Each group then shared their plan with the rest of the class, received feedback from other students, and refined their designs. On Day 11, we presented a wrinkle in the number line challenge by telling students that school administrators would allow only one to be displayed. We used this situation to talk about how engineers are often faced with new information that leads to changes in their design.
Our groups decided to collaborate and use the best features of each prototype in the final design. The teacher divided the class into three groups, each with a different task. One group took measurements of the outdoor wall where the class had decided to mount the number line. The second group finalized the design, labeled drawings, and listed the necessary materials. The third group looked at books and spoke with the teachers to get ideas about ways the number line could be used to help children learn and do math.
At the end of the day, the class approved the final list of materials. The university team went through the list, and when certain materials could not be procured due to either cost or safety, we made substitutions and explained the reason. On Day 12 and most of Day 13, the students worked on assembling the number line.
At the end of Day 13, the students completed the number line. It was made primarily from PVC pipes, was resistant to rain and snow, had hooks protruding from each numeral, and had a few portable extensions. One extension was strings of various lengths that students manipulated to show an increase or decrease. For this, the students started with string two centimeters long and continued until they had tied on 10 strings of increasing length.
This provided a context for math that engaged and supported concept development. The students wanted to show the number line to their families and to see the number line being used by other classrooms. Their excitement on seeing their work displayed reflected their sense of achievement. The teacher felt that the design activity was much more than a hands-on activity for students. It provided a context for learning and teaching science, math, and engineering. The teacher valued the responsibility the students had taken while looking for and solving the problem. He felt that it was important for students to be engaged in the learning and knowledge-building process.
In any CBE lesson we look for evidence of student learning along three dimensions: using engineering design practices, learning science and math content, and assuming the role of community problem solver. We also observed students participating during discussions, group work, and interactions with peers, and we made anecdotal notes. Our observations throughout the lesson provided evidence of student learning that speak to engineering design as a meaningful and engaging context for STEM.
The students who took the role of number line designers proposed using the number line for doing addition and subtraction. The teacher recognized that it was not just the final product, but also the designing process that supported content learning.
- The Note.
- The stigma of hunger.
- Hungry Students Impact Classroom Performance.
- Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development.
- Topological Insulators and Topological Superconductors.
- Becoming an architect.
Giving students the authority to identify problems and solve them for the benefit of their community resulted in a learning process, across different content areas and practices, that was valued by both the teacher and the students. Bouillion, L. Buxton, C. DeVries, R. Lave, J. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Moll, L. Amanti, D. National Science Education Standards. Rivet, A. S Krajcik.
The problem of hunger
Worth, K. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Tejaswini Dalvi, PhD, is assistant professor of elementary science education at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. Tejaswini, a physicist, has worked in the field of elementary science education with a focus on STEM and engineering education.
How to Manage Urban School Districts
Her research includes work with elementary students and urban preservice teachers. Kristen B. Wendell, PhD, is assistant professor of mechanical engineering and education at Tufts University, where she conducts research at the Center for Engineering Education and Outreach. Only when the technology is carefully matched to the specific strengths and weaknesses of the student, and to the goals of learning, can good choices be made.
In general there are two broad approaches for using technology successfully. The first approach focuses on how to use technology to help individual students - what is usually called assistive technology. For that approach to be successful requires careful attention to what the individual's strengths and weaknesses are, what tasks they are needing to do, etc. Usually it is best to engage a specialist in assistive technology that can do a careful analysis that addresses specific functional needs Reading?
One source of help can be found at the QIAT website where there is a link to a wonderfully informative and interactive learning community whose members discuss virtually every way that technology might be used to support learners. There is a tab for "mailing list" that provides a link to join the list and communicate with people all around the nation about the use of technology to support the full range of human function that may be of concern. The second approach focuses on the problem differently.
That approach - called universal design for learning — focuses instead on using technology as a tool to reduce unacceptable barriers to learning in the curriculum or learning environment. The central idea — complementary to assistive technology — is to ensure that schools have better curriculum and tools so that all students, including those with learning disabilities, have fewer impediments to learning, and more chances for success.
You can find more about that approach at www. Together these two approaches provide important ways for students with a wide range of abilities and disabilities to get the education they need. We have been doing intervention at an increasing level each year since Each year, we refine and extend. However, we have never developed an RTI Model that states clearly the entry and exit criteria, duration, etc. We know what we do and how we do Is there a sample or template for an RTI model that we could use to get started? Response from Bob Heimbaugh : The environment you have described in your question is typical in many schools.
Gearing up for RtI takes a lot of work.
You are here
Once the RtI framework is started in a school, it is hard to get all the components required for full implementation in place. In the case of your school, a little tweaking will go a long way. While a template for an RtI model will be helpful, the critical decisions you are looking for are specific to your school, your assessments, your interventions, your students and your teachers.
There are two critical questions that you need to answer: For your norm referenced and valid screening, progress monitoring, and diagnostic assessments, have cut scores been established by the test authors? When considering intensity and duration, review current progress monitoring data at your school to determine how and when current decisions about students are being made.
From that data, see if you can establish general decision patterns for screening data and for progress monitoring data for Tiers 2 and 3 that your school is currently demonstrating. From that data, formalize the process as a school to be used at your collaborative team meetings. Should interventions in Tier 2 and Tier 3 follow the alignment of the core curriculum? Response from Karen Wixson, Ph. However, this also assumes that the core curriculum covers the areas needed by the students receiving Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions.
It is conceivable that there might be a need for differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions and the core curriculum. For example, a core curriculum that is narrowly focused on foundational skills might not address all of the areas in which struggling students may need work if they are to make good progress, which would call for Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions that go beyond the core curriculum. In general, however, a good rule of thumb is that Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions should not involve terminology, content, skills, strategies, tasks, materials, etc.
This is likely both to promote learning and to help avoid confusion. What does it take to get a strategy or intervention program labeled as research based? What methodology is used to determine whether interventions are research based? Response from Joe Torgesen, Ph. The most common way is to ask whether the basic instructional content, sequences, and methods in a program are consistent with research in the area. For example, research indicates that intervention programs for early reading instruction achieve better results if they guide instruction that is explicit and systematic.
These qualities of instruction should apply to all the major skills that are required to become a good reader, such as word analysis and decoding strategies, fluency building, vocabulary acquisition, and comprehension strategies. It is also helpful, of course, if the program supports engaging instructional practices and contains or refers to interesting reading materials and activities. Program providers often claim that their programs are research based by showing examples from their programs that are consistent with these general principles.
This is one strategy that was used by the Florida Center for Reading Research in producing evaluations of many different reading programs for use by schools in Florida see section on FCRR reports. The second and potentially more rigorous way to establish whether a program is research based is to study empirical research that has examined reading outcomes with children who are taught by teachers using the program as a guide for their instruction. It is quite a challenging and expensive endeavor to evaluate the efficacy of programs using appropriate experimental designs, valid measures, and realistic instructional conditions.
S Department of Education.
Classroom Problem Solver | Education World
Although the reports issued by this agency do not address the extent to which the instructional content and methods in a given program embody research based principles, they do an excellent job of evaluating the extent to which the program has been shown to be effective in scientifically valid research. Their website also contains extensive discussion of the methods used to determine whether a program actually has acceptable support from research.
Response from Sharon Vaughn, Ph.