One of my goals this year was to have students analyze their own work, make observations and improve. These observations have improved this year by a light margin. For example, students get back their graded paper and look over how they did. Most students look at the top for their points or some type of feedback. Some look for where something was marked incorrectly, while others look for a place in their binder to place the paper. The good news is that students are looking at their graded papers with a more critical eye. That’s a win in my book. Students are starting to observe where they needed to elaborate or change a procedure. That’s good, but the time spent looking at what to change is still minimal.
This year I introduced the NY/M model. Students were a bit hesitant at first, but I’m finding some pockets of success. Those pockets are not just related to the new model, but also a whole range of opportunities that have been put in place for students to understand where a mistake might’ve occurred. Ideally, I’d like to have students identify how the mistake or error happened and to curb that action in the future. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for making mistakes in order to learn, but some errors impact an entire answer and I’d like students to be able to identify where that’s happening. Being able to self-reflect in order to improve is a beneficial skill.
In an attempt to provide multiple opportunities for error analysis, I’ve intentionally planned for students to identify their own math misconceptions. This has taken many different forms. I believe that students that can identify math misconceptions may be better able to proceed without making them in the future. Three tools/strategies that have been helpful in this endeavor are found below.
- Nearpod has been a useful too this year. Specifically, having students show their work using the draw tool has helped other students identify misconceptions within their own understanding. Displaying the work on the whiteboard without a name has been especially helpful, as a student might not be embarrassed, yet the class can still learn from that particular person. I’ve used this as an opportunity to look at positive elements of student work and also look for areas that need some bolstering.
- Lately I’ve been giving feedback on student papers and incorporating that into my agendas. Before passing back the papers I review the misconception list and answer questions then. I then pass out the papers and students complete the NY/M process. Generally, students make very similar errors and I attempt to address this while reviewing the agenda. This has decreased the amount of questions that students ask related to why/how to improve their answer to receive a M.
- On the paper I’m making a renewed effort to write feedback on homework and projects. The feedback takes many different forms and isn’t necessarily in a narrative form. Sometimes I ask question and other times I might circle/underline a specific portion that needs strengthening. This method often elicits student questions as it’s not as clear-cut as other methods. Regardless, it’s another way for students to analyze their work, make changes and turn it back in a second time.
Why is this important to me? Well, I believe that students should be provided additional opportunities to showcase their understanding. At times, I feel as though there’s a gap between what math work they show and what they’re capable of showing. Giving feedback, along with another opportunity to improve, tends to help my students show a real-time understanding of a particular concept. Ideally, this would seamlessly work and all students would move from an NYàM. It’s not all roses though. I’d say at least 50% of the students improve on their second attempt, but I’d like to see more. I believe we’re making progress and have more to go, but I believe we’re on the right track. I’m encouraged to see that this model is slowly and slightly changing the review, redo and improve cycle. This has me thinking of how to expand on it for next year. Stay tuned!