In areas like mathematics and science, we are often concerned about the “right answer”; the correct way of knowing (ex: the sky is blue, 2+2=4). However, there is much to be gained by not only assessing for the correct final answer, but also by analyzing one’s navigation towards that answer. I see this especially vital for educators, particularly in terms of assessment. 

In order to best support students, the educator must tap into the student’s mind and position themselves in a way that allows them to see the student’s thought process. Educators should dig deeper than surface level, looking for indicators about how the student arrived at a particular answer, how their worldview shapes their thought process, and/or any obvious pre-conceived notions the child has. In doing so, educators are much more equipped to support students in navigating their understanding of science.  

Today’s discussion reminded me of the significance of “process”. 

For the Future:

EDWIN to be made available to all teachers across the province, regardless of school board, district, or grade.

EDWIN to be developed for lower elementary (P-3), in ways unique to younger learners.

Cons:

Often limited, based on resources and budget.

Not all students may be proficient or comfortable.

Often requires a lot of reading/text, which may prove particularly difficult for lower elementary students. 

May be over-stimulating. 

Students may struggle to stay on task.

I have benefitted a lot from our CoP meetings, specifically when it comes to module making. It has been so advantageous getting to share ideas and gain insight into each other’s perspectives when designing lesson plans. We are consistently bouncing ideas off of each other to make our ideas go from “good” to “great”. Peer collaboration is a valuable skill/tool not only in the classroom, but across all domains of real life.

As the teacher/presenter, reflective practice is key. By presenting a SITY various times to various groups, presenters are able to continuously inquire the impacts of teaching and how teaching evolves. Presenters can structure teaching on what worked and what didn’t work based on observation of student participation and learning, and use it as a guiding force going forward.

My only critique is that the course content and expectations be laid out a bit clearer. The deadlines were not concrete and the acronyms were often overwhelming, which led my peers and I to feel a bit confused. I found it was somewhat difficult to organize myself in the first half of the semester.  

:)