posted Feb 20, 2015, 8:21 AM by Ellen Crews [ updated Feb 20, 2015, 8:25 AM ]
It seemed simple enough. A design challenge in 8th grade math about buying a car. The idea is that students choose form a list of fictional buyers, empathize with the buyer, and select a car based on the buyer’s needs. To help with empathy, each buyer has a financial statement along with some other background information. For the math content, students had to calculate the amount of flexible spending money each month for their buyer, look at different payment plans, graph and compare the plans, and generate a linear equation to describe each payment option.
I obsessed on creating a website with all of the necessary steps and information. I spent way too much time on the details, telling myself that it was worth it because it would help build both my technical skills and my standing curriculum. I looked forward to seeing the engaged look on my students’ faces as they tackled the real-world problem. I didn’t see that look; I saw confusion.
Students didn't ask questions. They sat and stared at the problem, not writing, not reaching for a calculator, just staring. I started a conversation with one group, asking them what they thought they should do with the information. “What is a ‘savings account’?” one student asked. I asked the entire class if they understood what a savings account is. Three students nodded, the rest shook their heads. So I spent the next several minutes explaining how and why people save money. Further questions revealed that many students did not understand the concept of monthly income or bills. They also did not understand what a mortgage is, or that you can buy a car by making monthly payments. I had to explain taxes, interest, down payments, and why you might not want to spend every available dollar on a car.
The situation caused me to reflect on some of the practice performance tasks that I have seen in advance of the new testing regime. Much like my design project, they make some large assumptions about students’ background knowledge. Unlike my project, however, standardized tests do not allow for assistance to fill in those gaps in background knowledge. So, is it equitable? In almost every aspect of adult life it is acceptable to reach out for more information when we don’t understand something, yet we require children to perform complex tasks without support. If we are really trying to predict future success, shouldn’t the ability to seek out appropriate support be a factor? It may be impossible to achieve equity on any test, because the playing field in the classroom, as in life, is never truly level.
Now I have to go explain income tax to a group of teenagers.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment