Mathematics Network Conference September 16, 2013.
Engaging Students in High Level Cognitive Tasks Marjorie Graeff April 21, 2010 Division of Teaching & Learning.
Angela H. DeBarger PI Carlos Ayala PI Jim Minstrell PI Chemistry Facets: Formative Assessment to Improve Student Understanding in Chemistry This material.
Vacaville USD December 5, AGENDA Problem Solving and Patterns Math Practice Standards and High Leverage Instructional Practices Number Talks –Computation.
Engineering Design By Brian Nettleton This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No Any opinions,
Materials Beliefs Cut-up beliefs Answer key Adjusting support tool Tasks activity Martha’s carpeting problem (on ppt) Fencing problem (labels) 3-5 tasks.
Math rigor facilitating student understanding through process goals
K–12 Session 4.2 Standards for Mathematical Practices Part 2: Student Dispositions & Teacher Actions Module 1: A Closer Look at the Common Core State Standards.
Based on the work of Dr. M.S. Smith, University of Pgh. Key Ingredients to Developing Mathematical Understanding: Anticipating, Monitoring, Selecting,
Selected Responses How deep does the question dig?????
Teaching Mathematics: Using research-informed strategies by Peter Sullivan (ACER)
Math Session 2 Mathematical Practices 4 & 5 Modeling with Math PARCC Task Types Lesson Study.
Materials l Ppt slides (5) as handout Tasks books for principals Form for data collection Form for additional input Outcomes for project by session (Eoline)
Decompressing Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge: The Case of Division Presented by: DeAnn Huinker Melissa Hedges Kevin McLeod Jennifer Bay-Williams Association.
New Hope-Solebury School District. Develop a shared understanding of the concept of cognitive rigor Begin the conversation about Webbs’ Depth of Knowledge.
Engineering programs must demonstrate that their graduates have the following: Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) ETP 2005.
Exploring Foundational Principle : “Provide assessment and evaluation in mathematics that supports student learning”
Deepening Teacher Math Content Knowledge MMP Key Components of High Quality Professional Development DeAnn Huinker & Kevin McLeod University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
CCSS & Smarter Balanced Mathematics: Key Shifts to Claims tinyurl.com/UPK5math University of Portland Brian Graham Camas School District TOSA M.Ed.
Ping pong or basketball? Questioning in the classroom Sue Madgwick & Richard Perring.
Engineering and Education Partnership: Preparing the Next Generation of Cross Disciplinary Trained STEM Teachers Dr. Michael de Miranda School of Education.
Program Description Comprehensive middle school mathematics curriculum primarily used in grades 6-8. Development of the curriculum was funded in part by.
Design Question 4 – Element 22
Module 1: Overview of the Framework for K–12 Science Education
Center for Assessment and Improvement of Learning
Vacaville USD December 8, 2014
Questions that Promote Reasoning in Math
OSEP Leadership Conference July 28, 2015 Margaret Heritage, WestEd
Rich Problem Solving Tasks
Technological Design VS Engineering Design
CHAPTER 3 Teaching Through Problem Solving
February 29, 2012 Albuquerque High School
Elementary and Middle School Mathematics Chapter Reflections: 1,2,3,5,6 By: Amy Howland.
What to Look for Mathematics Grade 5
What to Look for Mathematics Grade 7
Principles to Actions: Establishing Goals and Tasks
TIPM3 Problem Solving April 25, 2012.
Teaching Mathematics for Learning: Standards Aligned System
UMass Lowell Dept. of Computer Science  Graduate School of Education
Questioning: Consider the following statements
(Michigan State University)
Lesson – Teacher Notes Standard:
Connecticut Core Standards for Mathematics
Common Core State Standards Standards for Mathematical Practice
Cultivating Math Conversation Through Questioning
Increasing Rigor to Develop Critical Thinking Skills
Comparing & Scaling Unit: 1.2 Comparing Ratios
Section VI: Comprehension
Comparing and Scaling Develop students ability to make intelligent comparisons of quantitative information using ratios, fractions, decimals, rates, unit.
TEACHING: WORTH IT IN MORE WAYS THAN YOU MIGHT THINK ...
[Next steps or other info on your program here]
Introduction to Envisions
New Unit: Comparing and Scaling
Tool WE-1: World of work tasks in mathematics
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant #XXXXXX. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations.
Assessing Understanding
Investigation 1.2 – Comparing ratios
Exploring Exploratory Testing
Elementary Mathematics
Presentation transcript:

Productive Disciplinary Engagement: Digital Affordances for Open Problems in Middle School Mathematics David M. Bowers, Amit Sharma, Taren Going, Merve Kursav, Yvonne Slanger-Grant, Elizabeth Phillips, Alden J. Edson, Kristen Bieda, and Joseph Krajcik Michigan State University Productive Disciplinary Engagement Embodiments of PDE New Possibilities for PDE Students generate, discuss, and interpret complex problem situations (problematizing and authority) Students consider different ways to think about, assess, and refine problem-solving strategies (accountability) Students reflect on their learning – what they have learned, how it connects to prior knowledge, and possible new directions moving forward (accountability) Students consider the work of others as alternate thinking and approaches and form conceptual connections to the different ways of thinking (resources and authority) Students form connections between and among multiple representations (resources) Students access supports to extend perseverance (problematizing and resources) Students can access high cognitive demand tasks that focus on conceptual understanding (problematizing) Students can use tool supports that do not reduce cognitive demand or limit focus on conceptual understanding (problematizing and resources) Students can make their own decisions on the problem solving approach without teacher intervention (problematizing and authority) Students can select their solution pathway and maintain authorship of ideas (authority) Students can model and press each other for answer completeness (authority and accountability) Students can probe deeper into mathematical justifications (accountability) Research Questions How can productive disciplinary engagement be fostered in digital learning environments with open problems and “just-in-time” supports? How can student learning of mathematics be enhanced? What is the nature of productive disciplinary engagement and student learning of mathematics at key development points in a connected sequence of problems and lesson goals? What information do teachers draw upon when they use open problems and “just-in-time” supports? How do teachers adapt the supports for specific problems? Print Version of the Orange Juice Problem Digital Prototype Initial Challenge What If… Max thinks that recipes A and C are both the most “orangey” since the difference between the number of cups of water and the number of cups of concentrate is 1. Is Max's thinking correct? Explain. Isabelle and Doug used fractions to express their reasoning. Do you agree with either of them? Explain. Reflect on the strategies that you and your classmates used to determine which recipe was the most “orangey.” How are they the same? Different? Now What Do You Know Contextualize the Problem Unpack the Embedded Mathematics Connect Learning to Prior Knowledge and Consider Payoffs Redesigned Version of the Problem Hide Prompt Show Prompt Which recipe will make juice that is the most “orangey?” Least “orangey?” Explain. Arc of Learning for Connected Mathematics3 Open Questions Is the extent to which we can productively redesign a problem tied to the Arc of Learning? How do students build conceptual understanding over time through engagement in open problems? How might PDE look different in a collaborative digital environment than in a purely physical space? How can we infer, through coding and analysis, the ways in which “Just-in-Time” supports are being used by students and teachers? How can the platform help with learning analytics? This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL-1660926. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Visit us online at: connectedmath.msu.edu @connectedmath facebook.com/ConnectedMathematicsProject © Connected Mathematics Project (2018)