By Megan Heine, posted February 13, 2017 —

This year, I have had success referencing the standards in my practices. I have been encouraged by what I have seen and heard from students. I have also been encouraged by how this process worked. With that said, I still have work to do to reach my desired levels of achievement.

In the future, I will implement the following as part of standards-referenced practices: multiple and varied assessments; increased problem solving within the multiple assessments; and increased use of formative assessments, including preassessments.

Traditionally, a math test is a series of questions, typically either short answer or multiple choice, that a student must answer. Points are assigned to the solution, based on the steps required to solve the problem. My current summative assessments are very similar to this model. In the future, I would like to create assessments in which students do more writing and creating. I would like to see students pose a question about the content and find the answer. I would also like to see students’ problem-solving skills showing their precision and perseverance. I envision students critiquing one another’s work and discussing how to solve a problem more efficiently or with different methods.

With these new assessments, I also want to increase the challenge from a problem-solving perspective. I would like to see students engage with the mathematics and to think more widely and deeper than the narrow scope of the unit’s content. I have reworded mathematical practice 7 to read “I can use what I know to solve new problems.” This is an area where I am challenged with my students their independent use of this practice.

Although I am currently using formative assessment data to respond to how students are learning material, one missing piece is a preassessment. For example, I did not preassess a trigonometry unit simply because students have never been exposed to the subject before. However, when I dig into what I could have asked the students (opposite sides of an angle, adjacent sides, and so on), I could have learned something other than whether the students know trigonometry.

I would also like to become more fluid with my formative assessments. Our PLC gives one common formative assessment per skill, but I can definitely see a need for more consistent assessments, maybe every other day or every third day, to gauge progress.

Finally, as I become more comfortable with a consistent formative assessment process, I would like to enact a workshop model that our elementary counterparts use. When our PLC responds to formative data, we frequently tier our instruction by creating different activities. We then form groups based on the results. I want to implement this process on a more regular basis to include core instruction, not just responsive instruction. I am curious to see how learning would transpire differently in the workshop model. I have envisioned intensive small-group instruction; independent practice; and some kind of exploration, possibly using a Desmos activity.

I believe that referencing standards in my teaching has been very successful so far. I am excited about how my classes have been transformed and look forward to more changes in the future.

Megan Heine, meganheine@gmail.com, is an 8/9 math teacher at Southview Middle School in Ankeny, Iowa, where she teaches algebra 1 and geometry in a 1:1 Chromebook environment. She blogs at https://peacelovemath.wordpress.com/ and Tweets from @PeaceLoveMHeine. She is the co-moderator of a local Twitter ed chat, #ankedchat. Heine has recently completed her master’s degree in Educational Technology from Boise State University and is passionate about transforming her classroom into a student-centered learning environment by using EdTech tools that motivate and inspire students to embrace and explore mathematics.